Sunday, July 31, 2011

Utility


Finished Utilitarianism this morning, I found it a very agreeable take on things and I support Mill's disinterested view of the merit of happiness. His morality is very much subjective, and I like that; perhaps it is even a little too subjective. To begin with, he concludes that happiness is the end of man (end meaning goal) and everything else is but a means to that end. I think this is useful so far as it pertains to the temporal state of man, but when religion is taken into account then happiness is not the true aim anymore. Mill tries to get around this by saying a benevolent God would wish his creatures to be happy, but I'm not sure this is really true. Certainly, happiness is a positive quality in humanity, but virtue must also have a place. For example, perhaps everyone could be made more happy (total happiness increases) if religion were abolished, and hence religiously-inspired strife also ended. But I don't think many people would see this as a good at all. Later in the book, Mill discusses justice, and rights. I have yet to understand his take on how the two meet - what if total happiness could be increased by the seizure of a few rights?

There's an interesting comparison of virtue to money, in terms of their utility. Money is a means to an end, a means to fulfill our pleasures and desires. However, money is often seen as an end in itself; but this is not entirely a bad thing. If money is a source of happiness, instead of a means to it, then the ultimate end of happiness is still achievable, and perhaps moreso. Virtue can be seen in this light. Disregarding the religious ramifications of virtue, it is a means to an end, to achieving a society in spite of our Hobbesian tendencies. However, it has become to many people an end in itself - which if it produces happiness, is all the better. Which brings me to...

The morality of utilitarianism does not distinguish among motives. A man who saves a drowning man altruistically is no different, morally, than the man does that expecting a reward. Intention does matter, so a man who saves a drowning man only to inflict pain on him later is still immoral. But unlike Kantian ethics, actions are evaluated purely on their consequences - this jibes well with Nietzsche.

Finally, my favorite quote. "It is better to be a man dissatisfied than a pig satisfied." Pleasures of the mind are greater than pleasures of the body. I found a similar tenet in the Enchiridion. Bentham believed that all pleasure was equal, which sounds like hedonism. But Mill's utilitarianism does differentiate.

In other news, listened to a podcast on the history of the Roman empire today. This should be useful since so many classical writers refer to Roman figures. And I've been reading much about the Incan empire lately. I was very surprised to learn that the empire only lasted for about 100 years, from 1438 to about 1533. Surprising how advanced they were in some areas and how deficient in others - learning about them at the same time as reading Guns, Germs, and Steel helps shed perspective on those deficiencies as well.

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Beyond 'Beyond Good and Evil'


Nietzsche is done. He is... difficult to read. To begin with, he's every cynical. His prose would have you believe he's an optimist, that he knows there will be a class of 'new philosophers' - free spirits who are free of the dogma of the old philosophers. Indeed, however, he betrays himself when he writes "Cynicism is the only form in which base souls approach what is called honesty." I think there is some truth to this. The cynic, not necessarily the pessimist, is by nature rational and discerning.

I took a few things from this book, Beyond Good and Evil.

1. That there is no objective truth. Truth varies from person to person, from circumstance to circumstance. It is only recently that morality has been attached to the action, rather than the consequence. Thus, the Nietzschian view is that the ends always justify the means. Oh, and that the ends are good sometimes and bad sometimes. Towards the end of the book, we learn that morality differs according to a person's station in life. The nobility, the aristocracy, must value intolerance and justice. The baser sort must necessarily value sympathy and charity. This is sort of like the Platonic ideal of each person, that justice is defined as doing what you are to do in the best way you can. Though, don't tell Nietzsche that, because....

2. Every old philosophy is wrong. Because there is no objective truth, every philosophy that preceded Nietzsche's is accordingly incorrect. There can be no dichotomy of true/false, of just/unjust or moral/immoral.

3. There wasn't much of a reference to Nietzsche's raison d'etre, 'nihilism'. It didn't much seem like Nietzsche has a belief in nothing, per se. Certainly he has a healthy skepticism. And a distrust for organized religion, dogmatic philosophy, and the general lethargy of intellectual pursuits in most people. But he does believe in a seemingly arbitrary good. The only caveat is that the good must be defined by us, subjectively, and pursued by the individual exclusively.

So, do I agree? It's hard to disagree with much of what he says. That the general population suffers from an uneducated approach to morality, for one. But I'm not sure what Nietzsche has to say does much to advance the discussion. It's easy to point out the lack of education, but does his work help fix that? I think his skepticism is good for the education of other philosophers, for pointing out to other intellectuals the follies of some well-known intellectuals. But philosophy written for the philosopher only is not of much value. Is there a subjective truth? Yes. Is egoism perhaps the most useful morality? Yes, and within its framework I believe most other philosophies can be better understood. Nietzsche was useful in... directing my views on philosophy, but I'm not sure he directly contributed anything to my foundation. 

If my knowledge of philosophy is a mansion, Hobbes and Plato have so far been building materials - wood and stone. Nietzsche has been a book on the proper assembly of framing. Helpful to ensure the structural integrity of my 'house', but regrettably offers little substance. Hopefully some of his better works will be more useful.

Next up is John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism.

The Republic is almost done. The last part of the last book remains.

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Book 7 of The Republic, Nietzsche begins

Listened to Book 7 while doing some work in the yard today. It begins with Plato's famous example of men in a cave. How if a man is locked in a cave since birth, unable to look towards the beginning of the cave, then he will regard the shadows on the wall and echoes within the cave as truths. He who leaves the cave will be blinded at first, but after perseverance will certainly see actual truth. If he reenters the cave to preach to his former cave-mates, he will be blinded by the lack of light and will be though to be stupid. This is a good allegory, it seems, to the study of philosophy or indeed many other worthwhile subjects of study. Plato, or rather Socrates, decrees that guardians of his future state must descent back into the 'cave', in order to be a light unto their citizens. The state is not designed for the happiness of any one class, but for the happiness of everyone. This seems to be in contradiction of the right to 'the pursuit of happiness', for some people's happiness may justly be taken away in order that many others are more happy.

Book 7 then goes on to declare that arithmetic is a vital course of study. This brings the foundation subjects of a warrior's education to gymnastics, music, and arithmetic. I'm not sure that I agree with that sentiment. Perhaps in those days, but things are different now. The justification for music is that 'its harmony will make the listener's life more harmonious'. Gymnastic, or physical ability, is certainly important and basic arithmetic is also essential for understanding of basic military strategy. If I had to add a third course of study for the basic guardian of the state, or for the warrior, I would add international affairs. It is important to 'know thine enemy'.

Finally, a criticism of forced education. "A freeman ought not to be a slave in the acquisition of knowledge of any kind. Bodily exercise, when compulsory, does no harm to the body; but knowledge which is acquired under compulsion obtains no hold on the mind." How apt. You could save a lot of money, time, and broken dreams by educating children in accordance with the desired end-state. It would be nice to have 300 million geologists. But that's unsupportable. So why do we teach every kid about volcanoes and tectonic plates and minerals? Does a janitor need to use algebra? Do mechanics need language classes? Plato saw over two millenia ago what can no longer be said. Not every child grew up to be a guardian, just as not every child grows up to be a marine biologist. Tailor the means to the end.

On another note, began reading Nietzsche. Very anti-philosophy. Or rather, anti-dogma. Disestablishmentariansm, you could say. Included below are some quotes I highlighted.

Of the error of following Plato for 2000 years, "we, whose duty is wakefulness itself, are the heirs of all the strength which the struggle against this error has fostered."

On truth, "granted that we want the truth, why not rather untruth?"

On philosophizing, "the greater part of the conscious thinking of a philosopher is secretly influenced by his instincts."

On philosophers, "They are all advocates who do not wish to be regarded as such, generally astute defenders also, of their prejudices, which they dub 'truths'."

On living according to nature, "Is not living valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavoring to be different? And granted thatyour imperative, 'living according to Nature', means actually the same as 'living according to life' - how could you do differently?"

On philosophy, "It always creates the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise; philosophy is this tyrannical impulse itself, the most spiritual Will to Power, the will to 'creation of the world', the will to the casua prima."

He also opines the self-preservation is not the first law of nature, that natural philosophy arranges the world but does not explain it, and that there is no 'I', but only expected obedience of one part to another. Weighty stuff.

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Leviathan finished

Well, not technically. Didn't read the fourth book, 'On The Kingdome of Darknesse'. I was listening to a few reviews of Hobbes, one of them a Yale philosophy course I got a from iTunes U, and everyone is in agreement it seems that the last two books are of little modern importance. I enjoyed the third book and am glad I read it, but truthfully the gems of knowledge were much more spread out and of arguably less importance than those in the first two books. I also read much of the English Civil War, the circumstances that if not prompted Hobbes to write the Leviathan, at least shaped his viewpoints.

I heard a lot of criticism leveled at Hobbes' reductionist approach to human nature, or at least his hypothetical example of humans living freely in nature. I agree that this example is purely hypothetical and probably never existed as purely as Hobbes wrote. But there is value in reasoning in such a manner. I do believe that much of the social sciences can be approached in a reductionist approach, beginning with physics, to chemistry, to biology, to psychology, to sociology, and from there to economics and politics and such. I do not believe philosophy and theology can be examined in such a manner - philosophy is purely subjective and value-based, and theology, as I believe it at least, is rooted in something higher than humanity and thus cannot be reasoned out. But if this reductionist approach can be used, then examining the natural (not practicable) state of humanity is of course useful.

Absolutism certainly appeals to me as a political approach. If the state can accommodate a meritocracy, or at least a semblance of it, then it is superior to many alternatives. Truly, some people may wish not to live under a tyrant, and instead to return to a "solitary, nasty, brutish, poor, and short" life, preferring it to life as a slave. I can imagine this would certainly be true of marginalized and persecuted peoples. But if a monarch be just, or at least fair, then I cannot imagine any person would want to leave the sovereignty.

On to Nietzsche.

Monday, July 18, 2011

I am made of gold

Socrates is apparently a proponent of a meritocracy. I, as a military officer, am made of gold, as the gods have certainly decreed. My subordinates, of silver. And pretty much everyone else is of brass and iron. Socrates notes that parents usually beget children of the same 'worth' as them, but sometimes children may move upwards or downwards, and that is not to be challenged. A rather enlightened view, I think. Somehow, this view is reconciled a few sentences later with a healthy does of xenophobia. Preserving the purity of the race is not exactly the most global outlook, but in his line of reasoning it fits well.

We also today reached the true definition of justice, one of four virtues alongside wisdom, courage, and temperance. That city analogy proved fruitful. Justice is every man doing what his is own, and refusing that which is not his own. The paradox of whether it is more profitable to be just or injust, is still to be solved.

Hobbes finished his reply to Cardinal Bellarmine's Disputations. I hesitate to read that defense of papal power - it's probably very long and very dry. Perhaps someday. Not much new to report on the subject. Basically, civil sovereigns are of the same rank as the Pope, in their possession of temporal power. And if the Pope does not have a kingdom, the Pope is subordinate to the 'Sovereign Pastor'. I wonder what Hobbes would think of the Vatican today, and whether it counts as a kingdom. Seeing as the Vatican guards are Swiss, I'm sure that would entail a nice tangling of sovereign allegiances.

Watched a TED video on the spread of cholera in 1854 London. It was in that year that the city decided to head off cholera by dumping raw sewage in the Thames. Great idea. However, that led to enough concentrated cholera cases that one enterprising young man discovered how cholera was spread, and London has since been cholera-free. This emphasis on clean water and disease theory allowed cities to become the enormous population centers they are today. Though I'm not sure how well cities like Lagos have internalized those lessons.

Finally, doctor in Catholic theology means teacher, from the Latin docere. See why I want to learn Latin? I wonder what the etymology of the word as we use it today is. A mystery for another night, perhaps.

Sunday, July 17, 2011

Lazy weekend

Pushed through Book 2 of Republic while doing some yard work this weekend. Book 2 is quite engaging. Book 1 is a somewhat jumbled discussion on justice and what it means. He goes back and forth with Cephalus and Thrasymachus, unfortunately sometimes reaching conclusions that later turn false. Book 2 is much more straightforward and in accordance with my idea of a Socratic discussion. The premise is that by analyzing a just city, one can more easily identify the heart of justice in a person. Thus, the second book involves Socrates and Glaucon creating a new city from scratch, and in doing so identifying all that which is good for a city. This meshes well with Leviathan, and indeed the two share many common themes. I was rather surprised that Socrates (technically Plato) supported limitless censorship in order that the city may better raise its citizens. So far, I have not come across a competent defense of freedom of expression, though I expect Locke or Mill had some good ideas to that end. I tend to agree with this more conservative view of government. Socrates opines that the telling of lies or false truths is not permitted of any citizen, but the government may utilize it as they wish. I support that. To draw from Hobbes, the sovereignty must have the power to do whatever it will to provide for the safety and prosperity of its citizens. If, as Socrates uses as an example, poets will tell tales that make soldiers less likely to die in battle and more likely to surrender, then it is clearly in every citizen's interest for the sovereignty to outlaw those offending poems.

Of course Republic has much more substance to it, but I can't cover it all. In reading Hobbes this weekend, I have the whole time been reading of Christian commonwealths. Once again, I think Hobbes had a very keen sense of how civil sovereignty can be reconciled with the dominion of religion. Unfortunately, that is also why his contemporaries considered him an atheist and a heretic (heretique, in those days). To provide an example, religion expounds on the 'Kingdom of God', which is not yet come, but lies in the future. Religion, therefore, are a set of instructions on how to live in that future; not laws, but advice or counsel. This is because nothing may abrogate the sole right to lawmaking of the civil sovereignty. Where the civil government is meshed with religion, Hobbes is a bit more vague, but it seems as though the civil sovereignty is still the sole power. I can understand why his peers considered him subversive, though he paid due respect to the Christian faith.

I took the opportunity of watching a few TED talks this weekend. One on flowering plants. Botany is always interesting, and I think that opening my eyes to the natural world couldn't be considered a bad thing. There are, apparently, 250 million species of flowering plants alone. That large number certainly deserves that I pay some attention to their organization and disposition. A second talk was on epidemiology, on the eradication of smallpox in 2006. An absolutely wondrous accomplishment, that was. I rather like the more social side of epidemiology; of course pharmacology would be dry and require endless study, but a broad study of epidemiology would be nothing but beneficial. Finally, a talk on how extremism better uses social networks and organizational tools than do established groups for democracy or other social good. I think that's a particularly important thing to understand. In the video, it was claimed that we have moved into the third stage of modern sociology - from ethnic identity, to national identity, to an identity of common belief. I hope to find more on this topic.

I ran across iTunes U this weekend. Had seen it before, but it is much more developed now. Seems like an excellent opportunity for while I am commuting or running or working in the yard or whatever.

Thursday, July 14, 2011

What is justice?

Got through a couple more sections of Republic today. I have to say, Socrates and Thrasymachus certainly debate for a long time about what justice is. Definitely need to listen to it a second time to get the full benefit. One particular conclusion stood out. Socrates expounds that a person is not acting in his capacity if he errs. For example, a mathematican is not a mathematician when he errs, because he errs through want of skill, and a mathematician cannot be such without that skill. The logic is a bit circular, and frankly I'm surprised at this conclusion. Doesn't seem to fit with Plato's universal ideals. I wonder if I could get out of speeding tickets that way. "But officer, when I erred, I wasn't a driver, because I lacked that attention to the speed limit that a driver must have".

Hobbes was talking about miracles today. He was rigorous in his definition of miracles, their application, and their significance. I rather like that. It's to be expected of a philosopher who so admired specific language that he thought philosophy could be done much like geometry, through reducible theorems.

I bought Beyond Good and Evil by Nietzsche today. That looks promising. It came down to either that or Sartre. I think I made the right choice.

I would like to start learning German soon with my housemates... I was thinking I might learn Latin alongside it. I don't know if I could sustain learning both languages, though. Something to consider, of course.

Finally, I've been thinking lately along epistemological lines. What sort of knowledge is most beneficial to a person. As Socrates says in the Republic, the end of that is that which it singularly can fulfill or can fulfill better than anything else. The eye, for example, has the end of seeing, because nothing else can fulfill that need. Well, I suppose that could be applied to human knowledge. What knowledge best fulfills my 'need', will be my 'end'. It seems simple, but I think it's a rather elegant connection between cause and end-state. Now, if only I knew my 'needs'...

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Started Plato's 'Republic'

Started listening to it on my iPod today. Librivox recorded a huge number of books, both classical and modern, as short podcasts. My commute is 30 minutes, and I run for about that amount at least every other day, so I can get through 2 or 3 chapters a day. It's refreshing to get back to Socrates' method of analysis, keeping you on edge with false conclusions and long lines of questioning to reveal his true opinion. Becoming reacquainted with the Platonic ideal is nice as well; it has been quite a while since I read anything of Plato's, unfortunately.

A few things stood out to me. Firstly, Cephalus' speech on old age being a burden to 'bad rich men and good poor men' has a lot more substance than it seems at first glance. You could write a whole other line of questioning just based on that. Secondly, justice seems to be 'the paying to each man what is due to him - evil to evil men, and good to good men'. Definitely in line with Plato's yearning for an ideal concept of justice, but it has been complicated in the second chapter. We'll see what the third chapter brings. Finally, I find it interesting that Plato wrote, through another man's lines, a fairly critical assessment of Socrates. Strange.

I read a couple more chapters of the Leviathan. Hobbes is discussing what angels are, and what prophets are, and how God speaks to men, etc. Good insights, as I noted before, but concision was probably a foreign concept to him.

My Latin word of the day included a pretty interesting sentence. Non scholae sed vitae discimus. We learn not for school, but for life. How true.

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Reflections on Leviathan

Hobbes has a lot to say on politics and rights and human nature, and I agree with much of it. Someone described his philosophy as 'absolutism', and that seems to resonate with what I get from his writing. Of course he's very pessimistic towards human nature, but considering the circumstances that he wrote his book under (civil war), I suppose that's understandable.

For all his political advice, however, I find some of his most intriguing conclusions to be theological, which I don't see often remarked upon. It seems most of his political philosophy, while certainly well-supported, isn't very applicable to government today. At least, not Western government. I have the feeling that Yemen and Syria are still very much Hobbesian, at least so far as their governments are concerned. But his views on Scripture are no less intriguing, and perhaps moreso. To be fair, I am only just over halfway done with the book, and not too many pages into his discussion on Christian commonwealths. Nor have I read anything else he wrote. But I think it is safe to say Hobbes has been distilled into a sentence or two commonly taught in high school as the cynical opposite of John Locke. It's scary to think how much else I've missed when I think of it that way.

I also thought today: old English is the toughest language for me to read. Any foreign language, it would be translated, most likely recently. English since 1850 or so is similar enough to modern English that it's almost unnoticeable. But English before that is simply Byzantine. I suppose since it's English, it's not considered necessary to translate; indeed, it's not, I can read it and understand it. But it does take about twice as long, which qualifies as annoying in my book. (No pun intended)

Monday, July 11, 2011

First day of the rest of my life.

I was thinking, as I drove the 13 hours down to Charleston, SC, that I want to know everything.

Of course, everything doesn't mean everything. I don't care about train schedules or badminton scores. But just about everything else interests me. To the point where I feel disappointed with my education thus far, to varying degrees, when I encounter something I don't know. Languages are even more vexing; nothing makes me feel less educated than a language I don't understand.

Learning everything, however, is a daunting task. Where do I start? Should I troll Wikipedia, and hope that the knowledge congeals into a framework of understanding? Or should I buy an introductory book in every discipline? Unfortunately, my interest spans just about every subject, from history to science to cooking to philosophy to... well, you get the picture.

My efforts are currently, you could say, unguided. I spend 2-3 hours a day reading the news and various web feeds, like Scientific American for science, Marginal Revolution for economics, and Leftlane for automotive news. In time, I'm sure that will give me an excellent background. Already, I don't know many of my peers better versed in international affairs. But, it's not enough. My current read is Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan. I enjoy it immensely. But I'm afraid that picking philosophical books spontaneously won't give me the generalist view I want.

Who knows where I will be in even a few days on my journey....