Continuing Thoughts On the Concept of Virtue and the State's Role in Promoting It

If you reread my "initial thoughts", you will discover that I did not actually talk that much about the concept of virtue or the state's role in promoting it. But I believe that I laid the foundation to continue a discussion. The point I was trying to make was that independence is the central American virtue and not work ethic, although up until recently America has been associated with a hard work ethic because their commitment to independence didn't provide them their basic needs very easily in the hard wasteland of the New World. In other words, if they were going to stay committed to independence, they had to fend for themselves, and that created a strong work ethic. The lack of work ethic in our slacker Generation x/y/whatever, is apparent, I think that it means that work ethic was a mythical virtue all along. The real virtue we held so dear and still do is independence. They apparently are more like apples and oranges than love and marriage. This explains the dissolution of work ethic in our culture. Some conservatives who pine for the old days seem to think that the answer is simpler. They seem to believe that the lack of work ethic in our culture is a direct result of an irreligious, and secular society, as if the Christian worldview itself was the motivating factor for the founders to work hard. Although this is probably true to a degree. A strong protestant ethic is part of the fabric that makes us (America) who we are, it's not the entire makeup of an idyllic golden day of the 17th and 18th century. It's more complicated and mixed up than that. So a general discussion about what makes our culture the way it is in order. I don't presume to be as able to talk about these sort of things in the expert manner of the men with Phd's who've written a myriad of books on exactly this. But it is something I have thought about, and feel obliged and glad to talk about.
In short, along the way we have lost certain virtues as a culture. Most notably , the work ethic that established this country. But ironically we have refused to give up one virtue throughout it all; independence. We can now have independence at a bargain price, and so like all good capitalists, we take it. But it will also cost us our independence eventually, I think, and thus our culture.
I am now going to introduce a topic that is sure to twist the issue in a different direction. Some of you will think that the topic ought not be a twist. But I aim to compel you that it will. Because what this topic will question is whether or not independence is a even an admirable ideal. That topic is Christianity.

Initial Thoughts on the Concept of Virtue and the State's Role in Promoting It

I should start these "thoughts" by relaying the observation that led me to them. I was watching what was from my point of view a good father. And this is (from my point of view) the exception in our State, and not the rule. He is to state it perfectly an exceptional father. We were at a cafe. It doesn't matter what I was doing. The father was there with his two children who presumably just finished school for the day, and were hanging out with dad, doing homework while he finished up some of his own paperwork. The older daughter did nothing noteworthy. She was silent the entire time and did her math problems. The younger boy was slightly more reluctant, and tried to pull the typical stunts to get out of doing his homework, as if he believed that his father was still a juvenile or never was a juvenile and should reasonably believe that the teacher would not assign any homework. This is a situation which is common in parenthood, but the way that most parents address this issue is quite inferior to this father's method, in my opinion. Most parents seem to either ignore the situation, flip out, or try to manipulate the child either by offering rewards or beatings, or loss of privileges. But in an adult tone this father looked at his child and in a matter of fact manner queried quietly, but authoritatively, with a slight smile, "Your teacher assigned no homework?" Of course the child picked up the sarcasm in his father's tone and smiled caught, and replied, "well I have some history to study."
"No spelling words to study?"
"A few"
"No math problems"
"No"
"Let's do some math problems."
"Why?"
"Because skill comes from practice, and being your best is what you always ought to do."
The boy said nothing and willingly went to doing his math problems.
What struck me was how he treated his children differently than how I see most people treat their children. He treated them like they were real people with fully functioning brains, with a propensity for placing value on moral actions, and the ability to do what is right. Most people seem to treat their children like their subhumans with subhuman capabilities towards ethical living. True, kids psyches' must be shaped to an extent, but they are not computers that their parents program, they are more like extremely intelligent dogs that need to be trained, except they are not dogs. They are human children. And he talked to them like people. And he believed that they should be good people, and could be good people, that the responsibility to teach them how to be good people fell on him, but that the responsibility to make them good people was theirs. And that's respecting basic human dignity, which seems to be lost on the last couple of generations. It seemed to me that this father's motive for insisting that his boy do his homework was for his boys' moral benefit, not for garnering future capitalistic virtues. In other words it wasn't pragmatic, and certainly it wasn't just to get them out of his hair. His desire was that his child be a decent human being, and no one can fault that.
I remember vividly one thing that he said to his daughter.
"There are two kinds of people. People who suck everything out of life while they have it, and people who get through. I suppose there is nothing wrong with just getting through, but if you only have such a short time, why not get the most out of it. I want you to be the first kind of person."
Without dissecting that statement to the infinitesimal depths that it can go, let me just say that there is no way that anyone can say this man's advice is bad advice. That is not to say that it cannot be criticized, or be considered false, but it must not be considered non-virtuous.
And what is the virtue that is being propagated? In both cases it is work ethic. And it is that working, doing your best, regardless of monetary reward is good for the soul and makes a person good. I feel like this is American. I feel like this is American because every person I know (the overwhelming majority being American)over the age of 45, has a great work ethic and complains of my generation's lack of a work ethic, and when I see how many 27 year old's I know who are in a fledgling band, without a job and live with their parents, and spend most of their time watching something, or drinking something, I think, What does it mean to be American? When I read history books I find that self-sufficiency was among the most highly valued American virtues, now I find that we often mistake self-sufficiency for the right to live off someone else, which really is the opposite. How did this happen? How was there such a degree of turn in our cultural identity? I propose, and regrettably so, that our slacker culture is not the herald of a competing secular philosophy that defeated a more religious philosophy, or the representative of a major epistemological shift in the last 50 years, but an unexpected branch from the same root that supports the American cultural tree. If you read de Tocqueville, the virtual American prophet, you'll find that it was at least expected by one person. I do not think that a strong work ethic was the thing that made American distinct. A strong work ethic was the result of an attitude combined with an agricultural society that made it necessary, but the prevailing American attitude has always been individual independence, and when there was no one to hand you anything you had to go get it yourself. Now it's another time, a time after the industrial revolution, a time in the middle of the technological revolution, and independence does not have to be earned, and all the while, in true American style it is expected, and as long as government can provide people the money to be able to live the way that they want our culture will be this way, but all the while without us realizing we're becoming (gasp) dependent in order to be independent. Which brings us to the last major question: Can the state make a virtuous state? Answer: No. Morality just cannot be legislated, or executed. It can only be taught and practiced. It can be passed on to our children. Let us not be proud to be Americans, unless by American we mean,ambitious, hard working, honest, equal respecters of all persons. But I fear that what it means to be American is to value independence so much that we're willing to sacrifice true independence for a cheap imitation that gives us the guise of independence while in the long run providing us the opposite. The path back to independence now looks like recognizing that our state is in the process of handing it over, and refusing to do the same by teaching our children that even if the teacher doesn't give you math problems, do some math problems, because only your best is ever good enough.
Final thought: Virtue has no Republic. It is only represented in a virtuous monarchy with a king named Jesus.

Downtown

Every town, regardless of its size has a downtown. But one town has an uptown, New York City. This makes things a little unclear for me. My guess would be that "downtown" was a term that originated in New York city to differentiate between North and South Manhattan, hence uptown, (North) or downtown (South). But in every other city downtown refers to the commercial section of town. I know this would make no sense in Manhattan, but why call it Manhattan then, why not call it the same thing we call every other part of town that's commercial? Why don't we call it Downtown New York? Or maybe we should stop referring to the commercial areas that are in the north part of their towns, or in the middle, or even if they're in the south part, as downtown and just call refer to it according to its actual geographical location, like Manhattan does. Of course, regardless of the semantic illogic, everyone seems to understand the system. No one seems to see the outright untruth of calling the North part of town downtown, just because it's commercial. We know that people mean the commercial part of town when they say downtown. We need not be too picky about words. On second thoughts, I think maybe we should reconsider our thoughts about being "too picky about words". On third thought, maybe we shouldn't be too lax with words, neither should we be too picky. We should be just right, like everything baby bear owns. Because upon further thought, North isn't technically up, and South isn't technically down.
I am going to make a map with Antarctica on the top. (But what shall we make of east and west?)Hmmm... And who decided that the middle of the Pacific Ocean was where a day would change?

Who Commandeered my Blog

I swear I didn't write the last post. I will find this culprit. My leads so far: He is an insomniac. He has a poor handle on English gammar.

Sleep

Sleep is important. I am a different person when I get sleep. I am happy, and smart, and able to write blog posts. I cannot use my brain today in a voluntary sort of way. Right now its just my nervous system. Sleep energizes my soul, and makes me more than just an animal. The most frustrating thing about all of this is that it probably makes a ton of sense right now, but when I read it say tomorrow, I will inevitably say. Was that worth writing? Ehh... Off to work, and running on artificial energy, a.k.a. caffeine.

What that was

The post that appeared right before this one was once a very long polemic against religion, in favor of what is difficult to specify with words, but for now shall I say, "a real application of the principle of loving your neighbor as yourself minus the artificial supervision of a religious system". By some sort of freak accident or providential protection that post was not saved correctly, and is forever lost. Without having any confidence that the post's deletion was just an accident and was therefore a providential act of God, I feel it might be too great a risk to publish it again in its original form, despite my attachment to the post. But what I have is a very brief synopsis. Feel free to ask me my thoughts on it, if you dare.

What I see (in me)