But to get back to Robert – ‘My concern is not with how many paths a man is aware of, but whether he chose the right ones.’

How do you know the choice is right if you don’t know at least some options? How do you get to know not just the choices, but the possible ramifications of the choices unless you read and listen to other what others have believed on the subject – and what their reasons were, and how their choices worked out? OK, I’m edging back into history here, but it works in *everything*. If I’m facing some kind of moral decision, or a puzzle over how to handle some difficulty, I can do a lot of things. I can write Dear Abby. I can talk it over with a friend. I can talk it over with a professional. I can think about it – and if I think about it, I can use information from all those sources, and all the ones I’ve read and learned. I have more options. I still might choose one that will lead to disaster, but personally I’d rather have access to the options/ideas, the views of lots and lots of people through the centuries than limit myself to my own personal experiences and memories. I don’t see why learning so much about what so many people have said about being human should be considered suspect, as it appears to be in the US.

And it should be quite possible for someone to be good at tracking elk and also good at enjoying some form of art or philosophy. They aren’t mutually incompatible.

Cheryl

But Australia has an anti-intellectual tradition of its own which is expressed in the phrases “the chattering class” or “the Chardonnay set”.

I do not pretend to be a “typical” Australian and my reasons for disliking “the chattering class” may not be those of a taxi driver or a check out chick.

But, long ago, I was taught that an intellectual system with contradictions is a disaster. If you allow both P is true and P is not true in your system, then anything can be proved and nothing can be trusted.

So consider one of the currently popular ideas in the Australian media. The aborigines (indigeneous inhabitants) should be left alone to solve their own problems. Fine, but there is also an idea that Aborigines are citizens of Australia and entitled to the same benefits as all other citizens.

Now here is something that happened in the 1970s. A 16 year old Aborigine girl showed up at a police station and demanded protection from her tribe.

The problem: Her father wanted her to marry a 50 year old man. The traditional tribal punishment for refusal was gang rape.

How do we respect Aborigine law and custom and also give her her rights as an Australian citizen? (in the end, she was made a ward of the court.)

Why is it that the people who ignore the obvious conflict always seem to be “well educated” in the Liberal Arts?

I don’t trust the “intelligentsia” because time after time, I have seen them make disasterous mistakes by following their hearts rather than their heads.

I just posted in response to Cheryl’s response to yesterday’s blog entry (whew) that the difference seems to be whether decisions are made deliberately and with thought, or whether they’re reacting to stimuli. That may not be exactly correct, but if you lack the wherewithal to analyze and evaluate a situation, how do you make that decision?

And you are not claiming that the student of art, philosophy or literature is a better human being in a moral sense–THAT silly notion died with the Third Reich–or even more competent in public policy–Jefferson killed that. Listening to Wagner will not keep them from stuffing the death camps, studying Plato will not avert the destructive labor and re-education camps, and a taste for classical art won’t avert horrendous mistakes in foreign policy, or looting the public till. These studies make me a better human being in ways only other members of the elect can see. Yet they’re not cultural choices, which may legitimately be mocked–Death to Fleetwood Mac!–but far above that. Smart people read LEAVES OF GRASS: dumb people learn how to track elk, and if you prefer tracking elk to reading Whitman, you’re either stupid or pretending to be so.

I seem to be back in high school. I really hated high school.

And yes, I’ve put history to one side. I DO believe the study of history is objectively valuable for public officials, and should be the proper study of all citizens in a democracy. But I also note that the leading lights of the Democratic Party have been contemptuous of it, and even made up false histories as they went along without provoking any outburst from you. So perhaps “recreating the mistakes and evils of the past” is OK if you’ve read Sophocles? Or act as though you always meant to read Sophocles?

This still feels more like a demand for respect or deference than a consern for competence. My concern is not with how many paths a man is aware of, but whether he chose the right ones.