Dear Friends,
It seems to me, one way you can tell if a philosophy is human hearted or not… is to observe if the adherents apply it to themselves and others, just themselves, or just others. A philosophy that is only applied to oneself is most probably self serving, one that is applied only to others is certainly arrogant and supremacist, while a philosophy that is applied to everyone equally can be called human hearted. Self centered people create special carve outs for themselves and their friends that are not applied to others. Supremacists have philosophies that apply to others but not themselves or their friends. People who are human hearted have philosophies that they apply to others as well as themselves. They hold themselves to the same or a higher standard than others, while those who are not human hearted, don’t.
Longtime readers of my articles know what Human Heartedness is, but I will give a brief summary for new readers. The term is a translation of Confucius’ ancient Chinese term for “Jen.” It has been translated into, Ritual and Righteousness, Flowers and Music, Benevolence, etc… It was Dr. Bodde and E. R. Hughes who came up with “human hearted” as, what I think, is the best translation. A person who is human hearted reciprocates good deeds, loves the good, hates the evil, is family oriented, civilized, polite, is careful to “rectify terms” (all parties understand the definitions of the words you use in communication), is not envious, follows the Golden Rule, and most of all… leads by example. Human heartedness is a term that incorporates a slew of ideas about what it is to be a good person.
Philosophies that apply only to the philosopher are always self serving. Thrasymachus’ philosophy can be said to be of this type. In it, he holds that Justice is a tool of the powerful to manipulate the weak. It should seem obvious that anyone who makes this argument, identifies with the powerful unjust… not the weak who are taken advantage of, in his philosophy. Anyone, group or religion that hold’s itself to a lower standard than others is also of this kind. The group, person or “enlightened,” are entitled to harm those outside the group as they wish, especially in the forwarding of the group’s, religion or person’s interests are concerned. In the singular they are psychopaths, in the plural they are oligarchs. In both cases they are self serving.
Philosophies that apply only to others are supremacist. The ideas of the supremacist never apply to him or her, only to those cut from inferior cloth. Ask most teachers about parents, they will tell you just how worthless most parents are, little better than troglodytes. Not at all a supremacist attitude. If progressives consider others their equals, why must the rest of us be told what to think? What type of person thinks others cannot be trusted to think for themselves? Someone who considers themselves superior… else common humility wouldn’t allow such hubris. What is more insidious, is that those who espouse philosophies that apply to others but not themselves, don’t realize their very argument negates it’s validity. Reciprocal attribution, everyone is entitled to consider a supremacist… inferior.
Philosophies that apply to everyone are far more likely to be human hearted. They are not self serving nor are they supremacist, because they apply to everyone. Clearly, people who are envious, self serving, arrogant and supremacist are not human hearted. Moreover, isn’t it obvious that allowing people to have power who are not human hearted, are self serving and/or supremacists, is a bad idea? How can someone with those negative character traits represent us fairly, justly or compassionately… when they embody none of those characteristics? It becomes our duty then, to observe the philosophies of those who seek power over us, and deny it to those who are not human hearted. To do anything less is to sell our children to abusers for a bit of convenience. Which is clearly not human hearted.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
