by Jason Bradley -
Contemporary Western thought and postmodern relativism compel us to explore our place in the world vis-à-vis other civilizations. The West’s legacy of reasoning is based heavily on thinkers such as Aristotle. The foundation he created implores us to consciously define and pursue an objective method to acquire knowledge. Where his philosophy was limited other thinkers came around and expanded this school of thought by use of Aristotle’s scientific epistemology. In other words, though his practice failed in some areas, his philosophical principles were sound in their fundamentals for the continuance in what we call Western thought.
It is on this foundation that we now seek the abstract and superimpose it over the idea of applied reality. Today’s thinkers exclude specific objects and dismiss concrete reality. Such is the case in when modern intellectuals study the question, “Why Do They Hate Us?”
For modern intellectuals, introspection is usually the first course of action. Followed by a heavy dose of manufactured guilt and shame that modern academia is so eager to put forth. In their view, the straightest road to a conclusion is in our own inadequacies. The road of such thought usually forks out to a misunderstanding on our part, and injustices administered by our hands. From there the two roads usually branch out to many winding paths that converge under a tiny mole hill of Deconstructionism. This brief summary hardly does justice to this intellectual tour de force that our modern intellectuals fall over themselves to produce. The premise, however, is readily apparent.
In dealing with concrete realities, however, the answer to the question, “Why Do They Hate Us?” is a rather simple one. Introspection, while vital to progress, is a well that can only be drawn from so much. If you find that a fork is inadequate for soup, you reach for a spoon. You don’t ponder limitlessly on the limitations of the fork. There is nothing wrong with the fork. The fork is perfectly functional for its intended purpose. Reality and circumstance — in this case soup — make it useless. The reason for this is inconsequential.
The reason we have enemies can be found, oddly enough, through extrospection — maybe even retrospection. Nature teaches us this firm principle: The moment you stake a claim to something, you gain an enemy. This can be observed on the most primitive level. Put any group of three-year-olds in a room together with enough toys for each child to have two or more. Even though each child has enough toys to entertain himself, the moment another child stakes claim to a particular toy, he gains an enemy. That child must then be prepared to defend that toy if he wishes to keep it. I suspect this is how our concept of private property originated. One gained property by staking claim to it and then defended it against his enemy. Over time, private property turned into villages, and then to kingdoms. Following suit, the defenders turned into peasant-soldiers, and then to standing armies.
Our current enemy, radical Islam and its agents of jihad, is merely a new face on the shoulders of an old enemy. Reality says there is nothing new under the sun. They are our enemy by virtue of our existence. It is that and nothing more. We stand apart from their world. We define ourselves through Western culture, arts, science, and lifestyle. They do not. We subscribe to Western philosophy and religion. They do not. We consider ourselves practitioners of Western civilization. They do not. We’ve staked our claim on those principles. Therefore, we have created for ourselves a natural enemy. And the fact we are willing to defend these principles makes us their enemy. The events that follow from this model are as consequential or inconsequential as we make them.
Exeternalities such as political economy and the status quo are merely facilitators — or more, distractions to the root cause of this philosophical question. We have enemies because our enemies see us as one.
HT: American Thinker