Album Review: Elton John's Madman Across the Water

Now to start a new monthly series! In an attempt to diversify the intellectual offerings at this site I am going to start review some of what I consider great music albums. The genres are varied but in general I am going to try to stick with what i know, so that probably means mostly rock albums with a few jazz and country albums thrown in. I don't make any claims on being original or revolutionary in the albums I pick, but I feel all of them are of high artistic quality.

The first in my series is a lesser known gem from Elton John (I suppose that is a relative term considering how popular he was back in the '70s). Madman Across the Water was Elton John's fourth album and his third one that was somewhat successful. It continues his and lyricist Bernie Taupin's fascination with Americana that they had first explored in Tumbleweed Connection, but instead of the warm and rich frontier themes they explored on that impressive album Madman musically and lyrically deals with the less storied and less often considered "dark" times in America past. The Post-Reconstruction South, The Indian Wars, World War II all get lyrical treatments although never directly, only as settings in which the characters are living and reacting to. Aside from the sunny and bright opener "Tiny Dancer" this is an album of weighty epics anchored by an amazing string score from Paul Buckmaster which gives the whole album a very cinematic (albeit very artsy not so much grand western style) quality especially when combined with the lyrical material. The album's mood is in fact very summarily encapsulated by the album cover, A stark and barren denim blue with only the title and artist in front and a track listing on the back. No pictures, no eye candy, just a solemn weightiness and dignity.

Side 1

Tiny Dancer: Unlike the rest of the album, the first and most famous song revels in a sunny southern California rock style, laid back upbeat, a not so subtle hint of country (those wonderful steel guitars!) filled in with a rousing orchestration that while not being too heavy, helps to keep the song from sounding to out of sync with the rest of the album.

Levon: A somber tail of a hardened man in a cold world that devoid of all kindness and on the brink of despair, Levon starts what could be considered the "proper" tone for the album. It is a majestic song that seems to capture the sullen and proud nobility of life in the world brought on by the industrial revolution. This is a song that could easily be applied to Victorian London as much as post WWII America (which is what I always pictured). Musically it is one of Elton's masterpieces. The song starts with piano, but then it hits you with a powerful low string section and then, as the chorus sets in, with the drums to give it a powerful ballad without ever being over the top or bombastic. Elton's vocals really pull this song together, especially in the second verse when he changes the melody just a little bit in order to sending it soaring into the space like heights that the lyrics are describing.

Razor Face: Another song of a man trudging on in a cold cruel world, Razor Face differs from Levon in the comfort and joy that Razor Face gets from the people around him. In a sense Razor Face is the opposite of Levon, he has nothing it seems and has been a wanderer all his life, no steady job and no family. Yet he seems to have more, he has joy in the company around him and love from the friends he has made. Plus the accordion workout at the end of the song, is absolutely amazing, seductively sliding into the song without being obtrusive (this is probably the first time the word "seductive" has been used to describe the accordion.)

Madman Across the Water: The title track of the album, some of the lyrics mention a nightmare and this song is a perfect musical representation of a nightmare. The strings and melody combine to provide a very claustrophobic tension that is never resolved in the song, it just fades to black. The lyrics are dark and cryptic, although keeping in with the Americana theme, I would imagine that Taupin is the madman (from Britain, so its "across the water.")

Side 2

Indian Sunset: Perhaps the most movie-like song on the album, this is the story of an Indian warrior fighting and dying for the survival of his people (unfortunately, all the various Indian tribes are kind of meshed into one (Iroquois with teepees? This man got around the entire country, but perhaps I am being to literal.) and the lyrics almost sound stereotypical to the point of lameness at times. But the song's very long and gradual crescendo (starting with a lone solo voice and building into the musical climax at the end coinciding with his death at the end) fits the power of the story. Adding to the cinematic quality of the song is the middle interlude that jumps into an odd monologue describing why the man is going to war. He wants to secure a small place in the world to raise his family and live free (if that is not the American dream, I don't know what is). Finally the story ends on a dark note; The brave warrior, tired and disillusioned, now homeless and hopeless in the land that once carried everything for him accepts defeat and welcomes death for the peace it will bring him.

Holiday Inn: Coming like a breath of fresh air, musically, from the heavy dread of "Indian Sunset". "Holiday Inn" feels as sunny and breezy as Tiny Dance does at the beginning. A mandolin busily flits in and out of the lyrics as the narrator describes a weariness of traveling (in this case touring with a band) that seems to be perfectly described by the similarity and boring sterileness (I believe I have created a word here..) that is the Holiday Inn. The song captures that odd anxious desire one has after a vacation to get back home, to be done with traveling by combining the weary lyrics with the light and bouncy music.

Rotten Peaches: Southern soul greets the listener with the first guitar in this song. The lyrical imagery of the song is also heavily indebted to the gospel sound. I have always imagined this to be a song about slaves struggling to adjust and settle into the United States after Civil War and the failure of Reconstruction although the second verse doesn't fit with that interpretation very well, but if the last verse is taken literally a home in Africa is many thousands of miles a way! Plus rotten peaches then seem to represent white men, since the narrator is trying to escape from rotten peaches, but no mater where he goes he sees them, they are inevitably a part of his life.

All the Nasties: This is probably the most cryptic song in the bunch, and that is saying a lot. At any rate, this is the one song that I have not quite figured out what it exactly means. It obviously is about oppression of some sort, but who the individual being oppressed is or who the oppressors are I have no Idea. The Church choir in the background of this song helps to lend it a weighty quality that the unclear lyrics don't and gives it just a hint of drama which goes a long way to making this song feel more coherent lyrically then it actually is.

Goodbye: A short, sparse and very despondent song that closes out the full album, it seems to imply a man (well narrator) who has been used up by someone else completely, perhaps sacrificed for the pleasure of others (he is a songwriter). The second verse is full of Christ-like illusions, but these images which in Christianity have a very powerfully joyful context are despondent because the sacrifice is not the choice of the individual who is doing the sacrificing, but rather decreed upon him by others.

Madman Across the Water could have been a very difficult album to sit through, but Elton John's keen musical sense keeps it from becoming an unbearably awful train wreck of human misery. Its arrangements give the songs, and the album as a whole, a feeling of the sadness and despondency in the human world, but in the back there is always a faint glimmer of hope and of that enduring human quality of being able to grasp tightly upon the small rays of happiness that find their way into our lives. It's mood, and the fact that most of the songs are around 5 minutes long make it a very tough album to "get into." It is a sleeper album that has to grow on you. It's grand and epic, but never bombastic which means the rich dividends that the songs supply are only achieved by a careful, deliberate and repeated listenings.

The Interstate System

One of the most consequential (of course by consequential I mean both good and bad consequences) pieces of legislation in the United States in the 20th century has been the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 (or the National Interstate and Defense Highway Act). From its inception until it was officially ended in 1990 the US constructed more then 40000 miles of interstate and is the largest public works project in US history. City life in the United States has been drastically altered by the presence of the Interstate System.

What makes the Interstate system so unique (a lot of countries have freeway systems, ours was inspired in many ways by the German Autobahn system.) is the fact that the freeway system doesn't just connect cities but actually runs into the center of most major cities as opposed to going to the edge of the city and then circling around. This choice was made because it was reasoned that it would benefit a great deal more people if it serviced the inner cities as well as out going traffic. this however brought in a serious problem: there is not a great deal of extra space in the center of a city to build a massive new road and interchanges so space had to be made instead. Some people insisted that the interstate routes should follow the railway routes already built in the city but bottom line consideration forced the decision to in fact build them on the cheapest land possible, this of course meant building right through the poorest areas of town.

The states therefore went forward with the construction of the freeways destroying block after block of homes in their quest for downtown access. This probably resulted in the most devastating consequences of the interstate system: the destruction of the intercity neighborhoods. Humans of course have social needs that extend outside of the familial structure often small towns fulfill this need. Allowing people to interact and providing a strong social safety net the is built up though the connected and intimate nature of the relationships built up in the community. A large city often fulfilled that need through its neighborhoods which often took on the characterizations of small communities in a large city. Obviously a neighborhood is not a direct equivalent of a small town, but it often served as the most prominent social world for the people who live there. When the interstates were built they plowed through the blocks without any consideration to where the neighborhoods. Now think about this a strong community is in a few short months, even weeks, ripped out of its foundations. People are now separated from their schools, churches and grocery stores by a chasm a block wide and many blocks long. A 15 minute walk turns into a 30 minute trek and close neighbors are now completely cut off. This destroyed the fabric of life that had sustained these people for many years.

This effect mainly affected the low income neighborhoods and people, but the middle and upper classes wrenched themselves out of their own social situations because the interstates now allowed them to move further and further out of the city contributing to urban sprawl, intense traffic jams and a vacuum of tax income for the central city while also sucking industrial jobs and services out with them further exacerbating the inner-city problems. This not to say that pre-interstate cities were urban utopias, but it is important to be realistic about the effects of the interstate on our cities.

There have been positive effects from the interstate as well. Can you imagine having to drive from Boston to LA if you had to go through thousands of little towns along the way? Now little towns are a joy to go through when you are looking for an interesting and unique place to eat, but if you are just driving though, having to slow down to 25 mph every 10 miles starts to really get on one's nerves. The ability to (theoretically) drive from one coast to the other without stopping once that is pretty convenient and it has allowed many people access to some of the wonderful treasures this country has to offer, but we must remember the mistakes we have made, in order to better correct those problems and also so that we don't make these mistakes again.

The Metaphysics of Self-Image and Its Problems for Society

Now that my introductory series is completely and people have seen some of my presuppositions which affect my writing, it is time for the fun writing to begin. Today I'm going to talk about an issue which is near and dear to my heart and that is self-image in society. Let us start with a story.

Violet is walking around the store and she examines a magazine rack. She picks up a magazine and looks at the model on the cover. The model is a tall blond woman who wears lots of make-up, she also has a big chest and is really skinny. Violet looks at herself and sees nothing which is like that model. She's a girl who's average weight, moderate height and keeps herself clean but does not wear a lot of make-up. However, she starts to feel bad about herself because she cannot live up to the image in the magazine.

Also, there's a boy named Jim who acts differently from other people and guys in particular. Loud parties do not entertain him, he'd rather sit and read or have a quiet conversation with a good friend. He keeps few decorations in his room, no pictures of scantily-clad celebrities, and does not like to play too many sports. He likes writing and is a sensitive guy. However, he's often picked on by other people. People like to push him around and take his lunch money. Jim often feels lonely because he wants friends who understand him, but he's just a bit different, so he has trouble making friends. He starts to look down on himself and wonders why he cannot be like everyone else. (Keep in mind I know I am using some stereotypes but I am using these to make a point using tendencies which happen at times.)

Both of these situations are physical causes of self-image problems. People want to be accepted by others and also to feel like they are of worth to someone. However, in looking at these physical causes, one sees these problems of self-image are not formed in a vacuum. Self image problems have to have some metaphysical cause which takes place in human nature. To do this, one must examine the human person and what causes a person to look for something more than themselves.

In both of the situations listed above, Jill and Violet both see something (real or perceived) which is lacking in themselves, and this makes them feel bad about themselves. Because society creates images of perfect people, by displaying them through various media, all those who do not live up to that image are degraded. The next question one must ask becomes, "Are these images consistent in every age, or do the images change with the culture?" If the images change with the culture, then the perfect image which is presented in our culture is not the enduring image, so thus it is not perfect human nature in itself.

If we go back to the colonial period, "skinny was out" and "plump was in" so to say. Peasant women were skinny because they did not have enough food to eat, so if a woman was heavier, she had food. If she had enough food, she obviously had money. The image of past ages is not the same as the image now. (A good example of this is in the movie Pride and Prejudice. Simply observe the dresses the women are wearing to the ball around Mr. Darcy and notice how the dresses do not try to compress the women as the dresses and clothing today does.) Modern clothing for the most part barely fits people whereas clothing in the past was baggier (Victorian clothing is a good example of this (artwork of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, etc.) , which could talk about the values of the society. However, the importance of this is presenting a different image than the modern model, which in women's clothing focuses on revealing as much chest as possible.

Though not very scholarly, these images do show how a perfect image has not endured over time over the perfect physical person. This shows how society constructs an image of a person meaning it is not something in nature which endures through time. Therefore, there must be another metaphysical cause for self-image problems, and for the creation of a self-image which pervades society.

People look for something more than themselves because everyone sees a lack in their own existence. People are imperfect, and because of imperfections they become afraid. The response of people to this problem is to compare themselves to others and think/say/believe they are not as bad as that person, or better than the other person. To do this, people find flaws or differences in other people which conform with how the majority of people seem to act. Physical images present a different phenomenon. An image is presented, and then people compare themselves to that image. Even if people do not live up to that image, they look at other people and focus on how they do not live up to it. This phenomenon can affect any part of a person physical, mental, emotional, etc.

But who decides how the image is made? To answer this, one must determine who controls the culture. In our modern culture, most of our physical images come from magazines, the internet and television. However, to gain access to two of these three medium, one needs money and access. The internet has many free lanes of access for people to have some media which they control. However, this media is not primary for building image. Television tends to be more formative in image building because access to it is granted at a much earlier age. Images formed in modern culture are then controlled by those who have money and power, because these people can run the television stations. This means the elite control the images which come through.

A good image for these television producers then is one which is unattainable, or one that is close. When people see this image and it becomes an idol (in more ways than one, both the religious (see Exodus, and the philosophical (see Marion's In Excess). This idol captures people's attention and people strive to be like it. If a person were to match this image, then they would not go back to the media source, so the image must be difficult to attain. When people fall short, people begin to doubt their self-worth because they cannot be like the idols they see on television (either in looks, emotions or temperament.)

This is only one example, all one has to do is watch the behavior of people in order to see more. This is a common phenomenon in being and there are certain problems which this causes. Self-images issues are a contributor to eating disorders, cutting, suicide, depression, anxiety, just to list a few. When people do not feel worthy of the love they need, they need outlets in order to deal with the suffering. The symptoms listed above are outlets in order to deal with pain, especially that of not feeling worthy. Needless to say, these are things which we do not want in people, so one must think about what the solutions are.

First, we must value real people in our lives for the real people they are. One could think of the personalistic norm presented by Kant in his Metaphysics of Morals. (also represented in Love and Responsibility by Karol Wojtyla). This means we treat people as ends in themselves and not as a means to an end (paraphrase). Basically, we are not supposed to use other people in order to make ourselves happy, we should be looking out for their interest. This principle invites us to see other people as real people, and not as images which are either better or worse than us. The principle in this way can help us to deal with pride and see value in others. This first step does not address self-image problems in the self, but rather the source of self-image problems as a whole. One cannot fix a problem in society without first fixing the urge in ourselves which causes the problem.

Step 2 is to learn two things, a) no one even an image/idol on television is perfect, b) everyone has gifts to give to the world, a person just has to find those gifts. Every person on television wears some sort of stage make-up, and some are doctored up more. What we see on television is not real; however, because of how people view visual images they seem more real, and thus look more perfect. The idol occurs in visual images because we see more in an image than we do seeing something in front of us. When an object is present in our space, one can only see some of the sides of the object, in a visual image the whole object can be seen. (In television, this can also apply to people) (Marion In Excess). Images are powerful for this reason. To dispel this, one must understand how these images are not real and how they accentuate certain physical gifts in people.
Another important lesson is to show how every person has gifts (in this context meaning things for which people have an affinity). The struggle is to find the gifts in the self, and also to deal with having gifts which society deems unacceptable. Finding gifts in oneself takes discernment, time, and a good community of people around you. Encouragement is an aid because others can see truthful things in us which we cannot see in ourselves. (reflection as being half-in-being, half-not-in being) (Heidegger). After self-reflection and collaboration with a community of people, one begins to see what a person can do for the world. Is anyone perfect? No. This is the other myth one needs to dispel. No one person is perfect and has every gift. The gifts we all have are meant to complement each other.
This leads us to problem 2. Society as a whole sometimes does not accept certain gifts. This is seen with Jim. Jim has the gift of a brilliant mind. This causes people around him to make fun of him. However, in these situations, there is always an anti-society of people who do not act in accord with the majority. Jim can find people who have similar gifts to himself and this will help him have a group of friends. These anti-societies do exist, one must know where to look for them though, as they tend to be more hidden from the main groups of people. However, for change to occur in society as well, Jim must be willing to be kind even to those who make fun of him for his awkwardness. Without this, cycles of hatred continue to flourish, and the image problems for society as a whole do not resolve themselves.

This discussion on self-image is far from complete, and as with my partner's last entry on capitalism, I may return to this as desire and interest arises but for now there is enough possibilities to reflect upon, though this does not inspect every aspect of self-image which can occur in society (most notably the self-image problems which are not actually caused by what one actually sees, but what one sees in their own mind.) Remember: the gift of a person is something which can never be given back, never be revived and never repeated. It is in this light that we must cherish every opportunity we get to meet real people, who act in real love toward God and all creation. Only then will we "become the change we want to see" (Gandhi).

Critique of Capitalism II

In my first critique of capitalism post I laid out my dislike of big business. Now I would like to address some of the aspects of capitalism (read American style capitalism) that I feel foster the creation of big business. The first issue regards the treatment of our national resources. It seems to me that capitalism does not have the proper respect for the natural environment. Capitalism values nature only insofar as it can be taken and made into something more productive. To my knowledge I can't think of anyone trying to value nature in and of itself (i.e. what is the value of having oil in the ground not for future use but rather just to have oil in the ground). If nature is not being "used" in some fashion to produce a product it has no value in capitalism. It seems this is a product of the pre-modern world, when Adam Smith developed the theory of capitalism it seemed rational to assume that nature and its resources were infinite, but now we know that our resources are not infinite and thus the raw resources need to be valued somehow, not for their future use but rather in their existence.

Second I feel that modern capitalism is almost zealous in its pursuit of efficiency. Efficiency is not an evil thing, in fact I would consider it a good thing, however it is not the greatest good and should take a back seat to decreasing the inequality gap among other things (i.e. the market economy should be set up in such a way as to help the fruits of society be spread around more individuals (or families maybe...) even if the rules decrease the maximum efficiency the market could achieve). I don't mean to be proscribing the perfect economic system that is not the topic of this post, nor do I actually have a clearly defined one in mind only that efficiency is not the greatest good in a rational economic system.

In the end my problems with capitalism stem out of lack of responsibility and the belief that bigger is always better and continuous growth is always good and the misuse of the market economy (and those who support that misuse in the government and elsewhere). This series isn't finished and I plan to continue to come back to this topic from time to time when I have new ideas and thoughts in this area.

(my thoughts on this point were formed by reading Reinventing the Bazaar by John McMillan and Third Ways by Allan Carlson and how they interestingly seemed to mesh)

Oh How I Want to Be a Philosopher, A Philosopher I Want to Be Part 4

But how do I become the philosopher I want to be? Could it finally be, it's synthesis time. YAY!! :) It's time to put together everything I've seen and heard and propose ideas for systems or utilize an existing system if one is already in place which can handle my ideas either as well or better than I can. Since there are a lot of systems from a lot smarter people than myself, then I will probably be borrowing someone else's system to insert my ideas. Parts 2 and 3 of this series compromised of 1 main point each which is useful to start the discussion. Part 2 focused on order and disorder. Part 3 focused on the other and what people do with the other. To start the synthesis, a brief review is necessary before one can start the application of ideas.
Order and disorder are both things which we see in being/existence. Human life exemplifies this because there are times when everything is neat and orderly, and times where everything is going wrong and one cannot get organized or have stability. Because people see both order and disorder in life, one system which can be useful to think about to advance a philosophy is Chinese Metaphysics in the I Ching. The I Ching holds many books, but the point relevant to our discussion here is the ideas of yin and yang, and the drawing of the yin and yang. In the art, one will see how in the white part of the circle there is still a black dot, while in the black part of the circle a white dot is present. This represents the idea that in light there is always darkness, and in darkness there is always light. (Peter Phan also dedicates a section of his work Jesus the Christ with an Asian Face to discuss Jung Young Lee who notes the importance of change in theology.)
This observation can be useful because it does appeal to how life seems to be. Life is a lot of change, a lot of wavering (as Heidegger would put it). In philosophy though, one does not just ascertain how things appear to be, one searches for how things really are. The question one must ask is, "whether there is perfect order in being itself, and do people search for that perfect order?" Of course, reason can never really tell us whether perfect order actually exists, this is something for the journey of faith. (For now, we'll take faith as an inclusive term which means faith in anything, the task of later work will be to define specific kinds of faith.) However, reason and experience can tell us whether people seek a perfect order. For now, let us appeal to experiences in our friendship.
Everyone has friends, and everyone has friends who talk with each other about life, stuff, whatever. We also talk to certain people about others who frustrate us, either by their actions, or simply because the person does things we do not like. (The merits of this are also reserved for another article, the important here is that it happens in friendships.) This leads to friends complaining about other people to others behind their back. An example of this is in order, your best friend decides randomly to punch you in the face one day. Before any response happens, there is a feeling, notably of disorder. You sense disorder in your friend punching you in the face because this is not what a perfectly ordered friendship is supposed to be. However, there is this desire for a perfectly ordered friendship, which has no dark spots. (This example is obviously limited because there are relationships where it is perfectly normal to hit someone in the face as a sign of affection of sorts, but everyone can think of an example similar to this where someone would not like/feel uncomfortable in a situation.)
We have to be careful, because simply by this example one cannot say there is perfect order in the universe. However, if a similar example can be carried over to every person having a desire for order (even if it is a different sense of order), then the thesis of Chinese Metaphysics above becomes harder to prove. Even people of a relativist mindset have some sense of what they think is right and wrong. None of the morals are universal in this philosophy; however, the desire itself is universal. (even if it is simply a desire to not be judgmental and let everything be relative.) People with a relativist mindset still complain about the actions which other people do to hurt them. When I was a resident assistant, on an regular basis I would hear other residents talk about how certain people should not have gotten so drunk, or talk about the girl who had too much fun at the party last weekend. All of this activity is simply a desire to have perfect order, to have the world the way I want to see it.
If there is supposed to be a perfect order and disorder is not supposed to be part of that order, then what is the correct answer to the question of order and disorder posted above? Another approach one could take is to examine human actions. What happens if the human person herself is broken; not fundamentally, but rather has the ability to do wrong. One can see many times in life where he has made mistakes and done things he wish he could replay and try again. To have regrets is a normal human reaction, it takes training to live a life of no regrets. Since human people can do wrong, then one also must believe that humans can do right. There are many times where people act in kindness toward others and people do not regret their actions. There are times when people get a warm fuzzy feeling inside because they helped someone and made their life better. (Of course, morality cannot be decided on sentiment alone, but the appeal to sentiment is to express a condition in nature, it says nothing specific about any action.)
"The other" is also an important point to examine notably in how we treat other people who are different from ourselves. In being, people see a "me" and a "not-me". There are certain things I do, and certain things others do. People are all different, so any philosophy must be able to deal with difference. Let us take an example from Christianity which will serve as the example of differentiation. Most people have heard the story of the crucifixion of Christ and the events which played out to get Christ there. In his work, Christ served the poor, down-trodden, and Gentile people and spoke a message which was different from the religious leaders of the time. (Jesus was a Jew and Jews insisted on separation from Gentiles (Orthodox Jews still keep separate dishes for Gentiles and themselves)). Because Christ acted as the "not-me" for the religious leaders of the time, the Jewish leaders sought to get rid of Christ. The Jewish leaders then worked with Roman authorities to give Christ the death penalty. (Keep in mind under ancient law only Romans could actually give the death penalty to someone). This is a lesson in differentiation and the consequences of it. Whatever your creedal beliefs, one can see how Christ was a nice guy, who was a little different. Because of a lack of respect for differentiation, Christ suffered the death penalty. (Again only speaking on a physical level, the beliefs add extended meaning to this which can be discussed in different circles.)
This act also shows the consequences of order and disorder. Because humans can do wrong, then humans can also act against those who are different from them. (We see many examples of this in human history, most of the wars in the modern era started because of people assaulting differentiation (World War II, the situation in Rwanda and D.R. Congo are just a few examples.) Many people decry these conflicts because they are assaults against humanity which grew simply because of people being different. People of all creeds want a solution which allows for peace. From what has been shown above, Christianity is a strong example which can instill peace, and explain what we see in being.
We've already discussed how Christianity teaches about the other through the example of Christ (through his willingness to serve the poor, the downtrodden, and Gentiles.) "The other" is someone who must be treated with love and respect. Christianity also teaches about order and disorder, the death of Christ shows humans who make a choice to kill Jesus. (Jesus in creedal Christianity is seen as pure order). Because humans make a choice to kill, this is seen as disorder, and it shows how humans can do disordered things. Humans have this ability to be disordered because humans choose disorder. Humans want pure order because this is the essence of happiness and peace, but in life people make choices which allow disorder into their lives. (There is also natural disorder which gets into the Christian theory of suffering, while important, is outside the scope of this already long piece.)
Christianity is a good philosophical system because it can explain the main features observed in being, and it connects these points into a conclusive synthesis which calls for respect of all creation. This is something which is desirable because it can pave a way of peace. Christianity can also help people engage the order and disorder within themselves. By starting this discussion, people can grow in themselves and reach new heights. The particulars of which are not important now, but one can see how the potential is there, which is all a system can do. The rest is based on the people who follow that system and engage its tradition.

Aristocrates

P.S. Some presuppositional talk is probably in order here. As mentioned in my introductory post I am an MA theology student and also a Roman Catholic. These presuppositions do read into my philosophy because I have concentrated a lot of reading into the Catholic tradition. (while also reading some amount of modern philosophy and phenomenology as well.) Any post-modern view of this article will see these presuppositions, which is fine, I am open to admitting I have presuppositions. What is important to realize is all people have these presuppositions and they all have some effect on decision making. The decision making process I use in this article is based on reason and thoughts but it is important to know and list my presuppositions at some point in this piece, as I've given my synthesis here. I hope you enjoyed the read.

Critique of Capitalism I

Now no one would ever mistake me for a communist (at least I don't think anyone would.... well maybe Texans!) but I have always been a little uneasy with American style capitalism (from hence forth referred to as just capitalism because I feel it is the form of capitalism that is most prevalent in the world). Now I don't have an issue with market, nor private property I am very much in favor of both of those aspects of capitalism my issue and worries are focused on big business. Big business is not totally evil, but its presence in an economy puts strain on government and freedom in all societies.
Big business is problematic for one because of its immense size. With their large amounts of money, large businesses wield immense amounts of power. Now wealthy people also wield immense amounts of power but there is a big difference between a corporation and a person: a corporation is practically immortal. There is not much that can truly "kill" a large corporation even bankruptcy. If the company has enough money it can just lobby the government to rescue it which leads me to my second point that bothers me about big business. Freedom is immensely important to me and the biggest threat to freedom is the state, one of the problems with big business is that it requires a large government to properly maintain it. All markets require some sort of government to help them properly function, but as a business grows in size in power the government must grow as well in order to keep the market working. As the government grows it expands into all aspects of life.
Large companies also sabotage one of the principle tenets of the capitalist system, they stifle competition. All companies are always looking to best competition and when companies are relatively equal in power this is a good way to make sure they police themselves and work to better the life of their customers however when a company becomes so large that they can easily quash and buy out start up companies that would attempt to be competition they distort the market and no longer have incentives to serve their customers except through dictates from the government, which brings us back to point 2.
Capitalism has in many ways been a wonderful advent to the world, it has lifted many millions out of poverty and continues to do so to this day, however it was developed in a time when many of the problems it brings us today were unthinkable because they were impossible given the technology at the time, therefore a re-look at the fundamentals and assumptions is in order. Next time I will look at some of the assumptions capitalism makes and offer my critiques on them as well.

Oh How I Want to Be a Philosopher, A Philosopher I Want to Be Part 3

But how do I become the philosopher of whom I want to be? What else am I seeing which needs to be reviewed in order to make a synthesis of what I see in being? As I look around and see people and things I see two things. I see things which are me, and things which are not me (or "the other"). In order to understand me and not me, there must be some way to examine knowledge. What do I know about myself? I know that I appear to exist, not only because I feel a recognition of my own existence, but also because "the other" appears to see me as well. (Keep in mind I am only speaking of human subjects, objects and animals are another issue entirely.) So I appear to exist, which we'll consider good enough for now, since we are only taking what we see on sight, and the synthesis comes later. However, I also know that "the other" exists as well. "The other" exists because this person can recognize my appearance, but also has the capacity to recognize themselves. I can understand this capacity to recognize herself because she can tell me about her existence through memories of happenings and occurrences.
"The other" also has differences from me. No matter who "the other" is there are differences; whether they be physical differences, differences in emotional experience, or in ways of seeing the world. "The other" being different is something which is unavoidable. Different subjects have different modes of experience. These experiences affect how "the other" takes in experience and interprets truth, and it will be different from what I see. This leaves the issue of who is correct, myself or "the other", and this has ethical consequences. For now, it is good enough to know the existence of "the other" and to ponder this existence before we move to answer questions about truth.
I apologize for the delay in posting, I was away in Florida for a conference where this issue of "the other" came up in many speeches and I wanted to write about it as soon as I could when I got back. Stay tuned for the exciting conclusion of Oh How I Want to Be a Philosopher, A Philosopher I Want to Be. :)