I think scholarly literature in the past used audacity to represent research using ineluctable evidence in its confidence in a world of human constructs based on reason. In customary terms, the competition is science vs religion. The four freshman Congresswomen perhaps negatively act for unintended, positive audacity to challenge “freedom of religion” as an oppressor of civic integrity.
My concern
First, why do I consider negative Obama’s audacity? He seems to express three hopes[i]: 1) the American dream is freedom and community; 2) elected officials represent their sponsors; and 3) international influence is gained by democracy more than military power. None of these hopes is consistent with the people’s proposition that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. preamble). It takes negative audacity to live under a people’s proposition you neither trust-in nor commit-to, as Obama seems to do. In other words, Obama seems immoral to demand equity when he does not communicate, collaborate, and connect for human integrity; in other words, responsible human liberty.
My bias
My claim is based on my interpretation of the U.S. preamble’s proposition to fellow citizens: We the People of the United States (the civic identity) communicate, collaborate, and connect to provide 5 public institutions---Union, Justice, Tranquility, defense, and Welfare---so as to encourage by example responsible human liberty to living citizens. I invite dialogue with every fellow citizen to learn from their interpretations of the U.S. preamble’s proposition.
I don’t know how acceptance of the U.S. preamble’s proposition would accelerate the path toward human integrity. In other words, I don’t know the statutory justice the achievable future under the U.S. preamble promises. I hope Obama and other fellow citizens discover my essay and respond such that I may improve my interpretation.
The standard by which justice and truth are measured
The reason the U.S. preamble’s proposition so far has been lame is the fact that there is no standard for justice beyond inarticulate objections to the church-state-partnership that represses responsible human liberty. The standard by which statutory justice is developed is the-objective-truth or the ineluctable evidence. The-objective-truth is the standard by which ultimate truth, absolute truth, objective truth, Truth, truth, and other human constructs are measured.
Majority use of the U.S. preamble’s proposition under the-objective-truth is sufficient to accelerate developing human integrity.
How often “audacity” is viewed now and usage in books today versus in 1800
Google, for “audacity” has “a
willingness to take bold risks” or “rude or disrespectful behavior; impudence.”
Merriam-Webster online has “the quality or state of being audacious:
such as intrepid boldness [or] bold or arrogant disregard of normal
restraints.” Synonyms include “brashness, cheekiness, effrontery, nerve,
pertness, presumption, sauciness temerity [and related words] arrogance,
assurance, confidence, sanguinity, discourteousness, disrespect, impertinence,
impoliteness, impudence, incivility, inconsideration, insolence, rudeness,
sass, swagger, swash.” Other than “assurance” or “confidence” the modern view
of “audacity” seems negative.
Reviewing Google’s
book-usage frequency-graph from 1800 to 2008 for the words insolence,
impropriety, audacity, disrespect, and incivility, relative rates were 1,
0.52, 0.21, 0.15, and 0.04, respectively, in 1800. In 2008, audacity
and disrespect were close to 0.12, lessened versus 1800, and the
other relative rates were much less. I rated “biased” and it was negligible in
1800 but 0.38 in 2008. “Political” rated 7 in 1800 and 19 in 2008. The data
shows that “audacity” is not often used, either then or now.
My study method
With both high regard for thoroughness and caution about the proprietary quality[ii] of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [iii] I searched on the word “audacity” and found 12 essays then searched within each essay for “audacity.” I paraphrased or quoted the single passage in each essay and list the study results in order. I did further research to date and clarify the entries.
Study results
The emphasis on “audacity” in each entry is mine---to help the reader focus on the respective essay’s usage.
First, there’s “beneficent audacity” ranging from democracy by any means to evil means to good ends, a modern study by C.A.J. Coady springing from English novelist Anthony Trollope (d. 1882).[iv]
Coady, in my interpretation, poses the question of responsible human liberty and which parties are responsible for infidelity to the-objective-truth. I think each individual human is responsible for fidelity to the-objective-truth. Thus, neither government nor whatever-God-is is reliable for human justice. Justice can come only from civic people.
Second, Nietzsche[v] (d. 1900, Weimar, Germany) instructed us that humankind’s evolution to discover and benefit from the-objective-truth elevates him “into refinement and audacity” above the other species.
We agree with Nietzsche and think the human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity throughout his or her lifetime. The audacity to accept HIPEA and apply it to develop integrity in a world of conflicting religions seems positive.
Third, “Peter Abelard (d. 1142, Abbey of Saint-Marcel) . . . the first great nominalist philosopher . . . championed the use of reason in matters of faith . . . his systematic treatment of religious doctrines are as remarkable for their philosophical penetration and subtlety as they are for their audacity.”[vi]
In this passage, it seems Abelard is using “faith” as “spirituality, theism, or religion” more than inspiration, motivation, or concern. The equivocation of “faith” and “religion” plays a significant role in public failures to communicate.
Abelard’s thoughts may be a clue as to Western philosophy’s erroneous elevation of reason over the-objective-truth as the standard for human justice. Today, 877 years after Abelard died, it seems there is enough evidence to choose the-objective-truth rather than reason so as to discover human justice, protecting religious hopes as private concerns. Abelard is not at fault if indeed he touted reason in matters of religion but not of statutory justice.
Fourth, from F.R. Tennant (d. 1957, Cambridge, England), scientific knowledge “is the outcome of faith which . . . justifies its audacity and irrationality (in accounting them to be also real) by practical actualization.”[vii] In other words, discovery justifies audacity because discovery is based on ineluctable evidence.
Tennant’s statement is not unlike Albert Einstein’s 1941 statement, “Ethical axioms are found and tested not very differently from the axioms of science. Truth is what stands the test of experience.”[viii]
In my expression, the-objective-truth is discovered through ineluctable evidence. Einstein also asserted that the scientist had to have confidence (faith) that integrity in his or her work would advance human knowledge.
Fifth, Dominic Murphy cites views that a “healthy person [involves] harmony with their social and natural environment, and disease is a disturbance of this harmony. [In other words, viewing] health as flexibility, in the sense that a healthy organism can tolerate environmental impacts, adapts to new situations and possesses a store of energy and audacity.”[ix]
Attributing human resiliency to “energy and audacity” seems positive.
Sixth, “Michael of Cesena [d. 1342 Munich], acting with insolent audacity . . . declared . . . the absolute poverty of Christ and the Apostles.”[x] This “audacity” seems to border on heresy.
Seventh, From Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy “The audacity of Galileo [d. 1642, Tuscany]; the sweat and sacrifice of a science student to learn difficult material; the solidarity in pursuit of the truth about nature’s workings: these are all indispensable to science and enable scientists to share a common pursuit.” “[Reason] is a-historical while our challenges and crises are in history and in time.”[xi]
Does “a-historical” imply that reason can wait an eternity for verification whereas physics addresses actual reality? If so, I do not agree with the first premise: reason can be rejected the moment it is discredit by the absence of evidence.
Galileo’s audacity was in refuting Church teaching that the earth was the center of the universe.
Eighth, Bertrand Russell (d. 1970, Wales) thought that actual reality follows “the laws of physics” and logical constructions can be perceived as reality “complicating the system beyond all recognition.” [xii] “Schlick [d. 1936, Vienna] noted that, because of Russell’s sheer audacity in pushing his account to the limit, the result is not prone to the inconsistencies which plague other accounts [and is of] the immanence philosophy.”[xiii]
It seems to me Schlick strains to discredit Russell’s thoughts as religious. For example, the old philosophical problem of a tree falling[xiv] when there is no one there to perceive it is a case of a material event without immediate, confirming perception. Can a believer use this analog to assert that his or her god is the solution to the mystery of whatever-God-is?
Ninth, Spinoza’s [d. 1677, The Hague] “The Ethics is . . . bold to the point of audacity, as one would expect of a systematic and unforgiving critique of the traditional philosophical conceptions of God, the human being and the universe, and, above all, of the religions and the theological and moral beliefs grounded thereupon.”[xv]
Tenth, Kant (d. 1804, Prussia) “wrestles with the harmony of opposites, Cartesian kinematics and Leibnizian dynamics, trying to marry momentum and energy—while having the audacity to criticize Newton.”
Newton set out to use his understanding to prove the validity of Bible physics.
Eleventh, “The desire for “freedom of the will” in the superlative metaphysical sense, which still holds sway, unfortunately, in the minds of the half-educated; the desire to bear the entire and ultimate responsibility for one’s actions oneself, and to absolve God, the world, ancestors, chance, and society involves nothing less than to be precisely this causa sui [self-generated] and, with more than Baron Munchhausen’s audacity, to pull oneself up into existence by the hair, out of the swamps of nothingness.”[xvi]
Focus on absolute self-generation distracts scholars from encouraging people to accept HIPEA and use it to develop fidelity to the-objective-truth.
Twelfth, From Gödel (d. 1978, Princeton, NJ), “. . . philosophers have the audacity to ‘generalize things without any inhibition.’”[xvii]
It seems to me the appropriate noun is “arrogance” more than audacity.
Views on the philosophy study
While current dictionaries interpret “audacity” as a negative term, philosophical commentary dating from the 17th century and earlier seems to use “audacity” as a positive.
Coady expounded on “beneficent audacity” by many means. Nietzsche thought humankind had developed refinement and audacity. Abelard thought audacity is needed to improve religious doctrine. Tennant thought the ineluctable evidence inspired the scientist’s audacity in the face of public opposition. Murphy found reference to human resilience from energy and audacity. A 13th century reference to “insolent audacity” seems to suggest doctrinal progress. Galileo’s report of the sun’s centricity to our solar system is labeled “audacity.” Bertrand Russell with audacity insisted that actual reality follows (not “natural law” but) the laws of physics. Spinoza is accused of audacity in critiquing traditional religious thought. Kant had the audacity to critique Newton’s Bible interest. The last two uses critique philosophy and thus are in a different class.
I think there’s a pattern in the first ten essays: Basing discovery on ineluctable evidence rather than reason is labeled “audacity” in a world with competing religions. It seems self-evident that Western societies thrive on the competition between religious beliefs and discovery. Traditional scholars do all they can to favor reason in competition with ineluctable evidence. Thus, much as the preamble to the U.S. Constitution is falsely labeled “secular,” the scientist’s confidence in his or her work and results are falsely labeled “audacity.”
Returning to the four freshman Congresswomen of color
While I do not approve their psychological violence, I think their collective, unarticulated message is important to the USA’s long-needed reform. It is wonderful that their opportunity to challenge current government the way they want to (free speech) is protected as integral to the existing rule of law.
My articulation: instead of touting this country for freedom of Judeo-Christian religion, We the People of the United States may stake the claim that was offered on June 21, 1788: The rule of amendable law in the USA intends to secure responsible human liberty to the continuum of living citizens. Therefore, We the People of the United States hold elected officials accountable for the gender-race-age-and-religion-neutral goals stated in the U.S. preamble. (The-objective-truth, discussed above, is another issue for another essay’s conclusion.)
Recommended actions for citizens who want mutual, comprehensive safety and security
I write and speak to learn. Therefore, I request interested fellow citizens to do two things.
Copy the (52 word) preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Study it. Analyze it. Consider whether or not you agree it is a proposed people’s-proposition for individual civic discipline. Paraphrase it. Contemplate the individual life you wish to live and revise your paraphrase to accommodate that life. Discuss your paraphrase with family and friends and encourage them to get involved. Listen for improvements you would like to make in your paraphrase. Then, establish mutual appreciation for the original sentence by reading it in unison with willing fellow citizens. Consider making this a habit.
Second, read the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Consider its provisions, especially the two religion clauses: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Imagine what this country could be without the religion clauses or with “Congress shall encourage the pursuit of integrity.” Encourage Congress to amend the First Amendment so as to encourage integrity, a civic duty, rather than establish religion, an integrated business.
The USA can be great. However, neither government nor whatever-God-is will make it so. Only a nation that is led by a majority who are individually developing integrity can meet the people’s challenge that is offered fellow citizens in the U.S. preamble. The past 231 years’ conflict for dominant opinion demonstrate that it will take positive audacity to reform to civic integrity rather than “religious freedom”.
Epilogue
The irony in Machiavelli’s “The Prince,” Chapter XI[xviii] seems that in a nation with established clergy-politician partnership fellow citizens procrastinate for either government or whatever-God-is to provide mutual, comprehensive safety and security to the people. The authors of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, intentionally or not, proposed that We the People of the United States can develop the discipline to encourage responsible human liberty in the USA.
We are dedicated to promote the U.S. preamble’s proposition among fellow citizens. However, we have no idea how beneficial the achievable better future may be, because we do not know the-objective-truth.
For this reason, we do not operate as a revenue-generating NGO or other organization. Readers who are motivated and inspired by the ideas expressed herein must find the audacity to communicate, collaborate, and connect for individual happiness with civic integrity among fellow citizens. With one person at a time we hope to inspire a collective entity: We the People of the United States.
Copyright©2019 by Phillip R. Beaver. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted for the publication of all or portions of this paper as long as this complete copyright notice is included.
[i]
Online summary at https://fourminutebooks.com/the-audacity-of-hope-summary/.
[ii]
By “proprietary quality” I assert that many scholars write in proprietary
language so that academicians in their society may understand but the general
public may remain ignorant about what is being considered. For example,
“natural law” is the proprietary jargon for the laws of physics. Further, some
scholars erroneously write “the laws of physics” “the laws of science” which is
the study of physics and its progeny: mathematics, chemistry, biology,
psychology, imagination, fiction, everything. Imagination and fiction derive
from what has not yet been discovered in the study of physics and its progeny.
For example, anyone’s claim about the mystery of whatever-God-is is speculation
an idea that has not been disproven by the available ineluctable evidence. I
think even Albert Einstein used erroneous or misleading words in his speech
titled “The Laws of Science and The Laws of Ethics.” I think he spoke on the
laws of physics and the laws of integrity coming from the same source. In
essence, he proposed fidelity to physics as the path to ethics.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I want your opinion and intend to respond.