Friday, March 5, 2021
Cheering indifference. 2+2=4 still. When brain science teams up with the law--yikes! The banal genius of Jordan Peterson. Silly idioms.
Three Cheers for Indifference
If you don’t have time to read anything else in this edition, read this: “On Indifference.” Mark Lilla’s writing is not only splendid, but I resonate deeply with his theme: It’s okay not to sign on to whatever political or social agenda is being touted as “the most important issue of our time.” It’s okay to find meaning and purpose in pursuing one’s personal agenda in a local setting, like taking care of a special-needs child. Or an elderly parent. Or becoming a master carpenter or plumber. Or painting watercolors. Or gardening. Or whatever might be your current duty or passion—even if it won’t make a lick of difference to “the most important issue of our day.”
We’re told, “If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.” As in, “If you don’t actively join the fight against [racism, global warming, abortion, etc.], you are merely endorsing the current, unjust status quo.” That’s poppycock, just as fallacious as accusing Martin Luther King Jr. of endorsing world hunger because he didn’t give his life to solving it. We simply can’t do everything about everything. And more to the point: Life can have meaning and purpose by giving ourselves in love to the people around us and to the work God has given us to do—even if that work is local and insignificant compared to fighting for whatever the culture thinks is “the most important issue of the day.” Jesus did not say, “Love humanity,” but “Love your neighbor.”
The finger-wagging we are subject to is the result of our uniquely American and democratic DNA, which Lilla explains with insight and eloquence, coming to this counterintuitive conclusion:
Maintaining a state of inner indifference is an achievement. Indifference is not apathy. Not at all. It is … [to] experience one’s self and the world intensely without filters, without having to consider what ends are being served beyond that experience. It is an instinct to hit the mute button, to block out whatever claims are being made on one’s attention and concern, confident that heaven can wait. It is an instinct for privacy, far from the prying eyes and wagging tongues of beautiful gods and beautiful souls. It is a liberal instinct, not a democratic one.
2+2=4—Still
Despite my convictions above, I remain interested in the political, social, and cultural conflicts that reverberate through our land. And—when and how I choose—pecking away at them as time and patience allow. Or at least noting them, because I’m not sure what I can do about the silly idea called “white math.” Apparently, it’s making inroads in some establishment educational circles. This is a very, very bad idea (especially if we care about justice for the marginalized) argues Princeton mathematics professor Sergiu Klainerman:
… Let me state the following for the record: Nothing in the history and current practice of mathematics justifies the notion that it is in any way different or dependent on the particular race or ethnic group engaged in it.
Sometimes the obvious has to be said out loud, in front of God and everybody.
Brain Science Is Not Rocket Science
Our legal system has a history of putting too much faith in the latest discoveries of brain science. The three most notorious instances revolve around eugenics, lobotomies, and psychoanalysis, which were employed by lawyers and judges to enforce what was, at the time, considered justice. It’s been a nightmare for tens of thousands of individuals. It’s the reason that Jed S. Rakoff, senior judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and an adjunct professor at both Columbia University Law School and New York University Law School, says we should show some caution when it comes to neuroscience today.
Cognitive neuroscience is still in its infancy, and much of what has so far emerged that might be relevant to the law consists largely of hypotheses that are far from certainties. The natural impulse of forward-thinking people to employ the wonders of neuroscience in making the law more “modern” and “scientific” needs to be tempered with a healthy skepticism, or some dire results are likely. Indeed, the history of using “brain science” to alter the law is not a pretty picture. A few examples will illustrate the point.
Banal Can Be Good
I thought this review of Jordan Peterson’s new book, Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life, was fair—not only grasping the weaknesses of Peterson’s writing, but also why some of those weaknesses are a strength. A longer review and look at Peterson, though a bit more negative, is found in The Atlantic. Choose your poison.
Idioms Can Be Fun
Especially when debunked.
Grace and peace,
Mark Galli
markgalli.com