David Yeagley is the great-great-grandson of Comanche leader Bad Eagle. 
Equality is a concept, not a reality. It is an ideal, not an actual state. The American experiment with equality began in a religious context. The colonists and their leaders resented the preremptory, tyrannical way of old England, and wished to be free from it, and to strike out on their own. Equality meant the right to ownership and private property, really, and the right to own as much as you could, or wanted.
Equality meant the colonists could worship in a style they cherished, free from any idolatrous object-fetishes in Europe. They didn’t even use the term “freedom of religion.” That’s an abstraction. They simply wanted to carry on a faith and a service they thought was more true, or more “Biblical.” They just had a few specifics in mind, and banked on those values. Indeed, they risked their lives for those simple values. Equality meant no one could tell them what to do. (That’s how my old Comanche mother interpreted “freedom,” when I asked her what she thought it meant.)
Of course, the “Communist” ideal later came along as a totally materialistic application of the idea of equality, and it involved a coercive, tyrannical implementation of that materialism. It always seems like it’s based on a natural sense of fairness, but, as a system of government, it has never worked. It causes wars and destroys nations. It’s last hope is to find a deceptive success in America.
It’s not really a new idea, either. It is one of those human inevitables of thought. It’s actually based on greed, not fairness. It is the ideal of envy. “Hey! You have more than I do. I’ve been wronged! You wronged me!” An ancient instinct, cast in a childish sort of “fairness” jargon. The religion of envy, Communism is. The politics of poverty.
Around 350 BC, Plato began writing The Laws. In Book VI, there is a section which translator Trevor J. Saunders called “The Notion of Equality.” (It begins on p. 219 of the old Penguin Classic edition. It is the Athenian speaking, about elections.)
You see, even if you proclaim that a master and his slave shall have equal status, friendship between them is inherently impossible. The same applies to the relations between an honest man and a scoundrel. Indiscriminate equality for all amounts to inequlaity, and both fill a state with quarrels between its citizens.
How correct the old saying is, that ‘equality leads to friendship.’ It’s right enough and it rings true, but what kind of equality has this potential is a problem which produces ripe confusion.
This is because we use the same term for two concepts of ‘equality,’ which in most respects are virtual opposites.
Then Plato’s Athenian makes very clear the difference between material-based equality and “genuine” equality, not so easily perceived.
The first sort of equality (of measures, weights and numbers) is within the competence of any state and any legislator: that is, one can simply distribute equal awards by lot.
This is a kind of early, conceptual Communism, with the added element of chance. But, then, the real equality:
The most genuine equalty, and the best, is not so obvious. It needs the wisdom and judgement of Zeus, and only in a limited number of ways does it help the human race; but when states or even individuals do find it profitable, they find it very profitable indeed…
…grant much to the great and less to the less great, adjusting what you give to take account of the real nature of each…confer high recognition on great virtue, but when you come to the poorly educated in this respect, treat them as they deserve
We maintain, in fact, that statesmanship consists of essentially this–strict justice…this is the kind of ‘equality’ we should concentrate on as we bring our state into the world.
Plato’s Athenian says that unequals should be granted only the ‘equality’ they deserve to get. Then he warns of an inevitable weakness:
…complaisance and toleration, which always wreck complete precision, are the enemies of strict justice. You can now see why it was necessary to avoid the anger of the man in the street by giving him an equal chance in the lot…
Then the Athenian confesses that “circumstances compel us to employ both sorts of equality,” and the latter sort requires good luck to be successful, and should be used a little as possible.
A somewhat disappointing essay, but, quite apropos. The luck element is just a safety valve–like some ancient precursor of the the lottery, the casino, or say, the modern court system. The man in the street must at least have a sense of opportunity to achieve material equality.
The “genuine” equality is hard to come by. It is not about material things (”measures, weights, numbers”). Even though that’s all Communism even professes to address in the ‘distribution of wealth’ (rather than the earning thereof), the evolved “American” Communist idea of equality dramatically applies it to race, culture, gender, IQ, age, and “religion” as well. A far cry from the founding fathers’ ideas, indeed. This modern American Communism is profoundly perverted. It is the studied destruction of word meaning, and all that ultimately happens is that the people are enslaved (in great need of “luck”) and a tiny minority have all the real power and wealth after all!
Equality is plastic. Even as a concept, it is illusory. Any too exact or tight an application is truly Communism, a deceptive power grab of a few loud promoters. Give them legal authority, and it’s all over–as American nearly is. So it seems.
For the “orthodox” Christian, equality has but one meaning: access to the mercy of God. The blood of Christ. The gift of His Spirit. Eternal life. In these things, alone, there is truly equal opportunity, and therefore, true equality.
But even here, it appears that some have more exposure to hope than others. To believe God is just, then, one needs that wisdom of Zeus.
22 responses so far ↓
1 Thrasymachus // Feb 11, 2010 at 10:13 pm
James Allen wrote, “Man needs but to right himself (i.e., in his thinking) to know that the Universe (or, if you prefer, God) is just.”
— From the supurb little book, “As A Man Thinketh”
2 David Yeagley // Feb 11, 2010 at 10:15 pm
Ah, but “israel” means God wrestles. (Or, wrestles God, one who wrestles God.)
So, righting onself is to do, but, as along as we don’t expect nirvana as a result!
3 geronl // Feb 11, 2010 at 10:55 pm
I agree David.
Equality should be one of opportunity and everyone should understand they have that opportunity. We use to call it the “American Dream”, which the left calls “middle classism” and dismiss as a myth.
If we found ourselves waking up naked on some deserted planet one morning, would we try to limit each others’ success in finding food or water? I would think not. I think we would learn from the ones who were able to find a way to survive and not regulate us into mass starvation in the name of some crazy version of “equality”.
I would hope that the most productive and successful would be our models and templates, not our enemies. The best hunter should be Chief!
4 Thrasymachus // Feb 12, 2010 at 6:08 am
“Ah, but “israel” means God wrestles. (Or, wrestles God, one who wrestles God.)
So, righting onself is to do, but, as along as we don’t expect nirvana as a result!” — Dr. Yeagley
Yes, interesting observation! I agree. We cannot expect heavenly bliss while here on Earth! James Allen was influenced by Buddhist thought, so I guess that shines thought at points.
One thing I like about the book is that it argues that righteousness is inherent in the nature of the universe itself (our God is a righteous God), and therefore to demand that political policy right all wrongs in this world is Man arrogating to himself more responsibility than he has Wisdom enough or Power enough to accomplish. Government should maintain law and order, but the ultimate Judge is the great Law-Giver, the Lord of the Universe.
Here is the full quote and a link to the online book:
“Law, not confusion, is the dominating principle in the universe. Justice, not injustice, is the soul and substance of life. And righteousness, not corruption, is the molding and moving force in the spiritual government of the world. This being so, man has but to right himself to find that the universe is right; and during the process of putting himself right, he will find that as he alters his thoughts toward things and other people, things and other people will alter toward him.”
http://jamesallen.wwwhubs.com/think.htm
5 swimminginthoughts.com // Feb 12, 2010 at 6:55 am
James Allen wrote some really great books. Have a look at http://www.jamesallenlibrary.com for his complete collection.
6 Thrasymachus // Feb 12, 2010 at 7:34 am
Thanks for the James Allen links. This will make some good reading for me this Winter!
I have once thought that every child in public school should have “As A Man Thinketh” as required reading. Alas! In our foolish modern society, just the title alone would cause some to protest (the word “Man” is “sexist,” LOL)! But books about right-thinking and self-discipline should be part of the public schools curriculum. Well, one can always dream, anyway!
7 David Yeagley // Feb 12, 2010 at 11:26 am
I think man is equal in dignity, in value, in purpose. It’s just that individuals often do not know this themselves, nor come anywhere near realizing it. Life is, for the most part, superficial. Animalistic, in the survival sense. No reflection, no objective thought. Just day to day existence. It’s a wonderful life. No need to get philosophical about it.
Or is there? There is a good deal of pain in the world. Who wants that? Why is that? Human existence if full of self-contradiction, ambiguity, and confusion.
Good cheer, hope, and love, are at a premium, indeed. Even marketable. Problem is, whatever you buy isn’t yours. You have to produce your own, in the way of psychology, or state of being. It is of your own will.
Personally, the Spirit of God is my highest treasure. I cannot manage the sorrow, the disappointment, the tragedy of life. Oh, sure, I think I can. But, after 90 years of living, I rather think that, if one care’s at all, life is heart-breaking. Too heartbreaking to bear.
I had a psychiatrist friend, whom I knew since our teen years. She once said, religion was grief management.
So be it.
8 Thrasymachus // Feb 12, 2010 at 12:43 pm
“I had a psychiatrist friend, whom I knew since our teen years. She once said, religion was grief management.
So be it.”
– Dr. Yeagley
Great post!
I heartily agee that religion is largely and primarily grief management.
We long to be in a place, psychologically speaking, (as the country song “‘Til I Can Make It On My Own” puts it) where “no more hurtin’ memories can find me.”
9 Thrasymachus // Feb 12, 2010 at 1:17 pm
The human mind stores the “intellectual” part of any memory in one manner, and the emotional part of that memory in another. In essence, according to one psychologist, the emotional component of any memory is stored chemically in body tissues, including, of course, brain tissues. According to this theory, then, dreaming is a mental process whereby the emotional content of memories can slowly be washed out of the body, being released from those tissues where it is stored, and then entering the blood stream and being filtered by the kidneys, etc. In this respct the subconscious and the physical body are one and the same.
10 Thrasymachus // Feb 12, 2010 at 1:20 pm
‘Til I Can Make It On My Own (few can, hence the primary need for religion):
Original with Tammy Wynette
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHycUpawWh0
Billy Gilman Live Version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKV2MMFf5Js
11 geronl // Feb 12, 2010 at 2:44 pm
I think dignity means respecting ourselves, it doesn’t come from others. Too many people have believed that “self-esteem” is whats important, but if you earned it its dignity.
12 David Yeagley // Feb 12, 2010 at 2:53 pm
This is one of the unfortunate “black” contributions to American society: “self-esteem” comes from how someone else treats you, or what name they call you. This is utter dependency, and confessed, dramatized weakness and inferiority.
Now, I’m not saying this is their doing, either. It was taught to them, carefully. Professionally.
It is a sensitive people, yes. But, when you allow someone to be dependent on you, they have you under their control! That’s how it pans out. That’s what’s happened in our society.
13 Thrasymachus // Feb 12, 2010 at 5:51 pm
Rawls, the liberal intellectual, regards self-esteem as a “primary social good” — a resource for which people are in competition, and which are “allocated” to the people, according to the social order in place.
It seems strange that “self-esteem” or “self-respect” is regarded as something conferred on a citizen by others and, for which, he is dependent on them.
14 Thrasymachus // Feb 12, 2010 at 8:46 pm
“Life is, for the most part, superficial. Animalistic, in the survival sense. No reflection, no objective thought. Just day to day existence. It’s a wonderful life. No need to get philosophical about it.”
I know many people who live life this way.
For me, it’s always been a quest for meaning. What does it all mean? I’ve gotta know!
Frustration! I probably — almost certainly — can never know.
Yet Atheistic Existentialism is too cold for comfort. I need to believe that human life is meant for some good purpose and is more than “eat or be eaten.” Life in the Animal Kingdom seems strangely harsh and cruel — and it makes me wonder why? This is why I do not scorn the Evolutionists. One thing the Bible does not explain about the Creation is why animals were made as predators and are in constant danger for their very lives. The lion, the tiger, the cheeta, and many others — these animals have really no security at all in the struggle for existence. Everything depends on luck.
Is it not ultimately the same with Man? I think that our fates are decided more than we like to believe — though I’m no true fatalist and would still advise anyone to make the most of any situation.
It’s just that, as James Allen says, appearances do not reveal the inner reality of a man’s life. One man may appear to have a miserable lot and yet actually be happy, whereas another may appear to have everything and be miserable. Elvis Presley had all the success a man could desire, yet he was literally bored to death — his drummer says he actually died of sheer boredom!
15 Thrasymachus // Feb 12, 2010 at 8:52 pm
geronl // Feb 12, 2010 at 2:44 pm
“I think dignity means respecting ourselves, it doesn’t come from others. Too many people have believed that “self-esteem” is whats important, but if you earned it its dignity.”
That’s what I believe too.
If we have to depend on the approbation of others for our own self-respect, then we will likely be deprived of self-respect. People just are not interested in giving others their dignity (though many delight in trying to rob others of same). One must earn and maintain dignity with a clear conscience. Nothing else really matters.
16 Sioux // Feb 13, 2010 at 9:39 am
Saying religion is “grief management” is a rather limited (and cynical) assessment. From the Christian POV, I would call it “Life management” – Read the Bible, and you see the results throughout of making good choices and bad choices. We’re all sinners, wretches, if you will. We deserve nothing but a good stoning– ignoring what God has told us to do and not do, and then we cry in our beer when things don’t turn out as we hoped. Why God is still trying to save us is a mystery to me.
17 johnnymac // Feb 13, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Liberty gives us the freedom and equality of oppurtunity, it doesn’t give the equality of results. This is always lost on Leftists. They feel life is inherently ”unfair” and as such the ”playing field” must be ”leveled”.
18 Sioux // Feb 13, 2010 at 1:40 pm
Thomas Sowell has done a 4-part series on the concept of “the fallacy of fairness” – excellent reads.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell020910.php3
19 David Yeagley // Feb 13, 2010 at 10:07 pm
Thras, my understanding is that, before the Fall, the animal kingdom was not predatory (Genesis 1:29-31). In fact, man himself was vegetarian.
After the fall, the curse of death, the whole order of nature was altered. Mutated. Scared. Horrified.
However, it seems that there is no record of the blood/killing way, for food, began after the Flood. Flesh eating was allowed, but, God did put the fear of man on all beasts, as well. Genesis 9:1-6. Also, man was not to eat (drink) the blood of animals. This is where the original “kosher” meat concept came from. The blood must be drained out.
20 David Yeagley // Feb 13, 2010 at 10:14 pm
The fairness idea, as conservatives state it, needs to come from the mouths of conservative poor. Not successful conservatives, with status. They’re just validating themselves.
I Hindu economics major at Emory, whom I befriended when I was doing one of my masters there, said, ironically, something that supports this. “The only religion that is sincere religion, is the religion of the rich man. He doesn’t need it. It is is freedom. Religion keeps poor people from developing. They depend on religion in the hope for better things. It is a delusion.”
The poor man who is content, independent, and responsible, is the best validation of all conservatism and Republicanism.
I don’t believe in formulas for success, either. There are different socio-economic levels and hierarchies in society, regardless. America has provided a sliding scale, and a person can move up, and change his status. This is, historically speaking, miraculous.
But, there’s no guarantee. Yes, there are those who have “made” it, coming up from lower levels, but, not everyone will who tries. Not everyone who is honest and hard working will succeed.
You do right, because it is right, not because of material rewards. Conservatives often fail in their communication of this essential element, and instead congratulate themselves on their success, as if it was their doing, and their principles alone. This is subjective and immature, seems to me.
21 zephyr // Feb 13, 2010 at 10:48 pm
Sioux: “Saying religion is “grief management” is a rather limited (and cynical) assessment. From the Christian POV, I would call it “Life management” . . . . Why God is still trying to save us is a mystery to me.”
Very true, but I’m glad He is regardless
22 Thrasymachus // Feb 14, 2010 at 6:18 am
“But, there’s no guarantee. Yes, there are those who have “made” it, coming up from lower levels, but, not everyone will who tries. Not everyone who is honest and hard working will succeed.”
Exactly. No one can become successful entirely on his own, without having the help of others who believe in him — not governmental help, but the help of friends who know him and have faith in him.
For me, anyone is a success who is making the most of his situation — his talents and resources — at that given moment of time.
I radically disagree with the “mainstream” definitions of success. If you’re making the most of your potential, you ARE successful, the opinions of the world notwithstanding.
You must log in to post a comment.