Purpose, action, and why I am taking down some posts on events at Case Western Reserve University

 Earlier this year, I revealed some unpleasant events that took place at Case Western Reserve University.  Anyone reading this post will know the events that I reference, and for the reasons to be described herein, I do not want to describe them again.  I revealed those matters after allowing CWRU's formal processes to play out for many months, and with some questionable institutional decisions.  I keep making references to philosophers like Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, and Lucius Seneca.  Something does not fit.

Act with purpose.

I use this blog to enjoy the process of writing, and sort out ideas of politics, economics, philosophy, literature, music, and whatever other topics suit my fancy.  I write for the sake of writing, because writing is the best way of thinking.  You will not find a Facebook page for me, nor any other social media profile, wherein I post pictures of myself, nor any other nonsense.  Write.  Think by writing, and the ideas are their own reward.  Act with purpose, or not at all.

What purpose is served by the Festivus-style airing of grievances?  There is a long tradition in political science, arguing that sunlight is the best disinfectant, that corruption thrives in the dark, and I can spout any number of trite aphorisms, most of which are rooted in some truth.  Behind each of these aphorisms, one finds a political argument that secrecy begets corruption.  Yet it does not follow from this that any specific airing of grievance necessarily reduces corruption.  One may be dissatisfied, but airing that dissatisfaction publicly may come to precisely fuck-all.

And you may have an inkling, in advance, that by standing at the Festivus pole and airing your grievance, however justified you believe it to be, it will come to fuck-all.

Do you do it anyway?

If so, then you act with no purpose.  To air grievances when doing so will lead to the same end as not airing grievances is to act without purpose.

Better to redirect action.

I have never had much respect for standing around, holding up a protest sign.  What is the counterfactual, in social science terms?  What is different about the world having held up that sign, rather than if you had not?  Empty action and cheap virtue.  No different the public airing of grievances when that airing will inevitably have no consequence for anything.  No consequence, no end point, no effect.

The question, rather, is what can you do?

Don't I keep writing that in other contexts?

What can I, and what am I doing?  To abide by the principle, I will not say.  What I will say is to reiterate the principles of which I keep reminding any entirely hypothetical reader.  You do not control others.  You do not control what they do, you determine your reaction, and if your reaction is action without purpose, then your reaction was in error.

So act with purpose.