It's nothing new that Barack Obama's latest statement has landed him in hot water: "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig."
The evidence against him has been bandied around at great length already. The initial criticism being that Barack Obama had offended and thus further alienated a number of female voters some of whom are already believed to have been won over by the Republican party's surprising appointment of a woman vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin. This is confusing in itself; should offense be taken that Obama might have compared Palin to a pig and not the self-flattering "pitbull in lipstick" she had made herself out to be?
Probably not. And if he did mean it, I think he actually dealt her something of a compliment. It is common knowledge that pigs are one of the most intelligent mammals, though not the most noble of creatures; as they are also well known for bathing in mud & faeces. As well as eating swill without finding a pearl (that's Dolphins, right?)
Socrates himself made the comparison between the temperament of the pig and human beings as being heavily weighted in the pig's favour. Onboard a sinking ship a human will panic and cry, whereas a pig will often go with the rocking flow of the boat, content in their ignorance. Humans easily become mired in their own complex emotional frameworks, such as being paranoically offended over minor turns of phrase, and lose sight of consideration for others and the simpler (cheaper) pleasures in life. The nature of the pig is a similar attitudinal state to that of the Pyrrhonian sceptics, who promoted freedom from high-minded thought and other, other-worldly considerations, such a philosophy and politics.
Perhaps then Obama has made a veiled nod toward an ancient philosophical problem he sees as a dominating feature in modern politics. He has drawn out for us a crucial paradox that whilst humans are often content to see themselves as highly articulate and ridden with deep thought and selflessness, especially when compared to our animal brethren, so many of us are often loathed to forget our deep seated alleigances (to be sure, some of us never forget) so stuck in our ways, so eager to reach the trough, and much like the stubborn donkey, we plough a blind-minded furrow we believe righteous, whatever the cost to other people. Which, ironically, makes us seem just as ignorant as the free 'n' easy piggies over whom we claim mental superiority, lipstick or no.
Probably not. And if he did mean it, I think he actually dealt her something of a compliment. It is common knowledge that pigs are one of the most intelligent mammals, though not the most noble of creatures; as they are also well known for bathing in mud & faeces. As well as eating swill without finding a pearl (that's Dolphins, right?)
Socrates himself made the comparison between the temperament of the pig and human beings as being heavily weighted in the pig's favour. Onboard a sinking ship a human will panic and cry, whereas a pig will often go with the rocking flow of the boat, content in their ignorance. Humans easily become mired in their own complex emotional frameworks, such as being paranoically offended over minor turns of phrase, and lose sight of consideration for others and the simpler (cheaper) pleasures in life. The nature of the pig is a similar attitudinal state to that of the Pyrrhonian sceptics, who promoted freedom from high-minded thought and other, other-worldly considerations, such a philosophy and politics.
Perhaps then Obama has made a veiled nod toward an ancient philosophical problem he sees as a dominating feature in modern politics. He has drawn out for us a crucial paradox that whilst humans are often content to see themselves as highly articulate and ridden with deep thought and selflessness, especially when compared to our animal brethren, so many of us are often loathed to forget our deep seated alleigances (to be sure, some of us never forget) so stuck in our ways, so eager to reach the trough, and much like the stubborn donkey, we plough a blind-minded furrow we believe righteous, whatever the cost to other people. Which, ironically, makes us seem just as ignorant as the free 'n' easy piggies over whom we claim mental superiority, lipstick or no.
No comments:
Post a Comment