• The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other. A because B. B because A. e.g. “The Bible is true because the Bible says so.” Since anything can be justified by a circular argument, it is considered absurd to use this as a valid logical argument. It is also can involve tautology.
• The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof. A because of B, B because C, C because D, to infinity. If every proposition is supported by other propositions, there is no “foundational axiom”. Since there is no foundational axiom, we cannot even try to assess if our basic assumptions are true. Therefore we cannot know if our conclusion is true or false. This is classically seen in some versions of the cosmological argument.
• The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts. This is problematic for the philosopher, as how can we know our axioms are true? Hume, among others, have pointed out the impossibility of a priori knowledge of a posteriori experience. We also can use the argument from obviousness, but this can be countered by claiming “nothing is obvious”, Descartes evil dæmon, Plato’s cave, etc. Also, if there is a disagreement on the truth value of an axiom, there is no way to verify it – this allows possibly any axiom to be claimed as “obvious” and we are back to absurdity. Mathematics rests on axiomatic assumptions but this is acceptable for an abstract field of knowledge. But outside a-priori knowledge, certainty of axioms seems impossible.
  

  “I shall begin with observing, that there is an evident absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or to prove it by any arguments a priori. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction. [...] I propose this argument as entirely decisive, and am willing to rest the whole controversy upon it.” Cleanthes in David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

Given the objections and doubts of all possible logical justification, we are forced to conclude that no certainty in a-posteriori knowledge is possible! This leads us to fallibilism, the belief that all knowledge could, in principle, be mistaken. I do not go as far as claiming knowledge is impossible (for one thing, that statement might be considered “knowledge”).

Another way of analysing justification of logical argument is Fries’s trilemma. This ignores circular arguments (since they are worthless) and splits Münchhausen’s “axiomatic argument” into two futher divisions.

• Dogmatism – we can just assume the truth value of axioms. This is usually unacceptable to philosophers. It also opens the door to possibly false statements.
• Infinite regress – again, a problem.
• Psychologism – defined by Popper as “the doctrine that statements can be justified not only by other statements but also by perceptional experience.” Remember that this too abandons certainty in knowledge, due to the variability in interpretation of perceptions. This highlights the need for philosophy to be aware of psychology.

Given the apparently inescapably of fallibilism, anyone who claims to be certain of something is “a question mark concerning his wisdom”. We need modesty in what we know. But I don’t think most people would be comfortable with the idea that everything they know could be false…

Anti Citizen One

PS Simpsons Quote: Moe: “It’s po-mo! [blank stares from all] Post-modern! [more staring] Yeah, all right — weird for the sake of weird.”

PPS Looks like the UK government was in on the US’s torture and rendition antics the whole time.

Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. Rousseau

I am on a roll with political philosophy books: I recently finished The Open Society, The Communist Manifesto, The Republic and The Social Contract. I have started on the collected works of Thoreau. Rousseau’s The Social Contract reminds me of Thomas Paine’s writing style. Arguments are put forward using rather large metaphysical assumptions and emotional appeals – although I sometimes agree with their conclusions. For example, the quote above sounds really cool but I am not sure it has any concise meaning. This is in contrast to Popper’s dry and logical approach to a similar goal. Rousseau is more abstract than other political philosophers, at times I was just reading “blah blah blah” as the meaning – I am metaphysically skeptical.

The way I (badly) understand Rousseau’s foundational argument, people collectively choose to participate in a state. So far, so existential. Rousseau calls the generalisation of their state’s interest as “the general will”, which is what people would want, if they had the interests of “all” at heart. This approach has some difficulties. We cannot objectively say what the general will is unless everyone is in agreement. Rousseau claims the general will is distinct and unified, as it is the will as if people had no private interests. Unfortunately, we cannot reconcile the possibility if people really have distinct interests, even distinct at the “state level”. Rousseau evades this difficulty by claiming there are sometimes two states in one geographical area. This makes his system unworkable and pretty tautological. This is similar to his definition of “laws”: they are the expression of the general will (and if they are not in agreement, they are merely “decrees”). Since we cannot easily say what is the general will in most realistic cases, we cannot know if a rule is a “law” or a “decree”. All this idealism tends to result in a ruling body, who “knows” what the general will is and can rule over the unenlightened masses. This is Poppers fear as expressed in The Open Society.

Rousseau’s criteria for a successful state are rather worrying. As I remember, he says history will be the judge (which can justify any arbitrary action), that stability and unanimity is good (we can bring in thought crime laws now) and population growth is a good sign. Obviously he was not aware of the dangers of unrestrained population growth! Basically he has some bizarre ideas.

He did have a few interesting points on how governments should be formed, with the executive (“the prince”) and the legislator being separated. This can reduce the arbitrary use of power by the executive. This idea was the basis of the US government system (among others? Greek? Roman?). I find this concept attractive.

He ends with an analysis of the instability that would arise in a completely Christian state. Since Christians tend to tolerate mistreatment (turn the other cheek), they are unable to stop a minority usurping power. He also notes that Christians have been persecuted, along with all non-state religions, for undermining the common code of right and wrong within a state. Having two masters, the state and religion can undermine the “general will”. He contrasts Christianity (and offshoots) with pagan religions where the entire state was forced to worship a common set of gods that represented the ideals of the state. This all seems rather illiberal but, of course, that does not make Rousseau factually wrong.

Anti Citizen One

I started reading Popper’s analysis of Marx but I realised I needed to get up to speed on Marx. I therefore read the communist manifesto (“Workers of the world, unite!”). I want to say a few words on my initial reaction before talking about Popper’s analysis. What struck me about the manifesto was it basically argued that unrestrained capitalism has serious flaws, it was unstable and the only alternative was a classless society – meaning the working class was the only class. It strangely provided very little detail on how to administer a communist system or what it would be like. It only had what engineering designers call “requirements”. Requirements are not a design (but are a good starting point). Marx called for a society where people were not exploited. That is all well and good (apart from being ressentiment morality) but how this is achieved, or if it is even possible, is not addressed.

Popper basically agrees with my initial reaction but takes his analysis far further. He praises Marx’s analysis of history based on institutions. Although Marx overemphasised the role of institutions, it was a fruitful endeavour. Popper then turns around and takes apart Marx’s analysis that communism must follow from unrestrained capitalism. The most telling point is that capitalism has been replaced by government interventionism and the conditions of the working class has improved since the mid 1800′s (when Marx was writing). This contradicts Marx’s prophesy that working conditions must worsen over time.

Popper rounds up the two volumes by talking about how histronic idealism and anti-critical rationalism tends to lead to totalitarianism, while critical rationalism tends to lead to “the open society”. This is probably because some propaganda is needed to commit really nasty actions, while most humans tend to think that killing is bad. He observes that critical rationalism in its dogmatic sense is self refuting because we must question the basis for critical rationalism itself. He instead uses a more modest view of critical rationalism but admitting all knowledge is provisional. But he does not go as far as admitting he is using an anti-critical rationalism basis for his system, which I think would have been more accurate. And even if we adopt critical rationalism, which is quite effective at planning social changes, it still does not give us an idea of what type of society we want to achieve. We must again go back to moral choices and possibly anti-critical rationalism (perhaps Popper does not intend to apply these labels to moral choices). But he manages to satisfy my existential tastes by saying (or implying) any legitimacy of the state is based on the choice of a group of individuals, meaning individual choice is the basis for values. This is like an echo of Rousseau’s Social Contract (which I am currently reading) but it does not suppose a population wide “general will”.

Anti Citizen One

Plato loves the dialectical style, reduction to the absurd and argument from analogy. The frequent use of analogies reminded me of C S Lewis’s style. Perhaps Lewis belongs in the ancient world? The problem with argument from analogy is it is a very circumstantial. As Hume said:

Unless the cases [being compared in the analogy] be exactly similar, they repose no perfect confidence in applying their past observation to any particular phenomenon. (Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion)

To be sure the analogy is sound, it is necessary to make future tests to verify the properties of one entity is shared with a second. If we have no experience of one of the instances being compared in the analogy, the validity of the analogy is sheer speculation. Plato for instance compares the “true being of things” with the Sun. Since no specific resemblance can be verified, the analogy is no more than an opinion or guess. (This also dispatches the Design Argument.) He also uses false dichotomies several times, which is most annoying. They generally follow the pattern: 1) A or B is true, 2) A is absurd, 3) therefore B. Of course the first step may be invalid…

In another place he seems to accidentally imply his theory of “true being” is simply opinion. He already stated that opinion cannot inform us about the “true being” of things.

[...] in my opinion, that knowledge only which is of being and of the unseen can make the soul look upwards,[...] (emphasis mine)

[...] opinion [is] concerned with becoming, and intellect with being [...]

So we might ask, how does Plato know beyond mere “opinion” about his “true” world?

I found other sections amusing, in terms of what propaganda must be fed to the masses, in order to keep them under control. He insists that we must call God absolutely good because it is an effective tool for social control, along with various other ideas. Most of these ideas were directly absorbed into Christianity (by St. Augustine). Consider the well known problem of evil; it is not even an issue if we admit the existence of evil gods? As Popper pointed out, The Republic was intended to be a political manifesto for a Plato headed dictatorship of Athens. Compared to the flak that Machiavelli and Nietzsche get for their ideas having political consequences, the ideas of Plato are far, far, FAR closer to justifying genocide, slavery, racism, propaganda and tyranny. (I know Plato condemns “tyranny” but this only seems to be tyrannies where he is not in control. Be careful of Plato’s words!)

Plato’s attack and planned censorship of the tragic poets (Homer, etc.) was certainly a surprise to me, I did not expect such an open attack on one of the most famous Greek cultural icons. He also attacks democracy. And objectionable types of music. And the equality of humans. For almost everything we associate with the ancient Greeks, Plato wanted to destroy it (to attain a “blank slate” as he calls it) as a starting point for his utopia. This lead to Nietzsche labelling Plato an “anti-Greek” along with the “Socratic equation” (also adopted by Plato), which is allegedly “reason = virtue = happiness”, being called “the weirdest equation ever seen”.

Anyway, fascinating stuff.

Anti Citizen One

PS Plato’s calculation of the unhappiness of tyrants and philosophers is almost a foreshadowed unintentional parody of utilitarianism, IMHO.

The character Alexey (Alyosha) is perhaps the closest to the author’s ideal man, in this work. Prince Myshkin from this earlier book, The Idiot, is perhaps a higher ideal. But both love humanity and the world. Both are deeply religious and principled. They rush around trying to fix everything and usually, tragically fail (is this the author’s ideal!?). Indeed, Myshkin is driven to insanity by his high principles. Alexey keeps his head but is more human and more passionate than Myshkin. He is after all, the son of this father: the “sensualist” Fyodor Karamazov.

Ivan: “It’s a feature of the Karamazovs, it’s true, that thirst for life regardless of everything; you have it no doubt too, but why is it base?”

Alexey’s brother Ivan Karamazov is an intellectual, a strident moral relativist and possibly a strong atheist. His view is: given the rejection of God and an afterlife, the are no laws to say “love thy neighbour”, therefore “everything is lawful”. This brief expression, rather like a sound bite, borders on a false dichotomy, but Ivan (and the author) is smart enough to not over simplify. He is referring to the existential questions raised by the apparent absence of objective morality. When Ivan is attributed with “everything is lawful”, he said it plainer as “But in my wishes I reserved myself full latitude in the case”. Full latitude in this context includes murder or indeed any other action.

Rakitin: “And did you hear his [Ivan's] stupid theory just now: if there’s no immortality of the soul, then there’s no virtue, and everything is lawful?”

Ivan also states his parable of “The Grand Inquisitor”, in which Jesus returns to Earth, but is taken from the people by agents of organised religion and told he is now superfluous considering the current aims of the church. The inquisitor recalls the three temptations of Christ in the wilderness and which are metaphorically faced by the church. The church now chooses differently than Jesus’s choices in the biblical story. This amounts to an accusation of the atheism of organised religion. This chapter has been published separately from the rest of the book.

I was interested to read an expression of the eternal return, which just precedes Nietzsche’s statement in The Gay Science (1880 vs 1882). Although they seem to have expressed the same concept, the way the idea is described is strikingly similar. Dostoevsky has Ivan, driven towards insanity by (possibly misplaced) guilt, hallucinating a devil appearing and talking to him. Nietzsche also writes of a demon appearing at night to foretell the eternal return. Nietzsche appears to have discovered Dostoevsky between 1886 and 1888, based on his sudden gushing praise in Twilight of the Idols. Gypsy Scholar thinks they both may have found the idea in Heine.

Devil to Ivan: “Why, you keep thinking of our present earth! But our present earth may have been repeated a billion times. Why, it’s become extinct, been frozen; cracked, broken to bits, disintegrated into its elements, again ‘the water above the firmament,’ then again a comet, again a sun, again from the sun it becomes earth — and the same sequence may have been repeated endlessly and exactly the same to every detail, most unseemly and insufferably tedious…”

I mention this as the idea is given far higher weight in Nietzsche, being a central theme in Thus Spake Zarathustra. In Karamazov, the world view which Dostoevsky calls by short hand “underground” is touched upon, as Dimitri is faced with the possibility of being sent to Siberia for 20 years (singing hymns to God from underground). This was of course discussed in depth in Notes from Underground, which serves as a sort of preface to his longer masterpieces. I am inclined to think that Smerdyakov is the most underground character in the book, in competition with Rakitin and Ivan, on bad days.

Anti Citizen One

PS The Onion reports on a film adaptation of many peoples experience of the book…

I wonder what part 2 will be like? I love the title, also. I love emphasising the second part “… and its ENEMIES….”.

Anti Citizen One

Which suggests that for any given doctrine one wants to believe, there is never a shortage of arguments by which one can support it.

An example given is theology and the bible. For any doctrine a biblical theologian wants to believe there is never any shortage of biblical evidence to support it.

The centre of Kolakowski’s conceptual universe was the individual – a rational and freely acting subject, aware that there is a spiritual side of life, yet eschewing absolute certainty of either an empirical or transcendental sort: “I do not believe that human culture can ever reach a perfect synthesis of its diversified and incompatible components”, he said. “Its very richness is supported by this very incompatibility of its ingredients. And it is the conflict of values, rather than their harmony, that keeps our culture alive.” (extract from the Daily Telegraph Obituary of Kolakowski in 2009)

What role then the philosopher?
It was not the philosopher’s role to deliver the truth, but to “build the spirit of truth” by questioning what appears to be obvious, always suspecting that there might be “another side” to any question. The true philosopher should approach any issue with scepticism and humility: “A modern philosopher who has never once suspected himself of being a charlatan must be such a shallow mind that his work is probably not worth reading”, he said.

• We observe that universe has certain properties
• These are consistent with properties that we would expect from a designer (with good intentions)
• Therefore the universe was designed

• Bad things happen
• A good and omnipotent God would prevent bad things from happening
• Therefore God is not both good and omnipotent
• A Defence: what apparently is “bad” might have be “good” but we cannot fully comprehend it from our current point of view.

Recently, I noticed an interesting thing. If we admit this defence of “bad things” are really good, we therefore say “we are not in a position to assess the attributes of the universe”. This statement may then be applied to the design argument, which undermines the first axiom of us observing the “designed” attributes of the universe. So these arguments are in fact the same argument, two sides of the same coin! So things that appear designed at this point in time might be the work of a short sighted designer, only to backfire later (or as the product of many other origins). This possibility cannot be distinguished from a competent designer using the design argument.

(I omit discussing the other objections to both these arguments, false dichotomy being the most obvious.)

Anti Citizen One

PS Happy new arbitrary length of time!

PPS Ireland’s anti-blasphemy laws come into effect that forbid causing “outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of [a] religion”. Nice step backwards. They need to amend their constitution to remove the moronic basis for this law. Given the hysterical nature of many religions, we can look forward to curtailment of free speech… idiots.

PPPS A topical quote that illustrates some of the above issues:

“God is ultimately responsible for the earthquake in Haiti and has a reason that is beyond our ability, trapped in time, to understand or comprehend. But it would be theological ignorance coupled with absolute arrogance to try and interpret God’s actions as a judgment against a particular person or nation.” — Dr. Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas, for Newsweek.

And don’t get me started with his comparisons of a-priori/tautological knowledge (e.g. mathematics) and a posteriori knowledge (morality in this case).

Anti Citizen One

PS Perhaps I should have followed Zarathustra’s advice (emphasis mine):

But Zarathustra came not to say unto all those liars and fools:
“What do ye know of virtue! What could ye know of virtue!”

It’s a good refresher for many key ideas in philosophy. He advances each theory with sincerity and also states the main objections to the idea. That most or all ideas in philosophy have very strong objections is itself revealing. Many of the ideas I had heard in far more depth – for example the design argument (for and against) is covered in 4 pages – after I have read Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. But many ideas I had not considered, such as the main themes in aesthetics and Nagel’s ideas on moral luck. I was again reminded of the total incoherance of morality in the section of supererogatory acts and various others. The clarity of presentation of each idea was surprising; I guess it was good he did not try to discuss Hegel! But, no discussion of existentialism… anyway, a good read in all!

Next to read, Mere Christianity. (Why do I think I will need some “fresh air” after reading that book?)

Anti Citizen One