Posts

The Poetic Dodge

  One of the most important skills for the leader of a movement to develop is what I call the poetic dodge.  Human natural languages, such as English, Spanish, Mandarin Chinese, and so on, are profoundly, and perhaps ineluctably, polysemous.  That is to say, there are ambiguities.  There is something farcical about humans: even if we try to specify exactly what we mean, still people will find a way to misinterpret us.  And the reverse is true, as well: even if we try as hard as we can to understand each other, the closer we get to that which is signified, the more it will slip away.  Even when both the speaker and the listener, the author and the reader, are operating on purely good faith, the mystery persists.  Nor does this gap only appear between people: even when we are alone, the gap is there.  I do not fully understand myself.  Neither do you. If you use everyday vocabulary, precisely because these words are used every day, by so many d...
Post a Comment
Read more
Image
 
Post a Comment
Read more

Popper and the Paradox of Tolerance

Image
Karl Popper (1902-1994) was a very important philosopher of science.  I have enormous respect and admiration for him.  I think it's crucial to study Popper in order to understand the development of the philosophy of science over the 20th century - how it led up to him, what he contributed to it, and how it developed beyond him.  His principle of falsifiability, in particular, is a profoundly insightful, yet subtly nuanced concept, that is often misunderstood (and often confused with Lakatos's falsificationism) and which, itself, developed in sometimes surprising ways over the course of Popper's lifetime.  (It's crucial to understand that Popper was not an empiricist or an inductionist - in fact, his motto was "theory comes first"!  Also, he liked to say that "The scientific method does not exist.")  I'm particularly interested in some of the ideas that David Deutsch has come up with in interpreting and developing Popper's ideas.  But none of...
Post a Comment
Read more

Megacapitalism: an Alternate Theory of the State

  What is the purpose of the state?  What is the purpose of government? Philosophers and political scientists have attempted to answer these questions in various ways.  Some say that its purpose is safety, or the securing of individual rights.  Still others say that government exists to represent and enact the consent and desires of the governed.  Or that its purpose is the common good of the people, which itself may be variously defined: as the "greatest good for the greatest number," as Utilitarians say, or at least the least suffering, as Popper puts it, ("negative utilitarianism" as it's sometimes called) and so on.  Some understand government in the framework of a social contract, for the mutual benefit of the governed.  The Aristotelian tradition provides a quite different answer: that humans are an organic part of their (city-)state, which exists to promote virtue and excellence.  The Constitution of the United States provides a list of pot...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Free Will Machine

  Kayla: [sobbing] Layla: Kayla! What's wrong? Kayla: I have no free will! Layla: You have no what? Kayla: Free will!  You know, I have no control over my own actions!  I'm just going to do what I'm determined to do, and there's nothing I can do about it! Layla: Lucky you!  I have the opposite problem.  No matter how determined I am to do something, it seems I can never do it. Kayla: Stop joking!  This is serious. Layla: Okay. So... what's the problem, again?  What can't you do? Kayla: Anything!   Layla: Can you jump? Kayla: Yes, I can jump. Layla: Can you swim? Kayla: Yes, I can swim. Layla: Can you clap?   Kayla: Yes, I can clap. Layla: So what can't you do? Kayla:Anything other than what I actually do! Layla: Hm.  So, if I sold you a blob of magical silly putty, with the promise that you can shape it into anything and it will work, so if you shape it into a plane, it will actually fly, and if you shape it into a tv, it will ...
Post a Comment
Read more
What can be said about much of twentieth century French philosophy, such as the stream of thought that derives from Althusser - and not just him, but many of his contemporaries and predecessors - is that their critique is not leveled at capitalism, per se, but rather at the Enlightenment.  It is therefore fundamentally reactionary.
Post a Comment
Read more

Meaning vs Recognition

For a while, there was a fad for searching for "the meaning of life."  Viktor Frankl wrote "Man's Search for Meaning".  He had been partly inspired by Nietzsche, who wrote that "He who has a why to live can bear almost any how." But in my opinion, all this business about "meaning" is one-sided.  People do not really search for meaning - or at least, not exclusively.  What people want is recognition.  People are not purely seeking for "meaning" or "purpose," a "for which" for all of their actions.  Sure, some people are struggle to come to some kind of understanding of what the purpose of their own actions is.  You get up in the morning.  Why?  To make breakfast.  Why?  To eat breakfast.  Why?  As part of your preparation for the day.  Why?  To go to work.  Why?  To make money.  Why?  To bring home the money.  Why?  To buy things.  Why?  So that you will have things.  W...
Post a Comment
Read more