‘philosophy’

Karl Popper: Tolerance

Tuesday, February 16th, 2010

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive , and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

- The Open Society and Its Enemies

Trevor Blake: Ethics

Monday, December 7th, 2009

A friend recently asked me for recommended reading on the subject of ethics.  Here’s my reply, along with… “Note well that these are sometimes at odds with each other.  That conflict will help you ask the right questions, which counts more than having the right answers.  I’ve ordered the links from shortest to longest, from one-page comics to entire books.”

“Nice” books…

Tsai Chih Chung: Zen Speaks.
Some examples…
http://www.duke.edu/web/meditation/image/carrying.gif
http://homepage.mac.com/dave_rogers/ZenMtnPaths.jpg
http://c2.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/25/l_4c4c6e8e509048599029ac0584e7ec5d.jpg
http://c1.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/55/l_370aef5ce1e14275938aff692bae0b58.jpg
http://c3.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/66/l_8c90f97ed3d848a99c34f197249d9156.jpg

Julian Baggini: Atheism / A Very Short Introduction.
Chapter 3, on atheist ethics…
http://www.andrsib.com/dt/moral.htm

Epicureanism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism

“Not Nice” books…

Anton LaVey: The Satanic Bible.
Related, but not necessarily in this book…
http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/Eleven.html
http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/NineStatements.html
http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/Sins.html
http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/MostPower.html

Ragnar Redbeard: Might is Right.
A sample chapter, the whole thing and where to buy the best edition…
http://www.feastofhateandfear.com/archives/redbeard.html
http://tinyurl.com/ycfb6lx
http://ninebandedbooks.com/?p=329

Egoism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoism
http://www.df.lth.se/~triad/stirner/theego/theego.html

Niccolò Machiavelli: The Prince.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince

Trevor Blake: Akrasia at the Grocery Store

Friday, August 7th, 2009

The Guardian quotes the Wall Street Journal quoting the founder of the Whole Foods chain of grocery stores:

“Basically, we used to think it was enough just to sell healthy food, but we know it is not enough. We sell all kinds of candy. We sell a bunch of junk.” [John Mackey] said the store would now attempt to educate in the ways of healthy eating: “There will be someone in a kiosk to answer questions, they’ll have cookbooks and health books, there will be some cooking classes. It will be about how to select food, because people don’t know.”

Mr. Mackey is claiming that people would eat healthy if they knew how to, or knew the benefits of doing so.  He is bringing in books and teachers to combat akrasia, or acting against one’s own best interests (in this case by eating a bunch of junk).  But will he succeed?  We know more about nutrition than we used to, but it is likely that there is much to learn.  Even acting on the best knowledge available at present might be going against our best interests in light of future discoveries. We may eat as healthily as possible and still fall sick, or be killed in an accident that eating well could not have prevented.  This is not an argument against attempting to act in one’s best interests but it is a warning that we may not always succeed.

There are a number of explanations for akrasia. Each has its limitations.  In stating “No one goes willingly toward the bad,” Socrates claimed that akrasia simply does not exist.  If you can think of a single instance in your life when you’ve willingly gone toward the bad, you’ve demonstrated that Socrates was mistaken.  The ethical school called enlightened self-interest claims we always act in our own self-interest even when we appear to or intend to do otherwise.  But if we always and only act in our self-interests, we have to ask what other sort of interests there might be – thus enlightened self-interest doesn’t really explain anything.  Akrasia is explained as being weak willed when we judge it harshly and deferment to a greater good when we judge it favorably. Stated in this way, our interests are more like our preferences.  If there is a conflict of interests we may engage in akrasia, such as when it is equally in a person’s best interests to stay in the city they love and to move to another city for a good-paying job.  Where we cannot determine which conflicting self-interest is lesser, there is no way to identify akrasia.  An explanation for akrasia found especially among the politically left is that people act against their self-interests through lack of knowledge only, and that being exposed to knowledge will spontaneously and always result in self-interest choices.  Mr. Mackey of Whole Foods is banking on exposure to information as the key to lessening akrasia.  But every day experience shows that people will believe what they want in spite of the information they are exposed to.  Knowledge is not hidden in objects and experiences like a gift in a box, waiting for us to unwrap it.  And exposure to information does not equal acceptance or agreement or action.  Perhaps by having books and teachers on-hand Mr. Mackey hopes to be ‘forgiven’ for selling a bunch of junk.  Me, I like books and teachers and junk.

I claim the political left tends to use the lack of knowledge explanation for akrasia for two reasons.  First, at present the left is where intellectuals are valued, and this is an intellectual sort of explanation.  Intellectuals consider options and make nuanced choices.  Intellectuals also forget considering options and making nuanced choices is not always in one’s self interest – for future reference, go ahead and fight an attacker to the death, don’t debate them.  Second, the political left is deeply invested in the claim that there is an equality and sameness found in all people.  The political left thinks that being an intellectual will come to people and be their preference if they are exposed to the idea of being an intellectual, and that having become an intellectual they will consider options and make nuanced choices.  Part of why I’ve found less to agree with in the political left is my claim that there are a great deal of people (some of them quite smart) who are not intellectuals and who don’t value or prefer intellectual perspectives; there are a great many people who are not capable of being intellectuals even if they might value or prefer to be; and there are a great many people who use violence to get what they want and not the intellect.  Bluntly stated, I claim that akrasia exists in part because some people at some times are stupid and evil.  Fortunately for most people, my claims are next to ineffectual in the world.  I make no public policy, I control no one and influence very few, and eventually I won’t be around at all.  If I’m wrong, just be patient and I’ll go away.

Why do you think akrasia exists?  What do others think?  What is to be done?

Overcoming Bias : Actors See Status

Thursday, August 6th, 2009

Apparently we are designed to be very good at status moves, but to be unconscious of them. So to be more self-aware of how you really treat those around you, learn to see your status moves.

Overcoming Bias : Actors See Status

Trevor Blake: Biology and Behavior

Monday, August 3rd, 2009

I have an amateur interest in the connection between biology and behavior.  This is often called the ‘nature versus nurture’ debate, described by wikipedia as “the relative importance of an individual’s innate qualities (’nature,’ i.e. nativism, or innatism) versus personal experiences (’nurture,’ i.e. empiricism or behaviorism) in determining or causing individual differences in physical and behavioral traits.”  I think this is a false dilemma, or what we in the Church of the SubGenius call a nontroversy.  On the nature side, there are behaviors influenced or controlled by our biology.  On the nurture side, there are our behaviors influenced or controlled by other people’s biology.  Unless there is a mind / soul / ghost / phantom captain in us that is not biological, our behavior is influenced or controlled by biology (sometimes once removed).  Biology in turn is influenced or controlled by the natural universe, its chemistry and physics.  I claim all behavior is biology, and all biology is chemistry and physics.  I refer less to the nature versus nurture debate and more to the connection between biology and behavior.  I could be wrong in my claims or in how my claims are formulated.  Here are some recent examples of biology influencing or controlling behavior…

… not a one of which proves my claim, nor do they prove my claim as a whole, but they lend some support.  My claim that behavior is biology could be refuted by demonstrating the existence of a mind / soul / ghost / phantom captain in us that is not biological, or the existence of a God that is somehow ‘outside’ of the natural Universe.  If behavior is biology then interesting and disturbing possibilities arise.  The non-existence of some concepts of free will and personal accountability must be considered.  Statistical regularities in behavior are explained (the overwhelming amount of violent behavior being carried out by men and not by women is explained by having biological roots, for example) but that can be cold comfort.  The line between the individual and the species is blurred.  The possibility of an ‘afterlife’ is lessened, but the possibility one might nudge the lives of future generations is confirmed.  Natural rights may be shown to have a firm foundation, or be shown to have no foundation at all.  How would your day-to-day life be different if you thought you were part of the natural universe?

If Free Will Were Coherent, We Ought to Believe in It

Thursday, July 16th, 2009

the term “free will,” appears to me to be an incoherent concept

If Free Will Were Coherent, We Ought to Believe in It

Klassikkokirjasto | Filosofia.fi

Thursday, July 2nd, 2009

philosophy books online.

Klassikkokirjasto | Filosofia.fi

He laughed like an irresponsible foetus | MetaFilter

Monday, June 8th, 2009

A 1959 interview with philosopher, mathematician and peace campaigner Bertrand Russell (1872-1970). Works and pictures online . Russell is also known for his pithy quotes, his teapot and was the subject of poem Mr Apollinax by T.S. Eliot.

He laughed like an irresponsible foetus | MetaFilter

William Blake – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thursday, June 4th, 2009

Prisons are built with stones of Law, Brothels with bricks of Religion. / As the caterpillar chooses the fairest leaves to lay her eggs on, so the priest lays his curse on the fairest joys.

William Blake – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Less Wrong: This Failing Earth

Wednesday, May 27th, 2009

Reading about the ongoing Market Complexity Collapse and wondering if this Earth failed to solve one of the basic functions of global economics, in the same way that Rome, in its later days, failed to solve the problem of orderly transition of power between Caesars.

Less Wrong: This Failing Earth