Friday Flotsam: Good and Bad or Social Types

One of the key dividing lines in the world, as I see it, is between those who think in terms of good and bad and those who think in terms of this or that kind of person. Of course, there’s a lot of overlap there, and the latter would say that they are thinking in terms of justice and right, but they think of these things in terms of abstract group dynamics rather than principles.

The example I like to use is when someone gets angry that a given person has a big country estate and all the comfort in the world, while hundreds of other people can barely make ends meet. The thing is though, it is highly unlikely that the former has his comfort because the latter are suffering. In any case, to be free from money worries and to live in a beautiful home is itself a good thing as far as it goes. Though, by its nature, it’s a good thing that not everyone can have. Is it really better that no one should have it? That this particular kind of good should never be experienced because it will not be experienced by everyone? Are there no benefits associated with such a state of affairs, either for individuals or society as a whole?

This is one reason I’m in favor of aristocracy; I think financial independence, family honor, and high titles are good things as far as they go, and I’d much rather have a world where such goods exist than one in which they don’t. Such a world would be (arguably is) infinitely the poorer for it.

That’s what I mean by thinking in terms of good and bad and not this or that kind of person. The issue is not if someone is rich or poor, the issue is the qualities he shows and the object state of his situation. If a man is ill, that is itself a bad thing that commands pity; the poor man is entitled to more concern only because and to the extent that he has fewer resources for dealing with it. I can easily imagine a scenario in which a poor man and a rich man are both in straights, but the rich man is the more deserving of the two: e.g. both find themselves in financial difficulties, the rich man because he was robbed, the poor man because he gambled.

To think in good or bad terms — the traditionalist mindset — means to judge by eternal, objective values; is this person kind or cruel, liberal or miserly, polite or rude, wise or foolish? It means to prefer good qualities over bad, regardless of what ‘class’ the person fits in. Of course, you don’t expect the same kind of manners from a Mr. Peggotty as from a Mr. Copperfield, but you expect courtesy and kindness from both. This is why things like people saying that Charlie Chan is a racist caricature because he is courteous and non-confrontational are simply meaningless to me; those are good qualities, whether they’re stereotypes or not.

The people I admire tend to have certain qualities; honor, dignity, intelligence, conviction, moral fiber, and so on. So, people like Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant, Frederick Douglass, Saigo Takamori, St. Louis, St. John Henry Newman, and so on. People I dislike or do not admire lack these qualities. It is a matter of indifference to me what social group they fall under.

However, you will note that this also gives what I think is the only rational basis for a non-prejudiced approach. If what you admire is a given quality, then you will seek it and acknowledge it whether it is found with an Englishman, an American, a Japanese, or an African. It may, for whatever reason, be more common here or there, but what does that matter? The quality itself is the important point.

This is, in fact, aristocracy in the truest sense; rule of excellence.

Friday Flotsam

-Going to check out the John Paul the Great University MBA in Film Producing next week, in the hopes that it may prove the solution to my employment woes. I figure if I have to do more schooling, I might as well go for something that actually interests me.

-Religion and Economics have this in common: everyone feels qualified to speak of them, whether or not they have any understanding of either. The result is that no two subjects have inspired more incredibly stupid statements from otherwise intelligent people.

-I find my biggest problem in getting things done is deciding what I should be focusing on. I have so many projects in the works, and have so little idea of which ones might bring success that I’m paralyzed until the day’s almost over and I give up and go read a detective story or play Minecraft.

My Catholic Match post received a lot of positive response, but not all of the kind I would like. A lot of people seemed to think the idea was “beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” a notion I loathe and despise. I think there’s a vague notion that men shouldn’t care about how a woman looks, to which I can only answer in the words of C.S. Lewis: Whether it ought to or not, the thing you suggest is not going to happen. It’s kind of like the idea that a man in war ought to go about his business with a heavy heart and a shame face; a crude, childish attempt to apply a good principle. Yes, a man in war should bear his enemies no hatred, and yes, a man should value a woman for much more than her beauty. But beauty is an admirable quality and it’s natural for man to desire it. I think I’ll have to do another post on that subject.