by Ana Bazac<\/p>\n
The idea of priority<\/em> denotes a definite subjective<\/em> origin of decisions and attitudes leading to new facts: which, first of all, are accomplished by humans. In other words, the feature of something to being a priority may never be confused with an objective and impersonal element or characteristic of reality. On the contrary, the priority is the result of a deep deliberation<\/em> \u2013 even though possibly very rapid \u2013 and thus, it is both the result of a bifurcation in the development of ideas in the human reasoning and the starting point of a bifurcation.<\/p>\n What is a priority has obviously the objective ground of already existing facts and situations, but it crystallizes as an idea<\/em> in the human mind. It is different from the inherent objective basis of sine qua non<\/em> physiological phenomena: these ones are objective, many of them instinctive and, although the conscious will may impose for a while some extra-physiological constraints\/stimuli in order to stop\/perhaps even accelerate\/ divert the physiological phenomena, actually it cannot do this absolutely, it cannot transform them without destroying the human being as such with its equilibrium of life. From this standpoint, physiology is a natural\/objective irrepressible priority. For example, the priority phenomena \u2013 in the frame of other physiological phenomena as well as of psychical ones \u2013 even interfere in the course\/logic of these other physiological and psychical ones, generating their momentary stops or inhibitions[1]<\/a>.<\/p>\n But in that case, the priority was\/is not an idea, but a natural phenomenon. However, what is important here is just the conscious<\/em>, ideal<\/em>, constructed<\/em> character of the priority.<\/p>\n Accordingly, the problem of priority pertains both to the philosophy deciphering the mind and arriving to the consciousness, and to ethics.<\/p>\n \n ***<\/strong><\/p>\n \n Concerning the first domain, the priority is an idea<\/em> resulting from the complex system of reasoning, i.e. from subsystems within this system reflecting and being reactions\/responses to the needs and stimuli related to each<\/em> subsystem and<\/em> also to the superior<\/em> stimuli\/needs related to the relationships and integration of all these specific needs\/stimuli within a coherent whole corresponding to the unique unity of a certain body and mind, as a unique human being.<\/p>\n Therefore, the idea of priority reflects a succession <\/em>of priority moments according to the subsystems of needs and stimuli which man is aware of. In other words, though there are \u2013 except the natural needs\/phenomena which, although man is aware of, it considers them as different from those generated <\/em>by the human will \u2013 many needs\/stimuli which are all necessary and\/ assumed by the human person:<\/p>\n But I knew that I made something wrong: does the fact that I kept the cake with just two fingers not prove this? And, certainly, that I was \u201ccorrecting\u201d me, because after the swallowing of the piece of cake, I went to wash my hands and to do all the known necessary actions when coming home. Thus, this simple example shows that the human actions are always accompanied by their awareness in the human mind<\/em>.<\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The human thoughts are also accompanied by their awareness in the human mind<\/em>: even though we are not conscious of this. But if we are questioned about them \u2013 be they related to scientific theories or to the description of persons or of our attitudes towards them \u2013 we can explain why we did think this or that.\u00a0 Many actions \u2013 if not all of them \u2013 are preceded by their mental planning (specifying their reasons, the succession of their elements, the relationships with other actions). Even the actions which became habits or which seem to be unconscious or which are intuitive have as background entire series of inferences, of reasoning in the system of thinking; only that some series lay in the deep down of the consciousness and the corresponding actions seem to be either unconscious or intuitive. But if we force ourselves to articulate the reasons and logic of these actions, we can do this. Anyway, the neuro-physiological researches have demonstrated the ability and plasticity of the elements of the human brain to fulfil the function of mirroring<\/em> and being aware<\/em> of the performing of the sketch\/algorithm\/picture they construct as responses to the interactions of man with its surrounding milieu. And if some people cannot or are not at ease to put in words, fluently and coherently, the reasons and logic of their thoughts and deeds this is not because of the structural incapacity of the human mind to express its function of awareness, and neither because of the inexpressible singularity of intuitions and unconscious actions, but because these people were not taught to do this and to be aware of the indestructible intertwining of thoughts\/deeds and<\/em> their awareness.<\/p>\n \n ***<\/strong><\/p>\n \n And yes, perhaps they were taught that what would be important is the execution or accomplishment of deeds signalled by the mind, \u201cthe rest\u201d \u2013 \u201cproblems of consciousness\u201d \u2013 being postponed and\/ passed to other people, maybe \u201cprofessionals of these problems\u201d: as if<\/em> the reason to be of the human mind would be only the \u201ctechnical\u201d planning of actions (a demand of the adaptation to the environment, thus of survival, right?), the consciousness of this planning\/of all the functions subordinated to this function\u00a0 being something superfluous.<\/p>\n But if we know very well that this conception is issued from and reflects historical contexts and social origins, we still must emphasise that it is related to the fear of personal responsibility<\/em> and thus, to the lack of responsibility<\/em> that is the pattern aimed at by \u2013 letting aside the millennia of history \u2013 the present education in the present domination-submission based society.<\/p>\n Is this assertion not funny, since a pillar of education in schools is just the goal to form the children to be responsible? Unfortunately, not. That goal is related rather, or even only, to the correct accomplishment of \u201ctechnical\u201d tasks (to learn, to make all the lessons, to compete, to win, to behave in a correct and pleasant manner) and to respond for their deeds related to these tasks.\u00a0 \u00a0But this education is not accompanied by the teaching of children to ask their consciousness<\/em>, to consciously and in an expressible way deliberate<\/em>, and to watch <\/em>\u201cfrom without\u201d the fulfilling of \u201ctechnical\u201d tasks, i.e.\u00a0 \u00a0as if<\/em> they\/their will to decide would be outside the decisions as such to do this or that; this is just \u201cthe voice of consciousness\u201d but, as Socrates said long ago[2]<\/a>, the consciousness is not outside the will of the person, it includes it, then not something different from the will of the person would say\/impose something, but just the person, its will.\u00a0 The voice of the consciousness is just the right reasoning after\/in the course of deliberation<\/em>. But if the horizon of children is margined by the obligation of \u201ctechnical\u201d tasks \u2013 decomposed in n \u201ctechnical\u201d sub-tasks \u2013 and by the entertainment desired many times as if it<\/em> would be the first \u201ctechnical\u201d task, and if the demands and questioning from behalf of the consciousness are annihilated by the transfer of responsibility towards the others to the responsibility in front of God (considered by many as the most important compensating force of the ego mobilised, not by conatus<\/em>, but by the modern egoism), just the responsibility towards the others is very weak. Neither the express individual tasks for the benefit of the others \u2013 recommended by all types of religion \u2013 do not counter the egotistic standpoint that, we underline, is not tantamount to the original conatus <\/em>as will to persist and, certainly, in an as good state as it is possible: because, on the one hand, they are or may appear for the individual as tasks more or less imposed from without, and on the other hand, they may well fit with egotistic reasons, as Kant has showed.<\/p>\n \n ***<\/strong><\/p>\n \n This aspect of consciousness is not mentioned here so as we divert from the essentially rational<\/em> characteristic of the decisions of humans: neither the \u201cconsciousness\u201d is something ineffable and full only of feelings and nor the decisions are only the manifestation of temper and the result of unquantifiable emotions; but in all these components (feelings, emotions, decisions pushed by temperament), the basis<\/em> is that of reasoning<\/em>, of logic<\/em> which sieves different judgements<\/em>\/different types of judgements, i.e. related to different emotions and experiences.<\/p>\n \u00a0Their result is, obviously, the ad hoc<\/em> construction of successions of tasks and projects: where some tasks and project inherently occupy a priority position. But if we want to understand which tasks and projects and why, we arrive to the necessity of a criterion<\/em>: their amplitude<\/em>, not concerning the personal ambition, but the level or space of humanity<\/em> they have in view. Concretely, the tasks and projects may have in view individual aspirations<\/em> and social ideals<\/em>: namely, everything decided by the individual in order to accomplish his\/her individual aspirations and social ideals.<\/p>\n We thus have arrived to the ethical standpoint about priority. But, as Kant taught us, ethics pertains to the practical philosophy. For this reason, the ethical standpoint is related here to the concrete sociological and political one.<\/p>\n As we know, the theories framed within the dominant ideology consider the individual aspiration as much more important than the social ideal and opposed to each other. Thus, the individual has different priorities \u2013 projects and decisions of tasks \u2013 concerning the satisfaction of needs we know at least from Maslow\u2019s pyramid (1943). And since the supreme needs are those of esteem and self-actualization, their fulfilment would end the human individual\u2019s striving and reason to be. Hence \u2013 these theories continue \u2013 \u201ceither\u201d the reasonable individual aims at realising his\/her individual aspirations \u201cor\u201d the individual is no longer reasonable, but a more or less dangerous dreamer, a \u201cutopian\u201d.<\/p>\n This dominant point of view has the shortcomings of liberal and conservative image of man: where the human is only an individual and thus, has only individual, no matter how selfish, criteria of the thoughts and deeds performed even indifferently towards the not too close other humans. And since this is the inherent \u201cessence\u201d of man, the only measure countering the clashes of individual appetites is external: the complex of \u201csocial contract\u201d, carrots and sticks.<\/p>\n However, the essence of man is not decreed, but is the result of its existence (Marx, Sartre): and since this existence is social, too<\/em>, the essence of man \u2013 that explains its behaviour \u2013 cannot be reduced only to the satisfaction of individual needs, and the human reason cannot be considered only an instrument of this satisfaction. The criteria constructed during the historical experience of man are also social<\/em>, and this means even the possibility\/the consciousness to conceive universalizable<\/em> criteria in the behaving of people (Kant being the creator of these criteria, deduced from the rational feature of the human beings). The assumption of social ideals<\/em> \u2013 this position being always conscious and, inherently, critical \u2013 is at the same time the assumption of universalizable criteria. And even as a result of these criteria, the individual aspirations and the social ideals are, au fond, intertwined<\/em>: and the individual has an active <\/em>role in both these goals; the first manner to manifest this role being the conception where both are priority<\/em>.<\/p>\n \n ***<\/strong><\/p>\n \n Although the dominant message of the present dominant ideology\/pattern found in all the dominant theories channels all the \u201crespectable\u201d interests toward the component\/means of emotions, feelings and unconscious through which the humans choose and decide, actually not only that these means have at their basis<\/em> the reasoning<\/em> or logic<\/em> that sure enough may be one of the emotions as such (we speak about \u201cthe logic of emotions\u201d that is not a rational approach of the most consistent arguments, but inferences from specific \u2013 and unquestioned \u2013 premises) but that, irrespective of this phenomenon, is the logic\u00a0 that include the rational validation\/invalidation of premises <\/em>and thus emphasises consistent<\/em>, namely universalizable<\/em> inferences. Indeed, the valid character of logical arguments\/logical reasoning is given not only by the form<\/em>\/logical consistency of inferences, but also by the content<\/em>, i.e. the universalizable feature of the entire procedure: of premises and inferences, too. Well, the reason<\/em> (rational argumentation, logic) is that which is universalizable[3]<\/a> and it lays at the basis<\/em> of all emotions, feelings and unconscious. It was constituted as the first instrument of the human species to survive\/to have sustainable answers to its environment, and the consciousness retains this historical origin of its reason just through the development of complex mechanisms of mirroring<\/em> the particular logics of different responses to needs\/stimuli or to actions, of remembering<\/em>, of permanence<\/em> and presence<\/em> of the logic of actions. In this sense and despite all emotions, people are always\/in the last instance aware of the rational reasons<\/em> of facts and behaviours: and this is proved when they feel in their deep down that they are cheating<\/em>.<\/p>\n Yes, and though we are aware that we are cheating or we assume only \u201cthe logic of emotions\u201d, we nevertheless continue to proceed in this way. But this behaviour \u2013 determined by both psychological<\/em> and social<\/em> causes, therefore no type of causes has to be ignored<\/em> \u2013 is different and has different meanings and consequences when the individual decides something related only to\u00a0 his\/her person<\/em> and when the decision concerns directly other humans and even masses of humans<\/em>. Obviously, as personal as it may be, every decision has trans-individual consequences, but when it concerns directly other humans, the responsibility of the decision-maker is different than the one of the impulsive individual choosing something for him\/her. We may dupe ourselves when we simulate to make our exercise exercises \u2013 we have another priority in that moment \u2013 but if we have for a while this attitude, we will feel less in good physical shape. And certainly, this will affect people around us, but not in a decisive malign way.\u00a0 But when the politicians choose policies dismantling the social welfare, escalading war and the aggressive bombardment of irrationalism, the results are on long term and decisively malign on the whole humankind. When these policies are the means to attain the priority of absurd wealth of the 1%[4]<\/a>, the entire logic of this behaviour has to be questioned<\/em>.<\/p>\n This logic considers the social polarization \u2013 and concretely, the socially induced sufferings<\/em>, the waste of life<\/em> of billions of people, the untimely death<\/em> of millions, including children[5]<\/a>, and through all these processes, as well as through the aggressive irrationalism as state policy<\/em> almost all over the world, the reduction of the base of creation (though creativity is the feature and potentiality of the human reason) \u2013 as a \u201cnormal\u201d price for the concentration of wealth. Actually, the above-mentioned processes even do not exist<\/em> for the beneficiaries of this logic, since what is important for them is the \u201chealth of the global economy\u201d consisting of \u201cchanges in corporation tax and capital gains tax\u201d[6]<\/a>, i.e. the big reduction of taxes of capital, namely the definitive destruction of the welfare policies for all. \u00a0Their priority covers a crazy logic (where nominally more and more money gained in the process of financialization of the world economy are disconnected from the use values<\/em> made worldwide) whose result is not only more concentration<\/em> of wealth \u2013 and more polarization<\/em>, socially induced sufferings<\/em> and destruction<\/em> \u2013 but also deeper unsolvable contradictions, not only in society that is not important for this logic (or it is important only to the extent that it may put brakes to the enriching of the \u201cchosen individuals\u201d) but\u00a0 just in economy<\/em>: that is the source of profit and \u201cthe Truth against social requests\u201d.[7]<\/a><\/p>\n The insane character of this logic is emphasised not only by all social<\/em>, including ecological, consequences, but also by the teleological question (Aristotle) \u2013 what for<\/em>\/what is the reason to be<\/em> \u2013 related to the individuals<\/em> who concentrate such a wealth: since it\u2019s about the 1% opposed<\/em> to the 99% \u2013 this is a metaphor, certainly, but very probative \u2013 and since the confirmation of this opposition does not bring with it any doubt, and since the individual pleasure always legitimises itself with reference to the others, what is\/what are, from the viewpoint of just these individuals<\/em>, the ultimate reasons of their behaviour?<\/p>\n This is, obviously, a rhetorical question. But the reminding of the teleological question is neither rhetorical and nor na\u00efve, but a decisive argument, ignored by the mainstream ideologies.<\/p>\n \n ***<\/strong><\/p>\n \n The development of the human species was and is social<\/em>. The human consciousness grew as a product of socially created and verified processes of answers to the environment, and an illustration of this phenomenon is just the \u201chalving\u201d of the consciousness in the part<\/em> of the consciousness of the different situations the humans are in and have to resolve\/ the consciousness of the answers, and the part<\/em> of the consciousness\/\u201dmirror\u201d of the first part. Simpler: we are conscious that we, inherently consciously, have thought or made this or that. We are aware even of having, or not, reasons, and which are they. \u00a0\u201cThe voice of the consciousness\u201d is just this second part, although these parts are intertwined<\/em>. And just \u201cthe voice of the consciousness\u201d emphasises the social, namely universalizable <\/em>character of logic\/reason: it is as if<\/em> the entire humankind would ascertain, or confirm or infirm, the logic that led one individual or another to think or behave as he did. \u00a0This \u201cvoice\u201d is permanent \u2013 though it is silenced through different methods, especially nowadays \u2013 and it\u2019s it that tinkles: \u201ctake care, don\u2019t cheat, you are about to make mistakes\u201d. Obviously and as Socrates has observed, if we consider this \u201cvoice\u201d to being external to us, it does not shows the right way, it\u2019s us who must choose it; but since the \u201cvoice of the consciousness\u201d means also deliberation, it is only a reduplication of us\/within us: and thus once more appears that the human consciousness in its entirety<\/em> is responsible for our decisions and choices, just because its core is reason<\/em>. Our consciousness is responsible for our tableau of priorities<\/em>.<\/p>\n Consequently, even though the idea of priority<\/em> signals its subjective\/mental construction, it is not the result of random and ephemeral emotions, it is not a subjective judgement based on inclination alone and nor a subjective judgement based on a supposed community of taste (let\u2019s remember Kant\u2019s characterisation of reflective<\/em> judgements in Critique of Judgement<\/em>, 1790). The idea of priority is the result of logical reasoning<\/em>: and thus it comes rather from a determinative <\/em>judgement (if we want to continue Kant\u2019s distinction), namely from the subordinating of a particular fact to universal criteria. And since we are aware, when it is the case, that it is about a judgement based on inclination, or based on something transcending this inclination, once more not our emotions and tumultuous feelings would be guilty for our adventurous feelings pushing us to choose something bad, but us, our consciousness, our morality or us as moral beings<\/em>. And for the humans are moral because they are social beings<\/em>, they cannot abstract from the problem of being responsible for their choices. To choose the suitable priority for the biggest number of humans possible[8]<\/a> is the sign of responsibility towards the others and thus, of a high level of reason and education of rationality.<\/p>\n \n ***<\/strong><\/p>\n \n Since there is a so huge discrepancy between the priorities of opposed social classes \u2013 and here ethics is social<\/em> (let say, political), beyond abstract normative claims \u2013 and since the dominant strata impose their priorities<\/em>, what remains to the working masses would be only the request, the begging? \u00a0As it is known, the phrase vox clamantis in deserto<\/em>[9]<\/a> was used both on its own and figuratively. Essentially, the most widespread position of masses was and is that of vox clamantis<\/em>. But, since to the old request to follow political priorities which are (also) those of the broad masses \u2013 and thus, of every unique individual of these masses \u2013 the answer was that of priorities even savagely opposed to that request, and since the consequences of this attitude are malign for the Earth and the majority of humankind<\/em>, can one remain in the play of vox clamantis<\/em>?<\/p>\n Not least, let\u2019s add that in the present society the dominant priorities are not only those strategic<\/em> for the upper strata\/structural<\/em> for the modern society, but also the<\/em> tactical ones, i.e. the assumption of the privileges of former dominant categories \u2013 although modernity means just the abolition of privileges, is it not? \u2013: because these former dominant categories are the only allies of the present capitalist upper strata<\/em>. When thousand of churches, including an absurd mega-cathedral, are state financed in a country like Romania, but not underground parking unities, not unitary nationwide selective collection of waste, neither ecological storage and processing of waste, briefly, a modern and ecological management of secondary output of the anthropogenic processes, neither drinking water systems and ecological care for water nationwide, and when the former royal family is financed by the state (in a republic!) like when it reigned, it is not about \u2018mismanagement\u2019, but about a conscious choice of priorities by the conjugated upper strata<\/em>.<\/p>\n \n So, what to be done?<\/p>\n \n ***<\/strong><\/p>\n \n Philosophy \u2013 this means also logic \u2013 is that which warns and shows at least epistemological solutions. In order to not err from the rational consistency when choosing priorities, we must relate things (causes, effects, inside and outside the system\/problem[10]<\/a>), i.e. we must not consider them separately<\/em>, and thus we must infer\/ratiocinate all the way<\/em>, namely beyond the \u201ctechnical\u201d task\/problem that requires its normal technical priority.<\/p>\n Well, philosophy is not only \u2013 or it\u2019s not enough to say only that it is \u2013 the emphasis of the whole<\/em>: but it is the argumentation<\/em> of ways <\/em>to come nearer the whole, the critique<\/em> of both the ways and the whole, and the lucidity<\/em> in front of the argumentation; the questioning of all the criteria<\/em>.<\/p>\n Is it not for this reason that philosophy is subversive?<\/p>\n \n [1]<\/a>\u00a0 For a synthesis of the neuro-physiological mechanisms and processes, see Ana Bazac, \u201cAnticipation: Learning from the Past. The Russian\/Soviet Contributions to the Science of Anticipation\u201d, International Journal of General Systems<\/em>, Volume 47, Issue: 04, pp. 374-393.<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> Plato, Apology<\/em>, 31d (in Plato in Twelve Volumes<\/em>, Vol. 1 translated by Harold North Fowler; Introduction by W.R.M. Lamb. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1966): \u201cit is a sort of voice that comes to me, and when it comes it always holds me back from what I am thinking of doing, but never urges me forward\u201d.<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> Continuing Aristotle (Metaphysics<\/em>, Translated by W.D. Ross, A, I, 980a: \u201cAll men by nature desire to know. An indication of this is the delight we take in our senses; for even apart from their usefulness they are loved for themselves\u201d), see Descartes, Discours on the Method<\/em>\u00a0 (1637), Translated by Jonathan Bennett, 2005, Part. 1: \u201cGood sense is the best shared-out thing in the world\u2026 the power of judging well and of telling the true from the false\u2014which is what we properly call \u2018good sense\u2019 or \u2018reason\u2019\u2014is naturally equal in all men; thus it is also evidence that our opinions differ not because some of us are more reasonable than others, but solely because we take our thoughts along different paths and don\u2019t attend to the same thing\u201d.<\/p>\n [4]<\/a> Ultra Wealthy Analysis: The World Ultra Wealth Report 2018<\/em>, https:\/\/www.wealthx.com\/report\/world-ultra-wealth-report-2018\/#downloadform<\/a>.<\/p>\n [5]<\/a> Eric London, A record $31.5 trillion hoarded by corporate oligarchs<\/em>, 8 September 2018,\u00a0 http:\/\/www.wsws.org\/en\/articles\/2018\/09\/08\/pers-s08.html<\/a>: according to the most credible analyses, \u201c* Half the world lacks access to healthcare and 100 million people are forced into extreme poverty each year due to healthcare expenses (World Health Organization, 2017).<\/p>\n * 1.2 billion people lack access to electricity (Rockefeller Foundation, 2017).<\/p>\n * 2 billion people use a drinking water source that is contaminated with feces (World Health Organization, 2018).<\/p>\n * 8.6 million people die each year from lack of healthcare or poor quality healthcare ( The Lancet<\/em>, 2018).<\/p>\n * 750 million adults do not know how to read or write (UNESCO, 2017).<\/p>\n * By 2020, 1.6 billion people will lack access to secure, adequate housing (World Resources Institute, 2017).<\/p>\n * 50.5 million children under the age of 5 are \u201cwasting\u201d due to malnutrition (World Bank, 2018).<\/p>\n * 850 million people suffer from \u201cchronic undernourishment\u201d (UN Food and Agriculture Organization, 2016).<\/p>\n * 4 billion people do not have internet access (UNESCO, 2017)\u201d.<\/p>\n But see also the impoverishment of the world middle classes (except China), although they are defined<\/em> as classes which drive consumption individually, namely directly spending more money (even though this money are the result of debt), and not <\/em>also indirectly, through the medium of social safety nets (state subsidies for health care, education, culture, scientific research). For this mainstream rejection of consumption assured through social spending of states \u2013 and thus for clear assumption of consumption realised only with individual money\/consumption leading to both the profit of industrial corporations and banks, see Homi Kharas, The Unprecedented Expansion of the Global Middle Class. An Update<\/em>, Global Economy and Development, Brookings Institution, 2017.<\/p>\n [6]<\/a> See the Wealth Report 2018<\/em>, Knight Frank, p. 19.<\/p>\n [7]<\/a> See only<\/em> some \u00a0economic vicious circles<\/em> developed by the dominant strata:<\/p>\n Certainly, there are more economic vicious circles, all of them intertwining.<\/p>\n [8]<\/a> Something as already John Stuart Mill said in 1843 (\u201cin the comparatively humble sense, of pleasure and freedom from pain, and in the higher meaning, of rendering life, not what it now is almost universally, puerile and insignificant \u2013 but such as human beings with highly developed faculties can care to have\u201d),\u00a0 The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume VIII – A System of Logic Ratiocinative and Inductive, Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence and the Methods of Scientific Investigation (Books IV-VI and Appendices),<\/em> ed. John M. Robson, Introduction by R.F. McRae, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1974, Book VI, Chapter XII, http:\/\/oll.libertyfund.org\/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=247&layout=html#chapter_40043.<\/p>\n\n
\n