Yet There Is Method In It

Three Dialogues on Knowledge, by Paul Feyerabend.

Yes its that time of year again where I read my favourite philosophical iconoclast. However I’m not going to give a comprehensive review of the book (mostly as I’m only 1/3 of the way through it). Amazon reproduces the blurb from the back of the book and that succinctly describes its scope and its method.

As the title suggests it is concerned with knowledge, specifically in the fields of epistemology, ethics and metaphysics. Consequently lots of topics get attention paid to them including religion, science, astrology, culture etc.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the book is its style. It is - quite unlike most of Feyerabends work, easy to read. It is written in imitation of the Socratic Dialogue. I get the feeling that Feyerabend (who as well as being a Professor of Philosophy was a graduate of both Physics and Theatre) wrote these dialogues not for inward digestion but for public performance - consequently it is much more accessible to the reader than other works of his. He also is conscpicously absent, each of the characters represent aspects of him or even anti-characterisations and I get the impression that because he is absent as a figure (even mocked in one of the dialogues) he doesnt feel the need for grand standing controversial gesture statements - even if the content brings up controversial ideas i.e. the anarchic nature of science.

Anyway I may occasionally post excerpts from the book.

I start with this one on education - which also touches on ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, tradition, culture, existentialism, anarchism etc. I found it a very powerful passage.

A: So you really are against education.

B: On the contrary! I regard education - the right kind of education - as a most necessary aid to life. I think the poor creatures who were sent into the world just because a man or a woman were bored with each other, felt lonely and hoped that producing a nice little pet might improve matters, or because mama forgot to insert her intra-uterine device, or because mama and papa were Catholics and did not dare to have pleasure without procreation - I think these poor creatures need some protection. They got life without having asked for it - and yet from the very first day of their existence they are pushed around, forbidden to do this, ordered to do that, any conceivable pressure is exerted upon them including the inhumane pressure deriving from the need for love and sympathy. So they grow up. They become ‘responsible’. And now the pressures are refined. Instead of the whip we have the argument, instead of parental threats the pressures issuing from some midget whom his fellow midgets regard as a ‘great man’. Instead of eating his supper he is supposed to search for truth. But why should the children of tomorrow have to imitate the leading idiots of today? Why should those upon whom we have imposed existence not view this existence in their own terms? Don’t they have a right to please themselves even if this scares the beejesus out of their teachers, fathers, mothers as well as of the local police force? Why should they not decide against Reason and Truth…

A: You must be dreaming…

B: And this is my good right. This is everybody’s good right and it must not be taken from us by an education that maims instead of helping us to develop our own being to the fullest.

- Second Dialogue (1976)

I havent posted anything at all recently and have deluged by all sorts of other work, so much so that even my reading list is suffering. Anyway decided to a jumbled and ad hoc post on various news snippets that have caught my attention.

Sarkozy vs the Burqa

In a speech to both chambers of the French Parliament recently President Sarkozy declared that the Burqa was not welcome in France.

“The burka is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience… It will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic.”

At first glance this appears to be an opinion rather than a policy, but this comment was based upon a demand from 65 MP’s that a commission examine whether wearing the Burqa contravened Women’s rights and France’s secular tradition. Interestingly this request has wide political support from across the political spectrum, Communists to Conservatives (though the Socialist opposition were not supportive).

This follows on from the secular law of a few years back that banned the display of religious symbols in public schools and government buildings.

I have mixed views about this matter.

a) With regard the seperation of religion and state - which is essential in order to avoid theocracy or state-controlled religion - I reluctantly sympathise with various measures to restrict conspicous religious symbols. Reluctantly because I think in many western liberal societies - such as France - the presence of a Crucifix on a wall or a Hijab veil on the head of a woman is not likely to lead to a theocratic state. Although I agree it may lack inclusivity I think most western european diktats on religious imagery are being motivated by a secular-humanist agenda which is not of itself “wrong” but which smacks of an ideological intolerance that skilfully ignores the observation that atheism, agnosticism and every other belief position whether organised or not is but one of many, which though may not factually be equal should in principle be implied to be equal.

(I add this caveat as a compromise to those who would suggest that atheism/agnosticism is fact based - or to put it better non-metaphysical, in that respect a materialist atheism and transcendental theism are not equal epistemologically).

However in conclusion I do agree that where the state policy is secular (so as to mean anti-sectarian rather than anti-religious) then state owned institutions probably should operate an equally secular policy.

b) I also sympathise with the view that the Burqa is not a religious symbol but one of gender oppression. But I do not belong to the same culture that defends such codes of dress, nor do I wish to, therefore I cannot fully comprehend why women would choose (and yes there is ample evidence that the Burqa is an item of clothing of choice in many societies rather than of coercion) to wear such an outfit. As I am not of this culture, nor interested in being a part of it, surely in reflection all I can say is my values are not the same as your values - which is somewhat different from saying my values are superior to your values (which is implied in Sarkozy’s comments).

Theologically I think the Burqa is misguided (note however my philosophical tradition is Christian and not Muslim so my judgements are probably incomensurable). The Burqa is supposed to be a symbol of a woman’s purity. And a veil to protect her modesty - which some Islamic scholars identify as a key command from the Quran and the Hadith. But who is the woman’s modesty being protected from? If the woman needs protecting from the lusts of men then surely it is men who are posing the problem? I could carry on in this vein but the argument is fairly circular. Suffice to say my personal opposition to the Burqa is that if purity and modesty are virtues, then surely they are virtues that are manifested by “what is inside” a persons heart (i.e. their motives) rather than what is external to them.

c) And so to my final point. I can sympathise with the ideals of a secular state - indeed even champion such an idea so long as it is matched with freedom of conscience and religious liberty. Similarly I can agree that the Burqa is not compatible with my views. Yet I am loathe to even countenance Sarkozy’s objective which is to ban the burqa from France altogether. This I think is a direct contravention of liberte, egalite, fraternite etc… the ideals of the French state founded after the revolution. It is not enough to suggest that it is detrimental to women’s rights when many volunteer to wear the Burqa. To ban something is I believe to take choice away from the individual and consequently is to impose an abstract state authority that is the antithesis of liberty.

(Subnote: Someone suggested to me, following a similar rant on this matter, that if women chose to wear the Burqa then they should be allowed to do so in the privacy of their own homes, but not in public… this is quite funny actually. The Burqa is meant for outdoors wear and is traditionally taken off indoors, after all if you are married you have no need to protect your modesty from your spouse!)

Teenage Beliefs in the UK

According to a recent survey:

2/3 teenagers aged 13-18 (from a sample of 1000) dont believe in God.

50% never pray.

16% have never been to a church.

59% believe religion to be a negative influence on the world.

60% only attend church for Weddings and Christenings.

30% believe in an afterlife.

10% believe in reincarnation.

47% believe organised religion has no place in the world.

60% believed religious studies should not be compulsory in school.

91% believed in the maxim “do unto others as you woudl have done unto yourself”.

Most teenagers stated that family, friends, money and reality TV (!) rated more highly in their life’s priorities than religion and God.

A Church of England spokesman said that we could disregard the results as teenagers have not yet fully formed their opinions. Whereas a spokesman for the British Humanist Association (containing their glee) said they were not suprised by the results.

I am mostly neutral on the matter, I have a belief system, others dont, it really doesn’t bother me if you share my beliefs or are radically opposed to them. What I do cherish is the freedom to hold my beliefs and to practise them openly without fear of persecution - the payoff that I make is that I likewise respect the values and beliefs of others and seek not to impose those of mine on others whereever they may differ.

But I do have some thoughts.

1) The survey seems very inadequate… what I mean is it puts God under a simple yes/no box. Why so simple? Obviously this is more of a social research project than a philosophical one, but I find it hard to believe (irony) that 1/3 say Yes I Believe! and 2/3 say No I Dont Believe! … what about the “I’m not sure”, “I dont care”, “I dont think we can know”, “Why just one God”, “Depends what you mean by God”, etc.

I agree with Wittgenstein when he says that the question do you believe in God is a non-question because the very meaning of the word and the concept changes person to person and in whatever context it is found. I personally dislike the simplified use of the binary opposite theist/atheist in this case because I think it oversimplifies and obscures the complex.

Theist, Deist, Pantheist, belong in a similar category. As do: Atheist, Hard Agnostic etc. But what about the overlaps?

Soft Agnosticism: I’m not sure. (Implies I am yet to be convinced).

Apatheist: It’s not a relevant issue in my life right now. (Implies i’ve never been to church, my family is not religious, i’ve never thought about it etc.)

Misotheist (God-Hater): I can’t believe in a God that allows such bad things to happen, (or) such a God that allows evil doesnt deserve my worship. (Implies I am dissillusioned with an idea of God ((my idea))).

There is a subtle overlap on these non-belief positions with belief positions, as they are not necessarily fixed or well considered. Actually the movement is two-way, many religious people fall into a soft agnosticism, apatheism or misotheism when various life events challenge their ‘faith’.

In my social conversations with friends and family and for that matter complete strangers, I think these 3 overlap positions are by far the most populous. Many people are not sure what constitutes the God-hypothesis (how can they be when believers aren’t either). I think the absence of any real scholarship both philosophically and sociologically on these “overlap” positions is scandalous and allows a very narrow academic “Faith War” to develop between the loony fundamentalists on both sides.

Personally as a philosopher I find these three positions the most interesting to talk about.

2) That half never pray means little to me, please define prayer? Dear God give me an x-box for christmas… Om Mane Padme Hum (famous Buddhist Mantra of compassion) and the lone isolated inner voice in a moment of need or despair addressed to nobody in particular that cries out “help”… which of these is validly open to description as prayer? (Or which ones are not?)

I can think of two Christian (Catholic) quotes that mean a lot to me on this matter, Meister Eckhart is attributed as once saying “if the only prayer we say was thankyou that would suffice” and the Fourth Eucharistic prayer asks God to remember those who have died “whose faith is known to you alone”.

3) A suprisingly large number of teens have been to church, even if it is only for “rites de passage” like marriage or christenings. This contrasts with the 50-60% who believe religion to be a negative influence on the world and specifically organised religion. Is this attitude born of their “Church-experience” or does it pre-date it, or is it reflective of the pop-media trends of this time where every Catholic priest is a paedophile, every protestant is obsessed with homosexuality and every muslim is a terrorist?

Significantly for those who belong or run organised religious groups… is this a reflection of your practises? If so many are going to church for “rites de passage” yet declare to have so little belief in the metaphysics of the religion, surely your message is being obscured. Is it relevant?

My buzz-words in philosophy of language at the mo (and part of my dissertation) is “Convenience” and “Comprehension”. People seem to only whole-heartedly believe in that which they comprehend (it makes sense to them) and that which is convenient to them to believe (enriches their lives).

I think these stats have important considerations for religious people to consider, is your message understandable, could it be rendered more so?

and short final thoughts…

4) Belief in the after-life has little or no religious importance. Buddhists are non-theists but believe in an afterlife, the Sadducees were a Jewish faction that rejected the soul, angels and the after-life but believed in Yahweh.

5) Should religious studies be compulsory in school? Should any subject be compulsory? How about school itself? In terms of human and cultural geography I think religous studies is important.

6) Wow over 90% value the “Golden Rule”. It is not exclusively Christian, Buddha said much the same, and Kant trying to develop a perennial philosophy without recourse to religious metaphysics devised the same maxim. The spokesperson for the BHA said that people should take heart from the fact that the non-religious could still hold “positive values”.

I could ask what came first, the chicken or the egg? A religious value system that included the golden rule, or good old-fashioned decent “positive values” that simply got co-opted and tacked on to religion… but it would cease to amusing very quickly.

7) Final thought: x amount believe religion to be a negative force, y amount thinks religious studies should not be compulsory… in a propaganda war (which this essentially is) surely the assertion made by x amount that religion is a negative force should be open to a challenge by the not-x amount who believe religion to be a positive force. But instead of propaganda, and proselytism perhaps simple discussion should take its place, and considered reflection.

Homeschooling

In response to alleged falling standards in schools, and a loss of a moral compass in society as a whole so, many people argue, parents should have the right to homeschool their child.

Aggressive secularists dont like this, as many homeschoolers are religious families, who perhaps have been upset by the ideological eradication of all religious ‘objectivism’ from the school system. Home schooling, where the non-qualified parent can teach the child pretty much anything they like is… a form of child abuse (or at least open to it) … according to Dawkins etc.

Anyway I picked up on this story from another blog. And I only refer to it as I think it is another case of an all too powerful state system undermining the most basic forms of autonomy and as a libertarian I find that most disturbing. I will reproduce an extract of the article here that interested me the most:

“The review’s proposals include a national registration scheme for home educators, to be renewed annually. There will be national guidance issued which will include a

clear statement of the statutory basis of elective home education and the rights and responsibilities of parents

Homeschooling is therefore no longer to be considered something that parents have a natural right to do, but something that has to have a “statutory basis.”

Parents will have to:

provide a clear statement of their educational approach, intent and desired/planned outcomes for the child over the following twelve months.

Designated Local Authority officers will have the right of access to the home and the right to speak with each child alone “if deemed appropriate.”

The Badman-Balls approach is a fundamental contradiction of the true relationship between state education and the family. The school should be considered as acting “in loco parentis” (in the place of the parent) because the parents are the first educators and carers for their own children. This latest review and its recommendations assume that the state is the primordial educator and carer and that if parents “elect” to educate their children without the help of the state, they are effectively acting “in loco rei publicae” (in the place of the state) and must therefore be registered, monitored, reviewed…

… pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, de-briefed and numbered?”

A man from the country seeks the law and wishes to gain entry to the law through a doorway. The doorkeeper tells the man that he cannot go through at the present time. The man asks if he can ever go through, and the doorkeeper says that is possible. The man waits by the door for years, bribing the doorkeeper with everything he has. The doorkeeper accepts the bribes, but tells the man that he accepts them “so you won’t think you’ve neglected something.” The man waits at the door until he is about to die. Right before his death, he asks the doorkeeper why even though everyone seeks the law, no one else has come in all the years. The doorkeeper answers “No one else could gain admittance here, because this entrance was meant solely for you. I am now going to shut it.”

This is a condensed version of Kafka’s “Before the Law“, taken from Wikipedia.

I read this qoute on another blog. It both interested and in a way inspired me to a deep reflection. I offer no comment on it for I feel it may be interpreted and appreciated in many ways by different people so I therefore reproduce it as it is.

“Tradition means giving a vote to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our father.”

G.K.Chesterton Orthodoxy

I started reading Francis Collins’s book but its not going very well. I was interested of a tale of an atheistic scientist that found God. The first argument and apparent centre piece is based on an unusual mix of the meta-ethics, argument from analogy, argument from design, and a bit of the ontological argument. He attributes it to CS Lewis with numerous quotes from his books. (And I thought I was bad with my narrow selection of quotations!) I have outlined the argument in as clear form as I can by separating the two main threads, then I have proceeded to “kick the tires”. It has been a while since I have attempted this type of activity. I am motivated and intrigued by the authors repeated claims of rationality and his previous work as a scientist.

Axioms:
The existence of the concepts of good and evil are accepted by most people.
Humans act in an altruistic manner.
Human altruistic behaviour and the concept of good has not been explained.

‘The argument that most caught my attention, and most rocked my ideas about science and spirit down to their foundations, was right there in the title of Book One: “Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe.” [...] Disagreements are part of daily life. [...] each party attempts to appeal to an unstated higher standard. This standard is the Moral Law. [...] Virtually never does the respondent say, “To hell with your concept of right behaviour.” What we have here is very peculiar: the concept of right and wrong appears to be universal among all members of the human species[...]‘

Arguments:
The concept of “good” is analogous to a house that has been designed an architect. The concept of “good” must also have a creator, which is God.
The altruistic actions are analogous to a house that has been designed an architect. The concept of “good” must also have a creator, which is God.

If the Law of Human Nature cannot be explained away as cultural artifact or evolutionary by-product, then how can we account for its presence? There is truly something going on here. Francis Collins

If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe - no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house. The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. And that is just what we do find inside ourselves. Surely this ought to arouse our suspicious? C S Lewis

Axioms: The argument relies on the axiom that the concept of good is universal. Unfortunately for this argument, counter examples exist - just look at existential philosophy. If we still use a weakened form of the argument, “most people believe in good”, we end up with an imperfectly universal “Moral Law” and therefore an imperfect designer. If we argue, “those existentialists are just deluding themselves”, the reverse argument is also allowable “the majority of people are deluded about Moral Law”. I don’t think this could be clearer:

My demand of the philosopher is well known: that he take his stand beyond good and evil and treat the illusion of moral judgement as beneath him. This demand follows from an insight that I was the first to articulate: that there are no moral facts. Twilight of the Idols, FN

So much for the universal concept of Moral Law. If only Nietzsche’s demand was more well known…

The other axiom is that people act in an altruistic way. Collins defines altruism as “the truly selfless giving of oneself to others with absolutely no secondary motives”. He cites Oskar Schindler and Mother Teresa as examples. Well I can think of one motivation: religion (they were both Catholic). Also, these individuals decided “they know best” in how to help people in distress. This generalising of a personal morality on to other cases generally seems very selfish to me!

Update: I should distinguish that the belief in a God (irrespective of the validity of belief) is a sufficient explanation in these cases. The existence of God is what Collins uses as the explanation of altruism.

But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. Luke 6:35 (my emphasis)

He wishes to succour, and does not reflect that there is a personal necessity for misfortune; that terror, want, impoverishment, midnight watches, adventures, hazards and mistakes are as necessary to me and to you as their opposites, yea, that, to speak mystically, the path to one’s own heaven always leads through the voluptuousness of one’s own hell. No, he knows nothing thereof. Gay Science Aph 338, FN

Argument from analogy: this is an unsure method of argument more suited to rhetorics. If the cases that are compared are not equal, the analogy does not necessarily hold. We must be particularly careful if we are comparing something like a house to something like “the concept of good”. On what grounds are we to compare “the concept of good” to any physical object, without invoking the characteristic of “design” which would be merely begging the question in that assumes a designer? This great quote from Hume rebuts comparison between the universe and a house but it might be equally applied to comparing a morality and a house.

…the subject in which you are engaged exceeds all human reason and enquiry. Can you pretend to shew any such similarity between the fabric of a house, and the generation of a universe? Have you ever seen nature in any such situation as resembles the first arrangement of the elements? Have worlds ever been formed under your eye; and have you had leisure to observe the whole progress of the phenomenon, from the first appearance of order to its final consummation? If you have, then cite your experience, and deliver your theory. Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Hume

Argument from ignorance: In some ways, this argument should have been stated first since it is a simple logically flaw and not easily rebutted. If we don’t know where the concept “good” comes from, we can’t form any conclusion based on what we don’t know. If we allowed this, he might become religious based on an argument from ignorance but when an explanation emerges, is he compelled to renounce God? That would be absurd. This has been discussed many times before as “God of the gaps”.

Since this is an argument from ignorance, I could explain the concept of “good” being caused by extra-terrestrial alien interference. Although I don’t believe that theory, the flimsy supporting evidence is better than Collins’s no evidence whatever (in the context of this argument from ignorance).

Infinite regress: If there is evidence of an “architect”, what created the architect? The architect’s designer presumably. And who created that? And so on. I really can’t be bothered to flesh this out since this objection has been known for hundreds of years.

Some points that I found while flipping though the book:

“This principle [Occham's razor] suggests that the simplest explanation for any given probelms is usually best. Occam’s Razor appears to have been relegated to the Dumpster by the bizarre models of quantum physics.”

This is a straw man of Occam’s razor. Does it only say the “simplest” argument is best? No. It doesn’t. And for a practicing scientist to claim this makes me worry. (If this really is Occam’s razor, the best theory would be “the universe is random, any pattern is a coincidence” and we can stop research since we have the “best” theory.)

“If God is outside of nature, then science can neither prove nor disprove His existence. If God is outside of nature, then science can neither prove nor disprove His existence. Atheism itself must therefore be considered a form of blind faith.”

Nice ad hominem tu quoque. But it is easy to restate this argument to say “religion can neither prove nor disprove his existence” and therefore it is “blind faith”. This refutes his own argument from evidence in one fell swoop. On the other hand, if God is “inside the universe”, science or atheists can comment on God’s existence. Oddly Collins seems to alternate between God being “outside the universe” and yet occasionally intervening in human affairs. Is he a deist or theist? From this quote, I don’t think he knows himself.

An alternative analysis I suggest is that “good” is a product of language to express social norms. Social and community norms exist in humans and other animals. Of the animals, we have the most complicated language - if we use a broad definition of “language”. The short cut to refer to community norms in language is what created the concept “good”. Not a big deal - and certainly no proof of God. My suggestion to Francis Collins: get a copy of Hume’s “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion” and read it (again, if applicable). I would have liked to have read his ideas on coexistence of science and religion but his first few chapters were so incoherence so I stopped and I don’t think I missed much by not reading on. But apparently he rejects creationism and ID. Perhaps scientists should say away from philosophy? (note to self…)

Anti Citizen One

PS I have less of a beef with religious people who don’t claim rational justification for God. This post obviously does not apply to you.

Bad Science is a joyful debunking of medical myths and unsound methods. It covers “alternative medicine”, abuses in mainstream research and the media’s reporting of science. It is interesting to have an outsider comment on the medical research but still from a knowledgeable point of view. His style is irreverent and amusing which is a welcome change from researchers who may take their own community too seriously. The book reminds me of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds in its treatment of quacks within alternative medicine. He also restates what is meant by causality and the human tendencies in biased reason - in a very Hume-like, Nietzschian way. His argument is eye opening to many problems with the medical systems. He avoids blaming individuals when he can see systematic failures - most quacks are almost carried by a local mass delusion.

The section on the media’s handling of MMR is particularly damning. The current position is the media has turned on the original source, Andrew Wakefield, saying he was responsible for leading the media into mass panic for years. Ben points out that Wakefield’s evidence, even before it was debunked, was flimsy and the media is to blame for perpetuating a myth. In this case a myth that caused people to die from complications from mumps and rubella and was far from harmless. The debunking of Wakefield did not change the evidence which was weighted towards MMR’s safety the entire time! Ben blames the editorial system of newspapers, which has generalist journalists handle the big science stories rather than science journalists. He also points a finger at readers who buy newspapers that cover health scares for creating a demand for such stories. I am included to agree with his analysis. Although grossly self indulgent, I will quote from V for Vendetta:

How did this happen? Who’s to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you’re looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn’t be?

One striking thing compared to most debunking books is the rather pessimistic conclusion. Most people who reveal the awful truth - for example Michael Moore or Nietzsche tend to expect things will get better once the truth is known. For example:

…so that one is as constantly reminded of the proximity of winter as of the victory over it: the victory which is coming, which must come, which has perhaps already come…. FN

On the other hand, Goldacre states:

To anyone who feels their ideas have been challenged by this book, or who has been made angry by it - to the people who feature in it, I suppose - I would say this: You win. You really do.

He might be right if medicine is for the majority, the majority can’t be made to think in ways that medical experts think. Anyway, a good read. The book also reminded me of Asch’s experiment in social conformity, which is truly mind blowing. (I’m looking accusingly at you, scientific research and religion…)

Anti Citizen One

I’ve got 50% of people with me, and 50% of people will never be with me. Tracey Emin

It might surprise some, but I am not very interested in the MP expenses scandal. It is of course true that some MPs claimed much more than absolutely necessary, but why would we expect them do to differently? The pursuit of wealth is accepted by the majority. Selfless actions are perhaps highly spoken off, but less actually done. But how can we call for MP’s to act selflessly? That would be a selfish thing to do - and therefore hypocritical!

In fact this whole issue is a distraction and an extension of finding someone to blame for economic woes, especially since attacking bankers has become boring. I am far more concerned with the authoritarian legislation that has been passed by the present government, illegal wars, trade and cooperation with countries that use torture, etc. A recent, more important issue: the recent Simon Signh libel case…

Update: Of course, I recklessly assumed that hypocritical criticism is a problem. We could call for politicians to be selfless to serve our own interests - and this is happening. The question is then: do we admit to ourselves that we are hypocrites? This is unlikely. The result is we lie to ourselves, saying “we are unselfish” and “politicians should be too!” - this also keeps the illusion of universal morality in tact. What is needed to replace this is a deeper debate on what type of person do we want as politicians and what exactly is the point in the state?…

Anti Citizen One

I noticed this semi-serious “how to” guide on existential crisis survival. A few points make me scratch my head (such as “Turn on a light, preferably 75 watts or brighter.”) but I am pretty sure it would not hurt to try - lol

It also says “Don’t do too much thinking after midnight. That never goes well.” Ironically this is a moment of realisation in Thus Spake Zarathustra:

There is an old heavy, heavy, booming-clock: it boometh by night
up to thy cave:-
-When thou hearest this clock strike the hours at midnight, then
thinkest thou between one and twelve thereon-

AC1

I have finished reading The Idiot by Dostoyevsky. It has very interesting characterisation but rather rambling in style. It is packed full of social commentary, moral questions and psychological analysis - often expressed in the story in “ravings” of one character or another. Among the themes are love for one woman, Nastasya Filipovna, by three very different men: Myshkin, who is a paragon of virtue and humility; Rogozhin, who is passionate but roguish and mercenary; and Ganya, being ambitious but always mediocre. The outcome is a tragedy - each character is torn apart by an aspect within themselves which is at odds with their circumstances. Myshkin, the protagonist, is almost Christ-like in his readiness to forgive and to love. His love for Nastasya Filipovna degenerates from selfless love to total pity with a self destructive intensity. (No wonder Nietzsche took such a liking to Dostoyevsky.)

Various proto-existential questions are raised - what are the values of a society? are people responsible for their actions or does their circumstances and environment undermine “free will”? The case of a man driven to cannibalism by near starvation is discussed.

This criminal ended at last by denouncing himself to the clergy, and giving himself up to justice. We cannot but ask, remembering the penal system of that day, and the tortures that awaited him [...] There must have been something stronger than the stake or the fire, or even than the habits of twenty years! There must have been an idea more powerful than all the calamities and sorrows of this world, famine or torture, leprosy or plague–an idea which entered into the heart, directed and enlarged the springs of life, and made even that hell supportable to humanity! Show me a force, a power like that, in this our century of vices and railways!

This raises the possibility of a value system which overrules self preservation in this case. The speaker (Lebedeff) claims that the modern would has become devoid of strong convictions and therefore devalued. Another case is discussed concerning a murderer of 6 people and his unusual moral defence:

Well, not long since everyone was talking and reading about that terrible murder of six people on the part of a–young fellow, and of the extraordinary speech of the counsel for the defence, who observed that in the poverty-stricken condition of the criminal it must have come NATURALLY into his head to kill these six people.

If we admit we would have done the same in the murder’s position, we may be less inclined to condemn him. “Guilt” would no longer be free choice of evil over good, since there is no “free” choice. On the other hand, how can meaningfully discuss “If I were in another’s position” or “If another was in mine”? This might be comparing oranges and apples since there is no possibility of individuals swapping their circumstances. But that too would undermine a universal moral law.

In another place, a terminally ill man discusses what use to make of his last two weeks of life:

Who, in the name of what Law, would think of disputing my full personal right over the fortnight of life left to me?

Since he feels cannot do anything “significant” in the remaining time, the man feels he has no further obligation in his actions or even to carry on living. If this point is admitted, he argument might be extended to an entire life… hello existential crisis. No wonder Dostoyevsky is listed as a founding thinker of existentialism

Anti Citizen One