The Flippant Philosopher

Aristotle asked, “Is Democratic behavior the behavior which democracies like, or is it the behavior which preserves and benefits democracies.” It is obvious that these two behaviors are not always (indeed not USUALLY) the same. One thing that the French Revolution has taught us (or should have taught us) is that the behaviors which aristocrats like ARE NOT the behaviors that tend to preserve an aristocracy. In like manner the behaviors which democracies like are not the kinds of behaviors that tend to preserve democracies. Democracies inherently dislike men who are “above average”; men who excel; men who are smarter than their peers; men of highly developed abilities. These men are disliked because they ARE superior in ability to the ‘average, regular Joe’. Their inherent differences are seen as a threat by the democracies, because these are exactly the sort of men who are most notably and obviously NOT equal to their peers. One solution which democracies often employ is to suppress these men of ability, to hold them back, to try to “equalize” things by ascribing equal value to accomplishments which are obviously unequal. A scientist who discovers a cure for a rampant and insidious disease and an ignorant bum who manages to get sober long enough to earn the money for another bottle of cheap booze have NOT made equal achievements. Arguments on the “social ownership” of an individual’s private faculties and abilities aside, the man of ability has achieved something of notable value and should not be denied the just rewards of his hard work on the basis that his brother, the bum, would feel “traumatized” by this. Another solution to the “problem of great men” which democracies implement is repression in education. I do not mean this in the sense that they actively seek out children who show promise of ability and implement measures to prevent or reduce their abilities…not actively. What is done instead is to fetter the child of ability to others of lesser ability based on age. In doing so a child who is ready to read Shakespeare is forced to sit quietly throughout the day while his “peers” struggle through ‘See Jane Run’. His gifts are repressed in that they are left to atrophy, and if their decay is not rapid enough (or if by some miracle of fate or home-life the child is able to resist the loss of ability) the educators bring to bear on the child and the parents the concern of his “ability to fit in” with his age group or make note that he seems “anti-social” with his peer-group. Never once do they consider that the child might better fit in, not with his age group, but rather with his ability group…those who have equal abilities to his own. The genius cannot be expected to engage in enjoyable conversation with the moron…what would they (or indeed could they) discuss. Since they grab the children at a very young age, before their cognitive powers are fully formed, it is the educators who try to impress on the pliable young minds that the chief virtue in life is one’s ability to “fit in” and to “get along with others” even at the expense of sacrificing individuality…or more specifically unapproved and unique individuality. As long as the child pursues an individuality like everyone else wants, he is encouraged. If he should demonstrate notable ability above those of his classmates, he is told by the educators (the all powerful and all knowing deities of the classroom) that he must not be proud of his achievements or share his joy in his accomplishments with others, for that might make them “feel bad”. The end result of all of this is that ability is subjugated to popular feeling and, in the end, ability is held down to the level of the lowest common element in society. A society cannot progress if everyone is held down to the lowest levels. If no scientist or leader or businessman has any intellect or ability above the common man, then no “great men” exist…and without great men there can be no great accomplishments. Without great accomplishments a society cannot progress. A man who only treads water cannot be said to be a great swimmer, nor is he likely to win a swimming race. In like manner a society that only holds its current level of development without progressing, cannot be said to be a great society nor is it likely to long survive in the competitive world societal market. Democracies do not want great men, they do not like them…but for a democracy to survive it needs, desperately needs, great men.