The Devil We Create

The devil doesn't exist on his own, in and of himself. Someone opposed to the Devil is always the one who creates him, and he is always a myth. We call people the devil when they have some advantage over us-- cunning, power, amorality, ignorance-- that we don't care to inquire about, identify and understand. We create the devil when we give up and just blame them for winning without understanding, in a meaningful way, how they did it. To put it bluntly, our laziness is what creates the devil.

The Foundation of Democracy

People keep talking about the foundations of democracy, things like the press, freedom of speech, freedom, tolerance, etc. Yes, all of these things are important. However, I think what is more important than all of them is the existence of a community. Community is something that binds the people together despite disagreements and difficulties. Community is not voluntary; that is a change in the meaning of the term that has come about primarily in the age of technology. (Thinkers like Neil Postman and Zygmunt Bauma have made this point quite well.) The older idea of community means being stuck among people that you may disagree with but working it out because there is something else that binds you. It is more like family, like blood, than like free association. Community, requires compromise and identity. Compromise that allows the community to stay together through disagreements, and identity allows them to feel part of that community in their everyday life and personal experience.

All of the freedoms people usually talk about as being the foundation of democracy only tear the community apart unless the community is stronger than the individual's desire to exercise those freedoms and unless the responsibility (and it is really a responsibility to the community as a whole-- not necessarily to ideals or values) that comes with them is taken as seriously as the freedom itself. Tolerance taken to an extreme is damaging to the community as well because it can dilute identity to the point of making it meaningless. Intolerance damages the community by excluding members of the community instead of compromising with them and including them. Being over tolerant can lead to an identity that is connected only to abstract ideals that have no connection to a person's sense of self or their everyday life. That kind of identity is empty and useless.

The binding principle used to be that of a nation; that is why the rise of the nation-state and the rise of democracy coincide in modern history. But as the idea of the nation weakens, what will replace it as a binding principle?

In the US it was based mostly on belief in the political system. (I usually say that you can see what binds a people based on who and what they put on their currency.) That is why political division that erodes faith in the institutions is so troubling. In any case, that binding principle-- I like to think of it as a sense of community, or maybe family-- is the deeper foundation for democracy, deeper than all the rights, freedoms and values that people prattle on about. If that is lost, all these other things are unsustainable and maybe even dangerous.

Though people love to talk about freedom of the press (especially the press) and access to information (especially those providing us with information and technology) and their importance to democracy, neither of those is more important than a sense of community when it comes to sustaining a democracy. In fact, both of them can be quite dangerous to democracy when they erode or directly threaten community.

Ideals In Difficult Times

"All these questions remain obscure and difficult and we must neither conceal them from ourselves nor, for a moment, imagine ourselves to have mastered them. It is a question of knowing how to transform and improve the law, and of knowing if this improvement is possible within an historical space which takes place between the Law of an unconditional hospitality, offered a priori to every other, to all newcomers, whoever they may be, and the conditional laws of a right to hospitality, without which The unconditional Law of hospitality would be in danger of remaining a pious and irresponsible desire, without form and without potency, and of even being perverted at any moment.
"Experience and experimentation thus." 

-- Jacques Derrida from On Cosmopolitanism

Derrida's deconstruction broke down the authority of ideas and tradition. The unconditional law, in this case the law of hospitality, can no longer be taken as unchallengeable and authoritative as if it were a transcendent Truth; it is simply something we have created. However, it is something that we have created and sustained. It is part of our tradition and is deeply rooted. It is a positive tradition that we see value in, believe in and wish to carry forward. This does not mean that it is practical or even sustainable in reality. Since it is our creation, we need to remember that their is no guarantee that it is practical, realistic or sustainable. We must 'experiment and experience thus' to see how practical, realistic and sustainable it is "within an historical space." All of our ideals, our core values, are traditions and ideas and could be put in the place that hospitality is put in here; they can be seen as unconditional laws.

I would add that it is reckless and foolish in difficult times to cling to and insists on the unconditional law, the ideal, as if it can save us and fix our problems. When the ideals are tested, it is time to-- among other things-- reassess how they have been implemented and how that contributed to creating the present situation that is testing them. This may change the ideal by reinterpreting it and strengthening or weakening it. It will definitely change how it is implemented. But these should happen through assessment of the historical situation, not through a bind and stubborn insistence on the absolute value and authority of the ideal. It must be practical but shaped by the ideal. For it to be radically idealistic in the face of practical and historical problems is dangerous and irresponsible. 

The Danger of Forgetting Context and History: The Polarizing Affect of Tweets and Memes

Memes and tweets are some of the worst when it comes to disregarding context and history. Without context and history there is no meaning and significance; even facts have no meaning without context and history. The more complex a problem, the more the context and the history need to be examined to find not only a solution but the meaning and significance of the problem itself.

But we address important issues in tweets and memes (and even sarcastic remarks made by comedians, which are often considered wisdom these days).

Memes and tweets by their nature avoid context and history. (Or they imply one that is unconsciously assumed by some but is not necessarily shared by others. The difference in they way that these different people understand the meme or tweet is never really examined seriously, and the difference goes unexplained aside from accusations of irrationality or lies which just deepen divisions amd differences.) Persuasion or debate by Tweet and Meme is by and large appealing to emotion and superficiality. They make us slaves to our emotions and knee-jerk reactions. As long as we try to carry out discussions in this environment, nothing will get done except maybe the further polarization of society.

Love Is the Origin of Hate, Not Hate

The idea that 'hate breeds hate' is a superficial meaningless slogan that covers up much more than it expresses. Hate comes not from hate but from love. We love something and want to be with it or near it, and we hate what keeps us from it. We love something, and we want others to love it as well; we hate when they deny it. We love something and fear for its safety, and we hate what threatens it.

An emotion as strong as hate, in my opinion, could only come from a stronger emotion: love. This may only make sense to me because I refuse to believe that we are so perverse that we hate with more intensity than we can love, or that we hate in order to love. But who dares to say that we can hate more than we love and that we hate for the sake of hate or that we hate in order to love? I guess those that see humanity as a vile at its core and a despicable thing, or those that choose to see only the negative in those that hate, would disagree. 

And if they hate people or hate people that hate, what do I propose that they love? What love is the origin of that hate? They love the abstract ideal of what people are supposed to be and not what they actually are. They love an abstract ideal that can never be realized, and they hate what falls short of their ideal or shows that it is unrealistic.

From Blaming to Conspiracies

Blaming usually doesn't fix anything, well aside from making those laying blame feel better.

This is especially the case when the original problem is the result of an incongruence between ideas and things. In other words, when it is the result of the map not lining up well with the terrain when the map is mistaken for the terrain. Here blame uses individuals as a scapegoats while protecting a system of thought and ideals that needs to be revised.

When the need for the revision of a system is continuously ignored, the blind spots that come with the system get larger. Larger blind spots that go unexamined lead to the need for more unfounded blame to be assigned, more scapegoating.

At a certain point, conspiracy theories become very attractive and useful. They create a whole system of power and collusion that try to blame, explain and scapegoat. All of this just to avoid an honest evaluation and revision of a certain system of thought and ideals.

The Last Ditch Positivity of Willing Nothingness

"man would much rather will nothingness than not will..."

Nietzsche from The Genealogy of Morals

When we feel we don't have the power to will anything positive; when we have no values or criteria with which to choose what to will; when we are overwhelmed by the weight of history; when we are over-burdened by flippant criticism; when our ideals and goals are empty and contextless abstractions (which threaten to empty each of us and strip each of us of our context, and thus of our own identity and meaning); when we see ourselves as mere cogs in a machine that in the end will just crush us one way or another, sooner or later; when we have nothing to will and no motivation will to it; when we have nothing to aspire to... we will nothingness.

But this is not done out of despair; it is done to escape despair. We will the mindless, superficial and easy because despite having no motivation to will and no reason to will and nothing to will for, we need to will to be. (I think therefore I am? No, I will, therefore I am.)

Much of what is seen as worthwhile is so big it is beyond our ability as individuals to will it in any meaningful way; it will be with or without us. Willing against it is futile; our will, will never win.

The way out is to find something positive to will, but everything is so divided and negative or ethereal... no worse yet: insubstantial. The positive is empty and impersonal; it is abstract and detached. It is out of context while we are still shaped by context. Ideals that are so vacuous, hollow, mist-ified (but not at all mystical), so detached from our everyday life and remote from our lived and felt tradition that thought we may find them attractive, we do not find them grounding or sustainable. We may like them, but we don’t feel secure living by them let alone suffering for them.

But we need to will… So, we will addiction; we will distraction; we will ourselves on to a treadmill and pretend we are moving; we will conflict without ends or a goal; we will self-defeat: we will nothingness. But most importantly, we will. And so we stay; we remain; we tarry on; we linger....

It is like the Nine Inch Nails song says, "I hurt myself today, to see if I still feel." If all else fails, through pain we might know we can still feel.

We will nothingness to keep from passively passing into nothingness. (What? ‘Do not go gently’?) Even if what we will is negative and destructive, at least we are willing. And when we will, we are, and we are struggling to remain at least a bit longer. And the struggle is worth the possibility of bringing on the inevitable end sooner. Why? Because it is better to will a struggle and hasten then end than to remain only passively and end anyway. It is better to will nothingness than to not will at all.

From Valuing to Monetized (From Poets to the Sonnetized)

"... man designated himself as the being who measures values, who values and measures, as the ‘calculating animal as such’."

-- Nietzsche from Genealogy of Morals

If humans can be called the value creating animal, then we limit our humanity when we limit the ways by which we define and assign value. Limiting value to quantification limits our humanity to numbers. When those numbers become more and more often attached to money, we more and more become monetary animals. (Humanity is monetizing.)

It could be said of Heidegger's later philosophy that he sees man as the poetic animal. What happens when values become monetized is like what would happen if we said to a follower of Heidegger's later thought that poetry is limited to sonnet writing. Humans become the sonnet writing animal. (Humanity is sonnetizing.) It is an absurd limit.

Yet, we so often go along with the quantification and monetization of everything around us, and of ourselves, without taking more than a passing notice of it, and rarely ever do we deeply consider what it means or does to us. The less we think over this monetization of everything, the more we shift from being a monetary animal to a monetized animal.

The Only Way Forward May Be A Few Steps Back

Before the gun control debate goes any deeper into a Republican vs. Democrat hate-fest, let's not forget that the Democrats had control of the House, Senate and White House for the first two years of Obama's presidency. During that time they couldn't pass (and I don't think they even voted on) what many would call 'common sense' gun control like closing the gun show loophole and reinstating the assault weapon ban.

I say this not to defend Republicans or to attack Democrats but to point out the possibility that we can't even agree on what common sense means. Things keep on being called common sense (which is really just a way of saying that they are obvious or agreeable to most people), yet they can't be agreed upon or put into action. We have no common ground to start from, and therefore no common sense. There is no common sense that is common to the different sides. Most often, what we call 'common sense' is merely what the people who agree with us can agree on.

Yes, the NRA plays a role in things not getting passed, but at least part of the reason they have such power is that we don't go beyond our own groups 'common sense' which gives more power to sound bites, memes and emotional appeals. When facts are used, there is no common agreement on what makes up a valid fact, so it is easy to tear apart facts as nothing but propaganda or misinformation.

Instead of trying to find common ground, and through that a common sense that is shared, we argue with facts that are seen as valid by only one side; memes and sound bites that are based on assumptions and emotions that are not held in common; and blatant emotional appeals that lose their force as soon as the latest tragedy falls into the background. All of these things only work to divide. This division makes finding a common solution harder and leaves us more vulnerable to getting manipulated into being upset while we sit and get nothing substantial done.

Mass shootings are a real problem just like racism, police shootings, health care and other big issues that America is struggling with. Day after day, it seems less likely to me that these can be dealt directly because there is no common ground and therefore no common sense, on which to rely. In the absence of common ground and real common sense, we resort to methods that divide and push any solution further and further away.

It is way past time to step back from the superficiality of the current discourse (and the 'common sense' that is only shared by those that already agree with us) and dig into deep conversations that won't lead to action or even agreement on the issues, but could lead to understanding on where common ground can be found and how a real common sense can be roughly defined.

No Mere Facts

“The greatness and superiority of natural science during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries rests in the fact that all the scientists were philosophers. They understood that there are no mere facts, but that a fact is only what it is in the light of the fundamental conception, and always depends upon how far that conception reaches. The characteristic of positivism—which is where we have been for decades, today more than ever—by way of contrast is that it thinks is can manage sufficiently with facts, or other and new facts, while concepts are merely expedients that one somehow needs but should not get too involved with, since that would be philosophy. Furthermore, the comedy—or rather tragedy—of the present situation of science is that one thinks to overcome positivism though positivism.”

-- Martin Heidegger from Modern Science, Metaphysics and Mathematics 

And the positivistic-scientific mentality has colonized the idea of rationality and logic in general. We look to facts and more simply numbers to solve all problems and end all debates. This has lead us to throw facts and numbers at each other incessantly (when we are not going so low as to make our arguments out of purely emotional appeals or fill them with logical fallacies). We use and abuse facts and numbers with little knowledge or even care of the context, history or origin of them. We don’t bother to know what they mean beyond what they can do to prove us right.

That is precisely why we don't need more STEM and we need more humanities. We especially need philosophy and history that are taught as more than a survey of events and dates portrayed as self-evident facts. We need to stop trying to overcome the shortcomings of data and facts with more data and facts. We need to think about context and meaning. This is done by the humanities, and we can’t do so without proper exposure to important ideas from the history of philosophy and understanding of philosophic methods. I am not saying that the answers will be found in the philosophers of the past, though they may be. What I am saying is that without the ability to think philosophically and an understanding of the history of ideas and terms that come from philosophy, we will not be able to address the problems of awareness of context and definition of concepts that are necessary for us to understand how facts come to be and what they mean.

Why I Dislike the Oxford Comma

The reason I dislike the Oxford comma is that it is unnecessary. Yes, it is often argued that the Oxford comma helps clear up possibly confusing or ambiguous phrases. That is fine, but is it necessary to use the comma to do that? Or are there other ways? I contend that there are other ways that are more clear and decisive.

One example is that an Oxford comma will clear up whether a phrase is a non-restrictive clause with two parts connected by a conjunction or it is the last two items in a list of three. For example if you were to write: I went to the store with my brother, a friend and fellow classmate.

It is unclear whether you are going to the store with your brother or with your brother and two other people. Is your brother a friend and classmate? In this case what comes after the comma is not the continuation of a list but a non-restrictive clause further describing your brother. Or, did you go to the store with your brother and two other people, a friend and classmate?

In the first case, you can easily add a couple of words to the sentence to clear up the possible confusion: I went to the store with my brother, who is a friend and fellow classmate. Or you can always use a colon to introduce the additional information about your brother. That would look like the next sentence. I went to the store with my brother: a friend and fellow classmate. These are very easy ways to clean up the meaning without having to add a comma.

In the second case, you shouldn't have to add anything. If we stick to the rule that there should not be a comma before the conjunction, it is clear what the meaning is. The conjunction connects the last two items in the list and a second connector, a comma, is not necessary. If you really want to make it clear, you can rephrase like this:  I went to the store with my brother as well as a friend and a fellow classmate. We can also rearrange the items in the list to make it clear:  I went to the store with a friend, a fellow classmate and my brother. In fact, if an Oxford comma was added to the last version of the sentence it would open the possibility of another misunderstanding. The following could mean that you are simply explaining that the friend is also a classmate: I went to the store with a friend, a fellow classmate, and my brother. Putting two commas around something is one way to signal that it is a non-restrictive clause. In these cases, using the Oxford comma can create just as much confusion as it is supposed to avoid.

There is another reason I resist adding a comma to connect items in a list when there is already a conjunction there. I do it because the comma followed by a conjunction is a convenient way to signal that you are connecting more than just items in a list. The comma with conjunction combination is used to connect two independent clauses; it signals the shift from one set of subjects and predicates to another. You should know when you see a comma and conjunction that you are moving from one independent clause to the next. This is a very useful thing to signal when writing with longer and complex sentences that try to express more complex ideas and the relationships between them. 

A second common reason given for the necessity of the Oxford comma is to help clarify complex lists or lists with items that contain a conjunction. I understand that lists can get complex and confusing sometimes, but we already have a punctuation mark that is supposed to be used in those cases: the semicolon. While the comma has many different uses (at least 5 different categories of use), the semicolon has three, maybe four. One of them is specifically to reduce confusion in complex lists.

The following may be confusing: I packed my lunch box with an apple, some yogurt and a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Or it may be phrased like this: I packed an apple, a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and some yogurt for lunch. In my opinion the best way this can be clarified is by using a semicolon: I packed an apple; a peanut butter and jelly sandwich; and some yogurt for lunch. I know people will say that that looks intimidating, but it is only so because we have never done a good job teaching people what semicolons are for. I think this is exactly the kind of thing they are for, and they should be used in this situation instead of dragging the comma in to play yet another role.

To me, the Oxford comma is like using a screwdriver to pry things open or cut things when we have a wedge, crowbar, chisel and small saw in the tool box already. It may work well enough, but that is not what the comma was really made for and there are other things made just to do those things already. We should teach and encourage people to recognize and use the right tools, not expand the use of one that is already overused.

There are options to clearing up possible confusion and ambiguity without the use of the Oxford comma. We can add words to the sentence to clarify the meaning. We can use a colon or semicolon to clarify the meaning. We can re-arrange the sentence to make it clear. I see no reason why we need to add another use to the comma, which is already used in so many different ways.

Common Sense and Truth (The Incompatible)

"Common sense has its own necessity; it asserts its rights with the weapon peculiarly suitable to it, namely, appeal to the 'obviousness' of its claims and considerations. However, philosophy can never refute common sense, for the latter is deaf to the language of philosophy. Nor may it even wish to do so, since common sense is blind to what philosophy sets before its essential vision."
--Martin Heidegger from On the Essence of Truth

Common sense is concerned with what is obvious and what is today. Both of these get in the way of any sort of philosophical discussion and of finding what is true. The truth is by nature below the surface and the result of many conflicting influences and forces. Truth takes time and a stepping back in order to be discovered. When looking for what is common and obvious, you avoid what is below the surface, what is complex and things that take time or perspective to understand.

Something that is presented as obviously true should be taken with suspicion. That it presents itself as obvious means that it is likely only superficial and/or simple, and the true is never superficial and seldom simple. The correct maybe superficial, but the true should not be. The correct may point towards the true, but going from the correct to the true means leaving behind the obvious and the simple.

An 'obvious truth' is the product of common sense; it may be correct, but there is a world of difference between the correct and the true.

Respect for the Anthem and Respect for Each Other

Trump says that the NFL anthem row is not about race. For him it isn't. For him, it seems, no matter your race, as long as you are an American, you should stand with other Americans in respect when the anthem is played. For him the anthem and respect for it is not about race and shouldn't be made about race. Other people made it about race and he refuses to assent to that.

I tend to agree with that and wish more people would. We should not make the anthem something political or controversial. We should all stand and respect it. After that we can use that as common ground for holding a respectful discussion about our differences. At that point hopefully we can all recognize and respect that we are all Americans that respect our country despite our differences and complaints. Because we have that in common, we should be able to give each other respect as we discuss our differences. For me it isn't about the military, the history or anything like that. It is about finding common ground to start from. I wish more people would see it that way, but they don't.

I think what Colin Kaepernick did was disrespectful. It was disrespectful to the promise and hope of what America tries to be even if it fails to achieve it. It was disrespectful to the thing that holds America together as a country: that promise and idealism expressed in our founding documents. These are more important in the US than many other countries because we don't have a common ethnic or national background. The nation--the common ethnic, cultural or national background that the people share--is the foundation of many modern countries. The modern idea of a country is based largely on the idea of the nation/state. America doesn't have a nation in that sense; we have the political ideals expressed in our documents and traditions (even if we have yet to fully live up to them) and we have common economic interests. Those are really the things that have held us together as a country. The anthem and the flag are symbols of those things, or that is how I have always understood them.

If Colin Kaepernick felt he had to do sit or kneel during the anthem to get attention so people would listen to his opinion on race, that is too bad. There should be a better way. Maybe there isn't; that is water under the bridge now. The fact is, he did it. Instead of taking the respectful route after that, both sides just started flinging insults and accusations. What would have been the respectful route? Asking him to sit down and talk about his concerns so he felt he was being heard, so he didn't feel like he had to do it again. That also means that he would have to be respectful and patience in expecting action and change before he would go on upsetting people again. Instead of taking a respectful path at any point between then and now, we have pretty consistently done the opposite, or just held our tongues. The bigger problem is that too many people these days just revel in getting offended and offending others. It is a pastime now and a very vicious one at that.

Gems from Benjamin and Camus

Over the past year there was much talk of Orwell's 1984 and the importance of reading it again to be aware of Big Brother, totalitarianism, newspeak, doublespeak, etc. There was also a lot of talk about being on the right side of history. While these are interesting, I think they are pretty superficial ways to approach what is going on these days: reactionary, over reactions and polemics. 

I have been going back to Camus's The Plague and Benjamin's Theses On History. Neither are easy texts to understand: neither the texts themselves nor the ideas they bring up. But I think that is why they are more relevant these days than 1984 or appeals to 'the right side of history.

Here are a couple gems I have pulled from each of them that I keep running over in my head.

“There has never been a document of culture, which is not simultaneously one of barbarism.”

“The astonishment that the things we are experiencing in the 20th century are ‘still’ possible is by no means philosophical. It is not the beginning of knowledge, unless it would be the knowledge that the conception of history on which it rests is untenable.”

-- Walter Benjamin from Theses on History

“But though a war may well be 'too stupid,' that doesn’t prevent its lasting. Stupidity has a knack of getting its way; as we should see if we were not always so much wrapped up in ourselves.”

“None the less, he knew that the tale he had to tell could not be one of a final victory. It could be only the record of what had had to be done, and what assuredly would have to be done again in the never ending fight against terror and its relentless onslaughts, despite their personal afflictions, by all who, while unable to be saints but refusing to bow down to pestilences, strive their utmost to be healers…. He knew what those jubilant crowds did not know but could have learned from books: that the plague bacillus never dies or disappears for good; that it can lie dormant for years and years… and that perhaps the day would come when, for the bane and the enlightening of men, it would rouse up its rats again and send them forth to die in a happy city.”

-- Albert Camus from The Plague

McCain's Washing Post Op-Ed

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/john-mccain-its-time-congress-returns-to-regular-order/2017/08/31/f62a3e0c-8cfb-11e7-8df5-c2e5cf46c1e2_story.html?utm_term=.0b4490bb0796

John McCain wrote a pretty good op-ed for the Washington Post. I read it and appreciate what he had to say. What I find amusing and even upsetting are the headlines that it generated.

CNN's headline was something like, 'McCain Calls Trump Poorly Informed and Impulsive.' McCain did say that, with qualifiers ("often" and "can be" respectively), and it is pretty true. I don't see it as a bombshell. In fact, I think that more and more everyday people are "often poorly informed and can be impulsive," so it doesn't seem odd to me to have someone like that in the White House. McCain is right that it is Congresses responsibility to try to balance that out.  I think that message can be widened to apply to almost everyone. We need to work to balance each other out, not beat each other. Congress with the President and people with each other.

Another headline called it a "fiery op-ed." Maybe I am tone def, but it didn't seem fiery to me. And if it was, the tone would go against the message. The message was one of working together and compromising because we need each other to make things work. Being fiery in tone would not exactly help that take place. But, the media does need to sensationalize things these days to get out attention. It is what they do now; they have moved beyond the naive and mundane vocation of informing people and making them think. If Congress did what McCain called for and the media covered it accurately, they wouldn't keep our attention: neither the politicians or the media.

The power to return to "regular order" in Congress is ultimately in the hands of those in Congress. The President and the media can do much to disrupt that or spin it, but the ultimate responsibility lies with them. And in everyday life the real power to return to regular order lies with each of us, not with the politicians or the media. Politicians, the government, the media, etc. can help if they take the right tone.  They can, and more often than not these days do, take a tone that makes it more difficult. However, they do not have the ultimate power in the matter; we as everyday people in our everyday lives and choices do. 

The Missing Ought and How It Leaves Things Empty

Because science and data are descriptive (and because they currently rule the world of truth and try to do so for meaning as well), we have forgotten the importance of the prescriptive. We look at what things are (how they appear to us especially through our experiments) and deal with them that way. Sometimes, especially in business, we take what is and try to make it into what we want (this is advertising and PR), but for the most part we are concerned with what is and what will come to be directly out of that. (Well, we do try to change things with science as well because after all that is what technology is for the most part.) Yet most of our time is spent being concerned with description: what is, the surfaces of things and actions. What we have lost sight of is what ought to be.

Now, ought is much bigger than want, especially what I want. This is why it is different from the making we do in business and with technology. We want something so we manipulate the surfaces to get them to appear and act as we want them. Ought has to do with the big picture and with what is good for more than just myself. It is more akin to values and meaning than to want and can.

We look at things through data and science and pay attention to what they are in that light and how we act in relationship to them and they to us.  We see things through the filter of simple cause and effect. We take that as the norm and proceed as if it were natural. The problem is that nothing is really natural, except maybe chaos. (More on that below.) Order, cause and effect, facts and data appear as natural because of the way we look at the world. Something akin to them is there to be found, but it will only be found if we look for it. The same is true for the ought; we will only see it if we look for it. That does not mean it is something we completely make up and force on the world, it isn't. It is however something we won't find unless we look for it. It is the same reason why no one found Newton's Laws of Motion before him; no one was looking carefully enough for them. The early discoveries of science (when it was still natural philosophy) were likely made when they were, and not earlier, because people before that were not looking almost exclusively at the surfaces of things and actions. People were looking mostly at the inside (essences really) at the outside was more incidental or accidental.

These days things easily look like they have no deeper meaning or purpose aside from the facts and the way they fit into the theories because that is often all we look for; it is the lens we look through. We need to also have an idea of what things ought to be: how should they be treated and thought of so as to achieve a greater good. This will not come from, but may be informed by, a description of things that comes from data or science. And the two don't have to be and shouldn't be mutually exclusive or fundamentally at odds with each other. We can develop oughts that fit with descriptions and if we value those oughts we will also find descriptions that fit with them without giving up accuracy of description. There is a tension, a give and take, but that does not mean it need be adversarial, polemic or seen as a winner takes all competition.

When I say that nothing is really natural but chaos, I am not being negative or pessimistic. Any order that the world may inherently have is not necessarily going to be in line with what we want it to be or what we think it ought to be, and it may not even be comprehensible to us. This is less of an assumption, and more of a realistic place to start from than saying things are naturally one way or another. If we start from a position that does not assume the world is, or even can be, ordered in a way we want it or can understand it, we are more open to the give and take that is necessary to strike balances between the descriptive and prescriptive. What we think ought to be becomes a goal that we try to achieve but are not sure we can. We need to see any order as an ought, a goal we have created, and not as something that is already there that we must find and follow. Saying something is natural is saying that it is and can't be changed, or changing it would be a perversion. That makes the natural the only valid goal. Seeing the ought as something we are responsible for avoids that almost fundamentalist mind set and approach. It is a bit like Sisyphus or even like trying to be a good Christian and being like Christ. It is unattainable (and not necessarily because it is not in line with what is natural, but because nothing is natural at all) but not unworthy of being worked towards.

What is and what will be according to some mechanical progression of what is, is not what ought to be. Those are dead statements of what appears and what will appear that leave the depths and possibilities unexplored.  Those are descriptions. What we want or what we can do according to those descriptions are merely surfaces: surfaces of things, actions and feelings. Ought is something that deals with what is under the surface. The difference is between description and prescription and it is a big difference. Without prescription things are left empty: missing meaning and value. At the same time, without description our values and meaning can become detached from the very real surfaces and become delusions. The key is to try and strike a balance at any time.

Manufacturing Images and Sound Bites; Killing Debate and Discussion

It is hard to debate images. An image is taken to be an accurate representation of something. We don't often question the time, the angle, the cropping and other elements that go into making an image. We simply take them to be what they appear to be. (Unless of course we suspect they are PhotoShopped, but let me leave that aside, at least for now.)

In the same way it is difficult to debate a sound bite. They are often done in ways that make them seem clearly true or false, sm...art or idiotic. They are crafted to be clear and with out context or the need (or even possibility) of debate or explanation.

Both of these have had a affect on the way we think and the way we use language in general. We don't question what is said or written to examine why certain words or phrasing was chosen. We take the words at face value like a picture and judge them as true or false based on what we know. If we disagree with what appears to be the case in the words or picture, we simply call it a lie that has been told on purpose to mislead (and benefit the liar). In other words: it has been PhotoShopped. And it is done by that person knowingly for selfish and evil reasons.

This is a dumbing down of language that stifles debate and discussion. It should be no surprise that in a world dominated by images and sound bites we have a superficial approach to language. That superficial approach to language leads to a superficial approach to the world as a whole. Things seem simple and straightforward with no need (or even ability) to debate or discuss them. And in a world like that, unless we all think the same way, there is no way to avoid becoming bitterly divided.

Adam Smith and Spontaneous Order: Capitalism, Sympathy and Community

Spontaneous order is basically the idea that a system can order itself in a logical and agreeable way without any planning and work to implement a plan. It has been used to describe how capitalism should operate if left free from intervention. The spontaneous order of Smith's invisible hand does have an element of divine providence or guidance in it; it is not completely without planning or implementation. He writes in Theory of Moral Sentiments that, "The administration of the great system of the universe, however, the care of the universal happiness of all rational and sensible beings, is the business of God and not of man.” So to talk of the invisible hand and just distribution of wealth as being merely spontaneous order is not exactly accurate. But at the same time order in Smith’s economy does not come completely from some law of nature or divine providence. It comes mostly from the fact that he sees humans as moral creatures that have habits and somewhat predictable ways of thinking, acting and making decisions. Humans for him are sympathetic, communal and concerned with family by nature.

His first book was a book of moral philosophy. He was trained and worked as a moral philosopher and professor. (It is important to realize that at that time there was no such thing as economics as a separate field of study, not as we know it.) The idea of what a human is and how a human should act that he lays out in that book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, is the individual economic actor that is operating in his more famous book The Wealth of Nations.

He starts Moral Sentiments by talking about sympathy:

“How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. Of this kind is pity or compassion, the emotion which we feel for the misery of others, when we either see it, or are made to conceive it in a very lively manner. That we often derive sorrow from the sorrow of others, is a matter of fact too obvious to require any instances to prove it; for this sentiment, like all the other original passions of human nature, is by no means confined to the virtuous and humane, though they perhaps may feel it with the most exquisite sensibility. The greatest ruffian, the most hardened violator of the laws of society, is not altogether without it."

This is a central part of human nature for Smith and is something that should be kept in mind when dealing with his economic thoughts and theories. Man is not an isolated individual that has no feeling or connection for the people around him. Smith’s economic actor, as a human being, is sympathetic by nature. The spontaneous order of a capitalistic society that is supposed to keep there from being extreme poverty and inequality comes about because people act in ways that take others into account by their very nature as human beings. The order that Smith saw was not the result of deliberate planning, but it was not by pure accident either. The order is a result of what the system is made up of. It is similar to how chemists can expect certain things to happen because they know the characteristics of the elements that make up the materials they are dealing with.

He may have been wrong about human nature being inherently sympathetic and concerned with family, community, etc. And, so far as that is not human nature, the invisible hand will not function as predicted and there will be no agreeable order that emerges from the uncoordinated individual actions of the many (unless God does so in his administration of the universe). In other words, if people are not sympathetic, the order that spontaneously arises from individual actions will not be one that is acceptable, desirable or logical.

I am skeptical of any set idea of human nature. I think for Smith to assume that “this sentiment [of sympathy], like all the other original passions of human nature, is by no means confined to the virtuous and humane, though they perhaps may feel it with the most exquisite sensibility. The greatest ruffian, the most hardened violator of the laws of society, is not altogether without it,” is not realistic. This is not because I think humans are inherently bad, selfish or individualistic. I think humans have a capability to feel sympathy and to be affected by those around them and have feelings for those around them, but that is just a capability. That capability needs to be cultivated into a tendency to actually do so.

In so far as people do not grow up in an environment that nurtures that capability, they will not have that sentiment in reality. I think this is why capitalism’s invisible hand, and the spontaneous order that arises from a capitalistic system, work differently (or not work at all) depending on the culture, society or era they function in. I think this is also why Marxist communism, or any sort of communism or strong socialism, can easily fail. If the people are not of the right temperament and moral convictions, the theory will not work out in practice not matter what or how good the theory is. And the temperament of the people is a result not of nature but of culture and upbringing more than anything else.

Smith assumes that people will have sympathy and that they have a duty to work on “the care of his own happiness, of that of his family, his friends, his country.” If they do, his system will likely work quite well. Marx assumes many things as well, one of them being that people will not be ruled by laziness and, like Smith, narrow selfishness. The system needs a certain type of people to make it work.

Something that is related to the spontaneous order and invisible hand of Smith is his ideas of government intervention or participation in the economy. This is an area where there is a lot of misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Smith’s own writings and thoughts. He did not say that government participation in the economy was bad or should be completely ruled-out, just that it should be as minimal as necessary. I think that should obviously be read as meaning as minimal as necessary to make things work: most notably the invisible hand and an acceptable social and economic order. If they don't work because people are not living up to his standard of what a human is (by nature), then something should be done. When what comes about spontaneously is not see as an acceptable, desirable or logical order, then order may need to be planned and implemented. I am not sure that means that the government has to step in, but that is an option. If people do not have the sympathy and concern for family, community and nation that Smith saw as more or less natural, his system will not function as he predicted. What can the government do and what can others do?

One things is to widen the idea of self-interest back to something that Smith would recognize. Self-interest for conservative economists is not what it is for conservative ideologues or even the average person when they think about it in relation to economics. Milton Friedman wrote in his book Free To Choose that a:

"broad meaning… must be attached to the concept of 'self-interest.' Narrow preoccupation with the economic market has led to a narrow interpretation of self-interest as myopic selfishness, as exclusive concern with immediate material rewards. Economics has been berated for allegedly drawing far-reaching conclusions from a wholly unrealistic 'economic man' who is little more than a calculating machine, responding only to monetary stimuli. That is a great mistake. Self-interest is not myopic selfishness. It is whatever it is that interests the participants, whatever they value, whatever goals they pursue."

If taken to heart, that would do a lot to change the way people act in the economy. How can the government help implement that way of thinking, or valuing? It has a role, but the society as a whole does as well. And the values that this change moves to are something far more in line with Smith than the values we have now.

There is an element of spontaneous order in Smith’s capitalism, but it comes as much from morality as chance (or even divine providence). This morality is centered around a human nature that is sympathetic and concerned with others. If human nature is not that way, then we can’t expect there to be an ordered outcome from capitalism. I am not convinced there is any set human nature at all, so I think we need to pay attention to the culture and temperament of people and try to align that with the economic system we want, and try to adjust that system to the people as well. Smith was never against government intervention; he just thought it was to be avoided when possible. If the system is not working, then something needs to be done to make it work, and that may necessitate government action. But I am not sure that should be our primary approach at this point; I think a first step in making capitalism more effective is to promote something Smith likely took for granted and that we have mostly forgotten: a broader and not exclusively monetary conception of self-interest.

Devolution of the Species

Devolution of the species doesn't mean going backwards: regression.  That would be the case if evolution were actually synonymous with progress, but it isn't.  Evolution is adaptation.

The Theory of Evolution is misunderstood as talking about how a species progresses or gets better.  This is because of the connection that the word evolution has developed with the idea of progress.  It is really​ better named the theory of adaptation-- to get around the idea of progress.  It is about being better adapted to the environment or surroundings and as a result surviving.

As modern humans armed with science and technology, we feel we are masters of the universe; we feel we don't need to fear the physical world or our impact on it. (Science tells us differently, but our everyday experience tells us things are fine, and we are in control.  Even if we accept things are not fine, we believe that we can analyze, control and fix the problems with science and technology.) In our daily lives we are more and more detached from our basic surroundings.  Our ideas and words, technology and theories, society and habits all keep us further and further from basic experience with the physical world.

We are not going backwards, but we are not keeping up with our surroundings.  We are making progress in freedom, democracy, science, technology and profits. The complexities involved with making and sustaining this progress are becoming greater and greater.  This is in part a necessity of progress, but I think it is also partly a necessity arising from the fact that we are further and further detached from physical reality and differing views.

In any case, things are changing faster now (in society, technology, economics and the physical world) than maybe any other time in human history. The odd thing is that we are what is changing our surroundings more than anything else, but we seem to be more and more outof touch with them on a day to day basis.  Through science and technology (and our obsession with 'information' and news over experience, both of which are highly shaped by science and technology), we act and think in ways that change our world (both physical and mental) in ways and speeds that are unprecedented.  And we do this while we pay less attention to the world and develop tunnel vision that increasingly shows us only what we do and what we think.

We are progressing in many ways, but I fear we are not adapting.  It is a devolution of the species.  Is that best described as a failure to adapt or a degredation in the ability to adapt?  I don't know, but I fear both. My greatest fear of all of these is what will happen because of this if adaptation and natural selection are as important as the Theory of Evolution says they are.

Education: Entertainment and Individual Learning

I am educator and not an entertainer.  Anything that I do that is entertaining when I teach is a bonus, not an essential part of what I do. I am also not a personal tutor when I have a classroom of students.  They are a group and not a room full of individuals.   

Part of my insistence on this comes from my belief that if you need to be entertained to learn, then you don't value what you are learning very much or see its importance. When we use entertainment to teach too often, we are not taking the material or the student seriously.  And as a result the student isn't likely to take the class or the material seriously.  The material is turned into something like a disposable, consumable product which can easily strip it of its importance.  It is used, if at all, to get a grade, to pass a test and then left aside and forgotten. 

Yes, entertainment can make learning easier-- on both the student and the teacher. However, it very easily makes it too easy and takes the seriousness out of the process of learning.  If entertainment is too closely tied to learning in the students’ experience, the students don't learn how to learn on their own and without being entertained.  Learning and knowing how you learn best is a very important skill to have, now days more than ever.

As an educator I am also not a personal tutor.  There is a time and place for that, and as a teacher there is a need to be aware of your audience and try to reach them in an effective way.  That however does not mean that the teacher needs to work with each person individually.  The goal is to get them to the same place, on the same page.  If they come to you individually outside of class because they are struggling, the goal should be to get them what they need to get up to speed with the class.  Part of learning in a group is learning to be in a group.  That is something that we need to be able to do to be part of a community and a democracy.  Having things tailor made for you all the time is a way to keep you from leaning how to be part of a group and community.

If you are more advanced and everything is tailor made for you, you never learn how to slow down and help others.  If you are behind, you may never get a chance to catch up and be part of the group.  Yes, those that are advanced should get a chance to go ahead a bit at some point.  Without people going ahead we would never break new ground that others can, as a group, cover later to the benefit of all. And those that are behind do need some extra attention to help them catch up, ideally in the form of learning habits and skills that allow them to keep up on their own.  But there should be an emphasis on the group because if we value democracy we need to value the ability to work and function in a group and in a way that that makes community possible. 

Postman's "Now... This" and Facebook

"Of course, in television's presentation of the 'news of the day,' we may see the 'Now... this' mode of discourse in its boldest and most embarrassing form. For there, we are presented not only with fragmented news but news without context, without consequences, without value, and therefore without essential seriousness; that is to say, news as pure entertainment."

--Neil Postman from Amusing Ourselves To Death

Postman did not think that the "Now... this" phenomenon was new with television. He mentions the telegraph, photography and radio as having made use of it but says that it reached its "perverse maturity" in TV. He was worried that people got entertainment, education, news and other things all from the same source: the TV. Since it tends to simplify and equalize everything it takes up, it strips things of depth, context and weight.

I can only imagine that Postman, who was critical of technology and its effect on society and human thinking to begin with, would be horrified at Facebook's News Feed. Facebook is the portal though which so many people access the internet. People get entertainment, news, social interaction and even education from Facebook. And all of these things are mashed together with no regard for what is what and what it ends up next to. Algorithms that have little to no understanding of what the bits are about sort them based on popularity. They put serious things next to amusing things, credible things next to uncredible things, personal things next to professional, and so on. We lose a sense of where things come from or why they are in the first place. Everything--not just news and entertainment--is fragmented, without context, without consequences, without value and without seriousness.

If the "Now... this" reached its "perverse maturity" with TV, it has now become perversely universal thanks to Facebook and mobile devices.

Climate Change: Fears and Misunderstandings of Science

Getting people to believe in climate change often takes more than just presenting facts to them. Facts will help with people that are open to the idea and who trust the facts (as well as those who collected them and are presenting them), but they won't help with people that have other reasons that make them skeptical. I think there are two that are the most common, and they are both connected to an underlying misunderstandings or fears of science. The first is when people have an unrealistic view of science, and the second is when they have a fear that science may take over their lives.

I think one of the major problems with climate change acceptance is a misunderstanding of science. Science cannot definitively prove anything; scientific truths are arrived at by consensus of the experts based on evidence collected according to the methods and traditions that the experts have deemed the best for the purpose at hand. Yes, even science relies on tradition and authority. We must trust the experts and their judgment, even in science. Some people just don't get that and want one hundred percent, clear and certain proof. I consider this the direct effect of scientism on the climate debate. Demanding that is unrealistic and actually unscientific.

The opposite of this is important to note to, though it has only an indirect effect on the climate debate as far as I can see. This is when science is understood as being synonymous with the newest information available so that the newest must be the most true and scientific. Science tells us to stop smoking, to drink less, to not eat eggs and then to eat them, that GMOs are safe and then not safe and again safe, that there is no God, that monogamy is not natural and so on. But in reality much of that isn't really science. (Science takes time to find truths and over turn old ideas; it has its traditions and authority that vet truths, and that takes time.) What is happening with all of these new truths that come at us all the time is that the media is taking something that might have a bit of scientific evidence to support it (or maybe growing evidence) and selling it to us as science because they know we will buy it if it is labeled science. It is the media and making marginal things science, so we buy it as news, as truth. So in a sense we are right to be skeptical of what the media tells us is science, truth. This might lead to scientism as skepticism. It also can lead to a fear of science running our lives, which is my next point. 

The second major resistance to climate change, I think, is due to the fact that many people assume that once we accept a scientific truth or fact, the science or scientists then also give us a command to do something. That implicit in the truth or fact are clear actions that we must take because of it. Many people are not comfortable with having their actions dictated to them by science and scientists. When it comes to climate science that may be one thing, if technology can indeed produce alternative energy sources that will allow us to have the kind of life we have currently, or at least close to it, then maybe the scientists and technologists can tell us what to do. But that is not a direct line from the fact to the action, there is a detour there. And, I think that detour is very important: we must evaluate and choose based on more than just the science and its facts. Science can't assume the right to tell us what to do based on its facts, even if we accept those facts; we have to choose to take those actions in a separate decision. I think people are afraid that we must simply listen to and follow the scientist and technologist when it comes to climate change. That we must abandon our lives to the dictates of science. 

This fear of science dictating our lives is even greater because of the way that everything is labeled and sold as science, as was mentioned above. When every study with new information is touted as a new scientific truth that must change the way we act, it is understandable that people feel that science and scientists are trying to take over our lives and tell us what to do.

It is true that humans are responsible for the rapid change in climate and that this will drastically change the earth. (This is what the vast majority of experts, authorities on the subject, are saying, and we have to take their word for it.) That however does not dictate what we need to do or that anything needs to be done. (Of course I am simplify here, but that simple understanding is the understanding I think many people have.) I know it sounds callous and cold to say we don't have to do anything, but we need to be a bit callous and cold when moving from truth to action, especially when there is opposition. I don't think we can let ourselves get carried away by the facts and ignore values and tradition when making decisions.

That this situation is established scientific fact is one thing. (Which should make us take it much more seriously than something presented in an article on a news-site talking about the results of one study and how is should change our lives, but for some people, it doesn’t.) What we do with that is another. It can't be assumed that we need to do something or that the same people that brought us the fact ought to be the ones to tell us what to do. Going from the fact to the action requires making a choice based not just on the facts but also on values, and making that action work often requires that people (the average person) need to believe it. Experts can talk all they want, but especially when it comes to climate change--because it will likely require all of us to significantly change our everyday lives-- people need to believe in the solutions enough to act on them, or the solutions will not work.  

In the end, I think it is dealing with misunderstandings and fears that will get more people to agree that climate changes is a real threat that we have played a part in and then come to the table to agree on what will be done about it. People that are going to be convinced by facts are already convinced. Getting those that still are not (and we need not only to convince them to believe but also convince them to act) will take something other than facts, it will take addressing fears and misunderstandings about science itself. 

For Me, Truth Does Not Lie In Science

I am a philosopher by education, so I love playing with definitions.  Some times, it is not just playing. In fact, the foundations of thought often rely on how we define and use words.  In addition to that, the words that we attach to things in the world provide a foundation for what we consider to be real and reality. A word that I think we need to pay more attention to these days is truth. Here is my take:

There is a simple definition of truth that can apply anywhere: that something is true when it is consistent with experience.  A statement about the world can be considered true when it is consistent with experience. But that is often not what we are talking about now when we refer to truth, especially not with science. Things that we try to establish as true or false these days are often far outside of experience, especially our personal experience. Science itself is beyond personal experience and deals with data derived from measurements and experiments often using specialized and purposefully designed equipment. This is important-- science is important--, but it is far from experience, especially the everyday experience of most people.  That is part of why I think the connection between truth and science is strained and tenuous.  I think truth is (or has to be) connected to experience and to everyday life AND to the meaning of both.  Science can be connected to meaning and is for some people, but for many, it is too narrow and sterile to give meaning or to draw values from.  I tend to fall into that camp even though I can be amazed at the theories and discoveries of science and their applications in technology. 

That is just beginning of what I mean when I say: I don't think that science finds truth. Science finds very useful and practical knowledge and information. It allows us to predict and manipulate the world around us which is very useful, but is that truth?  The data, facts and theories of science are practical and useful. There is great value and importance in that. However, I don't think that is truth. 

For me, truth has much more to do with meaning and value. Truth is not just facts or the theories derived from them.  Facts need weight assigned to them.  They need a structure given to them, a narrative (or meta-narrative) so to speak.  That comes from values and meaning. Information and theories from science should inform the creation of meaning and value when appropriate, but value and meaning (and therefore truth) go beyond them and often come before them.

Mixed in with all of this is the leap from science as a descriptive pursuit to values and meaning which are prescriptive.  Saying that science can be the foundation for meaning or values violates Hume's Law (jumping from the 'is' to the 'ought' without sufficient reason) in a way that I can respect when someone else does it, but will not do myself because it is essentially a logical leap of faith, and one that I don't trust or believe in.  I place truth on the side of the 'ought' along with meaning and values, not on the side of 'is' which is where science and its facts and theories lie.  There is a influence that passes from one side to the other, and in both directions.   But I think that the 'ought' side is more foundational and originary.  As a result, I don't associate science with truth in any deep or meaningful way.  I understand why others do, but I see it as a leap of faith and not as a logically sound choice that I should be compelled to make.  My leap is to place truth closer to meaning and value, while still respecting science and its facts and theories. 

Incomprehensible by Design

Dedicated to Fr. Paneloux SJ

I find myself more and more convinced that in order for God to give us free will, he also had to create a world that we are unable to fully understand. To put it in existentialist terms: to give us free will, God also had to give us the absurd.

If the world was completely comprehensible, then we would be able to know what things are and how they work, completely. This would mean that the world would dictate to us what we should do, or that simply knowing enough would make it clear to us what we should do or even will do. In any of these cases, free will would no longer exist in any meaningful form. Choices would be obvious and we would always be convinced to make the right choice.

The complexity and irrationality of the world makes free will not only possible and unavoidable, but it makes it a burden. We (if not as an individual, at least as a society) create the paradigm or system that we use to make sense of the world. They are not given to us by God (though they maybe more or less inspired by the Divine), and they are not inherent in the world. They are human constructs that are limited and imperfect. There have been others than the one we find ourselves in, and there are others outside of the one we are in at any time. There will be others still, as the current ones adapt and adjust to a changing world.

Even when we come to know things there is always the problem of putting value on those things and deciding how to use them. Sometimes this is done after we come to know them. Sometimes values and use were part of discovering things and coming to understand them. Often it is a mix of both before and after. (And they-- both the things, and the values and uses-- can always change as we go.)

If any of those things-- the things themselves, the values or the uses-- were definitively and clearly determined, they would limit our free will by giving us information that we had to take seriously and act according to. If they all were, they would completely override free will.

It then seems obvious that the world can't be logical or comprehensible to us if we are to keep our free will and be able to exercise it. We can misunderstand, make mistakes, make bad choices and disagree with each other because things are not clear cut and obvious, and they never will be because by design they aren't.