Popular Posts

Sunday, December 08, 2019

I'll be writing a review of this book.







This is a book that I'd promised myself that I would one day read, which I have finally done.  It has been especially moving because virtually everything we experience today in our world was seeded as we moved from the 19th into the 20th, and now the 21st century; all the horrors, all the triumphs and tragedies; but primarily the constant retreat from emotional responsibility by those in positions of power in science, politics, business and academics.  Hitler and Germany are obviously in league with the "Devil" in WWII, but Russia and the United States committed their share of mortal sins during and following this same period.  Nations react to panic and fear not unlike individuals.  There are no clear winners in this new world of ours.  Read slowly and take no prisoners. 

JRF 

Tuesday, December 03, 2019

The Peripatetic Philosopher observes:


THE MORE THINGS CHANGE THE MORE PSEUDO-EVENTS FILL THE VOID

James R. Fisher, Jr., Ph.D.
© December 3, 2019



A Reader Writes

Neither a gadfly nor a Payne in the ass I wish to be but I thank you, Jim, for the profusion of kind words.

In return I’m going to scare the doo-doo out of you and your friends. Read “Trust me, I’m lying” (2012) by media manipulator Ryan Holiday.

Happy dreams,

Best,

Henry


My Response

Henry,

Pardon me if I find this amusing. I was able to scan Ryan Holiday’s (born 1987) entire book “Trust Me, I’m Lying” (2012) without paying a dime. Towards the end of the book, he suggests reading American political historian Daniel J. Boorstin’s (1914 – 2004) book, “The Image: A guide to Pseudo-Events in America” (1962).

Holiday’s book, published 7 years ago, remarkably has little new to say other than to bring up to date the sense of things in this electronic age that Boorstin developed 57 years ago.

In “The Image,” he argues that Americans have a false “image” of what “news” is, mistaking certain “pseudo-events” for real news when in fact these are the contrivances of politicians and news corporations to generate the preferred emotional response in support of their political agenda or to promote the audience they seek.

“The Image” begins with the amazing credulity of the American reading and listening public seeking to be reinforced in its perceived beliefs no matter how outrageous while, at the same time, with an unquenchable desire to be entertained.

The public doesn’t want the unfurnished truth or the facts as they are, but news stories that titillate and reassure and shirk reality. Better to promote pseudo-events than demand the public change behavior.

Consequently, to “fill the gap” when it is a bad news day for legitimate news stories, Boorstin says news corporations fill the void with “pseudo-events.” This is where politicians and news corporations team up to promote “political spectacles” with inconsequential news narratives: a president appears at a coal mine surrounded by smiling coal faced workers; a mayor cuts the ribbon at the opening of a new shopping mall; a politician organizes a press release to “clarify” his stand on an issue that only obfuscates.

Being “in the news” and on television is a romantic dance between politicians (i.e., celebrities) and news outlets. Boorstin defines celebrity in “The Image” as “a person who is known for his well-knowness,” and as a consequence, politicians have come to resemble “media stars.”

A half century ago, a billionaire businessman stayed clear of pseudo-events and media attention, but now that has all changed with billionaire businessman Donald Trump in the White House as President of the United States with billionaire businessman Michael Bloomberg wanting to replace him.

Indeed, 50 years ago, Daniel Boorstin warned that should the voting public be inundated with pseudo-events with news corporations in bed with politicians, the news emanating from that scandalously jaundiced source should not be trusted. Why? Because it would be nuanced to the nth degree in support of a specific agenda with these politicians as “media stars” dominating the political landscape.

Boorstin infers without specifically saying that from the first political debate of John F. Kennedy with Richard Milhous Nixon in the 1960 presidential race was a cosmetic a fait accompli for the Massachusetts senator once he smiled at the television audience before he said a word.

Ryan Holliday updates this political and social drama in the 21st century and does so with witticism and panache. He focuses on the bloated blog reality, among many other outrageous trends that disturbs his stoicism, and apparently that of many of his readers who identify with his angst.

Stoicism is a Hellenistic Third Century (BC) philosophy that contrasts with Christianity. Christianity is founded on seeking a good afterlife, while stoicism is committed to a good life in this world. Stoicism is rule based; Christianity grace, love and forgiveness based.

Stoics believe in wisdom, morality, courage, moderation, prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance.  If you have read the “Meditations” of Marcus Aurelius (121 – 180 AD), this is stoicism on display. 

Catholics believe in chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience, kindness, and humility. The German-Dutch monk Thomas a’ Kempis (1380 – 1471) wrote of these qualities in “Imitation of Christ,” a book I sense that few read; a book that includes such quotes as:

Man proposes, but God disposes.

Be not angry that you cannot make others as you wish them to be, since you cannot make yourself as you wish to be.

First keep the peace within yourself, then you can also bring peace to others.

We have had a century long swing away from “things as they are (or once were)” that commenced in the 19th century with the explosion in science and technology; a time in which this technology fed the appetite and mania of belligerent man to engage in two world wars in which more than 100 million people would perish. The irony is that these 20th century wars were fought with mainly technology developed in the 19th century.

Just as the hem line of women’s dresses goes up and down, ideas by which man lives go back and forth to concepts and philosophies that are actually retreads. I do not fault Ryan Holliday for exploiting this as his whole career has been in the business of exploitation which is the subject of this book. After all, he is a marketer, entrepreneur, media strategist and, yes, an American apparel media columnist.

AN ASIDE



The key to confidence is a key and you hold it in your hand.

After coming back from South Africa and retiring from Nalco Chemical Company in 1969 after forming a new company, although only in my mid-30s, I sat down and wrote a book about what worked for me as a salesman. It was called “Confident Selling” (1971) and sold well. It was a book consistent with some of the ideas of Thomas a’ Kempis in “Imitation of Christ.” Although the book was not a religious book, it had a Thomas a’ Kempis like premise.  To wit::

Accept yourself as you are, warts and all, and chances are you will accept others as you find them.

Three years later, Robert Ringer published “Winning through Intimidation” (1974). It was a runaway bestseller selling well over a million copies to my more modest 90,000 to 100,000.

My message was to identify the motivation of the buyer and the seller, and to form a partnership with the buyer in that enterprise. In other words, self-interest works both ways. I believed even then that you can learn from competitors, not by knocking them but in discovering why they are successful. I read Ringer’s book, and although young myself, I knew many customers responded to intimidation but it was not in my repertoire.

*   *   *







































Sunday, December 01, 2019

The Peripatetic Philosopher ponders:


THE DIFFICULT ROAD TO EMOTIONAL PEACE 

James R. fisher, Jr., Ph. D.
© December 1, 2019


A READER WRITES

Jim,

Since you mentioned him here is my post on Paine.

Whenever white supremacist fanatics try to justify their ideological hatred with religion, I’m reminded of Thomas Paine, which in turn, reminds me of why Paine himself was so reviled by millions of Americans. Paine was a Deist. Here is his take:

“Of all the systems of religion that were ever invented, there is none more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only atheists and fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of despotism; and it means wealth, the avarice of priests; but so far as respects the good of man in general, it leads to nothing here or hereafter.”

--Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason


Now, let this quotation simmer in your thoughts for a while and you can begin to appreciate how clashes of worldviews result in ferocious conflict, as when one ideology, worldview, belief, or religion, tries to invalidate or discredit another, and be advised that the Trump Administration wants to repeal the Johnson Amendment and allow churches to engage in politics without losing their tax exemption status.

In my view, any belief system that depends upon the notion of faith for its validity is apt to become hypersensitive and overtly defensive for having pushed the practical limits of credulity, because the world is awash in divergent beliefs which are experienced as sacred and are existentially bound to mortality salience and thus threats as to their veracity are felt as mortal intimidations, because if one view is right, all the others are wrong.

In a nutshell, our primordial tribalistic inclinations make religion a little like plutonium, a little bit goes a long way and for some people too much can be deadly. But nothing makes this clearer than the religious right’s declarations that there is something Godly about Donald J. Trump.


MY RESPONSE


Your prose are always thought provoking.  I hope you take this response in that context.

I was somewhat amused that you picked this quote from Thomas Paine’s interesting and entertaining “Age of Reason.”

Paine was a conflicted man who was never comfortable in his own skin going from cause to cause. The American Revolution was one in which he devoted considerable energy, and I have also quoted from this document in that regard.

As you will remember, he rushed off to Europe during The French Revolution, always looking to stir up emotions – and doing so quite eloquently – and generate a responsive audience. 

He was neither a devoted American colonial dissident nor a British loyalist but an opportunistic traveling man with a flexible agenda.

Not a happy man, Paine rode his emotions as his religion. He was like a comedian who needs the constant reinforcement of an audience to confirm the relevance of his conflicting emotions.

This is, of course, not bad as many Americans were riding the fence when the British attempted to put them back in their place in the late 18th century. The colonists needed someone to stir up the dust, and Paine came out of the woodwork.

RELIGION AS SOCIETY'S PUNCHING BAG

While no longer a practicing Irish Roman Catholic, I now realize how much Catholicism and Christianity has meant to my development and identity as a person.

As I have grown older, and by the accident of my many careers, I’ve been able to see how flawed my Roman Catholicism and to realize how foolish it was for me to have expected otherwise. 

Roman Catholicism, like all religions, is a human institution created by man designed to serve his weak and ambivalent spirit.  The fact that in doing so its evil side often surfaces upon which all of the attention is then the focus.

To realize my church was as flawed as I am was at first a shock then appalling as I believed (Shall we call it Faith?) all the Roman Catholic propaganda I was meant to absorb without question along with all its silly mystical assertions, while forgiving the church for its many transgression over the centuries which were a matter of history.

Like it or not, Western Civilization was formed by Roman Catholicism as the only form of Christianity the first 1500 years of the modern era. 

Society's first scientists came out of the bowels of its clergy, while Irish monks hand copied much of the wisdom of man during the "Dark Ages" after the "Fall of Rome" with “Muslim” written all over its many discoveries in science and technology.

Religion, as I have indicated in an earlier missive (including atheism and agnosticism) occupies the mind of more than 90 percent of man across this small planet. Now, why is that?

I don’t know the answer to that, but I do know that to be obsessive compulsive about a man, a religion, or indeed, an idea or ideology leaves little time to enjoy this brief experience called “life.”

Enjoy life,

Jim

Friday, November 29, 2019

WILLIAM DOYLE RUCKELSHAUS, 87, DIED NOVEMBER 27, 2019

 
 
In the early 1960s, when I was working for Nalco Chemical Company as a chemical sales engineer out of Indiana, being something of a perennial autodidact, I learned that the Broadripple Public Library in North Central Indianapolis had a GREAT BOOKS CLUB.   
 
The librarian on the phone said that they met on the first Thursday of every month.  I explained that I traveled a lot and couldn’t always make the meetings.  She assured me that would be all right.
 
I was late for my first meeting with the group already in a discussion of Plato’s REPUBLIC, and the merits of a “philosopher king” to run the state.
 
The chair person was a full faced young man with glasses, well-dressed in a three piece business suite with a melodious voice and open demeanor.  I noticed that all the other men were formerly attired as well as the women.  I came to the GREAT BOOKS session in jeans, sneakers, a sweatshirt and a sports jacket, my common attire when not working.  I imagined they came directly from work. 
 
Given my compulsive nature to assess a group, I had the feeling of accidentally interrupting a meeting of attorneys going over their billing hours. 
 
It was clear they were comfortable with each other if not also of a common cloth.  Their diction and choice of words were distinct suggesting an Ivy League education. 

I am a listener by nature and found the comments on the “Philosopher King” interesting if uninspiring.   
 
Then suddenly, well into the session, the chair person looked at the roster of attendees, then at me with a smile, and said, “Mr. Fisher is a chemical engineer with Nalco Chemical Company, and this is his first meeting with us.”  

I was about to correct him by saying, “I am in sales,” when he said, “Now, you have been listening to us for the better part of an hour, do you share our consensus of the wisdom of Plato’s “Philosopher King”? 
 
In an unfamiliar setting, one that is particularly intimidating, with a feeling of having entered the “high rent district” of the intellectual elite, I did what I tend to do when nervous, I stuttered.  “Not exactly.”
 
This created a spontaneous uproar of laughter. 
 
Unperturbed, the chair person put his hands together under his chin, looked at me pensively, then lifted his hand to restore quiet.  “Obviously, our newest member has some other thoughts.  We would like to hear them, yes?"  Heads nodded. 
 
What often happens once I break through my self-consciousness, thoughts roll out of my head as if they had been previously rehearsed as a soliloquy.  

I told the group I was an Irish Roman Catholic and had witnessed the “infallible philosopher king” in action with Pope Pius XII; that I had been part of a private military audience in Rome with the pope in 1957 as a US Navy white hat, only months before the pontiff's death. 
 
Pope Pius XII was known as an intellectual and, indeed, a philosopher, I said, but I had my reservations about him since he was Nuncio to Germany when Adolf Hitler came to power, showing an ambivalent attitude towards the Jews and the “Jewish Question” . . .  I wanted to say more about the Holocaust, but stopped practically in mid-sentence.
 
Sensing I had finished, the chair person beamed.   “When we next meet, we will continue this discussion on Plato’s REPUBLIC.  Perhaps Mr. Fisher has some thoughts on the current occupant in Rome, Pope John XXIII.  He then excused the group, came over to me, and shook my hand, “You have a definite point of view.  I like that.” 
 
Later, I learned William Doyle Ruckelshaus was a devout Catholic, a member of one of the most prominent families in Indianapolis, and currently a member of the family’s law firm.   

He was a graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School, and would become the first head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), subsequent to that acting Director of the FBI, then Deputy Attorney General of the United States.  It was in that latter role that he and his boss, Elliot Richardson, during the Watergate scandal, refused to fire special prosecutor Archibald Cox at President Richard Nixon's request, choosing instead to resign.    
 
The event, October 20, 1973, was known as the “Saturday Night Massacre” with William Ruckelshaus coming out of the affair, now famous.  

In November 2015, President Barak Obama awarded Mr. Ruckelshaus with the “Presidential Medal of Freedom” at the White House for his lifelong service to the nation.
 
By the accident of circumstances, I met William Ruckelshaus as a young man.  I experienced his kindness and comfortable intelligence.  May his soul forever rest in peace.
 
  
 
 

Wednesday, November 27, 2019

Happy American Thanksgiving to All!

We have been through a rough patch, but a lot of you have as well.  Blessings to you in your struggles.

It is now five months since my open heart surgery.  I am now sleeping normal, walking outside a mile most days, and doing simple exercises.  

The ulna nerve on my left hand hasn't come back yet, and so I am typing with two fingers on my left hand along with my functioning right hand.  

I still only eat twice a day, maintaining my weight at 190, or 36 pounds less than my normal weight.  My cardiologist wants me to stay at this weight for my heart. 

I'm reading a lot, writing some but no big projects at the moment.  

I watch my TV mysteries, NFL games, but don't follow the news, college football or the NBA or college basketball. 

BB is fine, continuously amazing and still my coach and inspiration.  

She is a doer, project manager, task completer, and has still not gotten used to the idea of being retired.  She,too, reads a lot, has her favorite TV programs, and likes to putz around.  Her sister and brother-in-law, and our daughter and her fiance will soon be here, and we are looking forward to that.  

We enjoyed the wedding of our grandson Taylor Fisher and his wife Chelsey who are now on their honeymoon in the Caribbean.  

BB says I danced with her six times with one fast dance.  I didn't keep track as I was worried about even making it to the wedding.  You don't take anything for granted with heart surgery.  

Wherever I am I carry a little notebook, scribbling my thoughts, even at a wedding of more than 100 attendees.  I mention this because I wrote a piece on Taylor's mother, my daughter, who was killed by a hit-and -run driver, and on Jennifer, our daughter whose career shows amazing perseverance.  

Chekhov, who was also an introvert, was given to this same inclination.  Well, I lost the notebook and it pains me.  These instant stories have been some of my best writing.  Oh, well!

Several of you are not Americans, and have your own Thanksgiving Day.  To that event and its purpose, I wish you well,

Jim

The Peripatetic Philosopher looks at hate!


WHY IS HATE SUCH A POWERFUL MOTIVATOR?

James R. Fisher, Jr., Ph.D.

© November 26, 2019


Life is a comedy for those who think and a tragedy for those who feel.

Horace Walpole (1717 – 1797), English writer








BACKGROUND: THE GENESIS OF IQ & COMMONALITY OF ITS CRIPPLING GENIUS

We humans jump on ideas that simplify our pressing dilemmas and meet the demands of our common sense. We have been doing this with some vigor over the past roughly 150 years. We apparently need to pigeonhole people into explanatory categories with mathematics and science to compensate for our confusion and exasperation when so many vicissitudes seem to be manifested when it comes to people as persons.

This appears especially true when it comes to intelligence. Sir Francis Galton, the British mathematician, and founder of statistics, was fascinated with eugenics, behavioral genetics and intelligence. His book “Hereditary Genius” (1865) focused on biological breeding and nature rather than on nurture and the cultural environment. He was especially captivated by the distribution graph popularly known as the “bell curve.”

Biometrics, or reducing people to numbers on a statistical curve has been with us ever since. American biometrician Charles Davenport (1866 – 1944) was persuaded in his research that certain ethnic groups suffered stereotypical moral failings leading to criminality and prostitution.

Americans Henry Goddard (1866 – 1957) and Lewis Terman (1877 – 1956) introduced the French “Binet” intelligent test into the United States where it became known as the “Stanford Binet” IQ test. IQ stands for Intelligent Quotient and is calculated thusly:

Mental Age divided by Chronological Age times 100 equals IQ.

[This was the standard test when I was in grammar school where it was first given to students. The hubris of the creators of this arbitrary and culturally dependent test was the assertion that IQ is unlikely to change in an individual's lifetime; that nature dominates decisively over nurture. I can remember classmates who used their poor test scores on IQ tests as an excuse for making little progress in life.]

Reducing people as persons to numbers, statistical or mathematical variables was something of a defense mechanism to deal with exploding population and all the concomitant problems associated with that from crowd psychology to the cataclysmic and incomprehensible explosion in personal, family and societal dysfunction.

It is not surprising that social engineering would shift to emotional intelligence.

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE – WHY IT CAN MATTER MORE THAN IQ

Science journalist Daniel Goleman (born 1946) erased the scarlet letter of shame across the forehead of many when he declared, “The emotional brain responds to an event more quickly than the thinking brain.”

No longer was IQ an obstacle to a mind who wished to have a career say in medicine who had been told his (or her) IQ was insufficient for such a task.

Goleman has launched a series of books including the 1995 title of this segment. He postulates five components as primary to Emotional Intelligence:

Self-awareness; Self-Regulation; Motivation; Empathy; and Social Skills.


SELF-AWARENESS

This is the ability to recognize and understand ones moods, motivations, and abilities. Also understanding the effects they have on others. Goleman says to achieve a state of complete self-awareness, an individual must be able to monitor their emotional state and identify their emotions. Traits that prove an individual as emotionally mature include: confidence, the ability to laugh at one’s self and their mistakes, and the awareness of how you are perceived by others.

Example: By reading the reaction of someone else, you know how you are perceived by them.


SELF-REGULATION

This is the ability to control ones impulses, the ability to think before you speak/react, and the ability to express yourself appropriately. Goleman defines emotional maturity in this component as being able to take responsibility for your actions, being able to adapt to change, and the ability to respond appropriately to other people’s irrational emotions or behavior.

Example: If someone is screaming at you, you know that they are not always angry at you. You have the ability to understand they may be angry at a particular situation and feel they need to take it out on someone. You do not take this personally or react angry back.


MOTIVATION

This is having an interest in learning and self-improvement. It is having the strength to keep going when there are obstacles in life. It is setting goals and following through with them. Goleman would define an emotional mature individual in this category to have traits such as having initiative and the commitment to complete a task, and having perseverance in the face of adversity.

Example: One who chooses internal motivation driven goals instead of exterior motivation driven goals. Internal motivation driven goals are things such as earning a college degree or becoming a healthier person; things that show self-improvement. Exterior motivation driven goals are things that flaunt wealth or status. This is setting goals such as having the next newest and nicest car.

Example: If a student fails a class, they see this as an opportunity to learn and retake the class without self-doubt. They do not let failure get in the way of their goal. 

EMPATHY

This is the ability to understand other people’s emotions and reactions. Empathy can only be achieved if self-awareness is achieved. Goleman believes that one must be able to understand themselves before they can understand others. Emotional maturity in this category includes people having traits such as perception of others, being interested in other people’s worries and concerns, the ability to anticipate someone’s emotional response to a problem or situation, and the understanding of societies norms and why people act the way they do.

Example: Being able to understand and cope with someone else’s hardships or sadness. When you fully understand yourself and why you feel the things you feel, you can understand other peoples even if they are different than you.

SOCIAL SKILLS

This is the ability to pick up on jokes, sarcasm, and customer service, maintaining friendships and relationships, and finding common ground with others. Goleman states that emotional maturity in this component defines someone who has good communication skills, good time management, the ability to be a leader or manage a group of people, and the ability to resolve difficult situations or conflicts using negotiation or persuasion.

Example: Someone in a "boss" position usually has a good grasp on handling all different types of personalities. If two of their employees are having a conflict, they can find common ground and resolve the issue in a civilized and fair manner.


Journalist Goleman hit on a compelling theme stimulating the collective conscience of society just as Stephen Covey (1932 – 2012) did with “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People” (1989), and as Ken Blanchard (born 1939) did with “The One Minute Manager” (1982).

The flaws in these rather simplistic solutions to complex behavioral and organizational problems indicate how readily we jump on the bandwagon to intuitive and deterministic paradigms.

The idea of emotional intelligence first appeared in a paper given by Columbia’s professors of psychology Joel Robert Davitz and psychiatrist Michael Beldoch in 1964. Daniel Goleman took it to another level with “Emotional Intelligence” (1995).

Mental health and leadership has been the focus of many studies assuming emotional intelligence (EI) as real intelligence. These studies show no causal relationships to those attributable to general intelligence and personality traits, seeing emotional intelligence rather as a construct.

People with high EQ’s (Emotional Quotient's) seem to have better mental health, job performance and leadership skills. In other words, they can process emotional information effectively and negotiate the social environment but the prospects for them belonging to the genius class appear slim as I next swing towards that muddy terrain where genius, and yes, often hate reside against suspect emotional intelligence.


PALPABLE HATE IN A CLIMATE OF GENIUS


As a consultant, I once had a client who was a genius as an engineer, and as a managerial vice president of a high tech facility developing brilliant strategies and imaginative tactics. His problem was a director who reported to him whom he saw as a nincompoop and incompetent.

He railed about this man all the time while I pointed out to him to no avail that the man was the CEO’s best friend and hunting and fishing partner. My client had a heart attack. When he returned, he was relieved of his former position while his nemesis’s continued to flourish unscathed for his ineptitude.

This little blog and my e-mail site often receive expressions of contempt if not hate for this or that individual. Ironically, it is often a national figure or celebrity who they do not know, and with whom they have no contact.

The source of their displeasure is the gossip provided by their favorite network news outlet. News sources are advertising dependent, with these networks religiously giving the slant to the stories reported that sponsors' expect and pay for, while the poor viewers, ignorant of the game being played on them, treat this information as the unvarnished truth.

Actress Marilyn Monroe says, “Success makes so many people hate you. I wish it wasn't that way. It would be wonderful to enjoy success without seeing envy in the eyes of those around you." Marilyn Monroe, who had very little formal education, shares this dilemma with one of the great geniuses of our era, Albert Einstein.

ALBERT EINSTEIN

In 1905, the Einstein published his epoch-making special relativity theory. He also wrote a paper revealing how Max Planck’s quanta was confirmed by experiments conducted by physicist Philip Lenard.

This is noteworthy as Einstein was always quick to given credit to others. Lenard was a scientist who became a Noble Laureate in Physics, but was destined to identify with the Nazis, and attempt to discredit Einstein’s proven theory of relativity out of jealousy and because he was a Jew.

In the competitive climate of German physics, Einstein demonstrated maturity and emotional judgment throughout his life:

(1) With anti-Semitism rampant in Germany, he renounced his German citizenship and became stateless;

(2) Refused to sign a manifesto which claimed, “Were it not for German militarism, German civilization would long ago have been destroyed.” Such notables as Max Planck signed the document;

(3) He visited the battlefields of France after WWI, and commented: “We ought to bring all the students of Germany to this place, all the students of the world so that they can see how ugly war is.”

(4) He was among a handful of academics who had refused to sign the Fulda Manifesto supporting the view that German science be at the service of the Fatherland and the military; instead he became signatory to a counter-manifesto seeking to promote international peace in the form of organic unity in Europe;

(5) Fame came his way when an eclipse expedition in 1919 mounted in Brazil and the west coast of Africa proved his theory of relativity. Despite the acclaim, he disowned the notion that his theory was “revolutionary” choosing instead to see it as evolutionary stressing the foundation work of Newton and James Clark Maxwell;

(6) Solvay Congresses of 1921 and 1922 banned Germans from attending; when he was invited as an honorary non-German, he refused to attend as a gesture of solidarity with his German scientific colleagues;

(7) Always modest about his own skill set, pointing out that he was weak as a mathematician and humble about all the accolades sent his way.


Albert Einstein considered himself an outsider to his culture and time, despite being awarded the Nobel Prize and essentially replacing Newtonian physics that had dominated the discipline for 300 years.

As a matter of conscience, he renounced his Jewish faith and his German citizenship and for a time was stateless until he became a Swiss citizen.

Einstein demonstrated self-awareness, self-sensitivity, self-identity, and consummate empathy for others, as well as self-dignity for himself and other members of human society.

With Einstein, Intellectual Intelligence and Emotional Intelligence were in balance, a state not always demonstrated by his equally gifted colleagues, such as Nobel Laureates Philip Lenard (1862 – 1947) and Johannes Stark (1874 – 1957).

Individual genius and early brilliance in science are no guarantees of rational maturity and dispassionate objectivity especially when ideological notions take hold.

In the case of these two men, anti-Semitism colored their approach to life with a sick focus on a once cherished friend, Albert Einstein.

Personality and emotions are inseparable from the way we see ourselves whatever our profession.

For a scientist, no matter how ideal the work environment, how well-funded the research, or how independent and unobtrusive the oversight, there are no guarantee this will shape a mature, generous, socially engaged and empathetic balanced personality. 

Toxic hate flourishes anywhere, even in what may otherwise appear to be the most positive of circumstances.


PHILIP LENARD

Philip Lenard was a man of vitriolic and fanatical temperament with consummate zeal for research. He won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1905 at the age of 43. Despite his brilliance and success, he was a great hater of his peer group of scientists that included Wilhelm Konrad Rontgen (1845 – 1923) discoverer of X-rays, whom he claimed stole his research.

He made the same accusation of English physicist J. J. Thompson (1856 – 1940) for winning the Nobel Prize for the photoelectric effect.

Lenard had general contempt for English science in general claiming Great Britain was an island race of self-seeking duplicitous tradesman. He was however respectful of Einstein until he was universally acclaimed for his theory of relativity.

After WWI, losing a son during the war to malnutrition, and then a small fortune after the war to inflation, Lenard blamed Jewish politicians. From that time forward, anti-Semitism became his featured view of his science and that of other scientists.

Historian Alan D. Beyerchen claims Lenard’s upbringing and romantic need to be led by a great figure was coupled with a sickening need to belong to something great as contributing factors to his conversion to and zeal for Nazism.


JOHANNES STARK

Johannes Stark was only in his early thirties when he discovered the Doppler Effect in ‘canal rays’ that became known as the ‘Stark Effect.’ He was awarded the 1919 Nobel Prize.

Likewise, in the early days he was impressed with Einstein. But when he failed to receive a valued academic appointment, his enmity was fixed on the Jewish cartel led by Einstein’s circle of Jewish friends in the scientific community.

Thwarted at every stage to control the German physics community, he became increasingly vitriolic to everything Jewish.  Once a Nazis, he became virulently hostile to Einstein when he won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921, awarded in 1922.

Stark released his venom against Einstein in his book “The Contemporary Crisis in German Physics” (1923), attacking Einstein’s methods of self-publicity; for the wild claims of his theories; while drawing parallels between social and political revolutions in Germany to justify his anti-Semitism.

German Nobel Laureate Max von Laue (1879 – 1960), winner of the prize for the diffraction of X-rays by crystals, wrote a long review of Stark’s book concluding:

“All in all, we would have wished that this book had remained unwritten, in the interest of science in general, of German science in particular, and not least of all in the interest of the author himself.”

Six months after the fiasco of Hitler’s abortive "1924 beer hall putsch,” Lenard and Stark published an article titled “The Hitler Spirit and Science,” comparing Hitler to the giants of the past in science, linking him with Galileo, Kepler, Newton and Faraday, and claiming Hitler as the genius of the Aryan race.


CONCLUSION

We only have to turn on our television or surf the Internet to see how pervasive hate is in the national dialogue and in the international culture.

Envy is promoted by wanting what someone else has that is desired for oneself; jealousy is the fear of losing what one already possesses. Both sides of this coin promote hatred.

In the early 20th century, there were scientists who were intellectually conservative who opposed relativity and quantum physics, not on the grounds of faulty science, but because it threatened and undermined their traditional intuitive mechanistic scientific traditions.

There were also those who envied and despised Einstein and his group because they saw the new science as a disruptive Jewish conspiracy designed to derail the world of conventional physics that had held sway for 300 years.

They also personally despised Einstein for his pacifist stand during WWI, his support of the democratic spirit of the Weimar Republic, and for his independent mind and judgment.

In the German physics community before WWII, many former Nobel Laureates shared the same anti-Semitic sentiments as Lenard and Stark, and were primed for the eminent domain of Nazi science without Jewish scientists.

In fact by the late 1930s, a quarter of the most esteemed and gifted physicists in Germany, who happened to be Jewish, were working in Great Britain, the United States and/or the Soviet Union. Some of these scientists were working on the Manhattan Project that would produce the first atomic bomb.

If this seems absurd, remember how petty most of us can be at times without genius. Absent Emotional Intelligence, juvenility is not only rampant but equally democratic with the moronic and genius occupying common ground.

One wonders if those with imagination and clout but little emotional maturity are driving civilization to the brink of disaster through their hubris, false pride, and contempt for others not of their ethnicity or nearly as gifted.

They appear to lack the perception to see the absurdity of their ways, while failing to appreciate the wisdom of Horace Walpole’s words:

Life is a comedy for those who think and a tragedy for those who feel.

*   *   *


Tuesday, November 19, 2019

COULD IT HAPPEN HERE?

Note: 

A reader who collects The Peripatetic Philosopher Missives suggests resubmitting this, "As you did Why Is Hate Such A Powerful Motivator?"  He mentions this in the context of the current contentious political climate of the presidential election in the midst of a pandemic.  "Some report," he offers, "think it could end in a bloodbath."  Although a bit melodramatic, this may provide some perspective as to how things can get out of hand.
JRF 



                                                  COULD IT HAPPEN HERE?


James R. Fisher, Jr., Ph.D.

© November 18, 2019


When I was a boy in fourth grade at St. Patrick’s Catholic School in Clinton, Iowa, Sister Mary Helen allowed me to give the class a ten minute capsule of the latest news on the Western Front of World War Two.  

My information was limited to The Clinton Herald, but I surmised when I was much older that it was a way of getting the class into the afternoon session, and to control me, a constant talker and class interrupter.  Should I continue this behavior, I was cautioned by Sister, I would lose my ten minute window of reporting.  Her strategy worked. 

By high school, I was reading books checked out at the library that might be related to World War Two.  Ones such book was Sinclair Lewis’s “It Can’t Happen Here!” (1935). 

The book was a novel and a shocker on dictatorship and totalitarian rule in which people had no rights.  That thought sent shutters through me, the idea staying with me the rest of my life.  Such books did not interest my athletic friends, and there was no longer Sister Mary Helen to project my anxiety or question the relevance.  Books of some depth became furniture of my mind.

[I’ve always had a rather eclectic mind as well as an introverted personality, meaning I would read things stimulating to me while finding no one within my circle with whom to discuss them.  I’ve often thought Goethe was such a person with whom I could relate, but I don’t speak German and he died 100 years before I was born.]   

HITLER’S THIRTY DAYS TO POWER


Recently, I read the distinguished Yale professor Henry Ashby Turner, Jr.’s (1932 – 2008) book, “Hitler’s Thirty Days to Power: January 1933” (2003).  It reminded me of this earlier book mentioned above, as well as a recent e-mail I received from a reader, who writes:

This is a question with some malice aforethought: Have you ever read the US Constitution?  If yes, what responsibilities do you take from that understanding?


This is obviously a serious question, and although I once read the US Constitution, and have a copy nearby, I am not as familiar with it as I should be.  As this reader implies, there is no excuse.  Liberty is a very fragile right and wrought with danger.

Author Turner writes in “Hitler’s Thirty Days to Power":


On February 1 (1933) the parliament was dissolved.  On February 4, President von Hindenburg allowed the new chancellor (Hitler) to use presidential emergency powers to decree a law restricting freedom of press and assembly.

In March, a mysterious fire gutted the Reichstag building that enabled Hitler to take a giant step in the direction of absolute power.  Indeed, well before the Nazi leader assumed the powers of the presidency upon the death of Hindenburg in August 1934, Hitler was already the dictator of Germany. 

The weakness and fragmentation of German liberalism, the strength of militarism, and the susceptibility of part of the public to pseudo-scientific theories of race all played in what was to come.

DETERMINACY


Versions of Hitler’s rise to power have an unfortunate tendency to become deterministic.  This gives the impression that what happened was the inexorable product of great impersonal forces, that it was bound to happen, that there was no alternative.

Yet although such factors may have been necessary to the outcome, they were not sufficient.  They can help understand how the Third Reich became a possibility, but they cannot explain how it became a reality . . .


CONTINGENCY


An examination of events in January 1933 reveals the strong elements of contingency in the chain of events that brought Hitler to power.  The Third Reich is unquestionably a product of German history . . . the future dictator was rescued from failure by a series of unpredictable developments over which he had no control . . . actions of other people, for although impersonal forces may make events possible, people make events happen . . .

Germany during January 1933, was one of those frequent junctures in human affairs when the fates of many rested with a few . . . Compared with the role of these few men, Hitler’s role was reactive . . .

At a moment when the disposition of power in a great nation rested with this small group of individuals. Some of the most elementary of human sentiments – personal affinities and aversions, injured feelings, soured friendships, and desire for revenge – had profound political effect . . .

Luck – the most conspicuous of contingencies – was clearly on Hitler’s side . . . Hitler’s greatest stroke of luck lay in the personality quirks and other limitations of Kurt von Schleicher, the man who occupied the office he sought as January 1933 opened . . . He (Schleicher) compounded that liability by irreparably alienating an old friend . . .  the shallow devious Franz von Papen master of intrigue . . . He disastrously underrated Papen’s skill at that craft . . .

Schleicher reached, so to speak, his level of incompetence . . . Had Schleicher been more politically adept, Hitler need never have had a chance at the chancellorship . . . Had events taken a different turn in January 1933, Adolf Hitler would merit, at most, passing mention in histories of the 20th century instead of bulking large as one of its principal movers and shakers . . .   

The Weimar Republic would have been authoritarian, but not totalitarian; nationalistic, not racist; distasteful, not demonic . . . It might have suspended or curtailed political and civil rights, but it would not have abolished those rights altogether . . . It would not have made anti-Semitism a matter of government policy or embarked on a systematic program of genocide . . .

The Second World War with the horrors it brought – including the atomic bomb, which was produced out of fear that Hitler might be the first to obtain it – was no more inevitable than his rise to power . . . Without Hitler’s Third Reich and the war he unleashed on the world, many aspects of human affairs since January 1933 would have been quite different . . .

Humanity would be more innocence and optimistic than has been possible since “Hiroshima” . . . Only under the Cold War was the United States later drawn into the wars in Korea and Vietnam that involved no vital American interests . . .

Hitler’s regime would reveal that centuries of civilization had not diminished the capacity of Homo sapiens for profound evil and that modern technology and bureaucratic structures make possible unspeakable crimes of hitherto unimagined magnitude . . .

RESPONSIBILITY


If however determinism is rejected, the question of responsibility must be addressed . . . One level of responsibility – that of omission rather than commission – must be assigned to the defenders of the Weimar Republic. 

Without intending to do so, they helped to pave the way for Hitler’s triumph.  It was the unwillingness of republican politicians to place preservation of parliamentary rule above partisan interests that led the Reichstag to abdicate control over the government in 1930 . . .

A much larger measure of responsibility must be assigned to the millions of Germans who freely gave their votes to Hitler and his party . . .

In Mein Kampf and other Nazi utterances, the Nazis abundantly demonstrated their scorn for law and their readiness to employ force to crush those who dared to oppose them . . . Yet there is no evidence that Hindenburg, Schleicher or Papen ever read Hitler’s book Mein Kampf . . .

Nor did they request analyses of Nazism by competent experts in the high civil service … The resulting inquiries revealed a violent movement bent not only on imposing dictatorial rule on Germany but also on abolishing the rule of law and subjecting Jewish citizens to persecution …

Inept Schleicher bears the heavy historical burden of having lifted from well-deserved obscurity to political prominence the man who became his nemesis and Hitler’s savior, Franz von Papen . . .  In the case of Papen, guilt – responsible for a grave offense – applies. 

He was the key figure in steering a course of events toward the disastrous outcome, the person who more than anyone else caused what happened.  None of what occurred in January 1933 would have been possible in the absence of his quest for revenge against Schleicher and his hunger for a return to power . . .

Had Hindenburg held to his initial, intuitive mistrust of Hitler, Germany and much of the rest of the world would have been spared much misery and destruction.  

THE MORE THINGS CHANGE …


What is it they say, “The past is prologue to the future”? 

Germany is in the eye of the storm here.  Yet, for the first three decades of the 20th century, Germany held the premier position for science in the world.  German scientists were the most accomplished and honored in their fields, winning the lion’s share of Nobel Prizes. 

But in 1933 came Hitler.  German scientists who were Jewish were dismissed from their positions in laboratories and universities with the Nazi ideology coming to dominate Germany’s science communities.  Some German scientists enthusiastically collaborated with the Nazis, most acquiesced arguing that science was outside politics and morality.  By the end of the Second World War few scientists much less educators and philosophers remained untainted by a regime bent on genocide and conquest. 

Scientists are no different from other human beings caught in complex moral dilemmas.  While scientists claim their research and analyses are value free, and that science is culturally and morally neutral, they have created weapons and technology that can destroy human civilization. 

A clear example of this is German scientist Wernher von Braun (1912 – 1977) of V-1 and V-2 rocket fame.  He was involved in the building of missiles that bombarded London during World War Two, only for this scientist, who used slave labor during the war, to survive Germany's defeat and have a second career in the United States. He became one of the darlings of the Space and Manhattan Project; the latter scientists being the creators of the first atomic bombs that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki Japan in August 1945.  

After the war, when the United States was courting him, von Braun remarked that he didn’t care if he worked for Uncle Joe or Uncle Sam “all I really wanted was an uncle who was rich.” 

Could this irresponsible and calloused profile of scientific leadership also exist in other realms of society such as politics and government, business and industry, academics and the intellectual communities? 

If so, concomitant disaster is just around the corner.  How we think is how we behave.  Alas, it could happen here or in any other constitutionally conceived democratic nation.  It is something to think about.   

                                *     *     *