MERCI MERCY

We have had a visitor from London in the person of Clare Clifford, seen here on arrival at La Gare du Nord.

Followed by lunch at Chartier, and a little tour around the town.  One small item caught the attention. The name of this restaurant. Its numerous translations made one smile. Sea sea, mer mer, si si, mercy, merci, sea mer etc... I do not know if they serve bouillabaisse, but one would assume if it is on the menu, given the fluidity of the name, that it must contain a great variety of sea creatures to feast upon. The French love their puns, but combining it with English is a measure of their capacity to be inclusive. They have been friendly, welcoming and forthcoming with advice of exhibition, food salons, wine and any variety of matters; however, when meeting a neighbour for the first time, one says "Bonjour, je m'appel Edward et je suis au troisiemme gauche" you get "Enchante, bien venue, bonne journee" but no name is ever attached. It's as if the mentioning of one's name is not heard, or not taken as an indication that it would be nice for names to be exchanged. They readily shake one's hand and say pleasant things, or air kiss cheeks (between 1 and 4 pecks depending on circumstances) but do not give their name. This could make them appear to be standoffish. Indeed I'm sure it does. But is it only the British who volunteer their name? 

Last weekend we had a visit from Ian Jones and Christine Bleathman who came to celebrate Ian's birthday. An evening meal at Bofinger by the Bastille, with various Alsacien delights of choucroute with a variety of accompaniments. Celia was not enthralled but I believe the visitors quite liked it, or at least said the did. I had the Bofinger special choucroute with a variety of pork sausages, all of which were lovely, but then I have the middle European roots which delights in such food. The following night was a night at the Opera. At l'Opera bastille we were treated to some rather beautiful voices giving us Lucia de Lammermoor. The sextet was quite wonderful and greeted with lots of applause and Bravas. Just as the piece was about to start, we were encouraged by the ushers to move forward into the empty expensive seats. A standard procedure it would seem. Very nice and thoughtful.

 

Chi mi frena in tal momento? Chi troncò dell'ira il corso?
Who restrains me at such a moment? Who disrupts the course of anger?  

As to La Philosophie du Droit, the first essay has been achieved. I do not know if it is at all what is wanted,  but it's what being offered up.

It should be noted that David Hume died in 1776 during the first year of the American Revolution which decreed “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” and Adam Smith died in the first year of the French Revolution on the 16^th July 1790 almost exactly one year to the day. That event gave rise to the motto ‘liberté, l'égalité fraternité’ and The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, the first two articles of which are:

Article I - Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions can be founded only on the common good.

Article II - The goal of any political association is the conservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, safety and resistance against oppression.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union defines and enshrines in law certain conventions to establish the rule of law for the protection of the supreme dignity and integrity of the individual, that all are subject to the law and that all are equal before the law. There are 54 articles divided into seven titles covering Dignity or the right to life, prohibiting torture, slavery, the death penalty..; Freedom, liberty, personal integrity, privacy, thought, religion, expression…; Equality, equality before the law, prohibiting discrimination based on disability, age, sexual orientation, culture, religion…; Solidarity, working condition, right to work, unfair dismissal..; Citizen’s Rights, right to vote,…; Justice, presumption of innocence, fair trial, etc…; and various general provision of interpretation.

It is clear then, that human beings have progressed to believe in terms of fundamental human rights as matters which are self evident. From a natural disposition to be free and a capacity for empathy, to speak freely, to think freely, to have dignity and respect, arise the conventions of a more enlightened society. There was a time, not so long ago when the convention was that homosexuality was a disease and criminally deviant inappropriate behaviour. We now have same sex marriage. There was a time, again, not so long ago, when the convention was that a wife was her husband’s property, a man could not be found guilty of raping his wife and was allowed to beat her with a stick no thicker that his thumb. There was a time when the convention was that slavery was an established economic reality. Unfortunately there are current societies where these conventions are still held to be true.

Ultimately a human being does understand the concept of justice. Natural feelings of resentment spring up when we feel slighted in some way, or are simply ignored. We feel satisfaction when that slight is redressed. We feel happy or contented when we are taken into account, loved and cared for. Likewise when one feels cheated or put upon, feelings of anxiety and emotional hurt come to the surface. People recognise dishonesty and pain, both physical and mental. These are all natural human emotions, and it is these feelings which well up or subside when we see others going through whatever situation may cause them grief or joy. It is through these emotions that we negotiate our interaction with society. Some are more active than others, more ambitious or industrious, whilst some are more retiring and not so forthcoming. Whatever the inclination our feelings and emotions are very similar to one another. A desire for some recognition and respect for our individuality is a simple request.

Whenever these fundamental feeling have been suppressed or thwarted, whenever people have felt aggrieved by some insult or injustice, wherever people have felt oppression in sufficient numbers there has been revolt. In the main the popular outcry of these revolutions (the historical list goes back to 2730 BC ) has been ‘freedom for the people’ and a demand for ‘people’s rights’. All too frequently there have been groups of individuals who have attempted, and succeeded, throughout the ages to impose particular ‘conventions’ on others. This has led on several occasions to world conflict. The institutionalised racism of the Nazi regime is one of the more dramatic and calamitous instances of a convention of intolerance. Ideas and attitudes as to how things should be done can easily become a convention and then be enacted into law. The Nuremberg Laws of 1935 were the culmination of a systemic anti Semitism which existed in Middle Europe.

It is not surprising then, that following on from the momentous revelations of the Second World War that matters were taken in hand and a world of jurists were brought together. In 1959, a conference was held in New Delhi in India. A gathering of over 185 judges, lawyers and law professors from over 53 countries round the world, came together as an International Commission of Jurists to discuss “The rule of law in a free society”. We've still a long way to go.

ODD FELLOW 2

This Tuesday evening, I attended my class titled; H.D Thoreau : On the Duty of Civil Disobedience et autres textes. 

It’s stated aims are to offer a continuous reading of the text by H.D Thoreau: On the Duty of Civil Disobedience. Each session will be devoted to consideration of a passage to be read, translated and commented upon in French. To this end, students must acquire the English text in the edition mentioned in the bibliography. The objective of the course is to understand the legitimacy of resistance and disobedience in the democratic framework defined by the Declaration of Independence. From the historical-political anchor of the text, the course will seek to identify the relevance of the original American philosophy: transcendentalism.

Part of the system of teaching at Université Paris 1, is the student ‘exposé ’ – a close reading of a text – to the rest of the class. There have been a number of ‘exposé’ during the course. Apart from the translation and discussion of paragraphs from Civil Disobedience, we have had Herman Melville’s Bartleby dealing in the main with the phrase “I would prefer not to”; “On Walden Pond” another Thoreau; Emerson’s “On Self Reliance”, and, for this Tuesday evening, Thoreau’s 4^th July 1854 address on “Slavery in Massachusetts”

During the course of this evenings session, on the other side of the Atlantic, the United States of America was in the process of electing its next President.  I do not know the name of the young man who presented and talked of “Slavery in Massachusetts”, but his efforts, although accompanied by the usual round of applause at the end, was not a great success. He spoke well and gave a good performance. Indeed, his voice was clear and carried. However, there were in my view a few misinterpretation of the meaning of the text. This did not matter as, from my vantage point, he was barely being listened to. A number of students had their laptops open in front of them, giving the appearance of note taking and following the text, at least from the front of the room. From my vantage point, on the back row, I could see a number of screens had nothing whatsoever to do with Thoreau. One student was watching a skiing film, another was doing a bit of on line shopping. I cannot say that I saw much of what others were doing as I was trying to understand what the young man was on about. At least his English pronunciation was a bit better than most. It could easily have been a scene from a Truffaut movie.

So we worked our way through Thoreau’s 4^th of July address followed by a translation and discussion, presented jointly by two young women, of the paragraph concerning Thoreau’s view on the 1850’s American electorate, All the while the current American electorate was making its way to and from the polling booths across the nation, I was confident that Hilary would win the day. I rather looked forward to it. My disappointment in the morning is reflected by the previous blog entry. Unlike the graciousness of President Obama, I cannot congratulate a Trump. It would feel rather like congratulating one of my ex clients for getting away with whatever they were up for in court.  Celia pointed out to me Stevie Wonder’s comment “Electing Trump is like asking me to drive”. How is it that this blind American can see with such clarity what his fellow countrymen cannot? The American is indeed an Odd Fellow.

"THE AMERICAN HAS DWINDLED INTO AN ODD FELLOW"

2016 Annus horribilis - there can be no question that the 24th of June and the 8th of November have given voice to an extraordinary number of discontented, dissatisfied and hostile people on both sides of the Atlantic. The deep seated racism and bigotry that has oozed out from the so called common citizen is horrifying. A distinct side step from a natural evolution towards a more civilised society. As long as humans grew in prosperity and education, and improved the quality of their lives through common endeavour and enterprise, towards a more inclusive and caring society, respecting the principles of the duty of care - the foundation of our rule of law - to each and every citizen, things appeared to be moving along quite nicely. But conservative laissez faire economics of the 1980's laid the foundations for greed accompanied by bullying and acute selfishness. We were riding high of what appeared to be a float of cash which seemed unending but in the end turned out to be quicksand. Those people, who for years have been struggling out of the quicksand, have turned to someone who appears to have risen above the mire and promises to end their struggles and bring them up to the promised land he holds. They believe he can do that. His lies of being the 'self made' billionaire who owes no allegiance to anyone, who can protect them from the world, from the encroaching hordes from below and over the sea, has been music to their ears. They believe he can change their lot and bring them back to solid ground. They do not see it as bluster and smoke. He says he can make deals that will bring them the wealth, recognition and prosperity that he has. It is nothing but a shell game, but a shell game without the pea. Who will help them when it eventually dawns that it is in fact a sham?

For my class in Paris I have been reading, again, Henry David Thoreau's Civil Disobedience. I should have been paying more attention all along. In it, there are two paragraphs which seem relevant in the current circumstance:

All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong, with moral questions; and betting naturally accompanies it. The character of the voters is not staked. I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail. I am willing to leave it to the majority. Its obligation, therefore, never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men. When the majority shall at length vote for the abolition of slavery, it will be because they are indifferent to slavery, or because there is but little slavery left to be abolished by their vote. They will then be the only slaves. Only his vote can hasten the abolition of slavery who asserts his own freedom by his vote.

and 

I hear of a convention to be held at Baltimore, or elsewhere, for the selection of a candidate for the Presidency, made up chiefly of editors, and men who are politicians by profession; but I think, what is it to any independent, intelligent, and respectable man what decision they may come to? Shall we not have the advantage of this wisdom and honesty, nevertheless? Can we not count upon some independent votes? Are there not many individuals in the country who do not attend conventions? But no: I find that the respectable man, so called, has immediately drifted from his position, and despairs of his country, when his country has more reasons to despair of him. He forthwith adopts one of the candidates thus selected as the only available one, thus proving that he is himself available for any purposes of the demagogue. His vote is of no more worth than that of any unprincipled foreigner or hireling native, who may have been bought. O for a man who is a man, and, and my neighbor says, has a bone is his back which you cannot pass your hand through! Our statistics are at fault: the population has been returned too large. How many men are there to a square thousand miles in the country? Hardly one. Does not America offer any inducement for men to settle here? The American has dwindled into an Odd Fellow--one who may be known by the development of his organ of gregariousness, and a manifest lack of intellect and cheerful self-reliance; whose first and chief concern, on coming into the world, is to see that the almshouses are in good repair; and, before yet he has lawfully donned the virile garb, to collect a fund to the support of the widows and orphans that may be; who, in short, ventures to live only by the aid of the Mutual Insurance company, which has promised to bury him decently. 

There is something in that last sentence which strikes me as appropriate to the current citizenry of the United States. They appear to have regressed to the 19th century. It may well take another two centuries to recover from this current blow to civilisation. 

RISING ABOVE ? I CANNOT GIVE AN OPINION

Returning to the matter of sympathy I am somewhat in a quandary. I am, after some thought, finding it difficult to form an opinion. There are several questions that arise. One is whether there is a distinction between sympathy and empathy? Another is whether, when in sympathy with another person’s situation, the opinions one forms as a result of being in sympathy, are sufficiently informed? Or whether one’s opinions on any matter are sufficiently informed.

So far as empathy is concerned, I am informed that it is the psychological identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another, or, the imaginative ascribing to an object, as a natural object or work of art, feelings or attitudes present in oneself.

As to sympathy it is being in harmony with, or agreement in, feeling, as between persons, or on the part of one person with respect to another. Or further, the harmony of feeling naturally existing between persons of like tastes or opinion or of congenial dispositions, or, still further, the fact or power of sharing the feelings of another, especially in sorrow or trouble; fellow feeling, compassion, or commiseration; a relationship between persons in which the condition of one induces a parallel or reciprocal condition in another.

What Adam Smith does is effectively bring the whole lot together under the name of sympathy. In his lecture M. Rateau emphasized the question of levels or strength of feeling felt by the sympathizer towards the person concerned.  The sympathizer cannot possibly reach the same intensity of feeling as the person concerned. The feelings felt by the sympathizer being one step removed as it were. Smith then argues that the intensity of feeling in the sympathizer increases where the person concerned appears to be in more control of their feelings, caused by whatever situation initiated their great distress or joy in the first place. Indeed, there could come a point at which the person concerned is so cool as to cause the sympathizer to become more agitated by the lack of distress or joy shown by the person concerned.  In general, however, the sympathizer seems to be more drawn in as the person concerned seems able to cope with their feelings. It is seen as being brave, which is viewed as a virtuous quality and consequently more attractive.

To illustrate this point, M. Rateau brought up the matter of Socrates; his acceptance of the verdict against him, his acceptance of the sentence, his refusal to leave town and his acquiescence in drinking the hemlock, all as a result of his determination to obey the law and maintain his principles. We sympathize with his plight and admire his actions as beyond the ordinary. He is seen as a man of integrity, brave, virtuous and principled. The representational painting by Jacques-Louis David amply demonstrates the situation, with Socrates exclaiming to the last and his followers showing various and great levels of distress, in sympathy.

The death of Socrates (1787) by J-L David

Rising above a situation does seem to be viewed as an attractive quality. A person seen fighting back the tears often brings people closer, encouraging them to ‘let it all out’ with supportive pats on the back and hugs.

However, is rising above always the thing to do. Might is not be considered an act of stupidity, or indeed carry with it some level of deception, particularly if the rising above is of no real consequence? There can be situations where rising above is the easier course of action. Surely it is a matter of degree and situation.

In the matter of Socrates, he was accused of moral corruption and impiety. The moral corruption concerned the ‘moral corruption of Athenian youth’. As to the impiety, it consisted of “failing to acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledges” and “introducing new deities”.

In the event, friends, followers, and students encouraged Socrates to flee Athens, which action the citizens expected; yet, on principle, Socrates refused to flout the law and escape his legal responsibility to Athens. Apparently, faithful to his teaching of civic obedience to the law, the 70-year-old Socrates executed his death-sentence, and drank the hemlock, as condemned at trial. Yet, it was brought out at trial that at least two of his young followers participated in acts against the democratic government in favour of dictatorships. Not exactly faithful to civic obedience of the law.

Indeed, in 2012, in The New Trial of Socrates an international panel of ten judges held a mock re-trial of Socrates to resolve the matter of the charges levelled against him by Meletus, Anytos, and Lycon, that: “Socrates is a doer of evil, and corrupter of the youth, and he does not believe in the gods of the state, and he believes in other new divinities of his own”; by split decision, five judges voted “Guilty” and five judges voted “Not guilty”, which acquitted Socrates of corruption of the young and of impiety against the Athenian pantheon. Limiting themselves to the facts of the case against Socrates, the judges did not consider any sentence; the judges who voted the philosopher guilty said that they would not have considered the death penalty for Socrates. The original Athenian jury consisted of some 500 worthies of the city. The guilty verdict was by majority, and it appears the imposition of the death penalty was by way of an even greater majority.  Bearing in mind these events took place in 399 BC, 2415 years ago, clearly views were a bit harsher.

Much of this was unknown to me. Also Socrates was 70, quite an advanced age in 399 BC, although according to some research, that was about average for the ancient Greeks and in some cases they lived even longer. Nonetheless, living longer may not have been right for him. Given all the surrounding circumstances, was he so brave or just accepting the inevitable, or is the mere act of acceptance an act of bravery to be applauded and viewed as virtuous.

So my dilemma and concern about forming an opinion without sufficient information, or to paraphrase Herr Doctor Winkel “I cannot give an opinion, the effects would have been the same.”

There may be a small prize for people who can tell me who Dr Winkel is.