Questions Jy 13

 Thanks for pinch-hitting, Dr. Daryl Hale!

Pinker, Enlightenment Now ch.12-17. Post before Tuesday if possible.

• Do you think frequently about the threat to yourself or others of accident, disease, or personal violence? As a society, are we resigned to these threats? Are we making reasonable progress in combating them?
• Should we be unconcerned with "root causes" of violent crime? 169
• If a reduction in the global homicide rate of 50% within thirty years is practical, what would be a practical goal for the U.S. homicide rate?  What are some conditions of fulfilling a significant reduction here? 171
• Given the "sky-high rates of violence in the times and places where law enforcement is rudimentary," is "defunding police" a bad idea? 173
• Do you feel safer behind the wheel, knowing that motor vehicle accident deaths have declined so sharply and steadily since 1920 (as reflected in Figure 12-3)? 177
• [Did you notice the Springsteen/Pink Cadillac reference on p.178?]
• Do you feel safer knowing that when "robotic cars are ubiquitous" in a decade or so, more than a million lives a year will be saved? 180
• Are you grateful to live in an age of seat belts, smoke alarms, etc.? 190
• Were Columbine and Sandy Hook both instances of domestic terror? 193
• Do you agree that "the most damaging effect of terrorism is countries' overreaction to it?" 197
• If democracy "comes about when the people effectively agree not to use violence to replace [or retain] the leadership," is American democracy in trouble? 205
• Have we been fooled by an Information Paradox into believing falsely that human rights abuses have risen? 207
• What is the likelihood that capital punishment will vanish from the face of the earth (or from Texas, Georgia, Missouri...) in your lifetime? 209, 211
• Great progress has been made in confronting racism, sexism, and homophobia in our time. Will it continue? 214
• Are the statistics suggesting that "the number of police shootings has decreased" and that "a black suspect is no more likely than a white suspect to be killed by the police" misleading? 215-16
• Are you encouraged by the (relative) Millennial and post-Millennial repudiation of prejudice? 217
• Is ours a truly cosmopolitan* society? Can it be? 221
• Are children really not living in increasingly perilous times? 229
• COMMENT?: "So much changes when you get an education!" 235
• With the resurgence in Afghanistan of the Taliban, will gains in girls' education be reversed? What can the world do about these rigidly paternalistic societies, to secure and protect women's rights? 240
• Do we have misanthropic "cultural elites" comparable to the early 20th century British literary intelligentsia? Is the American populist revolt that supposedly accounts for the Trump presidency exaggerated or overblown? 247
• Is anti-elitism/-intellectualism in America something intellectuals can and should try to fix, as implied by this recent letter to the NYT Book Review? 

Church of the Enlightenment
To the Editor:


Toward the end of Emily Bazelon’s review (June 20) of George Packer’s “Last Best Hope” and Jonathan Rauch’s “The Constitution of Knowledge,” she writes, “I also wanted Rauch and Packer to consider why the Enlightenment figures and values they love don’t speak to everyone.”

If there is one statement that might summarize the fundamental conflict that has torn apart the United States, I’d say hers comes pretty close. And that is the reason I no longer read books like Packer’s and Rauch’s. They all preach to the choir while the people who need to be reached remain outside the church of the Enlightenment.

Seventy-four million Americans voted for Donald Drumpf last November. To the vast majority of them, Enlightenment values mean literally nothing. If we, collectively, on the Enlightenment side cannot find a strategy for engaging and convincing all of those Drumpf voters of the value of the scientific method, of critical thinking, then we should stop wasting one another’s time by writing endless books and articles to flatter one another’s educated egos and stroke one another’s intellectual vanity and just go watch TV.

Arthur Moss
Wilmington, Del.

• Is it wrong for the advocates of enlightenment values to "preach to the choir"?
• Would you add anything to Martha Nussbaum's list of "fundamental capabilities"? 248
• How many hours a week do you work? How many do you want to work? What would you do if your boss were Scrooge? 249
• How do you intend to spend your "golden years"? 250
• Do you think you'd have been happy living in the 19th century or earlier, without any of the "labor-saving devices" (appliances etc.) we take for granted? 
• Is artificial light a major contributor to your happiness? Could you be happy retiring to bed early after sundown and rising with the dawn? 253
• Are you ever guilty of "yuppie kvetching"? 255
• COMMENT?: "Less-educated people reported having more leisure..." 
• Is the Norman Rockwell/Leave it to Beaver America a fiction? 256
• Do humans "still want to be within touching distance" as much as pre-pandemic? 257
• Should we kvetch less about the indignities of plane travel, and marvel more at its "remarkable democratization"?
• Is travel high on your list of enlightening experiences and ambitions?
• Given all the information and culture available to "country-dwellers today," is rural life more appealing to you than it might have been in an earlier era? 260

* 

 

Joy

Lest we forget, amidst the Doomsday Clock etc., Enlightenment is supposed to be about the pursuit and attainment of happiness.

Happy days are here again. No, really. Gallup has been asking Americans since the beginning of 2008 whether they are “thriving.” The percentage answering yes hit a low point in the depths of the 2008 financial crisis and again during the worst of the Covid-19 pandemic. But it has soared in recent months, to 59.2 percent, its highest level ever... People being what they are, the joy of normality will probably fade over time as we get reaccustomed to our old routines. And there will surely be a huge plunge in happiness if the refusal of many Americans to get vaccinated leads to a Covid resurgence.

But for now, we’re feeling pretty good. Paul Krugman, nyt

 

"We find our greatest bliss in moments of collective effervescence...when joie de vivre spreads through a group." The successful pursuit of happiness may require a declaration of inter-dependence. https://t.co/mQxMArhPTw

— Phil Oliver (@OSOPHER) July 10, 2021

“I don’t think you realize how dark something is until you turn back on the lights.” https://t.co/GwHpz6HtXI

— Phil Oliver (@OSOPHER) July 10, 2021

Kant books

Immanuel Kant was born in Königsberg, lived in Königsberg, and never travelled very far from Königsberg—but his mind ranged across vast territories, says Oxford philosophy professor Adrian Moore in conversation with @philosophybites. https://t.co/8o0XO57nuS

— Five Books (@five_books) July 10, 2021

Immanuel Kant was born in Königsberg, lived in Königsberg, and never travelled very far from Königsberg—but his mind ranged across vast territories, says Oxford philosophy professor Adrian Moore in conversation with @philosophybites. https://t.co/8o0XO57nuS
(https://twitter.com/five_books/status/1413754919803305984?s=02)

Nobody expects the Inquisition

 My reflexive free-association, whenever I think of Inquisition (grand or otherwise), is 

Too soon?

Monty Python could make fun of the Spanish Inquisition, according to Adam Gopnik, "because Enlightenment ideals of tolerance and decency make us feel safe from it."

But he said that a decade ago, midway through the civilized administration of our most literate president since TR (POTUS 44 just released his summer reading list). Do we still feel so safe? Nobody I know expected POTUS 45, though if we'd been paying attention to the interrogations and insinuations perpetrated under POTUS 43 we probably should have.

Gopnik's reassurance came in the context of a review of God’s Jury: The Inquisition and the Making of the Modern World by Cullen Murphy.

After reading Murphy’s accounts of so many bodies tortured and so many lives ended, one ought, I suppose, to feel guilty about laughing at the old Python sketch, but it’s hard not to feel a little giddy watching it. How did we become this free to laugh at fanaticism? That for a moment or two the humanists seem to have it—that we don’t really expect the Inquisition to barge into our living rooms—is a fragile triumph of a painful, difficult, ongoing education in Enlightenment values. Bloody miracle, really.

Miracle. Plus, Mystery and Authority (and fear, surprise, "an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope" etc. etc.), the chief weapons of the sort of intimidation and cruelty that we delude ourselves in thinking so remote as to be the mere stuff of parody. We live in a time when vicious, self-righteous dogmatists lack all humility and circumspection, while the humble and circumspect lack all conviction. 

If you believe that you know the truth of the cosmos or of history, then the crime of causing pain to one person does seem trivial compared with the risk of permitting the death or damnation of thousands. We had no choice is what the Grand Inquisitor announces in Dostoyevsky. We know the cruellest of fanatics by their exceptionally clear consciences. Gopnik, 1.8.12 

So to revisit yesterday's post, Hillary was right about history even if a bit off-base as a literary critic and diviner of Dostoevsky's intentions. Almost nobody nowadays expects the Inquisition. But we shouldn't be surprised. Our interrogators, if they come, won't be nearly so amusing as Michael Palin. They'll be the heirs of Sarah.

Against Anti-Critical Race Theory Laws

We Disagree on a Lot of Things. Except the Danger of Anti-Critical Race Theory Laws.

We differ in our views on critical race theory. But we agree that the current attempts to ban it from K-12 education are misguided and dangerous.


What is the purpose of a liberal education? This is the question at the heart of a bitter debate that has been roiling the nation for months.

Schools, particularly at the kindergarten-to-12th-grade level, are responsible for helping turn students into well-informed and discerning citizens. At their best, our nation’s schools equip young minds to grapple with complexity and navigate our differences. At their worst, they resemble indoctrination factories.

In recent weeks, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Iowa, Idaho and Texas have passed legislation that places significant restrictions on what can be taught in public school classrooms and, in some cases, public universities, too.

Tennessee House Bill SB 0623, for example, bans any teaching that could lead an individual to “feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or another form of psychological distress solely because of the individual’s race or sex.” In addition to this vague proscription, it restricts teaching that leads to “division between, or resentment of, a race, sex, religion, creed, nonviolent political affiliation, social class or class of people.”

(continues) 

"Miracle, Mystery, and Authority" vs. Sapere Aude

 Weirdest trivial thing I've learned about Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor: Laura Bush and Hillary Clinton both like it, for oppositely-misconceived reasons. From The New Yorker, October 2009:

In 2001, The New York Times reported that Laura Bush’s favorite piece of literature was the “Grand Inquisitor” scene from Dostoevsky’s novel. She saw it as an affirmation of faith:

In the dialogue with the Inquisitor, Jesus remains silent, and the chapter has two endings, the first tragic, the second a victory for Christianity.
For Mrs. Bush, there was no ambiguity. ”It’s about life, and it’s about death, and it’s about Christ,” she has said. ”I find it really reassuring.”
Then, Hillary Clinton revealed this week her fave is also “The Brothers Karamazov.” She had exactly the opposite take—for her, the chapter was a testament to the virtue of doubt, not certainty:
Asked to name the book that had made the biggest impact on her, she singled out “The Brothers Karamazov.” The parable of the Grand Inquisitor in Dostoyevsky’s novel, she said, speaks to the dangers of certitude.
“For a lot of reasons, that was an important part of my thinking,” Mrs. Clinton said. “One of the greatest threats we face is from people who believe they are absolutely, certainly right about everything.”

I'm pretty sure Dostoevsky was not intending to issue just another standard liberal protest against dogmatic certitude, any more than he meant to reinforce his readers' conventional pieties of faith. 

What exactly he was saying is still a bit murky to me, but the dubiety of "Miracle, Mystery, and Authority"*  has to be at the heart of it. That, and the credulity of so many humans who don't have it in them to heed Immanuel Kant's plea for enlightenment.**

 Do you wonder what Melania thinks of the Inquisitor? Me neither. 

*We corrected and improved Thy teaching and based it upon "Miracle, Mystery, and Authority." And men rejoiced at finding themselves led once more like a herd of cattle, and at finding their hearts at last delivered of the terrible burden laid upon them by Thee, which caused them so much suffering.

 

**Enlightenment is man's release from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is man's inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of reason but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another. Sapere aude! "Have courage to use your own reason!" -- that is the motto of enlightenment.

Enlightened despots

If only we could all be free of our "relatives' corrupting influence"...

It was on this day in 1762 that Catherine the Great assumed power in Russia. She accomplished that feat, with the help of her lover, by rallying the army regiments of St. Petersburg against her ruling husband and second cousin, Peter III. As one of the so-called “enlightened despots” of her time, Catherine was a booster of the arts and believed that it would be worthwhile to educate girls. She established the Smolny Institute of Nobel Maidens in St. Petersburg whose purpose, according to its decree, was to “give the state educated women, good mothers, useful members of the family and society.” Girls lived at the school from age six to 18 and were not allowed to go home for visits or see their family members lest they be subject to their relatives’ corrupting influence. Catherine remained on the throne for 34 years, longer than any other female leader in Russian history. WA

Brothers

 David James Duncan's early-'90s novel The Brothers K -- about the brothers Chance, who seem (in the spirit of William James's remark*) always willing to live on a chance -- is a sprawling epic tale centered on the foibles and exploits of a family like none I've ever encountered, and in that way more than any other resembles Fyodor Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamazov. Both families encounter more than their share of heartache and disappointment. Both pose deep probing questions about suffering and unredeemable injustice in our world and the true meaning and value of freedom. Both challenge easy optimism and thoughtless theodicy... (continues)

...

* “No fact in human nature is more characteristic than its willingness to live on a chance. The existence of the chance makes the difference… between a life of which the keynote is resignation and a life of which the keynote is hope.” William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience

Don't stop thinking

 It was a pleasure to welcome Dr. Hale, my Enlightenment pinch-hitter next week while I'm away for the COVID-delayed Baseball in Literature and Culture conference, to zoom class last night. He's a Kantian and a master carpenter, and a master teacher too. 

He zeroed right in on what I think the class agreed is the chief limitation of Steven Pinker's statistical sunniness: it omits the felt human experience of injustice and deprivation, which numbers alone can never convey. Stats about declining homicide rates are no consolation to the mom who's lost a son to random police violence. Indoor plumbing and cell phones are great, and we should indeed be grateful to live in an age of medical science; but as John Dewey said, our time is now. 

Well, what he actually said was: “We always live at the time we live and not at some other time, and only by extracting at each present time the full meaning of each present experience are we prepared for doing the same thing in the future.” Comparisons with another era don't compensate for perceived inequity, unfairness, and maldistribution of resources and opportunities in the present.

And while I do share Pinker's "conditional optimism" (though I call it pragmatic meliorism) I also have to note the ominous doomsday cloud that's been stalled for a while at just before midnight. "Continued corruption of the information ecosphere on which democracy and public decision making depend has heightened the nuclear and climate threats." So the conditions of our optimism are steep. We have miles to go before we sleep easy, with respect to justice, climate, and peace. 

But as I heard myself unexpectedly invoking the upbeat mood of Bill Clinton's theme song, we also must not stop thinking about tomorrow. It'll soon be here.

Doomsday clock

("Conditionally optimistic," but...)

Closer than ever:

It is 100 seconds to midnight


2020 Doomsday Clock Statement

Science and Security Board
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Editor, John Mecklin

Editor’s note: Founded in 1945 by University of Chicago scientists who had helped develop the first atomic weapons in the Manhattan Project, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists created the Doomsday Clock two years later, using the imagery of apocalypse (midnight) and the contemporary idiom of nuclear explosion (countdown to zero) to convey threats to humanity and the planet. The decision to move (or to leave in place) the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock is made every year by the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board in consultation with its Board of Sponsors, which includes 13 Nobel laureates. The Clock has become a universally recognized indicator of the world’s vulnerability to catastrophe from nuclear weapons, climate change, and disruptive technologies in other domains.

To: Leaders and citizens of the world
Re: Closer than ever: It is 100 seconds to midnight
Date: January 23, 2020

Humanity continues to face two simultaneous existential dangers—nuclear war and climate change—that are compounded by a threat multiplier, cyber-enabled information warfare, that undercuts society’s ability to respond. The international security situation is dire, not just because these threats exist, but because world leaders have allowed the international political infrastructure for managing them to erode.

In the nuclear realm, national leaders have ended or undermined several major arms control treaties and negotiations during the last year, creating an environment conducive to a renewed nuclear arms race, to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and to lowered barriers to nuclear war. Political conflicts regarding nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea remain unresolved and are, if anything, worsening. US-Russia cooperation on arms control and disarmament is all but nonexistent.

Public awareness of the climate crisis grew over the course of 2019, largely because of mass protests by young people around the world. Just the same, governmental action on climate change still falls far short of meeting the challenge at hand. At UN climate meetings last year, national delegates made fine speeches but put forward few concrete plans to further limit the carbon dioxide emissions that are disrupting Earth’s climate. This limited political response came during a year when the effects of manmade climate change were manifested by one of the warmest years on record, extensive wildfires, and quicker-than-expected melting of glacial ice.

Continued corruption of the information ecosphere on which democracy and public decision making depend has heightened the nuclear and climate threats. In the last year, many governments used cyber-enabled disinformation campaigns to sow distrust in institutions and among nations, undermining domestic and international efforts to foster peace and protect the planet.

This situation—two major threats to human civilization, amplified by sophisticated, technology-propelled propaganda—would be serious enough if leaders around the world were focused on managing the danger and reducing the risk of catastrophe. Instead, over the last two years, we have seen influential leaders denigrate and discard the most effective methods for addressing complex threats—international agreements with strong verification regimes—in favor of their own narrow interests and domestic political gain. By undermining cooperative, science- and law-based approaches to managing the most urgent threats to humanity, these leaders have helped to create a situation that will, if unaddressed, lead to catastrophe, sooner rather than later... (continues)

Full Statement | From the President | Board Biographies | About the Bulletin | Clock Timeline

PDF download | Print version

Conditionally optimistic

LISTEN. Tonight in Enlightenment we continue to explore Steven Pinker's "conditional optimism" with respect to inequality, the environment, and the prospects of peace in our time. He borrows the phrase from an economist who distinguishes conditional from complacent optimism. The latter is "the feeling of a child waiting for presents on Christmas morning," the former that of the child who wants a treehouse and is prepared to help build it. If we want a more equitable society, a habitable abode for life (ours and others'), and a significant reduction of global inter-state violence, we've got ameliorative construction work to do. Call it conditional optimism if you will, I still prefer to think of this attitude as pragmatically melioristic. We must strive for better, but shipwreck is always among life's permanent possibilities... (continues)

Bursting the chains

Today is Independence Day. It marks the day in 1776 when the Continental Congress approved the Declaration of Independence from Great Britain. The document was approved and signed on July 2 and was formally adopted on July 4. John Adams always felt that the Second of July was America’s true birthday and wrote to his wife, Abigail, that the date “will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival.” He envisioned “Pomp and Parade […] Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other.” He reportedly refused to appear at annual Fourth of July celebrations for the rest of his life, in protest. He died on July 4, 1826, the 50th anniversary of the Declaration’s adoption — as did Thomas Jefferson, who had written most of the document.

It was traditional in the British Colonies to celebrate the king’s birthday every summer, with bonfires, parades, and speeches. During the summer of 1776 they held mock funerals for King George instead — with bonfires, parades, and speeches. They also read the Declaration of Independence aloud as soon as it was adopted. Philadelphia held the first formal Independence Day celebration in 1777, with bells and fireworks; in 1778 General George Washington called for double rations of rum for the troops, and in 1781 Massachusetts was the first to name July 4 an official state holiday. Congress declared it a national holiday in 1870.

Jefferson turned down a request to appear at the 50th anniversary celebration in Washington, D.C.; it was the last letter he ever wrote, and in it he expressed his hope for the Declaration of Independence:

“May it be to the world, what I believe it will be […] the signal of arousing men to burst the chains […] and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. […] All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. […] For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them.” WA

“May [Jy 4] be to the world...the signal of arousing men to burst the chains…and to assume the blessings and security of self-government...For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them.” https://t.co/5yeKlM2njG

— Phil Oliver (@OSOPHER) July 4, 2021

Independence Day should be at least as much an occasion for personal reflection on the gap between what is and what should be, as for festivity and pyrotechnics. Real patriots know we're not yet all equally free and independent in this society.

— Phil Oliver (@OSOPHER) July 4, 2021

Lamp on

The July 4 holiday always sends me back to Richard Ford, whose 1995 novel Independence Day has a special place in memory because my first reading of it coincided with the happy occasion of the birth of Older Daughter... (continues) 

"Thank goodness"

I've been saying that a lot lately, in gratitude for the competence and kindness and simple goodness of the health professionals who are seeing me through a challenging health event this summer. It's not just a figure of speech, for friends of the secular enlightenment like Daniel Dennett:

THANK GOODNESS!

There are no atheists in foxholes, according to an old but dubious saying, and there is at least a little anecdotal evidence in favor of it in the notorious cases of famous atheists who have emerged from near-death experiences to announce to the world that they have changed their minds. The British philosopher Sir A. J. Ayer, who died in 1989, is a fairly recent example. Here is another anecdote to ponder.

Two weeks ago, I was rushed by ambulance to a hospital where it was determined by c-t scan that I had a "dissection of the aorta"—the lining of the main output vessel carrying blood from my heart had been torn up, creating a two—channel pipe where there should only be one. Fortunately for me, the fact that I'd had a coronary artery bypass graft seven years ago probably saved my life, since the tangle of scar tissue that had grown like ivy around my heart in the intervening years reinforced the aorta, preventing catastrophic leakage from the tear in the aorta itself. After a nine-hour surgery, in which my heart was stopped entirely and my body and brain were chilled down to about 45 degrees to prevent brain damage from lack of oxygen until they could get the heart-lung machine pumping, I am now the proud possessor of a new aorta and aortic arch, made of strong Dacron fabric tubing sewn into shape on the spot by the surgeon, attached to my heart by a carbon-fiber valve that makes a reassuring little click every time my heart beats.

As I now enter a gentle period of recuperation, I have much to reflect on, about the harrowing experience itself and even more about the flood of supporting messages I've received since word got out about my latest adventure. Friends were anxious to learn if I had had a near-death experience, and if so, what effect it had had on my longstanding public atheism. Had I had an epiphany? Was I going to follow in the footsteps of Ayer (who recovered his aplomb and insisted a few days later "what I should have said is that my experiences have weakened, not my belief that there is no life after death, but my inflexible attitude towards that belief"), or was my atheism still intact and unchanged?

Yes, I did have an epiphany. I saw with greater clarity than ever before in my life that when I say "Thank goodness!" this is not merely a euphemism for "Thank God!" (We atheists don't believe that there is any God to thank.) I really do mean thank goodness! There is a lot of goodness in this world, and more goodness every day, and this fantastic human-made fabric of excellence  is genuinely responsible for the fact that I am alive today. It is a worthy recipient of the gratitude I feel today, and I want to celebrate that fact here and now... (continues)

Anti-anti-natalism

	The New Yorker ⁦‪@NewYorker‬⁩ The "anti-natalist" philosopher David Benatar believes that life is so painful that human beings should stop having children for reasons of compassion. nyer.cm/r4Igb1M   7/1/21, 10:54 PM

Recall Hannah Arendt on natality. People like David Benatar definitely should not have children. For the rest of us, each  birth is a potential rebirth of civilization and a new Hope for enlightenment. 

Phil.Oliver@mtsu.edu

👣Solvitur ambulando

💭Sapere aude

Dr. Humanist

I was so pleased yesterday to see that Dr. Fauci had been named Humanist of the Year, I impulsively registered for the annual conference of the American Humanist Association. I've talked about attending that event for years, or at least wanting and intending to, but somehow managed never to follow through. I could think of no reason at all to skip the last (let's hope!) virtual/remote version, happening later in July... (continues)

The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth

What are the social rules for turning disagreement into knowledge? @jon_rauch outlines the constitution of knowledge thusly, from his highly-recommended must-read book.
Full episode of our conversation:https://t.co/2wzBx1BlfG pic.twitter.com/4UdPrCt1L0

— Michael Shermer (@michaelshermer) July 1, 2021

 

Darwin

"It was on this day in 1858 that a paper by Charles Darwin about his theory of evolution was first presented to a public audience...He was at home, grieving the death of his son. But his theory would go on to become the basis of all modern biology"-and modern enlightenment. https://t.co/nrwynaBBws

— Phil Oliver (@OSOPHER) July 1, 2021

"Storyville Gardens"

Timely answer to my complaint about a decline of interest in reading! TR would approve...

Theodore Roosevelt's Advice on Reading https://t.co/eimk4XxIfE pic.twitter.com/kolFjBMw9x

— Art of Manliness (@artofmanliness) June 30, 2021

"...Now and then I am asked as to “what books a statesman should read,” and my answer is, poetry and novels — including short stories under the head of novels. I don’t mean that he should read only novels and modern poetry. If he cannot also enjoy the Hebrew prophets and the Greek dramatists, he should be sorry. He ought to read interesting books on history and government, and books of science and philosophy; and really good books on these subjects are as enthralling as any fiction ever written in prose or verse. Gibbon and Macaulay, Herodotus, Thucydides and Tacitus, the Heimskringla, Froissart, Joinville and Villehardouin, Parkman and Mahan, Mommsen and Ranke — why! there are scores and scores of solid histories, the best in the world, which are as absorbing as the best of all the novels, and of as permanent value. The same thing is true of Darwin and Huxley and Carlyle and Emerson, and parts of Kant..."

Against entropy

 Enlightening class last night. I think maybe the most instructive conversation centered on that cliche that "everything happens for a reason" etc. My perspective, close to Pinker's, is that of course everything happens from causes, known, elusive, or merely speculated; but that just as obviously, not everything real is rational, not everything happens for the best or by design or with our collective good in view... (continues)

Questions July 6

 Post before Tuesday if possible. I have no opportunity to look at your posts before class, after Tuesday morning.

• In a more enlightened and evolved world, would we accept the proposition that poverty is the natural or entropic order of things? Is it economically reasonable but inhumane to say poverty has no causes? 79
• Does the culture of commerce in America "dissolve sectarian hatreds" or do they persist in spite of it, untouched by the moral uplift the 18th century philosophes predicted? 84
• Do you think life (and literal light) in the two Koreas is a good representation of the relative merits of capitalism and communism? 90 Should we also do a fly-over of a vibrant and glowing social democracy like Sweden, before concluding that capitalism per se is the best economic system?
• Does GDP's correlation with greater longevity, health, and nutrition support a causal hypothesis? Are longevity, health, and nutrition predictors (if not causes) of greater GDP? 96
• Will the human condition improve further if we actively promote egalitarianism? Or should our entire focus be on reducing poverty? Should we kill Boris's goat or try to get Igor his own? Or is that a false dilemma? 99
• Is J.K. Rowling a representative billionaire? Is their wealth always or usually "a by-product of the voluntary decisions of billions of" consumers? 
• "The influence of money on politics is particularly pernicious because it can distort every government policy, but it's not the same issue as income inequality." 102 But isn't it closely related, when money can buy inordinate influence? (See Kurt Andersen's Evil Geniuses for a deeper discussion of the link between dark money in politics and inequality.)
• "But eventually a rising tide lifts all boats." 103 Even if true, isn't this old canard insensitive to the real-world inequities of income inequality?
• "What's significant about the decline in inequality is that it's a decline in poverty." 105 So shouldn't we attack both inequality and poverty in tandem, de-emphasizing neither?
• If income redistribution results in greater access to health care, affordable housing, education, etc., for those at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder, isn't it accurate to say that the goal of "raising the bottom" (and not merely lowering the top) has in fact been achieved? 107
• Do Americans over-indulge an appetite for "golden age" nostalgia about a past that never was? 113 (Again, see Kurt Andersen's Evil Geniuses...)
• "Walmart saved the typical American family $2,300 a year." 117 But at what total cost?
• Does Pinker have a point about how "technology and globalization have transformed what it means to be a poor person"?
• Is economic growth and ever-growing personal and national consumption an intrinsic good?
• Should America institute a Universal Basic Income? 119
• Will automatization and roboticization of menial labor eventually be a "boon to humanity"?
• Has the environmental movement represented significant progress in the past half-century? 121
• Was the Pope wrong about progress? 122
• Have humans been a virus and a cancer on the planet?
• Is worrying now about the fate of our long-term descendants really a luxury? 124
• Will technology save us? Will the status quo doom us?
• Do you support "sustainability"? 127
• Is nature "as robust as it ever was," if climate change results in a less habitable world for humans and the extinction of countless species? 133
• Should we stop calling humans out as earth's despoilers and plunderers? 134
• Fossil fuel corporations have lied about climate change for decades. Why shouldn't we "demonize" them? 142
• Is nuclear energy safe enough? 147
• Do you think we will achieve an enlightened environmentalism in time to forestall the worst-case climate change scenario?  Are you conditionally or complacently optimistic? Or pessimistic? Or indifferent?
• Are we safely past the threat of another World War?
• Do most of the nations of the world act as if they accept that "war is illegal"? 163
• What do you think of William James's idea, in The Moral Equivalent of War, that the "martial virtues" humans have historically associated with war ("intrepidity, contempt of softness, surrender of private interest, obedience to command") can and should be redirected to more constructive purposes?
• Will humans ever overcome war, and inaugurate *Kant's perpetual peace? Will they join a United Federation, devoted to galactic peace?

The United Federation of Planets (abbreviated as UFP and commonly referred to as the Federation) was a supranational interstellar union of multiple planetary nation-states that operated semi-autonomously under a single central government, founded on the principles of liberty, equality, peace, justice, and progress, with the purpose of furthering the universal rights of all sentient life. Federation members exchange knowledge and resources to facilitate peaceful cooperation, scientific development, space exploration, and mutual defense.

 

* 

Immanuel Kant
Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch

1795

---

PERPETUAL PEACE

Whether this satirical inscription on a Dutch innkeeper's sign upon which a burial ground was painted had for its object mankind in general, or the rulers of states in particular, who are insatiable of war, or merely the philosophers who dream this sweet dream, it is not for us to decide. But one condition the author of this essay wishes to lay down. The practical politician assumes the attitude of looking down with great self-satisfaction on the political theorist as a pedant whose empty ideas in no way threaten the security of the state, inasmuch as the state must proceed on empirical principles; so the theorist is allowed to play his game without interference from the worldly-wise statesman. Such being his attitude, the practical politician--and this is the condition I make--should at least act consistently in the case of a conflict and not suspect some danger to the state in the political theorist's opinions which are ventured and publicly expressed without any ulterior purpose. By this clausula salvatoria the author desires formally and emphatically to deprecate herewith any malevolent interpretation which might be placed on his words... (continues)