On Scriptural Authorship

I managed to wade through three chapters of Spinoza tonight, fairly proud of that. The only thing that really jumps at me is his lengthy speculation on the literal truth of Scripture, which I found agreeable and persuasive. These views are surely part of why he was excommunicated, but I think they are much less revolutionary today.  His main claim is that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, but by a later historian, specifically Aben Ezra. He also discusses the literal vs. figurative meaning of many Biblical verses and how we can reconcile them. He is considerably more succinct in his religious discussions than Hobbes was (will be, Spinoza predates him), which I am certainly in favor of. What I have read so far indicates I will probably buy his other famous work, Ethics.

I did manage to finish Friedman's book. It was a bit airy and light on content, but I think my overall impression of the book was good. Unfortunately, much of what he was writing about is already outdated after 4 years, but I don't fault the author for the passage of time. I don't know where my next random nonfiction will come from. I was considering a biography, but I will see what is cheap for the Nook over the coming days. I would also like to finish Murchie so I don't mind being a book down for a bit. In the meantime, I have been reading Red Badge of Courage. This is a continuation, somewhat, of my yesteryear push to read more classics and become a consumer of culture. Turns out there's a lot of classics out there, but the good news is they're free to read and, coincidentally, books that have been popular for years tend to be pretty decent. Sort of like an infallible testing process.

I bought a PS3 this past weekend, which of course can be nothing but a hindrance to my quest for knowledge. So to offset that time loss, I try to hit the random article button on Wikipedia on a semi-regular basis. I got taken both yesterday and today to rice production. I was unaware that at the turn of the century (this century), the US was the third largest net exporter of rice. It's grown in the 'rice belt' (Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, and Arkansas) as well as a couple other states. Thailand is the number one exporter, with over a quarter of the world's market share as of ten years ago. Surprising for such a small country, though I suppose their infrastructure is probably better as a whole. I like learning stuff like this, general knowledge. I like to think of it as acquiring puzzle pieces. The more pieces you get, the more likely it is you can fit a couple of them together and see something new. 

On Miracles

Got through Chapter 6 of Tractatus Theologico-Politicus tonight. On Miracles. I found Spinoza to be essentially writing down my exact views, though in a bit more flowery language. Miracles are not interruptions of the natural order of things; on the contrary, they are only possible within the framework of natural laws. Nature is an extension of God's will, and so any projections of God's will must necessarily cooperate with the laws he has set down. Any interpretation of miracles as anything more is the hallmark of misunderstanding. I suppose this might explain why there haven't been the same frequency of miracles as it has been indicated existed a few thousand years ago. Spinoza seems to believe that Scripture was specifically written this way in order to capture the minds of the less educated, who would not be likely to use reason in their approach to religion. It is up to the educated man to reason out this principles, with Spinoza's help of course. I don't believe this approach is much different than Descartes'. In a future time I'll have time to compare the two. More likely, someone has already written a book on it.

Portuguese is going, but I find myself neglecting it in favor of reading. I've been on a push to finish my normal nonfiction book (The World is Flat by Friedman). I was making pitiful progress in it and decided I didn't want to kick it around for the next year. I also want to finish Murchie, if only to free up that second philosophy slot for another book. It's almost time to order a new set, too. I tried to start a habit of expanding my knowledge on the arts by reading a Wikipedia article per day, but I simply don't have the time to commit to that. Perhaps if I don't mind skipping a day here and there, it will become a more realistically achievable goal.

Back to Enlightenment

Began reading Spinoza today. I can already see why he was excommunicated and banned. I couldn't help but think as I read that so many years were wasted during the Enlightenment, not to mention the centuries before. Most of what I have read from that age is just one author trying to out-praise the others. And the only Enlightenment reading I do is established philosophy. If only 15 centuries weren't wasted between 300 and 1800. I have heard that the Library of Alexandria was rumored to contain a working steam engine. If only that knowledge hadn't been lost! I suppose this is an extension of my angst over so many valuable Stoic texts being lost through the ages. I weep for the Ubermensch we could have become if so much hadn't been lost.

On a brighter note, I re-engaged with Portuguese. I downloaded all the lessons I'm listening to right now to my iPod and can now play them on my way to and from work. Takes about 12 minutes to get through everything. 10 plays a week should definitely increase my familiarity with the difficult pronunciation. And as I increase my vocabulary (already up to 300 or so words) I think future lessons will come faster to me. 

On Ancestry

The beginning of Murchie's chapter on human interconnection made the peculiar claim that no one on earth is less related than fiftieth cousins. I'm not sure about his reasoning. Mathematically, he walks through his thought process, conservatively assuming only two offspring per couple. But I think he fundamentally misses some things. It seems to me that I could not be so related to many of the people in Asia for example, or to Eskimos, whose populations diverged on the order of twenty thousand years ago. He also makes the claim that based on probability, everyone who lived before 700 AD is my ancestor. This too, I find outlandish. I do not see how any Korean, for example, could be in my family tree - that population diverged from the European population much too early.  

This does bring up an interesting thought though. If it were possible to trace back my ancestry, I wonder how many it would encompass. As a European mutt (Lithuanian/Russian on one side, and unknown Western European on the other), I'm sure my line would include any interesting characters. I wonder if one day genetic testing would allow for digital reconstruction of lineages, based solely on genes and gene markers. I tend to think it couldn't be 100% accurate but would probably be quite informative. 

I finished Sellars' Stoicism reader. The last chapter was on the proliferation of Stoic thought from antiquity to modern day. I was pleasantly surprised to find that Spinoza was perhaps the only philosopher to identify himself as a Stoic since Marcus Aurelius. I added Erasmus and a modern commentary on Stoicism by Lawrence Becker. 

Portuguese has stagnated recently. I feel I need to mix things up a bit - I simply don't have the time that I did for Russian to just sit down and endlessly practice vocabulary. 

Stoic Ethics

As the meat of Stoicism, this section is certainly not condensable into a single post. However, I will comment on what Stoics value. First and foremost, virtue is the only 'good' thing. Conversely, vice is 'bad'. All else is indifferent. But, even the very first Stoic (Zeno of Citium) realized it might not be a great idea to lump everything else into just one valueless category - so there are types of indifferents. There are preferred indifferents, like health and riches. There are rejected indifferents, such as poverty and sickness. And there are indifferent indifferents - that which is absolutely valueless. In addition, there are various second order values according to the Stoics. Such as living according to Nature, and living peaceably in 'cosmic cities'. I was rather surprised by the Stoic fixation on utopia and a stateless world. As a completely practical philosophy, I find it hard to understand why the early Stoics went so far from their core ethics with those values.

Regardless, I find I agree with this ethical framework. Virtue truly is chosen for its own sake, and vice is reprehensible. I do wish there was a clear enumeration of values, as in Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. As for indifferents, I rather like the idea of indifferents. I am not sure that I support the idea of three types of indifferents, however. Perhaps there should only be two categories - those indifferents that are relevant to the development of virtue (health/sickness, wealth/poverty, satiety/hunger) and those that are wholly indifferent. I do not presume to have developed a better system, only to express my first reaction to the reading.

It greatly distresses me that many of the ancient Stoic writings have been lost, and that Stoicism of the Greeks is largely known only through criticisms of it.

Stoic Ontology

I have truly been enjoying my Stoicism reader, by Sellars. Returning to my favorite philosophy is very stimulating, and I have already almost finished the book. Only two chapters remain. Surely more stoic writing is on the way.

Tonight's chapter was on Stoic ontology - that is, existence. It is worth noting that many of the less fundamental concepts of Stoicism were not agreed upon by all, even at one point in history.

The fundamental base of Stoic ontology is materialism. Unlike Plato, and it seems in direct refutation of him, there are no ideals or essences. There are only bodies - that is, only substance 'exists'. Stoics also identified four incorporeal, but 'real' things - time, void, place, and 'sayables', sayables being the meanings of our sentences and expressions. I am not sure I even believe in the reality of those four things. I think the materialism outlook is quite true. Although, I do have trouble fitting in 'universals', which the Stoics largely dismissed. I do not go so far as to believe in Platonic ideals, such as beauty or justice, but take for instance the color red. Everything that is red surely shares something universal in common - but ontologically, what does this mean? Does red 'exist'? It plainly cannot exist apart from substance. There is then a separation of qualities into generic and specific, but I don't believe the limited treatment Sellars gave to it aids in my understanding.

Much of Stoic ontology deals with, unfortunately, the decidedly ancient separation of the world into four elements. Air, fire, water, and earth. The Stoics added pneuma, a fifth element (substance!) which breathes life into things. Actually, not even life - rocks and all matter have the most basic form of pneuma, which increases in increasingly complex life forms until we get to humans, which have four types of pneuma. I find the discussion of their reasoning fascinating, but modern science has ruined this part of ontology. It would be an enormous struggle to embrace this simplistic chemistry - I do not believe it to be true, so I will simply move on.

I was somewhat surprised to find theology in Stoicism. As far as I knew the two were separate. As it turns out Stoicism defines all of nature, all of the cosmos, as a completely conscious being. Aka, G-d. All of nature is a sentient deity, which organizes and administrates the universe. Stoics believed in determinism, as I do (to a limited extent, more of which must be fleshed out later). They, to my confusion, declare strict determinism but also that G-d can alter events at will. I am still unsure as to how these conflicting views can be reconciled. I once heard an explanation of fate and determinism that I have found no replacement for - all the world can be pre-determined and yet we can still keep our free will! (G-d's free will, as well). Think of this. We know exactly what happened to ourselves yesterday. However, that does not make the us of yesterday any less free to act! I will have to read more on chaos theory before I can declare that I completely embrace determinism, but I like the Stoic interpretation.

Finally, Stoics had some spot-on scientific views. For one, they figured out the Earth was round in 300 BC! Not only that but also that the cosmos was round. Beyond the cosmos was an infinite void, of course. They believed (with notable dissent) that every so often the universe would be consumed by fire and start over. G-d would direct all of this, and him being supremely rational, the universe is thus the best and most rational it can be. This raises interesting contradictions, what with all the human suffering and imperfection, but perhaps the two views can be reconciled.

Tomorrow I hit Stoic ethics - the (arguably) most important part of Stoicism.

Will and Understanding

Interesting tidbit tonight. Descartes argues that the greatest gifts given to humanity were understanding and will. Understanding is essentially pure and right - we perceive and conceive correctly. I don't interpret this literally, to mean that everybody is always right (although, on an egoist level, this is true), but rather that understanding is not where we fall short. He goes on to reason that the will is where we err - we often take action or pass judgement on that which we do not understand, and this is the source of error. To this point, I agree. The human intellect is surely capable of grappling with the relatively easy mental hurdles we face everyday, especially with the help of others. As Hobbes wrote, this is why all men are created equal - because the dumbest man may outsmart the smartest; the range of human intellect is simply not very big. Where we run into moral dilemmas (and for Descartes, sin) is when we act on that which we do not understand.

I'm not sure where to go from here though. I'm not sure I can accurately judge what I properly or not understand. And this proposition is essentially contradictory - it passes judgement on others who we cannot know for sure have faulty understanding. What if, unbeknownst to Descartes and I, every other person fully understand nature and theology and natural science, and rather chose to act as though they did not? Can this proposition be reasoned out, or must there be an empirical basis for it? And if there is an empiricism present in it... well then how can a man who has a Devil set out to deceive him believe such a thing?