Blasting bias

I'm taking political philosophy this semester, so I thought it would be a good idea to read up on the relevant material on the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Specifically, I was reading an article on 'authority,' which, in political philosophy, is not taken for granted as legitimate. The article was an enjoyable to and fro, until the very end- when the writer 'decided' that democracy had legitimacy above and beyond any question. Now, even taking for granted that Churchill's assertion that democracy is the 'lesser of all evils' when it comes to government, that does not, in and of itself provide justification. However, this myth- the supremacy of democracy- is so entrenched in our society, that some (apparently) believe it beyond any kind of question.


This rather inane point leads me to a much larger one. The West views itself as proud heirs to the Greeks- ethical philosophers who pondered the wonders of the universe and were generally freedom loving. However, this premise seems to be completely false. The Greeks may have been philosophers, but they hardly seem to conform to our standard of ethics. What say you, that 'of course not, they were ancient'?- grant that, but understand just how brutal they were. Even in Athens, oh so wonderful Athens, only about 5-6% of the denizens were allowed to vote. And this was within a 'democratic,' and not 'aristocratic' conception of the polis. In truth, even after the reforms of Solon that saved the poor from revolting, the paupers still had no 'effective' power.

Greek treatment of slaves was horrendous. I know that you are probably shocked by what I mean by this- isn't all slavery bad? Yes, but there is bad and worse- Jewish treatment of slaves, or general Eastern treatment of slaves. Now, there are significant differences between the two, each one being, in some ways, 'better.' The Jewish slave had more 'rights' as a human, but the Eastern (for example Persian) slave could own property, and was usually actually paid. Yup, paid.

This only goes to show that you can't simply answer for the Greeks that "everybody thought it was okay back then." They simply didn't.

It goes deeper than this. Every now and again, there was a slave revolt and the ruling aristocrats were driven out. Usually these revolts, although resulting in the deposition of the aristocrats, did not result in their murder, but rather their banishment. The leaders of these revolts would pass legislation to ease and equalize economic burden. And they were called tyrants.

What gives? It's easy to explain ancient Greece's horrible view of 'freedom,' and their lies about 'tyranny,' but why do we accept their labels?

At http://www.hirhome.com/israel/cruxcontents.htm, Prof. Gil-White tries to explain that the writers of history are generally aristocrats themselves, and therefore 'buy into' (although he might be a bit more cynical than that) the hype. I don't buy it. It's an easy conclusion, especially given his Marxist assumptions.

I think it clearly is a case of historians buying into the hype, but I think it has more to do with perception-formation, and concept-formation, than outright bias. This is a current fascination of mine: just how do perceptions form, how do they change, and what does it mean to believe. To sum up, propaganda. Or, at least I think that has a large part of it.

When I say propaganda, you probably think Goebbels or Stalin, or if you're a moonbat, the 9/11 commission. And I do mean those things, as well. But here's the rub- what is the difference between what Stalin did and any acquired information? I don't mean in truth-value, but in how that information comes to be believed. I think they are the same, and I think that's a rather intuitive postulation. It explains why propaganda is no less believable than regular information- because the assimilation process of all information is done, is essentially (except through one's own 'research' and 'insight', and yes, I am being purposely vague) no more than propaganda.

But to highlight my point let's look at the flip side of what I am saying- human being are very gullible. They believe what they are told, often without questioning it. And, even after questioning, they still tend to hold convictions. Take religions. There certainly aren't all true. (in the strong sense) That means that most people are definitely wrong about religion. Further, religion seems to have little, or no, evidence whatsoever. But, do people believe any less? Indeed, intellectually I'm a veritable sceptic when it comes to religion. Yet, I still believe in (have a conviction might be a better way to phrase it) Judaism. And, it's a belief I cannot, for the life of me, shake.

So, people form beliefs that are transmitted to them from others, and they often cannot shake those beliefs. Sometimes this is despite a conscious struggle. Other times, it is through cognitive dissonance, whereby people simply blank out the evidence. But more frequently, people simply do not register evidence- not because it contradicts their preconceived notions, but because it does not even fit into their frame of reference. Quick example: could the concept of dharama be true? Yes. Is there any evidence for it? I have absolutely no idea- because it just simply isn't my frame of reference. Now, I could spend years assimilating the concept. And that would probably help, but I would have to look in the first place. Otherwise, it's rose coloured glasses from here on out. (Ha! the Britishness is seeping into me, which, btw, only validates my point)

How does this relate? Simple- who do we get (most of) Greek history from? The aristocrats- who else would have time to sit and write in the ancient world? So, our shared legacy of Greece is seen through the people who considered the aristocrats 'fair' and 'just.' In other words, our conception of Greece necessarily starts from an aristocratic point of view.

But it's more than that, and here a little feminist Bible-criticism will provide an good parallel. One of the main critiques of feminist writers is that the Bible is andro-centric- it is written from a man's perspective. Why does this matter? Because it does not distort femininity, but rather makes it so that it is never heard! The world painted in the Hebrew Bible (so those critics claim) is not anti-woman, rather is one where woman are on the outside. The narrator is conveying the story of the men, through the eyes of the men, and as such the story we receive is only of men. As such, we associate with the 'male side of the story,' and we don't even think to ask the question, 'well, what about the women.' In Yeshivish there is a phrase called 'E Gores,' meaning that it is so irrelevant that it is not in anyone's conception.

So too with the Greeks. We see history through the eyes of the aristocrats- where the slaves and the women weren't even playing the game. They are so off to the side that it is incredible hard to realize how much of a slanted view we are getting- especially if it is the only view we are getting.

Now, I don't want you to think I in cahoots with post-modernism, or deconstructionism, etc. I certainly believe that there are facts, and that we can use our faculty of reason to sort through them. But, just because we can swim doesn't mean that water is shallow, or that there isn't a strong tide.