Pages

Wednesday, July 31, 2019

On Libertarian Political Movements

Leonardo da Vinci
(Self-Portrait) 
The libertarians assert that they are better than other political groups because they are men of reason and liberty. But what is the evidence that they stand for these ideals, and even if they stand for these ideals, what is the evidence that they are capable of bringing positive transformations in society if they come to power?

Words like “reason” and “liberty” can be used by politicians to mask questionable motives, or to justify ruthless behavior. History of last 250 years shows that political movements that are motivated by the ideals of reason and liberty often achieve the opposite of what they promise. A man of reason can be as easily corrupted by power and wealth as any conventional man.

Broadly speaking, reason can be of two kinds: first, speculative and idealistic reason, which Immanuel Kant calls Pure Reason; second, reason that is embedded in logic, science, and empirical evidence, which Kant calls Practical Reason. Most libertarians are the followers of Pure Reason, and that is why there is a surfeit of idealism and rationalization in their political thinking.

When the libertarian view of reason is impractical, then we cannot be sure what kind of free society they are capable of creating? I believe that the libertarians brand themselves with words like “reason” and “liberty” because they want to feel superior to the trivial masses and businessmen. They don't consider the fact that it is these masses and businessmen who keep the country running through their hard work and enterprise.

On Nobody, Somebody, and Busybody

The “nobodies” of the world join philosophical or political movements with the hope of becoming “somebody,” but after a few years in the movement most of them mutate into "brainwashed busybodies” who pester others with their imbecilic philosophical and political opinions. The busybodies have nothing useful to say but they insist on saying it.

Tuesday, July 30, 2019

Philosophy and Decline of Civilizations

Alexis de Tocqueville
When a nation is on the ascendent, it makes rapid progress in science—and when a nation is on the decline, it makes rapid progress in philosophy. The rise of philosophers (even the ones who claim to stand for reason, liberty, and individualism) is never the herald of a nation’s success; it's an indication of its failure.

Alexis de Tocqueville wrote his classic work Democracy in America as a report on his tour in America between 1831 and 1835. In this book, he observes: “I think that in no country in the civilized world is less attention paid to philosophy than in the United States.” But I think that one of the reasons for which America was doing well at the time of Tocqueville’s visit was because the Americans were paying less attention to philosophy.

After 1910, the intellectuals managed to gain a stranglehold on American culture, and the country started paying more and more attention to philosophy—and as a result of that its economy and culture started declining. Such parallels between philosophy and the decline of a nation can also be observed in Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Roman Empire, and many other nations in the past and present.

Synthesis or Revolution

When “thesis” and “antithesis” collide, then there is either a “synthesis” or a “revolution”. The collision can happen in any particular domain of activity, but if it happens at massive scale, on a cultural and political level, then the philosophers and politicians, who want the status quo to continue, work tirelessly to develop a synthesis between the thesis and antithesis—they pursue the idea of achieving a synthesis between the old and the new as a holy cause. But there will be philosophers and politicians who will want a total transformation for a variety of reasons—they could be convinced that a better way of life is possible, or they could be alienated from their society. They will show no sign of patience and tolerance; they will do their best to ignite a revolution which, they believe, will endow them with the power to shape the future.

*******

My Earlier Post on This Subject: "Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis"

Monday, July 29, 2019

Eric Hoffer: On the Student Rebellion

Wanderer above the Sea of Fog
By Caspar David Friedrich
Here’s Eric Hoffer’s reflections on the student rebellion of 1964 (from his journal entry on February 12, 1974):
"I was right in the midst of the mess when the Free Speech Movement exploded in 1964 [in the University of California]. The spark which set off the explosion was the discovery by the students that the power structure of the university was manned by toothless lions. President Clark Kerr, one of the finest products of our culture, knew how to build a great university but did not know how to defend it. He had not an inkling of the vulnerability of institutions—that they are more vulnerable than individuals—and did not know the first thing about the nature of authority. I cannot resist the feeling that things might have turned out differently had President Kerr had a taste for theorizing. He might have known that authority is an instrument for the repression of individual willfulness and that social authority had its origin in the need to tame juveniles as they came out from underneath parental authority. Instead, President Kerr dealt with the rampaging juveniles as if they were his equals, and a punk like Mario Savio, the leader of the Free Speech Movement, ran circles around the great Clark Kerr. Much of the teaching at the University was done by teaching assistants not much older than the students. Monkeys with academic degrees opened all the cages and let the tigers out into the streets."
Weakness, like familiarity, breeds contempt and encourages rebellion. By his weakness and inability to exercise his authority, Clark Kerr bred contempt for his institution in the mind of the young punks like Mario Savio who went on to rebel and destroy order in the university campus.

The Truth About The Enlightenment Project

The ideas of reason, individualism, liberty, and humanism are the four "masks" of the Enlightenment Project which was spearheaded by the 18th century French philosophes. The purpose of these masks was to conceal the true nature of the project from the masses. What lay underneath the masks was something much more radical and revolutionary.

The Enlightenment Project envisaged a crushing down of every landmark of culture. The philosophes dreamed of political movements that would sweep across the land like a plague of locusts and devour all the philosophies of the past, and every political and religious institution. Once the past was erased, they believed, the work would begin for creating a new world order.

The French Revolution of 1789 and the Soviet Revolution of 1917 can be seen as an outcome of the ideas and ambitions of the Enlightenment philosophes.

Sunday, July 28, 2019

On Two Closed Systems: Marxism and Objectivism

Vladimir Lenin made Marxism a closed system in 1909: In his major theoretical work Materialism and Empirio-criticism, Lenin writes, “You cannot eliminate even one basic assumption, on substantial part of this philosophy of Marxism (it is as if it were a solid block of steel) without abandoning objective truth, without falling into the arms of the bourgeois-reactionary falsehood.”

Leonard Peikoff made Ayn Rand’s philosophy of objectivism a closed system in 1989: In his article, “Fact and Value,” Peikoff writes, “Objectivism holds that every truth is an absolute, and that a proper philosophy is an integrated whole, any change in any element of which would destroy the entire system.”

I am not sure if Peikoff has read Lenin’s Materialism and Empirio-criticism but it is clear that the arguments that he has used in his article, to justify the imposition of the closed system rule on objectivism, are similar to the arguments that Lenin has proposed in his famous book.

Rand and Lenin were poles apart in their philosophies—she stood for individualism, liberty, and capitalism, and he stood for collectivism, totalitarianism, and socialism. But there are several methodological and structural parallels between objectivism (as interpreted by Rand’s heir Peikoff) and Marxism (as interpreted by Lenin).

Plato and Aristotle Chained Inside The Platonic Cave

Question: If Plato and Aristotle are dragged inside the Platonic Cave (The Allegory of the Cave) and chained with other prisoners so that they cannot turn their head and can only see the reflections which appear on the wall of the cave, then what kind of philosophy will they develop?

Answer: If Plato and Aristotle are in such a situation, their philosophy will be uninspiring like the philosophy of most modern philosophers who claim to stand for reason and liberty. Plato and Aristotle may still philosophize, but their ideas will consist of their own rationalizations because, being trapped inside the Platonic Cave, they will be out of touch with reality.

My Point: Most modern philosophers who talk about reason and liberty are incapable of developing a good philosophy. They ignore what is going on in the world and develop their thoughts through their own rationalizations. Their understanding of human psychology is limited. Their mind is trapped inside the Platonic Cave of their own making.

Saturday, July 27, 2019

Protagoras: Plato Versus the Sophist

Democritus (center) and Protagoras (right)
Painting by Salvator Rosa
Plato’s dialogue Protagoras is an attack on the sophists—in it there is a direct contest between Socrates and Protagoras, who is an elderly and celebrated sophist. At one point, there is a breakdown in the conversation when Socrates and Protagoras start bickering about how long their answers to each other’s questions should be—Socrates, being a dialectician, favors short answers and rapid questions, but Protagoras, being a sophist, prefers long answers and fewer questions. Socrates is on verge of walking out of the home of Callias where the dialogue is taking place. But other speakers engineer a compromise and the dialogue is resumed.

Protagoras narrates an interesting story about the origin of living things. When the gods created the creatures on earth, two Titan brothers, Prometheus (“forethought") and Epimetheus (“afterthought") are given the task of assigning to each creature its powers and abilities. The brothers decide Epimetheus would do the assigning while Prometheus would evaluate the work. But Epimetheus is too profligate in his distribution, and by the time, it is the turn of man to receive his abilities, Epimetheus has nothing left to give. He had already assigned all the abilities to other creatures. Prometheus realizes that without speed, wings, claws, and other powers, mankind will not survive—so he steals wisdom from Athena and assigns it to man.

But what mankind has received is merely the wisdom to survive and not civic wisdom, which is the art of politics. Later on Zeus, becomes aware that even with wisdom mankind may not survive, and he asks Hermes to assign justice and sense of shame to mankind. Here’s an excerpt from the exchange between Hermes and Zeus:

“Zeus was afraid that our whole race might be wiped out, so he sent Hermes to bring justice and a sense of shame to humans, so that there would be order within cities and bonds of friendship to unite them. Hermes asked Zeus how he should distribute shame and justice to humans. ‘Should I distribute them as the other arts were? This is how the others were distributed: one person practicing the art of medicine suffices for many ordinary people; and so forth with the other practitioners. Should I establish justice and shame among humans in this way, or distribute it to all?’ ‘To all,’ said Zeus, ‘and let all have a share. For cities would never come to be if only a few possessed these, as is the case with the other arts. And establish this law as coming from me: Death to him who cannot partake of shame and justice, for he is a pestilence to the city.’”
 ~ (Plato: Complete Works; Edited by John M. Cooper & D. S. Hutchinson; “Protagoras,” translated by Stanley Lombardo & Karen Bell; Page 758)

Towards the end of the dialogue, Socrates and Protagoras realize that they are arguing the opposite of the positions that they had taken at the beginning of their conversation—it also becomes apparent that there is lot of similarity in their views. The dialogue ends when Socrates complains about a missed appointment and decides to leave. They promise to examine the issues that they have been discussing at some later date.

On Political and Philosophical Revolutions

During the time of the French Revolution, this was a common saying: “The revolution like Saturn devours its own children.” Even the incorruptible Robespierre had a tryst with the guillotine. The Soviet Revolution too devoured several of its children—the Soviet strongman Josef Stalin prosecuted and executed more communists than the leader of any capitalist country.

When we look at the revolutionary philosophical movements of the last 250 years, we notice a similar trend of the children of the revolutions being devoured. These movements were conceived with the agenda of revolutionizing society and giving birth to a new way of life. But when these movements failed, the reputations of their founders and followers were devoured.

The political or philosophical revolutions which aim to transform society into a paradise never achieve success. Only those revolutions succeed which have a clear and limited agenda, and are being led by people who are wise enough to understand that a paradise can never be created on earth.

Friday, July 26, 2019

Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis

Portrait of Hegel
The famous triad “thesis, antithesis, and synthesis” is generally attributed to Hegel—it is called the Hegelian triad. But Hegel never employed this triad in his works. Some commentators have attributed the Hegelian triad to Johann Fichte, but they don’t point out the exact work where Fichte has deployed it.


It is possible that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels developed the Hegelian triad through their own understanding of the philosophy of Hegel and Fichte. They have used it in their materialistic conception of history. In his 1847 work The Poverty of Philosophy, Marx makes extensive usage of the triad.

The origin of the triad can also be traced to Ancient Greece—to the Classical Philosophy of Socrates and Plato, and Aristotle. The Platonic dialogues follow a dialectical form: An argument (thesis) is followed by a counterargument (antithesis); either the counterargument cancels out the argument or it leads to the development of a final position which consists of a “synthesis” of the opposing arguments and represents an improvement in the position taken by the argument and the counterargument. Aristotle has said that rhetoric is a counterpart of dialectics.

Plato and Aristotle agree with each other on several points—but they also have some major differences. Platonism can be seen as the thesis, and Aristotelianism can seen as the antithesis. The process of developing a synthesis between Platonism and Aristotelianism began with the Hellenistic Neo-Platonists and the philosophers in Ancient Rome, and was finally accomplished by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century.

The philosophy of Aquinas is not Aristotelian—it is a synthesis between Plato and Aristotle. Aquinas was inspired by the Platonic thought of St. Augustine, and through the works of Boethius, Pseudo-Dionysius, and Proclus, Aquinas picked up a lot of neo-Platonism. In his works, the tension between the works of Plato and Aristotle gets resolved—and a reconciliation is achieved between the two philosophers.

On The Libertarian Style of Writing

I have come across several articles by libertarians in which they set out to denounce the liberals but end up denouncing the conservatives. I think this is because the libertarians are intellectuals and they are reluctant to take a strong position against their “brother intellectuals” who are part of the liberal camp.

Being self-centered and self-righteous, the libertarians will never admit that their softness towards the liberals is a mistake. They will never admit that neither the liberals nor the conservatives take the libertarian viewpoints seriously. They will never admit that they are preaching to the choir, and their articles appeal only to other libertarians.

Thursday, July 25, 2019

The Myth of Vincent van Gogh’s Madness

Vincent van Gogh is known as the tortured artist whose life was destroyed by mental illness. His paintings are seen as the works of a mad genius. But this view of van Gogh is not correct. Deirdre N. McCloskey, in her book The Bourgeoisie Virtues: Ethics for an Age of Commerce, (Chapter 13: “Van Gogh and The Transcendent Profane”), points out that “Vincent was a poet in paint, a self-educated sophisticate. He read novels and journals of opinion ravenously in four languages, taking themes for paintings directly from them, and wrote letters in three of the languages often and well, especially to his equally sophisticated art-dealer brother, Theo.”

Van Gogh was a sane, rational, sophisticated, and artistic man for almost his entire life. He was ill only for the last nineteen months of life, and that too, only from time to time. McCloskey writes:
Van Gogh’s illnesses did not make his art. They blocked it. In his estimation, sex did, too. He declared in a letter of June 1888 to his young artist friend Émile Bernard: “Painting and fucking a lot don’t go together, it softens the brain. Which is a bloody nuisance.” His art certainly did not derive from his madness, or from his sexual activity, or from his bodily pains, or from his drinking. He painted when he was well and sober. His art had nothing to do with being sick.  
What is this insistence on the mad, alcoholic artist? Such a man (always a man) is above all imprudent. He does not plan. He can’t handle money. He injures himself. The bourgeois is known as a seeker of safety—this against the fact of risk in a commercial life. The mad artist rejects safety. The myth is an antibourgeois faith in the autonomous human spirit—this against the opportunities for expression in a commercial life. Who is in love with the myth? Sons and daughters of the bourgeoisie. 
McCloskey doubts the story of van Gogh cutting his ear. She suggests that the painter Paul Gauguin could be responsible for that incident. “In his painting van Gogh was not foolish or mad. There is even doubt, by the way, about the circumstances of the ear-cutting-off. A German art historian, Rita Wildegans, claims that Gauguin did the ear-cutting, and that van Gogh was covering up for his friend by claiming that he himself did it.”

The legend of van Gogh’s madness was created by the art critics six months before his death. McCloskey says that the critics might have been inspired by Émile Zola's 1886 novel L'Œuvre. Zola was advancing the views of the doctor and criminologist Cesare Lombroso that men of genius were mentally ill—or epileptic. Van Gogh objected to being labeled insane. He wrote a letter to an art critic called Albert Aurier and pointed out that the kind of paintings that he was doing could not be the work of a madman.

McCloskey says that the critics and moviemakers continued to depict van Gogh as a madman because “it fits well the late-Romantic, wannabe-aristocratic notion of the mad artist, as in Kirk Douglas’s riveting but nutty performance in the movie Lust for Life.” She conjectures that if van Gogh had not fallen sick in 1888 and he had not committed suicide in July 1890, then “we would have more of his art, with the same qualities—which were technical developments, not effusions of madness—at a lower price per painting, unhyped by the Romance of his illness and death.”

From Big Bang to Whimper

All the philosophical movements of 20th century began with a big bang and ended with a whimper. Why did they fail so spectacularly? They failed because these movements were launched by intellectuals who vastly overestimated their knowledge and intelligence, and vastly underestimated the scope of philosophy. They thought that they could play god and develop a philosophy that is so perfect that its essential characteristics are timelessness and universality.

But within a few years their movements floundered in a welter of inconsistencies and contradictions, and they lost their reputation and their movements splintered.

In my opinion, philosophy is like the universe itself—the further you look into the universe, the more stars, planets, and other heavenly bodies you find. Likewise, the more philosophical knowledge you discover, the greater becomes the scope for discovering even more philosophical knowledge. The philosophical movements of the 20th century were utter failures because they were launched by people who didn’t understand that philosophy is an unending quest.

Wednesday, July 24, 2019

The Voice of Alienation and Pessimism

The philosophers, who are full of hatred for the traditions and lifestyle of their ancestors and are alienated from the culture and history of their country, have a tendency to devote a disproportionate amount of time for making pessimistic predictions about the future.

To them every politician that they dislike in their country is a potential Hitler or Mussolini, and an apocalypse is always round the corner. They see potential recruits for totalitarian religious and fascist movements in their countrymen. Such philosophers are followed by a horde of ignorant, unwise, and cowardly folks, who blindly accept everything that their philosopher says, and become alienated from their ancestors, fellow citizens, country, and culture.

For such a flock of “True Believers,” nothing in the past or present seems good enough—they pine for a total revolution which they believe will pave way for the rise of a utopia where their philosophy reigns supreme.

Tuesday, July 23, 2019

On The Unity Between Plato and Aristotle

The idea that for two millennia history has been the expression of a “philosophical duel” between Aristotle and Plato is the outcome of the Marxist and Nihilistic thinking of the 19th century. Karl Popper and Bertrand Russell are the major proponents of this theory which holds that Plato is the philosopher of mysticism, totalitarianism, and nihilism; whereas Aristotle is the philosopher of individualism, classical liberalism, and an objective view of reality.

This kind of thinking obscures the fact that Plato and Aristotle have a lot in common and that they have marched hand in hand for two millennia. The successful periods of history are those in which the intellectuals and politicians have been inspired by both Plato and Aristotle.

In Ancient Rome, attention was being paid to the teachings of both the philosophers and the same was the case during the Roman Empire. To say that Thomas Aquinas was only inspired by Aristotle is incorrect. He was heavily inspired by the Platonic thought of St. Augustine, and through the works of Boethius, Pseudo-Dionysius, and Proclus, Aquinas picked up a lot of neo-Platonism. In the works of Aquinas, Plato and Aristotle are present in equal measure.

During the time of the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution we see a focus on both Plato and Aristotle—some scholars prefer Plato, some Aristotle, and many are pursuing the study of both. The Scholastic thinkers of the Renaissance mainly pursued Aristotelian studies, but Plato dominated most of the universities of that period. Coming to modern America, the founders were familiar with the works of both Plato and Aristotle.

Some of the worst political disasters of the last 250 years have been orchestrated in the countries where the wisdom of both Plato and Aristotle, or either one of them, has been totally ignored. The Enlightenment thinkers, who gave birth to the bloody French Revolution, didn’t like Plato, while the Marxist thinkers who created the Soviet Empire didn’t like Aristotle. And irrespective of what Popper says, Hitler and his cronies did not learn anything from Plato and Aristotle. The history of two millennia teaches us that a synthesis between the ideas of Aristotle and Plato is a necessary condition for having a nation with good culture.

On The Importance of Past Civilizations

Liberty can make people capable of mastering the natural world, but it’s not helpful for mastering one’s emotions, desires, and passions—for the latter you need a culture with a positive sense of history and philosophy that inspires people to lead the life of a moral, hardworking, aspiring, and caring man. Such a culture is developed through centuries of civilization. That is why the countries which enjoy a fairly good culture of liberty are generally an offshoot of the long-established civilizations; they have a strong sense of their own history and traditions.

The nations that cannot develop connections with the past civilizations often prove incapable of developing a culture of liberty. If liberty (or democracy and a free-market system) is imposed on them by an outside force, then it has the effect of ripping the nation apart. The nation splits into factions which often use violent tactics to achieve their agenda, and this inevitably leads to political instability and a fall in the quality of life. Therefore liberty can bring progress in some nations but in some others it will lead to large-scale destruction.

Monday, July 22, 2019

Galileo Versus Aristotle

In my post, “On The Anti-Aristotelianism of the Renaissance,” I talk about the anti-Aristotelianism of Erasmus, Martin Luther, and Francis Bacon. The anti-Aristotelianism that was sweeping Europe in the time of the Renaissance touched a new high with the publication of Galileo Galilei’s famous work the Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems in 1632. The book is written in the form of a Platonic dialogue whose lietmotif is to debate the fundamental scientific principles which govern the universe.

The conversationists in Galileo’s Dialogue include a scholar of Copernicus, a man called Salviati, who makes a presentation of Galileo’s own scientific views, calling him a respected academician, and an Aristotelian scholar called Simplicio who presents the arguments for the Aristotelian and Ptolemaic view of the universe. Galileo’s contempt for Aristotle becomes clear from the name that he has given to the Aristotelian scholar—“Simplicio” means simpleton. Galileo thought that the Aristotelians were a bunch of simpletons or fools.

The Dialogue of more than 600 pages is a direct confrontation between Galileo and Aristotle—the arguments that Simplicio presents are demolished one by one by Salviati who presents a series of evidence in the form of scientific graphs, mathematical equations, and information derived from the direct observations through the telescope. They discuss the movement of heavenly bodies; the craters and mountains on the moon; the phases of Venus; the relation between ocean tides and motion of the earth; and much else. In the end, Galileo (through Salviati) manages to establish that while Copernicus was right on most things, Aristotle (and Ptolemy) had an erroneous view of the universe.

The book became influential during the Renaissance; its first edition was sold out immediately after publication. But it alienated Galileo from the religious establishment. The Dialogue was placed in the list of forbidden books and on October 1, 1632, Galileo was summoned before the Inquisition to face prosecution for trying to defame the religious order.

Anti-Nationalism is Anti-Individualism

Ayn Rand’s objectivist followers have wild nightmares about the future—they foresee an apocalyptic future where the world is being ruled by nationalist and religious dictators. They attack nationalism in the name of saving the world from the apocalyptic future that only they can foresee and to promote individualism.

They are downright convinced that nationalism is incompatible with individualism. But I believe that you cannot promote individualism by attacking nationalism. Whenever nationalism is destroyed, there is a rise of the worst form of collectivism—it’s called identity politics. If people are not allowed to identify with their nation’s history and culture (which is what nationalism is), then they will identify with their race, religion, social status, political ideology, sexuality, or cult.

The rise of identity politics divides the nation into a number of warring factions, which try to further the interests of their own group at the cost of other groups. This provides the intellectuals and politicians with the opportunity of acquiring power by playing one faction against the other. When everything in the country becomes politicized, then there is a sharp fall in the nation’s political and cultural standards. All this has a baleful impact on the nation’s quality of life.

By saving the country from the menace of identity politics, nationalism can be conducive for creating an environment in which individualism can prosper. It is to her credit that Rand has admitted in a few articles and interviews that nationalism is in general a good thing, but these articles and interviews are not popular with the modern objectivists.

Sunday, July 21, 2019

On The Anti-Aristotelianism of the Renaissance

The leading thinkers of the Renaissance have made trenchant criticisms of Aristotle. Erasmus and Martin Luther despised Aristotle because they believed that he was the fountainhead of Scholastic philosophy that was polluting their religion and culture. Francis Bacon thought that Aristotle’s philosophy was barren, disputatious and wrong in its objectives. He held Aristotle responsible for the decline in scientific thinking in Europe.

Due to the work of these influential thinkers— Erasmus, Martin Luther, and Francis Bacon—the Renaissance became a period of anti-Aristotelianism. The religious as well as the scientifically minded people were convinced that Aristotle was having a baleful influence on their society and culture. The word “dunce”, derived from the name of the Aristotelian philosopher from the High Middle Ages, Duns Scotus, became a term of abuse and a synonym for Aristotelian scholars.

Even playwrights like Shakespeare became caught in the wave of anti-Aristotelianism that was sweeping across Europe. In his play Hamlet, Shakespeare has Hamlet say, “And therefore as a stranger give it welcome. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” In the play, Horatio is inspired by the ideas of Aristotle.

My Doubts About the “Men of Reason"

A “man of reason” is someone who develops his understanding of the world through his perception and not through his projection. But most people who claim to be a man of reason fail on this very account—their belief in reason leads them to project an ersatz world in which they are always right, always moral, full of knowledge, and capable of holding better opinions than everyone else. An analysis of most votaries of reason will reveal that their thinking is warped and so is their projection of themselves. More often than not, the man who claims to be a “man of reason” is an ignorant person who is clueless of the great complications that a man faces in the use of reason and verifying the knowledge derived through it.

Saturday, July 20, 2019

The Libertarian Notions of Liberty are Impractical

The libertarians believe that liberty is a magic wand that can cure society of all its woes. But history of last 2500 years shows that most city-states and nations where people enjoyed a high level of liberty were remarkably short-lived. Several examples can be considered to establish the point that greater the liberty, shorter the lifespan of the society: Ancient Athens after the Peloponnesian War, Ancient Rome, and Florence during the time of the Renaissance.

The good thing about liberty is that it leads to flowering of art, science, and private enterprise—it brings prosperity and comfort to the people. But liberty has its unintended consequences; it leads to the rise of a libertine society. After enjoying prosperity and comfort people lose their character and their passion for hard work—they become complacent, lazy, degenerate, and arrogant; they start taking their freedom for granted. A stage comes when a significant part of the society’s population becomes uninterested in being free and they start lusting for a statist political system.

The libertarian notion that liberty is the cure of all social problems is wide of the mark—liberty solves some problems, but not all, and it gives rise to several new problems. Liberty has within itself the seeds of its own destruction. A self-governed society which allows a high degree of liberty to its people might be good in the short term, but in the long term such societies prove to be very unstable. A free society with minimal government can only survive for a minimal amount of time.

Political freedom can lead to more harm than good if a significant part of the population is not culturally united to defend their way of life from internal and external enemies. The campaign for liberty through a political process must go hand in hand with the campaign for strengthening the bonds of culture, tradition, and history.

Objectivism’s Like That

The objectivists have a negative view of humor. But I am not an objectivist, so I can write a couple of jokes. Here they come:

Question: How many objectivists does it take to change a lightbulb?

Answer: Two. One newbie objectivist to do the actual changing of the lightbulb, and the other, an old and experienced objectivist, who will offer directions after going through the relevant passage in which Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff have explained the perfect way of changing lightbulbs.

————————————————

There is an objectivist who is trying to find the number of udders that a sheep has. He has spent three months going through the texts of Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff to find the relevant passage where they discuss sheep udders. He won’t go to a farm and take a count on a sheep because he knows that the ultimate truth can be found only in the texts of Rand and Peikoff.

Friday, July 19, 2019

Thoughts on Machiavelli

Leo Strauss, in his analysis of the Chapter 10, “That contrary to the vulgar opinion, Money is not the Sinews of War,” in Discourses on Livy by Niccolò Machiavelli, makes the following observations:
“Almost exactly in the center of the Discourses, Machiavelli tries to prove, as he indicates at the outset in the heading of the chapter in question, that money is not the sinews of war, as it is thought to be by common opinion. After thus openly challenging common opinion in the very heading of the chapter, and refuting that opinion within the chapter, he turns, near the end of the chapter, to the authority of Livy: "But Titus Livius is a truer witness to this opinion than anyone else. In the place where he discusses whether Alexander the Great, if he had come to Italy, would have van­quished the Romans, he shows that three things are necessary in war: many good soldiers, prudent captains and good luck. Examin­ing there whether the Romans or Alexander were superior in these things, he then draws his conclusion without ever mentioning money." Livy does not mention money in a context in which he would have mentioned it if he had regarded it as important. This fact by itself establishes not only a vague presumption in favor of Livy's having held the sound opinion on the subject of money; it makes him the truest witness, the most important authority for that opinion. Livy's silence is more impressive than his explicit statement would have been. Livy reveals an important truth most effectively by silence. The rule which Machiavelli tacitly applies can be stated as follows: if a wise man is silent about a fact that is commonly held to be important for the subject he discusses, he gives us to understand that that fact is unimportant. The silence of a wise man is always meaningful. It cannot be explained by forgetfulness. The view from which Livy deviates is the common view. One can express one's disagreement with the common view by simply failing to take notice of it; this is, in fact, the most effective way of showing one's disapproval.”
The above passage is from Strauss’s book Thoughts on Machiavelli, Chapter 1, “The Twofold Character of Machiavelli’s Teachings.” (Page 30).

On God, Religion, and Science

It’s not necessary for religion and science to be antagonistic to each other—they can have a symbiotic relationship. If the religion is dominated by good thinkers and it seeks to explain to its adherents the nature of the universe, and it views god as the entity that has given birth to the material world by creating the laws of science and mathematics, then an investigation into the nature of god is in essence an investigation into the nature of the universe and the laws of science and mathematics—isn’t this what science is supposed to do? The cooperation between religion and science is one of the reasons behind the progress that mankind has achieved—we have risen from the Stone Age level of existence to modern civilization in mere 3000 years, a relatively small span of time. The “Iron Curtain” between religion and science is a recent development—it came up in the 20th century when atheism became the world’s most dominant intellectual and political force.

Thursday, July 18, 2019

The Next Revolution in Philosophical Movements

A philosophical movement is the outcome of a revolution in the mind of its scholars and followers. But the first revolution is never sufficient to make a philosophy popular. A next revolution, and a series of other revolutions, is necessary to take the philosophy to a larger section of the population.The next revolution happens when the followers start asking questions to which they cannot find the answers from the movement’s traditional texts or its scholars.

A few of the followers (those with the capacity for independent thought and judgement) then start exploring avenues outside the movement for finding the answers that they seek. Over a period of time they may come across new knowledge that contradicts the knowledge that is being preached by the movement—this creates controversy and divisions. If the movement’s leaders are unable to quickly resolve the contradictions, then their position becomes untenable.

It’s not necessary that the next revolution will make the movement stronger. A revolution can lead to any kind of outcomes—it may make the movement stronger by bringing into existence a superior system of philosophical thinking or it may wipe out the movement forever. However, if there is no next revolution, the philosophy will surely stagnate and become irrelevant.

Wednesday, July 17, 2019

The History of Peter Abelard’s Calamities

Peter Abelard, born in Brittany in 1079, was a poet, logician, and Aristotelian philosopher of the middle ages. He is known for his use of dialectics and for his solution to the problem of universals. Nominalism gets its name from his claim that only words (nomen) are universal. He was the first to formulate the central nominalist tenet: only particulars exist.

Abelard arrived in Paris in 1100 and after wandering from school to school to get himself taught, he opened his own school and within a couple of years he was attracting a large number of students. By 1108, he had gained the reputation of a leading intellectual figure in the city and a popular teacher of logic.

In his History of Western Philosophy, Bertrand Russell notes that Abelard used to teach that the word “logic” comes from the “Logos,” the divine word in St. John’s Gospel. He taught his students that by using logic and dialectic they could have a deeper understanding of theology. He is credited with being the first to coin the term “theologia” (logic plus “theos”, or God). He developed the techniques for making theology a rational and logically disciplined branch of philosophy—the technique later flowered under the banner of “Scholasticism.”

Russell says that Abelard created a great controversy by teaching that nothing that is of this world is infallible and that it is was for the students to judge each case on the basis of evidence and their own reason. In one of his lectures, Abelard told his students, “You are Gods!” His students cheered him and hosting him on their shoulders they carried him through the streets.

David Knowles, in his book The Evolution of Medieval Thought, says that when Abelard was told that penetrating logical analysis might become the breeding ground for skepticism, he replied, “Careful and frequent questioning is the basic key to wisdom.” He also delivered what is regarded as his most famous maxim, “By doubting we come to question, and by questioning we perceive the truth.”

Abelard’s downfall came when, at the age of forty, he entered into a relationship with seventeen year old Héloïse d’Argenteuil, the niece of Canon Fulbert, a member of the clergy of the cathedral of Paris. Fulbert was furious, but he relented when Abelard got married to Héloïse in a secret ceremony. They had a son whom they called Astrolabe. But Abelard was not ready to publicly acknowledge his marriage with Héloïse because he believed that it would ruin his career.

Héloïse withdrew into the convent of Argenteuil outside Paris, but when her uncle Fulbert learned that Abelard was still seeing her secretly, he hired some thugs to castrate him. After this Héloïse became a nun, and Abelard embraced monistic life. They continued to write letters to each other. Their very interesting letters are collected in the book The Letters of Abelard and Heloise.

In my opinion, Abelard’s best writing is his book Historia Calamitatum (The Story of my Calamities) and the letters that he has written to Héloïse. Sic et Non is also a famous book, but I have not read it. In Historia Calamitatum, Abelard describes his rise to fame and his fall and gives an account of his interactions with Héloïse. Her letters to Abelard and religious correspondence have earned Héloïse a special place in literary history.

The Three Ways of Philosophers

There are primarily three ways by which a philosopher can convince his audience that his philosophy is good: first, he can try to show that his philosophy is logically consistent; second, he can try to prove that his philosophy works; third, he can assert that my philosophy is perfect because it is “my philosophy” and I am never wrong. A good philosopher will adopt the first way; a mediocre philosopher will adopt the second way; and a bad philosopher, who is of a cultist mindset, will adopt the third way.

Tuesday, July 16, 2019

Meno: The Paradox of Inquiry

Socrates and Meno are discussing what virtue is and whether it can be taught in Plato’s dialogue Meno. This dialogue offers a good impression of the Socratic dialectical style. In it Socrates rephrases something that Meno has said in the form of a paradox. Here’s an excerpt:
MENO: How will you look for it, Socrates, when you do not know at all what it is? How will you aim to search for something you do not know at all? If you should meet with it, how will you know that this is the thing that you did not know? 
SOCRATES: I know what you want to say, Meno. Do you realize what a debater’s argument you are bringing up, that a man cannot search either for what he knows or for what he does not know? He cannot search for what he knows—since he knows it, there is no need to search—nor for what he does not know, for he does not know what to look for. 
(Plato: Complete Works; Edited by John M. Cooper and D. S. Hutchinson; “Meno,” translated by G.M.A. Grube; Page 880)
If you know what you are looking for, there is no need for an inquiry; if you don't know what you are looking for, then an inquiry is impossible—this is essentially a sophistical argument; it is possible for someone to know the question and not have an answer. But Socrates takes the argument seriously and goes on to propose his famous doctrine of recollection.

Philosophy is a Series of Footnotes to Plato

In her 1961 essay, "For The New Intellectual," Ayn Rand writes, "Plato’s system was a monument to the Witch Doctor’s metaphysics." What an outlandish assertion! If she had read a single Platonic dialogue, she would not have attacked Plato without any rhyme or reason. She does not provide a reference to any quote or work of Plato—so it is impossible to understand what she is talking about, but I suspect that she herself didn’t know what she was talking about and neither do her followers.

Along with his master Socrates, and his pupil Aristotle, Plato has defined the nature and scope of the entire modern system of philosophy. It’s difficult to imagine modern philosophy without taking into consideration the work that Plato has done along with his master and his pupil. I am a believer in Alfred North Whitehead’s statement, “The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.” (Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology; Part II; Chapter 1; Section 1)

In his next lines, Whitehead puts his statement on Plato in its proper context: “I do not mean the systematic scheme of thought which scholars have doubtfully extracted from his writings. I allude to the wealth of general ideas scattered through them. His personal endowments, his wide opportunities for experience at a great period of civilization, his inheritance of an intellectual tradition not yet stiffened by excessive systematization, have made his writing an inexhaustible mine of suggestion.”

Whitehead is not saying that Plato has singlehandedly given birth to every idea or methodology that we have in modern philosophy—rather, he is pointing out that Plato is the towering figure who has identified almost all the major issues of philosophy, and that he has presented an outline of the philosophical method. Modern philosophers continue to grapple with the questions that Plato has raised; they continue to use his methodologies.

Monday, July 15, 2019

On The Socratic Way of Philosophizing

In his Introduction to Plato: Complete Works (Edited by John M. Cooper and D. S. Hutchinson), John M. Cooper writes:

"Socrates was a totally new kind of Greek philosopher. He denied that he had discovered some new wisdom, indeed that he possessed any wisdom at all, and he refused to hand anything down to anyone as his personal ‘truth’, his claim to fame. All that he knew, humbly, was how to reason and reflect, how to improve himself and (if they would follow him in behaving the same way) help others to improve themselves, by doing his best to make his own moral, practical opinions, and his life itself, rest on appropriately tested and examined reasons—not on social authority or the say-so of esteemed poets (or philosophers) or custom or any other kind of intellectual laziness. At the same time, he made this self-improvement and the search for truth in which it consisted a common, joint effort, undertaken in discussion together with similarly committed other per- sons—even if it sometimes took on a rather combative aspect. The truth, if achieved, would be a truth attained by and for all who would take the trouble to think through on their own the steps leading to it: it could never be a personal ‘revelation’ for which any individual could claim special credit."

In the following paragraph, Cooper talks about Plato’s way of writing the dialogues:

"In writing Socratic dialogues and, eventually, dialogues of other types, Plato was following Socrates in rejecting the earlier idea of the philosopher as wise man who hands down the truth to other mortals for their grateful acceptance and resulting fame for himself. It is important to realize that whatever is stated in his works is stated by one or another of his characters, not directly by Plato the author; in his writings he is not presenting his ‘truth’ and himself as its possessor, and he is not seeking glory for having it. If there is new wisdom and ultimate truth in his works, this is not served up on a plate. Plato does not formulate his own special ‘truth’ for his readers, for them to learn and accept. You must work hard even to find out what the author of a Platonic dialogue is saying to the reader— it is in the writing as a whole that the author speaks, not in the words of any single speaker—and the dialogue form demands that you think for yourself in deciding what, if anything, in it or suggested by it is really the truth. So you have to read and think about what each speaker says to the others (and also, sometimes, what he does not say), notice what may need further defense than is actually given it, and attend to the author’s manner in presenting each character, and the separate speeches, for indications of points on which the author thinks some further thought is required. And, beyond that, you must think for yourself, reasoning on the basis of the text, to see whether or not there really are adequate grounds in support of what it may appear to you the text as a whole is saying. In all this, Plato is being faithful to Socrates’ example: the truth must be arrived at by each of us for ourselves, in a cooperative search, and Plato is only inviting others to do their own intellectual work, in cooperation with him, in thinking through the issues that he is addressing."

On Philosophical Judgements

A philosopher is judged by his intentions and vision. A philosophy is judged by its methodologies and the quality of its arguments. A philosophical movement is judged by the character of its leaders and followers, and the outcomes that they achieve.

Sunday, July 14, 2019

Critias: On Plato’s Atlantis

In Critias, Plato offers a brief account of the political order in the island of Atlantis, its layout, and the way of life of its citizens. But the dialogue ends abruptly—either Plato left it unfinished or rest of the dialogue is lost. Critias suggests in the beginning of the dialogue that there was a war between Athens and Atlantis, after which Atlantis was destroyed in an earthquake—but he does not get to the point of providing the details of the war and earthquake.

In the dialogue’s final paragraphs, Critias talks about the people of Atlantis coming together to create a great society because they are virtuous and they have respect for their laws—but when they lose their virtue and their respect for the laws, Atlantis is doomed. This point of view connects this dialogue with Plato's Republic in which Socrates draws a similar conclusion about the importance of virtue and rule of law for the ideal city-state.

Here are the final two paragraphs from Critias:
For many generations and as long as enough of their divine nature survived, they were obedient unto their laws and they were well disposed to the divinity they were kin to. They possessed conceptions that were true and entirely lofty. And in their attitude to the disasters and chance events that constantly befall men and in their relations with one another they exhibited a combination of mildness and prudence, because, except for virtue, they held all else in disdain and thought of their present good fortune of no consequence. They bore their vast wealth of gold and other possessions without difficulty, treating them as if they were a burden. They did not become intoxicated with the luxury of the life their wealth made possible; they did not lose their self-control and slip into decline, but in their sober judgment they could see distinctly that even their very wealth increased with their amity and its companion, virtue. But they saw that both wealth and concord decline as possessions become pursued and honored. And virtue perishes with them as well.  
Now, because these were their thoughts and because of the divine nature that survived in them, they prospered greatly as we have already related. But when the divine portion in them began to grow faint as it was often blended with great quantities of mortality and as their human nature gradually gained ascendancy, at that moment, in their inability to bear their great good fortune, they became disordered. To whoever had eyes to see they appeared hideous, since they were losing the finest of what were once their most treasured possessions. But to those who were blind to the true way of life oriented to happiness it was at this time that they gave the semblance of being supremely beauteous and blessed. Yet inwardly they were filled with an unjust lust for possessions and power. But as Zeus, god of the gods, reigning as king according to law, could clearly see this state of affairs, he observed this noble race lying in this abject state and resolved to punish them and to make them more careful and harmonious as a result of their chastisement. To this end he called all the gods to their most honored abode, which stands at the middle of the universe and looks down upon all that has a share in generation. And when he had gathered them together, he said…
(Plato: Complete Works; Edited by John M. Cooper and D. S. Hutchinson; “Critias,” Translated by Diskin Clay; Page 1306)
We don’t know what Zeus said at the conclave of the gods. Significant part of this dialogue is missing because in the beginning of the dialogue Socrates says that the fourth person in the dialogue, a man called Hermocrates, will have a chance to speak after Critias. But we never hear from Hermocrates.

Ethics is the Art of the Approximate

Being a master of ethical philosophy and being capable of mastering yourself are two different things which seldom coexist in a man. There is not a single philosopher of ethics who has demonstrated through his conduct that he is capable of practicing the ethical ideas that he preaches. When judged on the basis of their own ethical principles, all philosophers of ethics appear unethical. I think, Aristotle was right when he defined virtue as the “golden mean” between the two extremes, one of excess and the other of deficiency. The identification and the practice of perfect virtue is beyond the scope of the human mind—we can only hope to approach the approximate or the “golden mean”.

Saturday, July 13, 2019

The Disagreements Between Classical and Modernist Thought

In his essay, "The Classical Studies,” Eric Voegelin notes that Plato and Aristotle have created philosophy as the science of the nature of man, but the Platonic-Aristotelian philosophy is in conflict with the contemporary climate of opinion. Voegelin lists nine points of disagreement between classical thought and modernist thought. Here are five of his principal points:

1. Classic: There is a nature of man, a definite structure of existence that puts limits on perfectibility.

Modern: The nature of man can be changed, either through historical evolution or through revolutionary action, so that a perfect realm of freedom can be established in history.

2. Classic: Philosophy is the endeavor to advance from opinion (doxa) about the order of man and society to science (episteme); the philosopher is not a philodoxer.

Modern: No science in such matters is possible, only opinion; everybody is entitled to his opinions; we have a pluralist society.

3. Classic: Society is man written large.

Modern: Man is society written small.

4. Classic: Man exists in erotic tension toward the divine ground of his existence.

Modern: He doesn’t; for I don’t; and I’m the measure of man.

5. Classic: Through the life of reason (bios theoretikos) man realizes his freedom.

Modern: Plato and Aristotle were fascists. The life of reason is a fascist enterprise.

On The Failed Project to Create New Intellectuals

A good philosophical movement will impart such an extensive training to its students that a few of them will become expert philosophers in their own right. After 20 years in Plato’s Academy,  Aristotle learned enough philosophy to become Plato’s greatest rival—they have always been seen as the two distinct poles of western philosophy. Plato was a good teacher of philosophy; he taught his students how to think for themselves. Immanuel Kant too was a good teacher of philosophy and several of his students went on to become powerful philosophers.

Ayn Rand started objectivism with the creation of the NBI (Nathaniel Branden Institute) in 1958. She created the NBI before writing a single essay or book on philosophy because the focus of her philosophizing was not on the development of new thought or treatises in diverse areas of philosophy, but on inspiring a number of young men to join her, become her “new intellectuals,” and dedicate their life to transforming society by spreading rational ideas. But instead of creating new intellectuals, she managed to create a few clones of herself.

There is not a single scholar trained by her who has shown any will or capacity for independent thinking—for them she is the alpha and omega of philosophy; they abhor any opinion that is not in line with Rand’s thinking.

Friday, July 12, 2019

Nationalist Sparta Versus Democratic Athens

Classical Athens was a noisy democracy in which people were not well organized. Sparta, on the other hand, was a highly organized nationalistic state whose political system was devoted to maximizing military power at all costs. They fought devastating wars—during the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC), the alliance led by Sparta was victorious over the Athenian alliance.

For reasons that are unclear, the Athenian society, which was crippled and demoralized by the defeat in the Peloponnesian War, gave rise to several brilliant minds, including philosophers like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.

The militarily powerful Sparta did not produce a single major thinker, but it played a critical role in keeping Athens safe from invaders—this, I think, was the key contribution that the Spartans have made to the cause of philosophy, literature, and art. In 480 BC, the Persian King Xerxes would have wiped out Athens and rest of Ancient Greece if the Spartan King Leonidas had not stopped the Persian army comprising of more than 200,000 soldiers at the narrow passageway of Thermopylae.

Without nationalistic and militaristic Sparta, there would not have been any democratic and liberal Athens—and without Athens, it is possible that Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, and several other artists and writers might not have found a conducive social environment for doing their work. By protecting Athens from the Persians, Sparta granted the brilliant minds of Athens the opportunity for completing their work.

The learning that we can draw from the history of Classical Athens and Sparta is that a democratic and liberal environment is necessary for the flourishing of literature, art, and philosophy, but such an environment cannot survive without the support of a nationalistic force.

On The Frustrated and Clueless Atheists

The people who are the first to hop aboard the bandwagon of a philosophy which claims to possess the “one and only truth” are usually the frustrated and clueless atheists who feel alienated from their own culture and have started yearning for a new “god”. Their need for a new god is both psychological and spiritual. They want to lose their personal identity (and with it their frustrations and cluelessness) in a movement that provides them with the satisfaction of denying religion while assuming a godlike persona—of a being who is perfectly moral, perfectly intelligent, and full of knowledge about the past, present, and future. I am not negative on all atheists, many of them are good thinkers, but I think that to be part of a philosophical movement which claims to posses the “one and only truth” while being an atheist is a sign of alienation and psychological derangement.

Thursday, July 11, 2019

The Philosophical Movement: Between God and Devil

A philosophical movement which claims to possess the “one and only truth” is like a religion in the sense that it operates between two poles: the good ideas/acts of the movement’s god (the founder) and the bad ideas/acts of the movement’s devil (the founder’s greatest enemy). But when the founder passes away and the movement matures, the realization dawns on the new leaders of the movement that the standards of their god are too high and that they are lacking in intellect, knowledge, passion, and also the stature to occupy the same space that their god once used to occupy. Since they are incapable of emulating their god, they, intentionally or inadvertently, start emulating the devil. As time passes, the movement acquires all the traits of the same devil that the founder once detested.

Wednesday, July 10, 2019

On The Invention of Fanaticism

The British scientist and philosopher J.B.S Haldane counts religious intolerance among the only four really important inventions made between 3000 B.C. and 1400 A.D. In his essay, “Is History A Fraud?” (Page 56; The Inequality of Man and Other Essays by J.B.S Haldane), he writes:
“Between 3000 B.C. and A.D. 1400 there were probably only four really important inventions, namely the general use of iron, paved roads, voting, and religious intolerance. Perhaps I should have added coinage and long-distance water supply. Gunpowder had been known for a long time before A.D. 1400 in China, but did not begin to win battles in Europe till the seventeenth century. Some­ what before that date, however, it had helped to acceler­ate the decay of feudalism by diminishing the military value of castles.”
I am not a fan of Haldane, but it is an interesting thought that fanaticism which is widely seen as a cause of political violence in our times was in the early days of civilization a miraculous instrument for energizing men and inspiring them to give rise to new societies and nations. The first major nations in the history of humanity were the creation of the religious fanatics.

Tuesday, July 9, 2019

The Unexpected Consequences of The Enlightenment

Eric Hoffer notes that when existing beliefs and institutions are discredited, and people are in the grip of the idea of change, then the society is ripe for the rise of a new fanatical faith. The Renaissance, he notes, was followed by the Reformation and the Counter Reformation, and the French Enlightenment gave birth to Marx’s communist revolution. Here’s an excerpt from True Believer (Chapter 15, “Men of Words”):

"A wide diffusion of doubt and irreverence thus leads often to unexpected results. The irreverence of the Renaissance was a prelude to the new fanaticism of Reformation and Counter Reformation. The Frenchmen of the enlightenment who debunked the church and the crown and preached reason and tolerance released a burst of revolutionary and nationalist fanaticism which has not abated yet. Marx and his followers discredited religion, nationalism and the passionate pursuit of business, and brought into being the new fanaticism of socialism, communism, Stalinist nationalism and the passion for world dominion."

He goes on to make the following observation:

"When we debunk a fanatical faith or prejudice, we do not strike at the root of fanaticism. We merely prevent its leaking out at a certain point, with the likely result that it will leak out at some other point. Thus by denigrating prevailing beliefs and loyalties, the militant man of words unwittingly creates in the disillusioned masses a hunger for faith. For the majority of people cannot endure the barrenness and futility of their lives unless they have some ardent dedication, or some passionate pursuit in which they can lose themselves. Thus, in spite of himself, the scoffing man of words becomes the precursor of a new faith."

Hoffer is right. All movements, cultural, political, or philosophical have unexpected consequences. It is noteworthy that Marx was not a Marxist, but his ideas helped create Marxism.

On The Problem of Contradictions

It is easy to stridently proclaim that contradictions cannot exist in nature, but it is difficult to resolve all the contradictions in your own philosophy. There has not been a single philosophy in the last 2500 years that is not full of contradictions. The process of identifying and resolving the contradictions in the work of a good philosopher can involve a multitude of scholars working over a period of centuries.

Monday, July 8, 2019

On Woolf’s To The Lighthouse

Virginia Woolf has a unique style of writing. I like the way she makes use of similes and metaphors in her sentences, which vary in length, some are short, while others are quite long, covering an entire paragraph, and at times incorporate symbolisms. Here’s an excerpt from Woolf’s To The Lighthouse (Part II, “Time Passes”; Chapter 3):
But what after all is one night? A short space, especially when the darkness dims so soon, and so soon a bird sings, a cock crows, or a faint green quickens, like a turning leaf, in the hollow of the wave. Night, however, succeeds to night. The winter holds a pack of them in store and deals them equally, evenly, with indefatigable fingers. They lengthen; they darken. Some of them hold aloft clear planets, plates of brightness. The autumn trees, ravaged as they are, take on the flash of tattered flags kindling in the gloom of cool cathedral caves where gold letters on marble pages describe death in battle and how bones bleach and burn far away in Indian sands. The autumn trees gleam in the yellow moonlight, in the light of harvest moons, the light which mellows the energy of labour, and smooths the stubble, and brings the wave lapping blue to the shore. 
It seemed now as if, touched by human penitence and all its toil, divine goodness had parted the curtain and displayed behind it, single, distinct, the hare erect; the wave falling; the boat rocking; which, did we deserve them, should be ours always. But alas, divine goodness, twitching the cord, draws the curtain; it does not please him; he covers his treasures in a drench of hail, and so breaks them, so confuses them that it seems impossible that their calm should ever return or that we should ever compose from their fragments a perfect whole or read in the littered pieces the clear words of truth. For our penitence deserves a glimpse only; our toil respite only. 
The nights now are full of wind and destruction; the trees plunge and bend and their leaves fly helter skelter until the lawn is plastered with them and they lie packed in gutters and choke rain pipes and scatter damp paths. Also the sea tosses itself and breaks itself, and should any sleeper fancying that he might find on the beach an answer to his doubts, a sharer of his solitude, throw off his bedclothes and go down by himself to walk on the sand, no image with semblance of serving and divine promptitude comes readily to hand bringing the night to order and making the world reflect the compass of the soul. The hand dwindles in his hand; the voice bellows in his ear. Almost it would appear that it is useless in such confusion to ask the night those questions as to what, and why, and wherefore, which tempt the sleeper from his bed to seek an answer.
I think Woolf's writing style can be compared to that of Marcel Proust. She was an admirer of Proust, but she disliked James Joyce for his “whirls of obscenity”.

On the False Deification of Individualists

Only the naive can dream of a political movement spearheaded by individualists. An individualist is someone who does not consult, does not cooperate, and does not collaborate—how can a man like this be expected to spearhead a political movement or even participate in one? Politics is all about consultation, cooperation, and collaboration—it is about finding a common agenda—it is about talking to people, giving an ear to their problems, and offering solutions—it is about trying to change the mind of the people who may not think like you or even hate you. An individualist is incapable of doing all this and so he is useless and irrelevant in the political context.

Many people believe that the individualists are brave, innovative, and creative. But this is not correct in every context. When a nation is attacked by a powerful enemy, the individualists are usually the first to flee, surrender, or get mired in depression over the hopeless situation. It is the people who are motivated by love for their nation’s religion, history, and culture who risk their lives to fight the enemy. When it comes to innovation and creativity, some of the most productive people in the history of humanity have been the non-individualists—these are people who love their family and friends, have respect and admiration for their nation’s religion and culture, and are often active in the affairs of their community and nation.

I am not saying that individualism is bad; it can be a good thing. But individualism can bring benefits only when it is practiced in a limited and judicious manner and in appropriate contexts—it is not advisable to take the individualist approach to everything in life.

Sunday, July 7, 2019

Labors of The Objectivist Sisyphus

The labors of the objectivist followers of Ayn Rand has distinct parallels with the labors of Sisyphus, who was condemned by the Gods to roll an immense boulder up a mountain only to have it roll down to the bottom when he is close to the top. Sisyphus must keep repeating the labor for eternity without any hope of success.

The objectivists too are condemned by their “God” to roll the immense boulder of reason, individualism, and liberty up the “mountain of reality”. It has been prophesied that the one who can make the boulder stay at the top of the “mountain of reality” will have the keys to the promised land. So far all the objectivists have failed to complete the Sisyphean labor.

Rand’s novels have some good teachings; the problem is primarily with her movement of objectivism in which two of closest followers Nathaniel Branden and Leonard Peikoff have made significant contributions. Both Branden and Peikoff were intellectually, morally, and temperamentally unsuitable for the job—and they have made a complete hash of the Randian enterprise.

The objectivist conception of reason, individualism, and liberty is not accurate, and neither is their view of man’s psychology, his purpose, and his place in the universe. The world of objectivism, with its flawed principles, petty conflicts, and cultist methods, appears vastly different from the vibrant world that the readers discover in Rand’s novels. There appear to be two Ayn Rands’ — the one who wrote the novels and the one who got mired in objectivism.

Since the 1950s, when objectivism got launched, the objectivists kept rolling the boulder up the mountain but it kept coming down. Eventually some prominent and not-so-prominent objectivists lost faith, or got exhausted and bored, and they gave up and drifted away from the unending Sisyphean labor. Some were excommunicated because the Randian-elite wanted to monopolize the Sisyphean labor—and its ultimate fruit, the keys to the promised land.

The objectivists who remain in the fold appear tired, garrulous, and peevish. Their mind is a cauldron of the pent-up anger of the decades. They keep performing the Sisyphean labor even though they are filled with the dread that they may never find the promised land.

On Modernity & Atheism

Modernity and atheism do not mix well. In the last 250 years all movements led by atheist politicians and intellectuals promised to establish a utopia of reason, science, and liberty, but on attaining power they unleashed a reign of terror and established a socialist and racist regime. The atheistic regimes have the record of prosecuting more people of other religions and races than most normal democratic governments. The important learning of last 250 years is that all atheists are potential jacobins and bolsheviks—they cannot be trusted with political power.

Saturday, July 6, 2019

Selfishness is Not a Virtue

Wanderer above the Sea of Fog 
Eric Hoffer did not regard selfishness as a virtue. He belittles the idea of selfishness in Chapter 7, “The Inordinately Selfish,” of his book The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements. He writes:
The inordinately selfish are particularly susceptible to frustration. The more selfish a person, the more poignant his disappointments. It is the inordinately selfish, therefore, who are likely to be the most persuasive champions of selflessness. 
The fiercest fanatics are often selfish people who were forced, by innate shortcomings or external circumstances, to lose faith in their own selves. They separate the excellent instrument of their selfishness from their ineffectual selves and attach it to the service of some holy cause. And though it be a faith of love and humility they adopt, they can be neither loving nor humble. 
In his book The Passionate State of Mind: And Other Aphorisms (Chapter 5, “The Readiness to Work”), Hoffer notes that selfishness subsumes self-abnegation:
There is even in the most selfish passion a large element of self-abnegation. It is startling to realize that we call extreme self-seeking is actually self-renunciation. The miser, health addict, glory chaser and their like are not far behind in the exercise of self-sacrifice. Every extreme attitude is a flight from the self.

Philosophical Movements Have Unintended Consequences

Philosophical movements have unintended consequences. A movement dedicated to the cause of brotherhood of man may lead to jealousy and factionalism. A movement dedicated to the cause of individualism and happiness may lead to collectivism and misery. A movement dedicated to the cause of reason may lead to irrationality and mysticism. A movement dedicated the cause of freedom may lead to groupthink. Only the philosophers who are hungry for power over others and have a delusional view of human psychology waste their time on movements.

Friday, July 5, 2019

On The Term “Byzantine Empire”

Darío Fernández-Morera dislikes the term “Byzantine Empire.” He suggests in his book The Myth of The Andalusian Paradise that it is ideology that drives many modern historians to use the term “Byzantine Empire” for the Eastern Roman Empire. He writes:
“Continuity between the Greek Roman Empire and the classical heritage needs to be emphasized because it bears on both Christian and Islamic civilizations. However, the word Byzantine hides this continuity. It is a word even less justifiable to designate the inhabitants of the Christian Greek Roman Empire of the Middle Ages than the word Indian is to designate the sixteenth-century inhabitants of the Americas or the word Iberia (now almost universally adopted among specialists in the English-speaking scholarly world) is to designate medieval Spain. The word Indian is an involuntary error resulting from an unavoidable lack of knowledge about an existing continent, but the words Byzantine and Iberia are artificial academic constructions resulting from ideology.” 
The German historian Hieronymus Wolf (13 August 1516 - 8 October 1580) was the first to use the term “Byzantine” — in his 1557 work Corpus Historiæ Byzantinæ — to label the later years of the Roman Empire. He got the term from "Byzantium", the name of the city of Constantinople before it became Constantine's capital. Montesquieu used the term “Byzantine” in his own works, but the term came into general use only in the mid-19th century. Here’s Fernández-Morera’s perspective on the origin of the term “Byzantine Empire”:
“In fact, the term Byzantine Empire was invented in 1557 by the German scholar Hieronymus Wolf, who as a Protestant would not have been sympathetic to Eastern (or Orthodox) Christians, to indicate that these culturally Greek people of the Eastern Roman Empire were not Romans, and somehow not even Greeks. His scholarly decision may also have been influenced by the fact that the Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne and his successors had claimed the name Roman for itself… Eighteenth-century Enlightenment scholars such as Montesquieu, who despised Orthodox Christianity perhaps even more than Roman Catholicism, adopted the term, thereby emphasizing that these presumably retrograde Christian Greeks had nothing in common with those pagan Greeks admired by the Enlightenment. This artificial construction, Byzantine, already charged with Enlightenment-created connotations of convoluted formalism and corruption, has continued to be used by most Western historians.” 
I think that the term “Byzantine Empire” is a misnomer and a synecdoche; it does not tell us that this empire used to call itself “Roman Empire” during much of its history. However, Hieronymus Wolf was not at fault in using the term “Byzantine Empire” — after all, the capital of the empire was called Byzantium before the age of Constantine.

Philosophy & Plagiarism

It is usually the philosophers who have never had an original idea in their lifetime who like to shout from rooftops that their philosophy is completely original and is better than every other past or present philosophy. They plagiarize from hundred different resources, never give credit to any past philosopher, and then proclaim that they have created an original system of philosophy. In any case, the idea of original philosophy is nonsensical. Philosophy does not proceed by virtue of original ideas, but by the virtue of "original arguments." If your arguments are not good, and you are unable to defend your philosophical position, then your philosophy is useless.

Thursday, July 4, 2019

The Skepticism of Gottlob Ernst Schulze

Gottlob Ernst Schulze, a professor at Helmstedt, anonymously published a book in 1792 under a long title Aenesidemus or Concerning the Foundations of the Philosophy of the Elements Issued by Professor Reinhold in Jena Together with a Defense of Skepticism against the Pretensions of the Critique of Reason. The book created great controversy and eventually it became known that Schulze was the author. As it is apparent from the title, the Aenesidemus was aimed at examining Karl Leonhard Reinhold’s book Philosophy of the Elements, but Schulze’s real target was Immanuel Kant’s critical philosophy. He wanted to prove that Kant had not refuted David Hume’s skepticism.

Schulze’s choice of the title Aenesidemus is appropriate because Aenesidemus (1st century BC) was a Greek Pyrrhonist (skeptic) philosopher. He was a member of Plato’s Academy but he rejected Platonism and adopted Pyrrhonism. His life and ideas have been described Sextus Empiricus, the ancient historian of skepticism. Schulze’s plan was to renew Pyrrhonism to combat the enemies of skepticism, the foremost of which was Kant’s critical philosophy.

In his essay, “Schulze's Skepticism,” ( Chapter 9; The Fate of Reason: German Philosophy from Kant to Fichte), Frederick C. Beiser notes that “Schulze's meta-critical skepticism gives a new twist to modern skepticism since its inception in Descartes's and Hume's writings. While Descartes and Hume use epistemology as an instrument of their skepticism, examining the conditions of knowledge in order to expose unfounded claims to it, Schulze brings this very instrument into question. The skeptic is now forced to be self-reflective, self-critical of the tools of his trade.”

Like Johann Georg Hamann and Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi, Schulze saw Hume as a great destroyer of the pretensions of reason and the lofty claims of the Kantian critical theory. In Aenesidemus, Schulze argues that Kant never refuted Hume, he only begged the question against him. Here’s Beiser’s description of Schulze’s  arguments against the notion that Kant has refuted Hume:
Kant's transcendental deduction does not refute Hume, but only presupposes what he brings into question: the principle of causality. The deduction proves that the categories apply to experience only by assuming that the transcendental subject is the lawgiver of nature. But to assume that this subject is the lawgiver of nature, that it creates the laws to which nature conforms, presupposes the application of the principle of causality, which only begs the question against Hume. 
It is important to note that Schulze sees this as a general problem of all epistemology. In his view epistemology is caught in a vicious circle. It pretends to be the presuppositionless first philosophy; but it has to presuppose the principle of causality in order to investigate the origins of knowledge. Hence the whole enterprise of epistemology cannot get off the ground because of Hume's skepticism about causality. 
Kant’s critical theory and Schulze’s skepticism begin at the same point—that all our beliefs must submit to the free and open examination of reason. Schulze claims in Aenesidemus that he is a believer in reason, but he asserts that reason is not at odds with skepticism, rather it is its only consistent position. By coming together, Hamann, Jacobi, and Schulze—eventually Salomon Maimon jumped into their bandwagon—were able to revive interest in Hume’s skepticism.

Wednesday, July 3, 2019

On Antony Flew’s Pilgrimage of Reason

The English philosopher Antony Flew was a well known advocate of atheism for more than fifty years but he changed his position in 2004 when he made the claim that he had now started believing in the existence of an intelligent creator. He provided the reasons for changing his mind in his 2007 book (written in collaboration with Roy Abraham Varghese) There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.

Here’s an excerpt from the book’s Chapter 4, “The Pilgrimage of Reason” (Page 88-89):
I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence. I believe that this universe’s intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source.
Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science. Science spotlights three dimensions of nature that point to God. The first is the fact that nature obeys laws. The second is the dimension of life, of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings, which arose from matter. The third is the very existence of nature. But it is not science alone that has guided me. I have also been helped by a renewed study of the classical philosophical arguments.
My departure from atheism was not occasioned by any new phenomenon or argument. Over the last two decades, my whole framework of thought has been in a state of migration. This was a consequence of my continuing assessment of the evidence of nature. When I finally came to recognize the existence of a God, it was not a paradigm shift, because my paradigm remains, as Plato in his Republic scripted his Socrates to insist: “We must follow the argument wherever it leads.”
Flew makes his deistic argument on God at a purely natural level; he asserts that his discovery of God has been a pilgrimage of reason and not of faith: “I must stress that my discovery of the Divine has proceeded on a purely natural level, without any reference to supernatural phenomena. It has been an exercise in what is traditionally called natural theology. It has had no connection with any of the revealed religions. Nor do I claim to have had any personal experience of God or any experience that may be called supernatural or miraculous. In short, my discovery of the Divine has been a pilgrimage of reason and not of faith.” ~ (Page 93)

On The Atmosphere of Officialdom

“The atmosphere of officialdom would kill anything that breathes the air of human endeavor, would extinguish hope and fear alike in the supremacy of paper and ink.” ~ Joseph Conrad in The Shadow-Line

Tuesday, July 2, 2019

Joseph Conrad On The Supernatural

When Joseph Conrad’s The Shadow-Line was first published in 1916, several critics noted that the novella was a fantasy because in it the previous captain’s ghost is haunting the ship on which the story takes place. In the second edition of the book, which came in 1920, Conrad appended an Author’s Note in which he mounted a defense of natural world. He noted that the world “contains enough marvels and mysteries as it is… I am too firm in my consciousness of the marvelous to be ever fascinated by the mere supernatural.”

Here’s an excerpt from Conrad’s Author’s Note:
“This story, which I admit to be in its brevity a fairly complex piece of work, was not intended to touch on the supernatural. Yet more than one critic has been inclined to take it in that way, seeing in it an attempt on my part to give the fullest scope to my imagination by taking it beyond the confines of the world of the living, suffering humanity. But as a matter of fact my imagination is not made of stuff so elastic as all that. I believe that if I attempted to put the strain of the Supernatural on it it would fail deplorably and exhibit an unlovely gap. But I could never have attempted such a thing, because all my moral and intellectual being is penetrated by an invincible conviction that whatever falls under the dominion of our senses must be in nature and, however exceptional, cannot differ in its essence from all the other effects of the visible and tangible world of which we are a self-conscious part. The world of the living contains enough marvels and mysteries as it is; marvels and mysteries acting upon our emotions and intelligence in ways so inexplicable that it would almost justify the conception of life as an enchanted state. No, I am too firm in my consciousness of the marvelous to be ever fascinated by the mere supernatural, which (take it any way you like) is but a manufactured article, the fabrication of minds insensitive to the intimate delicacies of our relation to the dead and to the living, in their countless multitudes; a desecration of our tenderest memories; an outrage on our dignity.”
The ghost of the previous captain (a man called Mr. Burns) is described by one of the inmates of the ship in these words: “His face in the full light of day appeared very pale, meagre, even haggard. Somehow I had a delicacy as to looking too often at him; his eyes, on the contrary, remained fairly glued on my face. They were greenish and had an expectant expression."

On Intellectuals Who Philosophize Like Zeus

There exists a category of intellectuals who think that they are the world’s ultimate repository of reason and morality. They are so convinced of their intelligence that they think that the solutions that they prescribe for the world’s problems are always correct and must be accepted by all. These intellectuals remind me of the Homeric god Zeus who is also convinced of his omniscience and omnipotence, and keeps coming up with new ideas which, instead of doing any good, cause massive chaos in all the three realms.