The Fundamental Problem

Part V of the "Fundamental Problem" Series

I have spent four posts now talking about the "Fundamental Problem" of society, discussing everything from the Jungian shadow, to frames of reference, to corruption, and even to history. Now, the time has come to bring all of these concepts together, though I know that I'll inevitably think up another essay or two on this topic as soon as I'm done writing this one.

To formally state the fundamental problem in simple terms: it is the human proclivity for ignorance and violence juxtaposed with society's need for competence, rationalism, and complex thinking. Individually, this problem manifests itself as an innate need for space spaces, which we can observe in almost any domain of human activity, and which themselves originate from our biological need for frames of reference. We seek to simplify the world at any means necessary because our body has been evolutionarily tuned to exist at minimal stress conditions, and while this trait boosted our survival in early human tribal cultures, it now poses a significant threat to society, as it rewards us when we stick to the predetermined, easiest ideological path.

Why do we see such pain, much of it entirely wanton, when we analyze history? Kings conquering other kings, enslaving their people, brutalizing their warriors, and burning their homes. Tyrants bringing their own civilizations to their knees, starving tens of millions of people and using their soldiers as cannon fodder in war. The list goes on, but why? The answer depends from case to case, of course, but one can reasonably extrapolate one constant from many of history's most brutal conflicts: the need to maintain the status quo, and the feverish desire for control. Why did the early Soviet's dekulakize Ukraine, leaving millions hungry to the point of cannibalism and crippling their own nation? Because they needed to create an environment in which they held absolute power - where the doctrines of radical socialism and communism could seize the minds of the masses as they struggled to feed themselves. Why was a monstrous man like Hitler successful in bringing a country to a mania and inciting one of the worst genocides in human history? Because there was a jaded, hurt population starving for a perpetrator, and all he needed to do was point a finger at one; all he needed to do was tell them they weren't wrong for their hate - that they were strong for it. In other words; all he needed to do was keep them in their safe spaces while he acted out his own malice with absolute authority. 

In the modern world, why causes such corruption in our political systems? I don't venture into politics too much when I write these essays, but the recent battle over the supreme court nomination following Ruth Bader Ginsberg's death reeks of such corrupt hypocrisy that it cannot go without mention. To me, it seems to be the wild flailing of a diseased beast long overdue its death - a party which cannot see past its own lined pockets and has resorted to manic grasps at power as it sinks further and further into the fens of its own precedence. To create a rule to desperately try and hold off an opposing ideology is understandable, though asinine. However, corruption manifests itself when that very gets flouted when the cards favor you. A weak, impure egoism drives this amorality in political leaders, not just those in the United States, coupled with the perceived benefit of monetary gain and power as substitutes for principles.

One can observe the fundamental problem in action in the electoral process of a democratic nation. Socrates recognized this problem and even called attention to it in Athens, which I'm sure did nothing good for his reputation in the eyes of the city's aristocrats. He claimed the flaw in democracy was the equality it gave to everyone's opinions, and how it allowed anyone to rule over the nation, so long as they procured enough votes. The trouble is, as he explained in a conversation with Zeno in Plato's Republic, everyone's opinion should not be weighted equally, and only the best and most qualified should be allowed to govern. He likened it to captaining a ship through stormy waters. Who would you want to lead the trip - a random person chosen by a council of those unexperienced in seafare, or a seasoned captain with years or decades of experience chosen by people with similar experience? One would be a fool to choose the former over the latter. However, it often occurs that the former has sweeter words about the voyage, since he doesn't know himself how rough the waters can get, and so the blind population swarms to him in a frenzy, while the captain will warn of horrible conditions, harsh weather, and the risk of death, which no one will want to hear.

Currently, most democracies run on the Athenian system - the equality of any person's vote, and the ability for anyone to run for office, roughly speaking. This may not be ideal, but it does curb corruption to a decent degree, at least if one discounts the corporate money flooding the pockets of today's politicians. Theoretically, so long as strength remains in the foundations of the education system in such a democracy, and its people remain reasonable and free of ideological possession, the nation should elect competent leaders. Of course, we in fact do not observe this phenomena in our own governments, as the aforementioned corporate buyout of Capitol Hill has been incredibly lucrative. Yet again, corruption rears its head in the modern world.

To attempt a summary of the last four posts in one paragraph would be a disservice to the fundamental problem. Instead, I can only offer a reiteration of the necessity of reason in our daily lives. Without reason, anarchy dominates. Without reason, you are a sheep being guided to the slaughter and cheering for the shepherd the whole way. Thomas Paine wrote, "To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead", by which he meant that we must never be so entrenched in our ideas as to abandon the possibility that we may be wrong. The fundamental problem plagues us now more than ever, and the responsibility for its rectification lies squarely on the shoulders of the general population - to grow past our intrinsic and somewhat archaic biological drives and become a people of calm reason rather than violent corruption.