Thoughts From 105 Years Ago: True Today?

"The notion that everybody ought to be happy, and equally happy with all the rest, is the fine flower of philosophy  which has been winning popularity for two hundred years. All the pretty demands of natural rights, liberty, equality, etc., are only stepping-stones toward this philosophy, which is really what is wanted. All through history some have had good fortune and some ill-fortune. For some, the ills of life have taken all the joy and strength out of existence, while the fortunate have always been there to show how glorious life might be and to furnish dreams of bliss to tantalize those who have failed and suffered. So, men have constructed  in philosophy theories of universal felicity. They tell us that everyone has a natural right to be happy, to be comfortable, to have health, to succeed, to have knowledge, family, political power, and all the best of the things which anybody can have ... The, they say that we all ought to be equal. That proposition abolishes luck ... The unlucky will pull down the lucky. That is all that equality can ever mean." ("Reply to a Socialist," Collier's Magazine, 1904)

If there chicanery here? Is this high sophistry? I am lately convinced this passage, though ancient, rings, at some decible level, as truth. We all suffer but to varying degrees. And, whether one calls it "luck" or "talent" or "Divine Intervention", equality of situation is a myth. Further, it is a myth that is the root of much mischief. I, for one, am content where I repose. Human compassion brings me to pity those less fortunate but does not compel me to devise grand schemes (which never fulfill their promise) to eliminate what has always been part of human existence. To whit: the Holy Grail of equality can only be composed of equality of opportunity, never a guarantee that it shall be achieved for everyone.

But, then, that is just an opinion of one man. Well, make that two men. The other, Herbert Spencer, has long ceased to walk among the living.

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
  • No trackbacks exist for this entry.
Comments

  • 12/3/2009 10:09 AM George wrote:
    I've missed you... welcome back
    Reply to this
    1. 12/3/2009 10:28 AM Ron Albright wrote:
      George,

      Thanks, buddy! The juices are flowing again (a sign of senility, I think, that they wax and wane) and perhaps I can get more regular with the Blog. Clearly, there is more than enough stuff to comment on these days.

      Best Holiday Wishes to Sharon and the whole family.

      Your friend,

      Ron
      Reply to this
  • 12/4/2009 9:52 AM Chris Pobst wrote:
    I've missed you too. Always enjoy reeding your posts. Hope you're back on track.
    Reply to this
    1. 12/4/2009 10:04 AM Ron Albright wrote:
      I appreciate that.

      As a partial explanation, it comes as a mystery to me how writing comes about. Surely, it requires the interest to be peaked and the gears to engage but, for some reasons, I seem to be in an inexplicable lull. I am beginning to think it is "outrage overload" - too many things disturb me, almost equally, to engage my thoughts on a single object. I am making a resolution to change that by:

      1. Being more spontaneous and less ruminative

      2. Being briefer, when appropriate, so that I don't discard topics I can't do 1500-2000 words on, and

      3. Writing with more candor; I feel restrained by the Brave New "PC" World. After all, who am I trying to "please" anyway? I should just write what I am feeling and take whatever heat it generates. It's not Like this is the the Huffington Post or some world-famous blog. Just me and you and a few others.

      I am resolved: I will let my "freak flag fly" and let the chips fall where they may - even if it be upon my cranium.

      Appreciate the feedback, my friend!
      Reply to this
Leave a comment

Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Enter the above security code (required)

 Name

 Email (will not be published)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.