Thursday, October 15, 2009

Morrison Swift

Quotes from Human Submission.

If we eliminate consciousness from the universe I do not know of what consequence its existence is, and if consciousness is the greatest thing, the way this universe uses every conscious being is our test of the universe.

Quoting F.H. Hedge: "To the question, then, how evil consists with the goodness of God? I answer flatly, it does not consist with the goodness of God. Either there is no God, such as we figure him, or there is no evil. Pain and suffering in abundance, but no evil. For only that is really and absolutely evil which is . . . evil in its issue, evil for evermore. Nothing in God's universe answers to that condition."

Who knows anything about good or evil for evermore? Who is familiar with 'God's universe' beyond the immoral medley of it here? Is there then no evil? Let us try to conceive how men who are neither philosophers nor proprietors of the planet would answer this question.

On the llth of October, 1904, the press contained some curious information from Cleveland, Ohio:

"After murdering his two children, John, aged three, and Emma, aged four, Bohunil Schnepp, a Bohemian laborer, aged forty-one, made an unsuccessful attempt on his own, life at the grave of his wife in Woodland Cemetery here. He is now in a local hospital, where the doctors say he will recover. Schnepp has vainly searched for weeks for employment, and, becoming discouraged over the prospect of not being able to provide a home for himself and his two motherless babies, he yesterday decided to blot out the entire family.

" He took the two children into the basement of his boarding house, where, after tying handkerchiefs tightly over their mouths so that they could make no outcry, he fired a shot from an old revolver into each of their heads. The bullets failing to kill instantly, he seized an old hammer which was lying nearby and struck the children on the skull behind the temple. The two bodies were then placed side by side on the floor, while the frantic father went to the cemetery where the body of his wife was buried. There, with the pistol he had used on his babies, he fired a shot into his head.

" He was picked up unconscious and hurried to the hospital, where examination revealed the fact that the bullet had missed the brain and that he would recover. In the meantime the bodies of his unfortunate victims had been found, Emma being dead and John dyiug within half an hour. Schnepp left a letter in which he stated that he ' had nothing left to do' but kill himself; that he now ' had a job iu hell as a fireman ' and asked that he and the children be buried in the same grave."

This phenomenon happened in a world whose God is Love. In New York an old man starved to death : "Two shoemakers, Michael and Jacob Buthren, both more than 70 years old, have been living in a rear tenement in Gates Avenue, Brooklyn. To-day the police were notified by neighbors that something was wrong with the old men. They visited the house and found Michael dead and his brother Jacob lying half conscious and barely alive by his side. Both were victims of starvation. It is impossible to say how long they had been without food, but it must have been several days."

A tailor in Philadelphia paid his debts and took poison, writing, " The other world may be just as bad." Max Horn, a tailor, fearing that he would become blind and so be thrown out of work committed suicide yesterday, at 920 South Street, by drinking carbolic acid. He had been troubled with weak eyes for some time, and had been unable to work at his trade. This note addressed to the man with whom he lived, was found in the suicide's room:

" ' Friend Witkin—I leave you 30 cents for two suppers, Sunday and Monday, that belongs to you. Excuse me, friends, for the trouble, but I couldn't help myself. I hope you will excuse me. I want you to sell all my clothes and buy me new ones for the grave. I wish you good-by and good luck from me. Yours truly, Horn.

" ' The world aint more for me. The other world may be just as bad. Max Horn.' "

The records of many more such cases lie before me ; an encyclopedia might easily be filled with their kind. These few I cite as an interpretation of the universe. " We are aware of the presence of God in His world," says a writer in a recent English Review. " The Absolute is the richer for every discord, and for all diversity which it embraces," says F. H. Bradley {Appearance and Reality, 204). He means that these slain men make the universe richer, and that is Philosophy.

This is a beautiful summary of that ignoble resignation and acceptance which is all that religion can offer us against the blows of nature. Coerce your mind and subdue your insight, ignore realities and inwardly assert that the storms of evil beating down man are mysterious expressions of Divine Love.

The illuminations of religion and of philosophy are then identical, and the secret of both is Faith. Devoutly believe that the universe is Divine Love and a Perfect Whole. And now let us, as before we did with religion, apply the doctrine of philosophy to facts. When the obscure Cleveland workman, having vainly searched through weeks for employment, took his two children into the basement of his boarding house and tying handkerchiefs over their mouths fired a shot from an old revolver into each of their heads, and, failing to kill them, hammered their skulls in beneath the temple, we had ' a fragmentary glimpse of the Absolute life,' ' a revelation of the unity of the perfect Whole.' We had, I think, on the contrary a perfectly clear glimpse of what any one not besotted by the concepts of philosophy would call Absolute Imperfection, and of a universe in which the attributes of hate and hell were in cruel supremacy. And neither philosophy nor religion will much longer avail with intellectual charlatanry and sophistries to restrain mankind from so reasoning and seeing. When it does so, a change in its principles of action like that of the passage from an old to a new universe will transpire.

Ethics follows at the tail of philosophy and religion. "The joys of a good conscience," says Wundt, "far excelling all other sources of happiness, are so great that the really moral man is entirely satisfied with the position assigned him by Fate : he would not change places with any one." *

Patiently bringing our facts to bear upon this quaint academic thinker's fiction, the working man who, crazed by starving and seeing his boy and girl whom he could not feed pining and dying before his eyes, with no commisseration from God or man or moralist, crushed out their brains, would have been ' entirely satisfied with the position assigned him by Fate,' nor would he have changed places with anyone; for tip to the time when the frenzy seized him he must surely have had a good conscience, since for weeks he had zealously pursued the mocking phantasies of employment and honest food. Thus the ethical writer with the mysteries of his science can reduce the utmost misery that a human being can know to a joy far excelling all others; he can make the most horrible fate conceivable to man identical with his highest bliss. But he does more : he demonstrates that ethics is an archaic exercise of modern school-masters hundreds of years in arrears, that its message to the present and to the future is dead.

' Thou shalt not steal, neither shalt thou covet,' are suitable precepts in a state of equality, but in a social mechanism framed as Rome was for the spoliation of the many, they are advices to the many to meanly fall down and be pillaged.

William James, Pragmatism

Pragmatism, Lecture One excerpts.

In the preface to that admirable collection of essays of his called 'Heretics,' Mr. Chesterton writes these words: "There are some people—and I am one of them—who think that the most practical and important thing about a man is still his view of the universe."

There is, it must be confessed, a curious fascination in hearing deep things talked about, even tho neither we nor the disputants understand them. We get the problematic thrill, we feel the presence of the vastness. Let a controversy begin in a smoking-room anywhere, about free-will or God's omniscience, or good and evil, and see how everyone in the place pricks up his ears.

The history of philosophy is to a great extent that of a certain clash of human temperaments. Undignified as such a treatment may seem to some of my colleagues, I shall have to take account of this clash and explain a good many of the divergencies of philosophers by it. Of whatever temperament a professional philosopher is, he tries when philosophizing to sink the fact of his temperament. Temperament is no conventionally recognized reason, so he urges impersonal reasons only for his conclusions. Yet his temperament really gives him a stronger bias than any of his more strictly objective premises.

But the one thing that has COUNTED so far in philosophy is that a man should see things, see them straight in his own peculiar way, and be dissatisfied with any opposite way of seeing them. There is no reason to suppose that this strong temperamental vision is from now onward to count no longer in the history of man's beliefs.

The tough think of the tender as sentimentalists and soft-heads. The tender feel the tough to be unrefined, callous, or brutal. Their mutual reaction is very much like that that takes place when Bostonian tourists mingle with a population like that of Cripple Creek. Each type believes the other to be inferior to itself; but disdain in the one case is mingled with amusement, in the other it has a dash of fear.

And now I come to the first positively important point which I wish to make. Never were as many men of a decidedly empiricist proclivity in existence as there are at the present day. Our children, one may say, are almost born scientific.

Now what kinds of philosophy do you find actually offered to meet your need? You find an empirical philosophy that is not religious enough, and a religious philosophy that is not empirical enough for your purpose. If you look to the quarter where facts are most considered you find the whole tough-minded program in operation, and the 'conflict between science and religion' in full blast. Either it is that Rocky Mountain tough of a Haeckel with his materialistic monism, his ether-god and his jest at your God as a 'gaseous vertebrate'; or it is Spencer treating the world's history as a redistribution of matter and motion solely, and bowing religion politely out at the front door.

Man is no law-giver to nature, he is an absorber. She it is who stands firm; he it is who must accommodate himself. Let him record truth, inhuman tho it be, and submit to it! The romantic spontaneity and courage are gone, the vision is materialistic and depressing. Ideals appear as inert by- products of physiology; what is higher is explained by what is lower and treated forever as a case of 'nothing but'—nothing but something else of a quite inferior sort. You get, in short, a materialistic universe, in which only the tough-minded find themselves congenially at home.

theism remains, however. It is the lineal descendant, through one stage of concession after another, of the dogmatic scholastic theism still taught rigorously in the seminaries of the catholic church. For a long time it used to be called among us the philosophy of the Scottish school. It is what I meant by the philosophy that has the air of fighting a slow retreat. Between the encroachments of the hegelians and other philosophers of the 'Absolute,' on the one hand, and those of the scientific evolutionists and agnostics, on the other, the men that give us this kind of a philosophy, James Martineau, Professor Bowne, Professor Ladd and others, must feel themselves rather tightly squeezed. Fair-minded and candid as you like, this philosophy is not radical in temper. It is eclectic, a thing of compromises, that seeks a modus vivendi above all things. It accepts the facts of darwinism, the facts of cerebral physiology, but it does nothing active or enthusiastic with them. It lacks the victorious and aggressive note. It lacks prestige in consequence; whereas absolutism has a certain prestige due to the more radical style of it.

The more absolutistic philosophers dwell on so high a level of abstraction that they never even try to come down. The absolute mind which they offer us, the mind that makes our universe by thinking it, might, for aught they show us to the contrary, have made any one of a million other universes just as well as this. You can deduce no single actual particular from the notion of it. It is compatible with any state of things whatever being true here below. And the theistic God is almost as sterile a principle. You have to go to the world which he has created to get any inkling of his actual character: he is the kind of god that has once for all made that kind of a world. The God of the theistic writers lives on as purely abstract heights as does the Absolute. Absolutism has a certain sweep and dash about it, while the usual theism is more insipid, but both are equally remote and vacuous. What you want is a philosophy that will not only exercise your powers of intellectual abstraction, but that will make some positive connexion with this actual world of finite human lives.

You want a system that will combine both things, the scientific loyalty to facts and willingness to take account of them, the spirit of adaptation and accommodation, in short, but also the old confidence in human values and the resultant spontaneity, whether of the religious or of the romantic type. And this is then your dilemma: you find the two parts of your quaesitum hopelessly separated. You find empiricism with inhumanism and irreligion; or else you find a rationalistic philosophy that indeed may call itself religious, but that keeps out of all definite touch with concrete facts and joys and sorrows.

n point of fact it is far less an account of this actual world than a clear addition built upon it, a classic sanctuary in which the rationalist fancy may take refuge from the intolerably confused and gothic character which mere facts present. It is no EXPLANATION of our concrete universe, it is another thing altogether, a substitute for it, a remedy, a way of escape.

Its temperament, if I may use the word temperament here, is utterly alien to the temperament of existence in the concrete. REFINEMENT is what characterizes our intellectualist philosophies. They exquisitely satisfy that craving for a refined object of contemplation which is so powerful an appetite of the mind. But I ask you in all seriousness to look abroad on this colossal universe of concrete facts, on their awful bewilderments, their surprises and cruelties, on the wildness which they show, and then to tell me whether 'refined' is the one inevitable descriptive adjective that springs to your lips.

Refinement has its place in things, true enough. But a philosophy that breathes out nothing but refinement will never satisfy the empiricist temper of mind. It will seem rather a monument of artificiality. So we find men of science preferring to turn their backs on metaphysics as on something altogether cloistered and spectral, and practical men shaking philosophy's dust off their feet and following the call of the wild.

Leibnitz continues elsewhere: "There is a kind of justice which aims neither at the amendment of the criminal, nor at furnishing an example to others, nor at the reparation of the injury. This justice is founded in pure fitness, which finds a certain satisfaction in the expiation of a wicked deed. The Socinians and Hobbes objected to this punitive justice, which is properly vindictive justice and which God has reserved for himself at many junctures. … It is always founded in the fitness of things, and satisfies not only the offended party, but all wise lookers-on, even as beautiful music or a fine piece of architecture satisfies a well-constituted mind.

[Morrison Isaac Swift's] anarchism goes a little farther than mine does, but I confess that I sympathize a good deal, and some of you, I know, will sympathize heartily with his dissatisfaction with the idealistic optimisms now in vogue. He begins his pamphlet on 'Human Submission' with a series of city reporter's items from newspapers (suicides, deaths from starvation and the like) as specimens of our civilized regime.

"This Cleveland workingman, killing his children and himself [another of the cited cases], is one of the elemental, stupendous facts of this modern world and of this universe. It cannot be glozed over or minimized away by all the treatises on God, and Love, and Being, helplessly existing in their haughty monumental vacuity. This is one of the simple irreducible elements of this world's life after millions of years of divine opportunity and twenty centuries of Christ. It is in the moral world like atoms or sub-atoms in the physical, primary, indestructible. And what it blazons to man is the … imposture of all philosophy which does not see in such events the consummate factor of conscious experience. These facts invincibly prove religion a nullity. Man will not give religion two thousand centuries or twenty centuries more to try itself and waste human time; its time is up, its probation is ended. Its own record ends it. Mankind has not sons and eternities to spare for trying out discredited systems…." [Footnote: Morrison I. Swift, Human Submission, Part Second, Philadelphia, Liberty Press, 1905, pp. 4- 10.]

Such is the reaction of an empiricist mind upon the rationalist bill of fare. It is an absolute 'No, I thank you.' "Religion," says Mr. Swift, "is like a sleep-walker to whom actual things are blank." And such, tho possibly less tensely charged with feeling, is the verdict of every seriously inquiring amateur in philosophy to-day who turns to the philosophy-professors for the wherewithal to satisfy the fulness of his nature's needs. Empiricist writers give him a materialism, rationalists give him something religious, but to that religion "actual things are blank." He becomes thus the judge of us philosophers. Tender or tough, he finds us wanting. None of us may treat his verdicts disdainfully, for after all, his is the typically perfect mind, the mind the sum of whose demands is greatest, the mind whose criticisms and dissatisfactions are fatal in the long run.

Not only Walt Whitman could write "who touches this book touches a man." The books of all the great philosophers are like so many men. Our sense of an essential personal flavor in each one of them, typical but indescribable, is the finest fruit of our own accomplished philosophic education. What the system pretends to be is a picture of the great universe of God. What it is—and oh so flagrantly!—is the revelation of how intensely odd the personal flavor of some fellow creature is. Once reduced to these terms (and all our philosophies get reduced to them in minds made critical by learning) our commerce with the systems reverts to the informal, to the instinctive human reaction of satisfaction or dislike.

LECTURE 2 Me: Pragmatism, Information and Distinguishability

Some years ago, being with a camping party in the mountains, I returned from a solitary ramble to find everyone engaged in a ferocious metaphysical dispute. The corpus of the dispute was a squirrel—a live squirrel supposed to be clinging to one side of a tree-trunk; while over against the tree's opposite side a human being was imagined to stand. This human witness tries to get sight of the squirrel by moving rapidly round the tree, but no matter how fast he goes, the squirrel moves as fast in the opposite direction, and always keeps the tree between himself and the man, so that never a glimpse of him is caught. The resultant metaphysical problem now is this: DOES THE MAN GO ROUND THE SQUIRREL OR NOT? He goes round the tree, sure enough, and the squirrel is on the tree; but does he go round the squirrel? In the unlimited leisure of the wilderness, discussion had been worn threadbare. Everyone had taken sides, and was obstinate; and the numbers on both sides were even. Each side, when I appeared, therefore appealed to me to make it a majority. Mindful of the scholastic adage that whenever you meet a contradiction you must make a distinction, I immediately sought and found one, as follows: "Which party is right," I said, "depends on what you PRACTICALLY MEAN by 'going round' the squirrel. If you mean passing from the north of him to the east, then to the south, then to the west, and then to the north of him again, obviously the man does go round him, for he occupies these successive positions. But if on the contrary you mean being first in front of him, then on the right of him, then behind him, then on his left, and finally in front again, it is quite as obvious that the man fails to go round him, for by the compensating movements the squirrel makes, he keeps his belly turned towards the man all the time, and his back turned away. Make the distinction, and there is no occasion for any farther dispute. You are both right and both wrong according as you conceive the verb 'to go round' in one practical fashion or the other."

The pragmatic method is primarily a method of settling metaphysical disputes that otherwise might be interminable. Is the world one or many?—fated or free?—material or spiritual?—here are notions either of which may or may not hold good of the world; and disputes over such notions are unending. The pragmatic method in such cases is to try to interpret each notion by tracing its respective practical consequences. What difference would it practically make to anyone if this notion rather than that notion were true? If no practical difference whatever can be traced, then the alternatives mean practically the same thing, and all dispute is idle. Whenever a dispute is serious, we ought to be able to show some practical difference that must follow from one side or the other's being right.

It was first introduced into philosophy by Mr. Charles Peirce in 1878. In an article entitled 'How to Make Our Ideas Clear,' in the 'Popular Science Monthly' for January of that year [Footnote: Translated in the Revue Philosophique for January, 1879 (vol. vii).] Mr. Peirce, after pointing out that our beliefs are really rules for action, said that to develope a thought's meaning, we need only determine what conduct it is fitted to produce: that conduct is for us its sole significance. And the tangible fact at the root of all our thought- distinctions, however subtle, is that there is no one of them so fine as to consist in anything but a possible difference of practice. To attain perfect clearness in our thoughts of an object, then, we need only consider what conceivable effects of a practical kind the object may involve—what sensations we are to expect from it, and what reactions we must prepare. Our conception of these effects, whether immediate or remote, is then for us the whole of our conception of the object, so far as that conception has positive significance at all.

It is astonishing to see how many philosophical disputes collapse into insignificance the moment you subject them to this simple test of tracing a concrete consequence. There can BE no difference any- where that doesn't MAKE a difference elsewhere—no difference in abstract truth that doesn't express itself in a difference in concrete fact and in conduct consequent upon that fact, imposed on somebody, somehow, somewhere and somewhen. The whole function of philosophy ought to be to find out what definite difference it will make to you and me, at definite instants of our life, if this world- formula or that world-formula be the true one.

Me: To analyze beliefs according to the difference they make 'in concrete fact' keeps the door open for Christianity, by admitting the possibility of beneficent but false beliefs, beneficent socially, beneficent personally, or both. Myworld states are concrete facts, as are social events and phases.

[Back to James] A pragmatist turns his back resolutely and once for all upon a lot of inveterate habits dear to professional philosophers. He turns away from abstraction and insufficiency, from verbal solutions, from bad a priori reasons, from fixed principles, closed systems, and pretended absolutes and origins. He turns towards concreteness and adequacy, towards facts, towards action, and towards power. That means the empiricist temper regnant, and the rationalist temper sincerely given up. It means the open air and possibilities of nature, as against dogma, artificiality and the pretence of finality in truth.

It is a method only. But the general triumph of that method would mean an enormous change in what I called in my last lecture the 'temperament' of philosophy. Teachers of the ultra-rationalistic type would be frozen out, much as the courtier type is frozen out in republics, as the ultramontane type of priest is frozen out in protestant lands. Science and metaphysics would come much nearer together, would in fact work absolutely hand in hand.

Metaphysics has usually followed a very primitive kind of quest. You know how men have always hankered after unlawful magic, and you know what a great part, in magic, WORDS have always played. If you have his name, or the formula of incantation that binds him, you can control the spirit, genie, afrite, or whatever the power may be. Solomon knew the names of all the spirits, and having their names, he held them subject to his will. So the universe has always appeared to the natural mind as a kind of enigma, of which the key must be sought in the shape of some illuminating or power-bringing word or name. That word names the universe's PRINCIPLE, and to possess it is, after a fashion, to possess the universe itself. 'God,' 'Matter,' 'Reason,' 'the Absolute,' 'Energy,' are so many solving names. You can rest when you have them. You are at the end of your metaphysical quest.

But if you follow the pragmatic method, you cannot look on any such word as closing your quest. You must bring out of each word its practical cash-value, set it at work within the stream of your experience. It appears less as a solution, then, than as a program for more work, and more particularly as an indication of the ways in which existing realities may be CHANGED.

Such then would be the scope of pragmatism—first, a method; and second, a genetic theory of what is meant by truth.

Men who are strongly of the fact-loving temperament, you may remember me to have said, are liable to be kept at a distance by the small sympathy with facts which that philosophy from the present-day fashion of idealism offers them. It is far too intellectualistic. Old fashioned theism was bad enough, with its notion of God as an exalted monarch, made up of a lot of unintelligible or preposterous 'attributes'; but, so long as it held strongly by the argument from design, it kept some touch with concrete realities. Since, however, darwinism has once for all displaced design from the minds of the 'scientific,' theism has lost that foothold; and some kind of an immanent or pantheistic deity working IN things rather than above them is, if any, the kind recommended to our contemporary imagination.

Affirming the Absolute Mind, which is its substitute for God, to be the rational presupposition of all particulars of fact, whatever they may be, it remains supremely indifferent to what the particular facts in our world actually are. Be they what they may, the Absolute will father them. Like the sick lion in Esop's fable, all footprints lead into his den, but nulla vestigia retrorsum. You cannot redescend into the world of particulars by the Absolute's aid, or deduce any necessary consequences of detail important for your life from your idea of his nature. He gives you indeed the assurance that all is well with Him, and for his eternal way of thinking; but thereupon he leaves you to be finitely saved by your own temporal devices.

The prince of darkness may be a gentleman, as we are told he is, but whatever the God of earth and heaven is, he can surely be no gentleman. His menial services are needed in the dust of our human trials, even more than his dignity is needed in the empyrean.

Now pragmatism, devoted tho she be to facts, has no such materialistic bias as ordinary empiricism labors under. Moreover, she has no objection whatever to the realizing of abstractions, so long as you get about among particulars with their aid and they actually carry you somewhere. Interested in no conclusions but those which our minds and our experiences work out together, she has no a priori prejudices against theology.

In other words, the greatest enemy of any one of our truths may be the rest of our truths. Truths have once for all this desperate instinct of self-preservation and of desire to extinguish whatever contradicts them. My belief in the Absolute, based on the good it does me, must run the gauntlet of all my other beliefs. Grant that it may be true in giving me a moral holiday. Nevertheless, as I conceive it,—and let me speak now confidentially, as it were, and merely in my own private person,—it clashes with other truths of mine whose benefits I hate to give up on its account. It happens to be associated with a kind of logic of which I am the enemy, I find that it entangles me in metaphysical paradoxes that are inacceptable, etc., etc.. But as I have enough trouble in life already without adding the trouble of carrying these intellectual inconsistencies, I personally just give up the Absolute.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Notes From The Underground, Myworld and the Existentialist's Primary Good

Advantage! What is advantage? And will you take it upon yourself to define with perfect accuracy in what the advantage of man consists? And what if it so happens that a man’s advantage, sometimes, not only may, but even must, consist in his desiring in certain cases what is harmful to himself and not advantageous. And if so, if there can be such a case, the whole principle falls into dust…You see, you gentlemen have, to the best of my knowledge, taken your whole register of human advantages from the averages of statistical figures and politico-economical formulas. Your advantages are prosperity, wealth, freedom, peace — and so on, and so on. So that the man who should, for instance, go openly and knowingly in opposition to all that list would to your thinking, and indeed mine, too, of course, be an obscurantist or an absolute madman: would not he? But, you know, this is what is surprising: why does it so happen that all these statisticians, sages and lovers of humanity, when they reckon up human advantages invariably leave out one?

The fact is, gentlemen, it seems there must really exist something that is dearer to almost every man than his greatest advantages, or (not to be illogical) there is a most advantageous advantage (the very one omitted of which we spoke just now) which is more important and more advantageous than all other advantages, for the sake of which a man if necessary is ready to act in opposition to all laws; that is, in opposition to reason, honour, peace, prosperity — in fact, in opposition to all those excellent and useful things if only he can attain that fundamental, most advantageous advantage which is dearer to him than all….What matters is, that this advantage is remarkable from the very fact that it breaks down all our classifications, and continually shatters every system constructed by lovers of mankind for the benefit of mankind. In fact, it upsets everything.

Man everywhere and at all times, whoever he may be, has preferred to act as he chose and not in the least as his reason and advantage dictated. And one may choose what is contrary to one’s own interests, and sometimes one positively ought (that is my idea). One’s own free unfettered choice, one’s own caprice, however wild it may be, one’s own fancy worked up at times to frenzy — is that very “most advantageous advantage” which we have overlooked, which comes under no classification and against which all systems and theories are continually being shattered to atoms. And how do these wiseacres know that man wants a normal, a virtuous choice? What has made them conceive that man must want a rationally advantageous choice? What man wants is simply independent choice, whatever that independence may cost and wherever it may lead. And choice, of course, the devil only knows what choice.

Monday, October 12, 2009

Lincoln, Opposition to Mob-Rule

January 27, 1837.

As a subject for the remarks of the evening, "The Perpetuation of our Political Institutions" is selected.

In the great journal of things happening under the sun, we, the American people, find our account running under date of the nineteenth century of the Christian era. We find ourselves in the peaceful possession of the fairest portion of the earth as regards extent of territory, fertility of soil, and salubrity of climate. We find ourselves under the government of a system of political institutions conducing more essentially to the ends of civil and religious liberty than any of which the history of former times tells us. We, when mounting the stage of existence, found ourselves the legal inheritors of these fundamental blessings. We toiled not in the acquirement or establishment of them; they are a legacy bequeathed us by a once hardy, brave, and patriotic, but now lamented and departed, race of ancestors. Theirs was the task (and nobly they performed it) to possess themselves, and through themselves us, of this goodly land, and to uprear upon its hills and its valleys a political edifice of liberty and equal rights; it is ours only to transmit these—the former unprofaned by the foot of an invader, the latter undecayed by the lapse of time and untorn by usurpation—to the latest generation that fate shall permit the world to know. This task gratitude to our fathers, justice to ourselves, duty to posterity, and love for our species in general, all imperatively require us faithfully to perform.

How then shall we perform it? At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years.

At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer: If it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

I hope I am over-wary; but if I am not, there is even now something of ill omen amongst us. I mean the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country—the growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions in lieu of the sober judgment of courts, and the worse than savage mobs for the executive ministers of justice. This disposition is awfully fearful in any community; and that it now exists in ours, though grating to our feelings to admit, it would be a violation of truth and an insult to our intelligence to deny. Accounts of outrages committed by mobs form the everyday news of the times. They have pervaded the country from New England to Louisiana; they are neither peculiar to the eternal snows of the former nor the burning suns of the latter; they are not the creature of climate, neither are they confined to the slave holding or the non-slave holding States. Alike they spring up among the pleasure-hunting masters of Southern slaves, and the order-loving citizens of the land of steady habits. Whatever then their cause may be, it is common to the whole country.

It would be tedious as well as useless to recount the horrors of all of them. Those happening in the State of Mississippi and at St. Louis are perhaps the most dangerous in example and revolting to humanity. In the Mississippi case they first commenced by hanging the regular gamblers—a set of men certainly not following for a livelihood a very useful or very honest occupation, but one which, so far from being forbidden by the laws, was actually licensed by an act of the Legislature passed but a single year before. Next, negroes suspected of conspiring to raise an insurrection were caught up and hanged in all parts of the State; then, white men supposed to be leagued with the negroes; and finally, strangers from neighboring States, going thither on business, were in many instances subjected to the same fate. Thus went on this process of hanging, from gamblers to negroes, from negroes to white citizens, and from these to strangers, till dead men were seen literally dangling from the boughs of trees upon every roadside, and in numbers almost sufficient to rival the native Spanish moss of the country as a drapery of the forest.

Turn then to that horror-striking scene at St. Louis. A single victim only was sacrificed there. This story is very short, and is perhaps the most highly tragic of anything of its length that has ever been witnessed in real life. A mulatto man by the name of McIntosh was seized in the street, dragged to the suburbs of the city, chained to a tree, and actually burned to death; and all within a single hour from the time he had been a freeman attending to his own business and at peace with the world.

Such are the effects of mob law, and such are the scenes becoming more and more frequent in this land so lately famed for love of law and order, and the stories of which have even now grown too familiar to attract anything more than an idle remark.

But you are perhaps ready to ask, "What has this to do with the perpetuation of our political institutions?" I answer, It has much to do with it. Its direct consequences are, comparatively speaking, but a small evil, and much of its danger consists in the proneness of our minds to regard its direct as its only consequences. Abstractly considered, the hanging of the gamblers at Vicksburg was of but little consequence. They constitute a portion of population that is worse than useless in any community; and their death, if no pernicious example be set by it, is never matter of reasonable regret with any one. If they were annually swept from the stage of existence by the plague or smallpox, honest men would perhaps be much profited by the operation. Similar too is the correct reasoning in regard to the burning of the negro at St. Louis. He had forfeited his life by the perpetration of an outrageous murder upon one of the most worthy and respectable citizens of the city, and had he not died as he did, he must have died by the sentence of the law in a very short time afterwards. As to him alone, it was as well the way it was as it could otherwise have been. But the example in either case was fearful. When men take it in their heads to-day to hang gamblers or burn murderers, they should recollect that in the confusion usually attending such transactions they will be as likely to hang or burn some one who is neither a gambler nor a murderer as one who is, and that, acting upon the example they set, the mob of to-morrow may, and probably will, hang or burn some of them by the very same mistake. And not only so: the innocent, those who have ever set their faces against violations of law in every shape, alike with the guilty fall victims to the ravages of mob law; and thus it goes on, step by step, till all the walls erected for the defense of the persons and property of individuals are trodden down and disregarded. But all this, even, is not the full extent of the evil. By such examples, by instances of the perpetrators of such acts going unpunished, the lawless in spirit are encouraged to become lawless in practice; and having been used to no restraint but dread of punishment, they thus become absolutely unrestrained. Having ever regarded government as their deadliest bane, they make a jubilee of the suspension of its operations, and pray for nothing so much as its total annihilation. While, on the other hand, good men, men who love tranquillity, who desire to abide by the laws and enjoy their benefits, who would gladly spill their blood in the defense of their country, seeing their property destroyed, their families insulted, and their lives endangered, their persons injured, and seeing nothing in prospect that forebodes a change for the better, become tired of and disgusted with a government that offers them no protection, and are not much averse to a change in which they imagine they have nothing to lose. Thus, then, by the operation of this mobocratic spirit which all must admit is now abroad in the land, the strongest bulwark of any government, and particularly of those constituted like ours, may effectually be broken down and destroyed—I mean the attachment of the people. Whenever this effect shall be produced among us; whenever the vicious portion of population shall be permitted to gather in bands of hundreds and thousands, and burn churches, ravage and rob provision-stores, throw printing presses into rivers, shoot editors, and hang and burn obnoxious persons at pleasure and with impunity, depend on it, this government cannot last. By such things the feelings of the best citizens will become more or less alienated from it, and thus it will be left without friends, or with too few, and those few too weak to make their friendship effectual. At such a time, and under such circumstances, men of sufficient talent and ambition will not be wanting to seize the opportunity, strike the blow, and overturn that fair fabric which for the last half century has been the fondest hope of the lovers of freedom throughout the world.

I know the American people are much attached to their government; I know they would suffer much for its sake; I know they would endure evils long and patiently before they would ever think of exchanging it for another,—yet, notwithstanding all this, if the laws be continually despised and disregarded, if their rights to be secure in their persons and property are held by no better tenure than the caprice of a mob, the alienation of their affections from the government is the natural consequence; and to that, sooner or later, it must come.

Here, then, is one point at which danger may be expected.

The question recurs, How shall we fortify against it? The answer is simple. Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well-wisher to his posterity swear by the blood of the Revolution never to violate in the least particular the laws of the country, and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and laws let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor. Let every man remember that to violate the law is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the charter of his own and his children's liberty. Let reverence for the laws be breathed by every American mother to the lisping babe that prattles on her lap; let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in primers, spelling books, and in almanacs; let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay of all sexes and tongues and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars.

While ever a state of feeling such as this shall universally or even very generally prevail throughout the nation, vain will be every effort, and fruitless every attempt, to subvert our national freedom.

When, I so pressingly urge a strict observance of all the laws, let me not be understood as saying there are no bad laws, or that grievances may not arise for the redress of which no legal provisions have been made. I mean to say no such thing. But I do mean to say that although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still, while they continue in force, for the sake of example they should be religiously observed. So also in unprovided cases. If such arise, let proper legal provisions be made for them with the least possible delay, but till then let them, if not too intolerable, be borne with.

There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law. In any case that may arise, as, for instance, the promulgation of abolitionism, one of two positions is necessarily true—that is, the thing is right within itself, and therefore deserves the protection of all law and all good citizens, or it is wrong, and therefore proper to be prohibited by legal enactments; and in neither case is the interposition of mob law either necessary, justifiable, or excusable.

But it may be asked, Why suppose danger to our political institutions? Have we not preserved them for more than fifty years? And why may we not for fifty times as long?

We hope there is no sufficient reason. We hope all danger may be overcome; but to conclude that no danger may ever arise would itself be extremely dangerous. There are now, and will hereafter be, many causes, dangerous in their tendency, which have not existed heretofore, and which are not too insignificant to merit attention. That our government should have been maintained in its original form, from its establishment until now, is not much to be wondered at. It had many props to support it through that period, which now are decayed and crumbled away. Through that period it was felt by all to be an undecided experiment; now it is understood to be a successful one. Then, all that sought celebrity and fame and distinction expected to find them in the success of that experiment. Their all was staked upon it; their destiny was inseparably linked with it. Their ambition aspired to display before an admiring world a practical demonstration of the truth of a proposition which had hitherto been considered at best no better than problematical—namely, the capability of a people to govern themselves. If they succeeded they were to be immortalized; their names were to be transferred to counties, and cities, and rivers, and mountains; and to be revered and sung, toasted through all time. If they failed, they were to be called knaves and fools, and fanatics for a fleeting hour; then to sink and be forgotten. They succeeded. The experiment is successful, and thousands have won their deathless names in making it so. But the game is caught; and I believe it is true that with the catching end the pleasures of the chase. This field of glory is harvested, and the crop is already appropriated. But new reapers will arise, and they too will seek a field. It is to deny what the history of the world tells us is true, to suppose that men of ambition and talents will not continue to spring up amongst us. And when they do, they will as naturally seek the gratification of their ruling passion as others have done before them. The question then is, Can that gratification be found in supporting and in maintaining an edifice that has been erected by others? Most certainly it cannot. Many great and good men, sufficiently qualified for any task they should undertake, may ever be found whose ambition would aspire to nothing beyond a seat in Congress, a Gubernatorial or a Presidential chair; but such belong not to the family of the lion, or the tribe of the eagle. What! think you these places would satisfy an Alexander, a Caesar, or a Napoleon? Never! Towering genius disdains a beaten path. It seeks regions hitherto unexplored. It sees no distinction in adding story to story upon the monuments of fame erected to the memory of others. It denies that it is glory enough to serve under any chief. It scorns to tread in the footsteps of any predecessor, however illustrious. It thirsts and burns for distinction; and if possible, it will have it, whether at the expense of emancipating slaves or enslaving freemen. Is it unreasonable, then, to expect that some man possessed of the loftiest genius, coupled with ambition sufficient to push it to its utmost stretch, will at some time spring up among us? And when such an one does it will require the people to be united with each other, attached to the government and laws, and generally intelligent, to successfully frustrate his designs.

Distinction will be his paramount object, and although he would as willingly, perhaps more so, acquire it by doing good as harm, yet, that opportunity being past, and nothing left to be done in the way of building up, he would set boldly to the task of pulling down.

Here then is a probable case, highly dangerous, and such an one as could not have well existed heretofore.

Another reason which once was, but which, to the same extent, is now no more, has done much in maintaining our institutions thus far. I mean the powerful influence which the interesting scenes of the Revolution had upon the passions of the people as distinguished from their judgment. By this influence, the jealousy, envy, and avarice incident to our nature, and so common to a state of peace, prosperity, and conscious strength, were for the time in a great measure smothered and rendered inactive, while the deep-rooted principles of hate, and the powerful motive of revenge, instead of being turned against each other, were directed exclusively against the British nation. And thus, from the force of circumstances, the basest principles of our nature were either made to lie dormant, or to become the active agents in the advancement of the noblest of causes—that of establishing and maintaining civil and religious liberty.

But this state of feeling must fade, is fading, has faded, with the circumstances that produced it.

I do not mean to say that the scenes of the Revolution are now or ever will be entirely forgotten, but that, like everything else, they must fade upon the memory of the world, and grow more and more dim by the lapse of time. In history, we hope, they will be read of, and recounted, so long as the Bible shall be read; but even granting that they will, their influence cannot be what it heretofore has been. Even then they cannot be so universally known nor so vividly felt as they were by the generation just gone to rest. At the close of that struggle, nearly every adult male had been a participator in some of its scenes. The consequence was that of those scenes, in the form of a husband, a father, a son, or a brother, a living history was to be found in every family—a history bearing the indubitable testimonies of its own authenticity, in the limbs mangled, in the scars of wounds received, in the midst of the very scenes related—a history, too, that could be read and understood alike by all, the wise and the ignorant, the learned and the unlearned. But those histories are gone. They can be read no more forever. They were a fortress of strength; but what invading foeman could never do the silent artillery of time has done—the leveling of its walls. They are gone. They were a forest of giant oaks; but the all-restless hurricane has swept over them, and left only here and there a lonely trunk, despoiled of its verdure, shorn of its foliage, unshading and unshaded, to murmur in a few more gentle breezes, and to combat with its mutilated limbs a few more ruder storms, then to sink and be no more.

They were pillars of the temple of liberty; and now that they have crumbled away that temple must fall unless we, their descendants, supply their places with other pillars, hewn from the solid quarry of sober reason. Passion has helped us, but can do so no more. It will in future be our enemy. Reason cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason—must furnish all the materials for our future support and defense. Let those materials be moulded into general intelligence, sound morality, and in particular, a reverence for the Constitution and laws; and that we improved to the last, that we remained free to the last, that we revered his name to the last, that during his long sleep we permitted no hostile foot to pass over or desecrate his resting place, shall be that which to learn the last trump shall awaken our Washington.

Upon these let the proud fabric of freedom rest, as the rock of its basis; and as truly as has been said of the only greater institution, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Notes, Emerson and Carlyle Letters, Oct 2009

Emerson: "We talked of books. Plato he does not read, and he disparaged Socrates; and, when pressed, persisted in making Mirabeau a hero. Gibbon he called the splendid bridge from the old world to the new. His own reading had been multifarious. Tristram Shandy was one of his first books after Robinson Crusoe and Robertson's America, an early favorite. Rousseau's Confessions had discovered to him that he was not a dunce; and it was now ten years since he had learned German, by the advice of a man who told him he would find in that language what he wanted."

"He took despairing or satirical views of literature at this moment; recounted the incredible sums paid in one year by the great booksellers for puffing. Hence it comes that no newspaper is trusted now, no books are bought, and the booksellers are on the eve of bankruptcy." Me: Do likewise. Quoting Carlyle: 'Government should direct poor men what to do. Poor Irish folk come wandering over these moors; my dame makes it a rule to give to every son of Adam bread to eat, and supplies his wants to the next house. But here are thousands of acres which might give them all meat, and nobody to bid these poor Irish go to the moor and till it. They burned the stacks, and so found a way to force the rich people to attend to them.'

Emerson: There we sat down and talked of the immortality of the soul. It was not Carlyle's fault that we talked on that topic, for he has the natural disinclination of every nimble spirit to bruise itself against walls, and did not like to place himself where no step can be taken.

Me: In genius there is a whisper of the devil.

Emerson: "I am glad that one living scholar is self-centred, and will be true to himself though none ever were before; who, as Montaigne says, "puts his ear close by himself, and holds his breath and listens." And none can be offended with the self-subsistency of one so catholic and jocund."

Emerson: "If you love such sequences, then admit, as you will, that no poet is sent into the world before his time; that all the departed thinkers and actors have paved your way; that (at least when you surrender yourself) nations and ages do guide your pen, yes, and common goose-quills as well as your diamond graver."

E: "And must not we say that Drunkenness is a virtue rather than that Cato has erred?"

Aside: The repeal of the Oppian law is a fascinating story about women, fashion, status and society. "Curiously, this particular challenge spawned far more interest than the most important affairs of state. The middle-aged married women of Rome crowded the streets, denied access to every avenue to the forum, and intercepted their husbands as they approached, demanding them to restore the ancient ornaments of the Roman matrons."

On Cato the Censorious: "He was struck with horror, along with many other Romans of the graver stamp, at the licence of the Bacchanalian mysteries, which he attributed to the influence of Greek manners; and he vehemently urged the dismissal of the philosophers (Carneades, Diogenes, and Critolaus), who came as ambassadors from Athens, on account of the dangerous nature of the views expressed by them."

Me: Dangerous philosophers descend on Chattanooga. Why? The publication of JA's Architectonica, moths to a flame. Among these dangerous philosophers and not late to arrive was Elijah Grey. He stood back and abided and stayed at an inn.

Carlyle: "Not till we can think that here and there one is thinking of us, one is loving us, does this waste Earth become a peopled Garden." (citing someone else)
___________________________________________________

Emerson, The American Scholar, at Harvard speech --

"Thus far, our holiday has been simply a friendly sign of the survival of the love of letters amongst a people too busy to give to letters any more. As such it is precious as the sign of an indestructible instinct. Perhaps the time is already come when it ought to be, and will be, something else; when the sluggard intellect of this continent will look from under its iron lids and fill the postponed expectation of the world with something better than the exertions of mechanical skill. Our day of dependence, our long apprenticeship to the learning of other lands, draws to a close."

"It is one of those fables which out of an unknown antiquity convey an unlooked-for wisdom, that the gods, in the beginning, divided Man into men, that he might be more helpful to himself; just as the hand was divided into fingers, the better to answer its end."

"The old fable covers a doctrine ever new and sublime; that there is One Man,—present to all particular men only partially, or through one faculty; and that you must take the whole society to find the whole man."

"But, unfortunately, this original unit, this fountain of power, has been so distributed to multitudes, has been so minutely subdivided and peddled out, that it is spilled into drops, and cannot be gathered. The state of society is one in which the members have suffered amputation from the trunk and strut about so many walking monsters,—a good finger, a neck, a stomach, an elbow, but never a man."

All things have two handles: Beware of the wrong one. -- Epictetus

"Far too as her splendors shine, system on system shooting like rays, upward, downward, without center, without circumference,—in the mass and in the particle, Nature hastens to render account of herself to the mind."

"So much of nature as he is ignorant of, so much of his own mind does he not yet possess. And, in fine, the ancient precept, "Know thyself," and the modern precept, "Study nature," become at last one maxim."

On books: "Yet hence arises a grave mischief. The sacredness which attaches to the act of creation, the act of thought, is instantly transferred to the record. The poet chanting was felt to be a divine man. Henceforth the chant is divine also. The writer was a just and wise spirit. Henceforward it is settled the book is perfect; as love of the hero corrupts into worship of his statue. Instantly the book becomes noxious. The guide is a tyrant. We sought a brother, and lo, a governor. The sluggish and perverted mind of the multitude, always slow to open to the incursions of Reason, having once so opened, having once received this book, stands upon it, and makes an outcry if it is disparaged. Colleges are built on it. Books are written on it by thinkers, not by Man Thinking, by men of talent, that is, who start wrong, who set out from accepted dogmas, not from their own sight of principles. Meek young men grow up in libraries, believing it their duty to accept the views which Cicero, which Locke, which Bacon, have given; forgetful that Cicero, Locke and Bacon were only young men in libraries when they wrote these books."

"I had better never see a book than to be warped by its attraction clean out of my own orbit, and made a satellite instead of a system."

"The book, the college, the school of art, the institution of any kind, stop with some past utterance of genius. This is good, say they,—let us hold by this. They pin me down."

"But when the intervals of darkness come, as come they must,—when the soul seeth not, when the sun is hid and the stars withdraw their shining,—we repair to the lamps which were kindled by their ray, to guide our steps to the East again, where the dawn is. We hear, that we may speak. The Arabian proverb says, "A fig-tree, looking on a fig-tree, becometh fruitful."

"Of course there is a portion of reading quite indispensable to a wise man. History and exact science he must learn by laborious reading. Colleges, in like manner, have their indispensable office,—to teach elements. But they can only highly serve us when they aim not to drill, but to create; when they gather from far every ray of various genius to their hospitable halls, and by the concentrated fires set the hearts of their youth on flame. Thought and knowledge are natures in which apparatus and pretension avail nothing. Gowns and pecuniary foundations, though of towns of gold, can never countervail the least sentence or syllable of wit. Forget this, and our American colleges will recede in their public importance, whilst they grow richer every year."

"There goes in the world a notion that the scholar should be a recluse, a valetudinarian" -- a man of weak or sickly constitution.

"Inaction is cowardice, but there can be no scholar without the heroic mind."

"Drudgery, calamity, exasperation, want, are instructors in eloquence and wisdom. The true scholar grudges every opportunity of action passed by, as a loss of power."

"The actions and events of our childhood and youth are now matters of calmest observation. They lie like fair pictures in the air. Not so with our recent actions,—with the business which we now have in hand. On this we are quite unable to speculate. Our affections as yet circulate through it. We no more feel or know it than we feel the feet, or the hand, or the brain of our body."

"So is there no fact, no event, in our private history, which shall not, sooner or later, lose its adhesive, inert form, and astonish us by soaring from our body into the empyrean. Cradle and infancy, school and playground, the fear of boys, and dogs, and ferules, the love of little maids and berries, and many another fact that once filled the whole sky, are gone already; friend and relative, profession and party, town and country, nation and world, must also soar and sing."

"If it were only for a vocabulary, the scholar would be covetous of action. Life is our dictionary."

"That great principle of Undulation in nature, that shows itself in the inspiring and expiring of the breath; in desire and satiety; in the ebb and flow of the sea; in day and night; in heat and cold; and, as yet more deeply ingrained in every atom and every fluid, is known to us under the name of Polarity,—these "fits of easy transmission and reflection," as Newton called them, are the law of nature because they are the law of spirit."
Polarity, or action and reaction, we meet in every part of nature; in darkness and light; in heat and cold; in the ebb and flow of waters; in male and female; in the inspiration and expiration of plants and animals; in the equation of quantity and quality in the fluids of the animal body; in the systole and diastole[98] of the heart; in the undulations of fluids, and of sound; in the centrifugal and centripetal gravity; in electricity, galvanism, and chemical affinity. Superinduce magnetism at one end of a needle; the opposite magnetism takes place at the other end. If the south attracts, the north repels. To empty here, you must condense there. An inevitable dualism bisects nature, so that each thing is a half, and suggests another thing to make it whole; as, spirit, matter; man, woman; odd, even; subjective, objective; in, out; upper, under; motion, rest; yea, nay.

"But he, in his private observatory, cataloguing obscure and nebulous stars of the human mind, which as yet no man has thought of as such,—watching days and months sometimes for a few facts; correcting still his old records,—must relinquish display and immediate fame. In the long period of his preparation he must betray often an ignorance and shiftlessness in popular arts, incurring the disdain of the able who shoulder him aside. Long he must stammer in his speech; often forego the living for the dead. Worse yet, he must accept—how often!—poverty and solitude."

"In silence, in steadiness, in severe abstraction, let him hold by himself; add observation to observation, patient of neglect, patient of reproach, and bide his own time,—happy enough if he can satisfy himself alone that this day he has seen something truly."

"In self-trust all the virtues are comprehended."

"What deafness, what stone-blind custom, what overgrown error you behold is there only by sufferance,—by your sufferance. See it to be a lie, and you have already dealt it its mortal blow."

"Men such as they are very naturally seek money or power; and power because it is as good as money,—the "spoils," so called, "of office." And why not? For they aspire to the highest, and this, in their sleep-walking, they dream is highest."

"It is one central fire, which, flaming now out of the lips of Etna, lightens the capes of Sicily, and now out of the throat of Vesuvius, illuminates the towers and vineyards of Naples. It is one light which beams out of a thousand stars. It is one soul which animates all men."

"Our age is bewailed as the age of Introversion. Must that needs be evil? We, it seems, are critical. We are embarrassed with second thoughts. We cannot enjoy anything for hankering to know whereof the pleasure consists. We are lined with eyes. We see with our feet. The time is infected with Hamlet's unhappiness,—
"Sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought."

"Is it so bad then? Sight is the last thing to be pitied. Would we be blind? Do we fear lest we should outsee nature and God, and drink truth dry? I look upon the discontent of the literary class as a mere announcement of the fact that they find themselves not in the state of mind of their fathers, and regret the coming state as untried; as a boy dreads the water before he has learned that he can swim."

"Man is surprised to find that things near are not less beautiful and wondrous than things remote. The near explains the far. The drop is a small ocean."

"Everything that tends to insulate the individual—to surround him with barriers of natural respect, so that each man shall feel the world is his, and man shall treat with man as a sovereign state with a sovereign state—tends to true union as well as greatness."

"f there be one lesson more than another that should pierce his ear, it is—The world is nothing, the man is all; in yourself is the law of all nature, and you know not yet how a globule of sap ascends; in yourself slumbers the whole of Reason; it is for you to know all; it is for you to dare all."

Monday, March 23, 2009

After Virtue

Alasdair MacIntyre, book notes

AFTER VIRTUE, all words and ideas are MacIntyre's unless otherwise attributed.

Hypothesis: in the actual world which we inhabit the language of morality is in a state of grave disorder. What we possess are the fragments of a conceptual scheme, parts which now lack those contexts from which their significance derived. We possess indeed simulacra of morality, we continue to use many of the key expressions. But we have -- very largely, if not entirely -- lost our comprehension, both theoretical and practical, or morality.

There seems to be no rational way of securing moral agreement in our culture. Disagreements share three salient characteristics.
1) conceptual incommensurability of the rival arguments -- every one of the arguments is logically valid or can be easily expanded so as to be made so; the conclusions do indeed follow from the premises; but the rival premises are such that we possess no rational way of weighing the claims of one as against another; thus, moral arguments are necessarily interminable; first premises a matter of pure assertiona and counter assertion; further, it seems that underlying my own position there must be some non-rational decision to adopt that position.
2) nonetheless, these arguments purport to be impersonal rational arguments and as such are usually presented in a mode appropriate to that impersonality.
3) the incommensurable premises deployed in the rival arguments have a wide variety of historical origins

In the transition from the variety of contexts in which they were originally at home to our own contemporary culture 'virtue' and 'justice' and 'piety' and 'duty' and even 'ought' have become other than they once were.

Contemporary moral argument is rationally interminable, because all moral, indeed all evaluative, argument is and always must be rational interminable. Contemporary moral disagreements of a certain kind cannot be resolved, because no moral disagreements of that kind in any age, past, present or future, can be resolved.

Emotivism is the doctrine that all evaluative judgments and more specifically all moral judgments are nothing but expressions of preference, expressions of attitude or feeling, insofar as they are moral or evaluative in character.

GE Moore's threefold discovery:
1) 'good' is the name of a simple, indefinable property, a property different from that named by 'pleasant' or 'conducive to evolutionary survival' or any other natural property; 'good' is a "non-natural property", propositions declaring this or that 'good' are what Moore called 'intuitions'; they are incapable of proof or disproof.
2) 'right' is that action which of all the available alternatives is the one which does or did as a matter of fact produce the most good.
3) personal affections and aesthetic enjoyments include all the greatest, and by far the greatest goods we can imagine; this is the ultimate truth of Moral Philosophy. The achievement of friendship and the contemplation of what is beautiful in nature or in art become certainly almost the sole and perhaps the sole justifiable ends of all human action.

Moore's three central positions are logically independent of each other. There would be no breach of consistency if one were to affirm any one of the three and deny the other two. The second crucial fact is that the first part of what Moore says is plainly false and the second and third parts are at the very least highly contentious. Moore's arguments at times are, it must seem now, highly defective; a great deal is asserted rather than argued. And yet it is this to us plainly false, badly argued position which Keynes treated as 'the beginning of a renaissance', which Lytton Strachey declared to have 'shattered all writers on ethics from Aristotle and Christ to Herbert Spencer and Mr Bradley' and which Leonard Woolf described as 'substituting for the religious and philosophical nightmares, delusions, hallucinations in which Jehovah, Christ, and St Paul, Plato, Kant and Hegel had entangled us, the fresh air and pure light of commonsense.'

This is great silliness of course; but it is the great silliness of highly intelligent and perceptive people.

If two observers disagree: according to Keynes, either the two were focusing on different subject matters, without recognising this, or one had perceptions superior to the other. But of course, as Keynes tells us, what was really happening was something quite other: 'In practice, victory was with those who could speak with the greatest appearance of clear, undoubting conviction and could best use the accounts of infallibility' and Keynes goes on to describe the effectiveness of Moore's gasps of incredulity and head-shaking, of Strachey's grim silences and of Lowes Dickinson's shrugs.

There is evident here precisely that gap between the meaning and purport of what was being said and the use to which utterance was being put to which our reinterpretation of emotivism drew attention.

It is no accident that the acutest of the modern founders of emotivism, philosophers such as F.P. Ramsey, Austin Duncan-Jones and C.L. Stevenson, were pupils of Moore; it is not implausible that they did in fact confuse moral utterance at Cambridge after 1903 with moral utterance as such, and that they therefore presented what was in essentials a correct account of the former as though it were an account of the latter.

What makes emotivism convincing as a thesis about a certain kind of moral utterance at Cambridge after 1903 are certain features specific to that historical period. Those whose evaluative utterances embodied Moore's interpretations of those utterances could not have been doing what they took themselves to be doing because of the falsity of Moore's thesis. But nothing whatsoever seems to follow about moral utterances in general. Emotivism on this account turns out to be an empirical thesis, or rather a preliminary sketch of an empirical thesis, presumably to be filled out later by psychological and sociological and historical observations, about those who continue to use moral and other evaluative expressions, as if they were governed by objective and impersonal criteria, when all grasp of any such criterion has been lost.

Carnap's version fo emotivism, for example -- in which the characterization of moral utterances as expressions of feeling or attitude is a desperate attempt to find some status for them after his theory of meaning and his theory of science have expelled them from the realm of the factual and the descriptive -- was based on the most meagre attention to their specific character.

A presupposition of the scheme of development [MacIntyre] sketches is that genuine objective and impersonal moral standards can in some way or other be rationally justified, even if in some cultures at some stages the possibility of such rational justification is no longer available. This is what emotivism denies.

Emotivism rests upon a claim that every attempt, whether past or present, to provide a rational justification for an objective morality has in fact failed. What emotivism however did fail to reckon with is the difference that it would make to morality if emotivism were not only true but also widely believed to be true. That is, if and insofar as emotivism is true, moral language is seriously misleading and, if and insofar as emotivism is justifiably believed, presumably the use of traditional and inherited moral language ought to be abandoned. This conclusion none of the emotivists drew; and it is clear that, like Stevenson, they failed to draw it because the misconstrued their own theory as a theory of meaning.

Analytical philosophers had defined the central task of philosophy as that of deciphering the meaning of key expressions in both everyday and scientific language; and since emotivism fails precisely as a theory of the meaning of moral expressions, analytical philosophers by and large rejected emotivism. The resistance to emotivism has arisen from the perception that moral reasoning does occur, that there can be logical linkages between various moral judgments of a kind that emotivism itself could not allow. Yet the most influential account of moral reasoning that emerged in response to this critique of emotivism was one according to which an agent can only justifiy a particular judgment by referring to some universal rule from which it may be logically derived, and can only justify the rule in turn by deriving it from some more general rule or principle; but on this view since every chain of reasoning must be finite, such a process of justificatory reasoning must always terminate with the assertion of some rule of principle for which no further reason can be given.

The terminus of justification is thus always, on this view, a not further to be justified choice, a choice unguided by criteria. Each individual implicitly or explicitly has to adopt his or her own first principles on the basis of such choice.

To this is replied: rationality itself might supply morality with a basis and a basis such that we have adequate grounds for rejecting emotivist and subjectivist accounts. [Me: basis located in positive, functional knowledge].

It would generally be a decisive refutation of a moral philosophy to show that moral agency on its own account of the matter could never be socially embodied; and it also follows that we have not fully understood the claims of any moral philosophy until we have spelled out what its social embodiment would be.

The key to the social content of emotivism: it entails the obliteration of any genuine distinction between manipulative and non-manipulative social relations. For evaluative utterance can in the end have no point or use but the expression of my own feelings or attitudes and the transformation of the feelings and attitudes of others.

Portrait of a Lady turns out to be, in the words of William Gass, an investigation 'of what it means to be a consumer of persons, and of what it means to be a person consumed.' The metaphor of consumption acquires its appropriateness from the milieu; James is concerned with rich aesthetes whose interest is to fend off the kind of boredom that is so characteristic of modern leisure by contriving behavior in others that will be responsive to their wishes, that will feed their sated appetites. The last enemy is boredom. These are environments in which the problem of enjoyment arises in the context of leisure, in which large sums of money have created some social distnce from the necessity of work.

Weber: Bureaucratic rationality is the rationality of matching means to ends economically and efficiently. Questions of ends are questions of values, and on values reason is silent; conflict between rival values cannot be rationally settled. Instead one must simply choose -- between parties, classes, nations, causes, ideals. 'Values', says Raymond Aron in his exposition of Weber's view, 'are created by human decisions...' and again he ascribes to Weber the view that 'each man's conscience is irrefutable' and that values rest on 'a choice whose justification is purely subjective.' An agent may be more or less rational in acting consistent with his values, but the choice of any one particular evaluative stance or commitment can be no more rational than that of any other. In Weber, the contrast between power and authority is effective obliterated. As Philip Rieff noted, 'Weber's ends, the causes to be served, are means of acting; they cannot escape service to power' (Rieff 1975, p. 22). No type of authority can appeal to rational criteria to vindicate itself except that type of bureaucratic authority which appeals precisely to its own effectiveness. And what this appeal reveals is that bureacratic authority is nothing other than successful power. [Me: authority can only appeal to consensus criteria, values may not be rationally got, but they can be rationally unconcealed (articulated) and ordered.]

Characters are the moral representatives of their culture and they are so because of the way in whch moral and metaphysical ideas and theories assume through them an embodied existence in the social world. Characters are the masks worn by moral philosophies.

It is by way of their intentions that individuals express bodies of moral belief in their actions. For all intentions presuppose more or less complex, more or less coherent, more or less explicit bodies of belief, sometimes of moral belief. [Me: thus our moral instinct to judge agents by their intended actions; see Hauser.]

The manager represents in his character the obliteration of the distinction between manipulative and nonmanipulative social relations; the therapist represents the same obliteration in the sphere of personal life. Both treat ends as given, as outside his scope; his concern is with technique, with effectiveness. Rieff has documented the ways in which truth has been displaced as a value and replaced by psychological effectiveness.

The specifically modern self, the self that I have called emotivist, finds no limits set to that on which it may pass judgment for such limits could only derive from rational criteria for evaluation and, as we have seen, the emotivist self lacks any such criteria. Everything may be criticised from whatever standpoint the self has adopted, including the self's choice of standpoint to adopt. To be a moral agent is, on this view, precisely to be able to stand back from any and every situation in which one is involved, from any and every characteristic that one may possess, and to pass judgment on it from a purely universal and abstract pont of view that is totally detached from all social particularity. Anyone and everyone can thus be a moral agent, since it is in the self and not in social roles or practices that moral agency has to be located. The contrast between this democratisation of moral agency and the elitist monopolies of managerial and therapeutic expertise could not be sharper. Any minimally rational agent is to be account a moral agent; but managers and therapists enjoy their status in virtue of their membership within hierarchies of imputed skill and knowledge. In the domain of fact there are procedures for eliminating disagreement; in that of morals the ultimacy of disagreement is dignified by the title of 'pluralism'. [Me: There is a distinction between 'the fact of pluralism' and 'the ultimacy of pluralism'.]

This democratised self which has no necessary social content and no necessary social identity can then be anything, can assume any role or take any point of view, because it is in and for itself nothing. [Me: some roles are heavier to carry than others, some are impossible to lift, for very long or at all -- preparation has her say.]

Sartre's self-discovery is characterized as the discovery that the self is 'nothing', is not a substance but a set of perpetually open possibilities. [Me: for the self the past is closed, the future uncertain, the present constrained.]

Inner conflicts are for it necessary au fond the confrontation of one contingent arbitrariness by another. It is a self of no given continuities, save those of the body which is its bearer and of the memory which to the best of its ability gathers in its past.

The self is now thought of as lacking any necessary social identity, because the kind of social identity that it once enjoyed is no longer available; the self is now thought of as criterionless, because the kind of telos in terms of which it once judged and acted is no longer thought to be credible. [Me: social identity is too fluid and fuzzy; the solution is to establish a floor of identity, that of citizen, and define its telos; can only do this after unanimity in the original position, after a Myworld and Ourworld agreement reached during reflective room temperature.]

In pre-modern, traditional societies it is through his or her membership of a variety of social groups that the individual identifies himself or herself and is identified by others. To know oneself as such a social person is however not to occupy a static and fixed position. It is to find oneself placed at a certain point on a journey with set goals; to move through life is to make progress -- or to fail to make progress -- toward a given end. Thus a completed and fulfilled life is an achievement and death is the point at which someone can be judged happy or unhappy. Hence the old Greek proverb: 'Call no man happy until he is dead.' [Me: Myworldline, Kahneman's prospect theory, Pynchon's 'last delta-t' -- Myworldline and the 'shadow of the future' is cast on Myworld.]

The concept of a whole human life is the primary subject of objective and impersonal evaluation, of a type of evaluation which provides the content for judgment upon the particular actions or projects of a given individual.

Nowadays: these appear to be the superstitions of teleology.

Northern European enlightenment culture: it was a musical culture and there is perhaps a closer relationship between this fact and the central philosophical problems of the culture than has usually been recognized. For the relationship of our beliefs to sentences that we only or primarily sing, let alone to the music which accompanies those sentences, is not at all the same as the relationship of our beliefs to the sentences that we primarily say and say in an assertive mode. When the Catholic mass becomes a genre available for concert performance by Protestants, when we listen to the scripture because of what Bach wrote rather than because of what St Matthew wrote, then sacred texts are being preserved in a form in which the traditional links with belief have been broken, even in some measure for those who still count themselves believers. It is not of course that there is no link with belief; you cannot simply detach the music of Bach or even of Handel from Christian religion. But a traditional distinction between the religious and the aesthetic has bee blurred.

In Latin, as in ancient Greek, there is no word correctly translated by our word 'moral'; or rather there is no such word until our word 'moral' is translated back into Latin. Certainly 'moral' is the etymological descendant of 'moralis'. But 'moralis', like its Greek predecessor ethikos -- Cicero invented 'moralis' to translate the Greek word in the De Fato -- means 'pertaining to character' where a man's character is nothing other than his set dispositions to behave systematically in one way rather than another, to lead one particular kind of life. [Me: when matched with the discoveries of Hauser and Stanovich, yet further evidence that the ancients/unsophisticated are purer, less conceptually modified, less diluted examples of human nature; a higher molarity of human nature exists in their smaller set of words; the prehistoric peoples even more so, I would imagine; this is the value-neutral observation]

The early uses of 'moral' in English translate the Latin and move to its use as a noun where 'the moral' of any literary passage is the practical lesson that it teaches. In these early uses 'moral' contrasts neither with such expressions as 'prudential' or 'self-interested' nor with such expressions as 'legal' or 'religious'. The word to which it is closest in meaning is perhaps simply 'practical'. Its subsequent history is one in which it is first perhaps most usually part of the expression 'moral virtue' and then becomes a predicate in its own right with a continual tendency to narrow its meaning, especially as it applies to sexual behavior.

From 1630 - 1850, 'morality' became the name for that particular sphere in which rules of conduct which are neither theological nor legal nor aesthetic are allowed a cultural space of their own. [Me: the question is the machinery; what neurological regions are activated during moral judgments versus other kind of judgments? -- you'll find that many things are neurologically similar to 'moral judgment' in their patterned activity.]

In Kierkegaard's Enten-Eller, the choice between the ethical and the aesthetic is not the choice between good and evil, it is the choice whether or not to choose in terms of good and evil. At the heart of the aesthetic way of life, as Kierkegaard characterises it, is the attempt to lose the self in the immediacy of present experience. [Me: not a complete description; the aesthetic encompasses both Myworld and Myworldline.] By contrast the paradigm of the ethical is marriage, a state of commitment and obligation through time, in whch the present is bound by the past and to the future. No reason can be offered for preferring one to the other. [Me: the real distinction is between Lebensanschauung and Weltanschauung; between the self-centering (Myworld) and the self-objectifying (Ourworld) standpoints; it is important to be clear which perspective one is arguing from; the void between the two can be bridged by contract only.]

[Me: no reason is necessary for why 'I' prefer the self-centering standpoint. I exist. By definition I am the center of my world. Neither right nor duty compels me to stand firmly in the center; it is what I am, what I do, and nothing less; the only reason to shift to the Ourworld perspective is if it becomes preferable for me to do so, if it follows from one of my self-elected Myworld premises.]

It would follow that a principle for the choice of which no reasons could be given would be a principle devoid of authority. By now the doctrine of Enten-Eller is plainly to the effect that the principles which depect the ethical way of life are to be adopted for no reason, but for a choice that lies beyond reasons, just because it is the choice of what is to count for us as a reason.

In our own culture the influence of the notion of radical choice appears in our dilemmas over which ethical principles to choose. We are almost intolerably conscious of rival moral alternatives.

Central to Kant's moral philosophy are two deceptively simple theses: if the rules of morality are rational, they must be the same for all rational beings, in just the way that the rules of arithmetic are; and if the rules of morality are binding on all rational beings, then the contingent ability of such beings to carry them out must be unimportant -- what is important is their will to carry them out. The project of discovering a rational justification of morality therefore simply is the project of discovering a rational test which will discriminate those maxims which are a genuine expression of the moral law when they determine the will from those maxims which are not such an expression. [Me: rational Myworld test -- last maxim standing?, stable over time, positive externalities, competitive success, practitioner satisfaction; also, the brain's "moral judgment" algorithm is logical; the horizontal relationships between discrete outputs are not; moral philosophy has been focused on the latter; what of the 'V'-relationships? -- the angular relationships.]

On Kant's view it can never follow from the fact that God commands us to do such-and-such that we ought to do such-and-such.

Kant: I may propose a course of action to someone either by offering him reasons for so acting or by trying to influence him in non-rational ways. If I do the former I treat him as a rational will, worthy of the same respect as is due to myself. By contrast an attempt at non-rational suasion embodies an attempt to make the agen a mere instrument of my will, without any regard for his rationality.

The project of providing a rational vindication of morality had decisively failed; and from henceforward the morality of our predecessor culture -- and subsequently of our own -- lacked any public, shared rationale or justification. In a world of secular rationality religion could no longer provide such a shared background and foundation for moral discourse and action; and the failure of philosophy to provide what religion could no longer furnish was an important cause of philosophy losing its central cultural role and becoming a marginal, narrowly academic subject.

Tuesday, February 03, 2009

The Pursuit of Truth, Quine

Quine on Evidence:

"From impacts on our sensory surfaces, we in our collective and cumulative creativity down the generations have projected our systematic theory of the external world. Our system is proving successful in predicting subsequent sensory input. How have we done it?" Pg. 1

"Not that prediction is the main purpose of science. One major purpose is understanding. Another is control and modification of the environment. Prediction can be purpose too, but my present point is that it is the test of a theory, whatever the purpose." Pg. 2

Quine on "Observation Sentences":

It should "command the subject's assent or dissent outright", and it should have "intersubjectivity: unlike a report of a feeling, the sentence must command the same verdict from all linguistically competent witnesses of the occassion." Otherwise, an observation sentence cannot provide evidential support for science. They are "occasion sentences: true on some occasions, false on others." "The requirement that it command a verdict outright is what makes it a final checkpoint. The requirement of intersubjectivity is what makes science objective." Pg. 3 -5

These sentences provide "the link between language, scientific or not, and the real world that language is all about." Pg. 5

"It is precisely [the] sharing of words, by observation sentences and theoretical sentences, that provides the logical connections between the two kinds of sentences and makes observation relevant to scientific theory. Retrospectively those once innocent observation sentences are theory-laden indeed...Seen holophrastically, as conditioned to stimulatory situations, the [observation] sentence is theory-free; seen analytically, word by word, it is theory-laden. Insofar as observation sentences bear on science at all, affording evidence and tests, there has to be this retrospective theory-lading along with the pristine holophrastic freedom from theory. To impugn their observationality thus retrospectively is to commit what Firth (p. 100) called the fallacy of conceptual retrojection." Pg. 7

"The scientist has a backlog of accepted theory, and is considering a hypothesis for possible incorporation into it." Pg. 9

"A generality that is compounded of observables in this way -- 'whenever this, that' -- is what I call an observation categorical...It is a generality to the effect that the circumstances described in the one observation sentence are invariably accompanied by those described in the other." Pg. 10

"Pure observation lends only negative evidence, by refuting an observation categorical that a proposed theory implies." Pg. 13 It can never provide proof of the truth asserted.

On Consistency with Backlog Theory:

The maxim of minimum mutilation: "the maxim constrains us, in our choice of what sentences of S [a set of purported truths] to rescind [after we are confronted with a failed observational categorical], to safeguard any purely mathematical truth; for mathematics infiltrates all branches of our system of the world, and its disruption would reverberate intolerably...[We have an] unstated policy of shielding mathematics by exercising freedom to reject other beliefs instead." Pg. 15

"Call an observation categorical analytic for a given speaker if, as in 'Robins are birds', the affirmative stimulus meaning for him of the one component is included in that of the other. Otherwise synthetic. Call a sentence or set of sentences testable if it implies some synthetic observation categoricals...Then the empirical content of a testable sentence or set of sentences for that speaker is the set of all the synthetic observation categoricals that it implies, plus all synonymous ones. I add the synonymous ones so that merely verbal variation will not obstruct sameness of content." Pg. 16-17

"I am of that large minority or small majority who repudiate the Cartesian dream of a foundation for scientific certainty firmer than the scientific method itself...I approach it as an input-output relation within flesh-and-blood denizens of an antecedently acknowledged external world, a relation open to inquiry as a chapter of the science of that world...I call the pursuit naturalized epistemology." Pg. 19

"Insofar as theoretical epistemology gets naturalized into a chapter of theoretical science, so normative epistemology gets naturalized into a chapter of engineering: the technology of anticipating sensory stimulation." Pg. 19

The watchword of empiricism: nihil in mente quod non prius in sensu. [me: this is not entirely true, insofar as Genes also record information about the world. A more precise watchword: information about the external world must be received to be got.]

Five virtues of hypothesis: conservatism, generality, simplicity, refutability, and modesty.

"A sentence's claim to scientific status rests on what in contributes to a theory whose checkpoints are in prediction." Pg. 20

On the possible collapse of empiricism if extra input by telepathy or revelation was discovered to be possible: "It is idle to bulwark definitions against implausible contingencies." Pg. 21

"True sentences, observational and theoretical, are the alpha and omega of the scientific enterprise." Pg. 31

"When we move beyond sensible bodies and proceed to posit atoms, electrons, quarks, numbers, classes, and relations, our imagination is bolstered by analogies in varying degrees. The insensible particles were easily taken in stride, as resembling sensible bodies except in size; but physics has been progressively sapping that analogy. Light waves rest on a tenuous analogy; unlike water waves, they are not waves on or in anything. The more tenuous these aids to the imagination, the less odd ontological relativity may seem. When we get to the positing of numbers and other abstract objects...we are indebted to some fruitful confusions along the way. Language and science are rooted in what good scientific language eschews. In Wittgenstein's figure, we climb the ladder and kick it away." Pg. 34-5.

"[W]ords can still be said to owe their meaning to their roles in sentences." pg. 37

"The quest for a clear and substantial notion of meaning should begin with an examination of sentences." Pg. 37

"Predicted utterances convey no news." Pg. 38

"In 'perceives that p' and 'believes that p' we have two among many idioms of propositional attitude." Pg. 67

"A neurological rendering of 'Tom perceives that it is raining', applicable to all such occasions merely on Tom's part, would already be formidable even if Tom's neural make-up were known in detail...further...a neurological rendering of 'perceives that it is raining', applicable to all comers, would be out of the question...Yet each perception is a single occurrence in a particular brain, and is fully specifiable in neurological terms once details are known. We cannot say the same for a belief, which can be publicly shared, but we can say somewhat the same for the instance of the belief in a single believer. The period during which I go on believing that the earth rotates is distinguished from my earlier stages by at least some verbal dispositions, which must reside in some distinctive quirks in my nervous system." Pg. 70-1

"Perceptions are neural realities, and so are the individual instances of beliefs and other propositional attitudes insofar as these do not fade out into irreality altogether...I acquiesce in what Davidson calls anomalous monism, also known as token physicalism: there is no mental substance, but there are irreducibly mental ways of grouping physical states and events. The keynote of the mental is not the mind; it is the content-clause syntax, the idiom 'that p'. Pg. 71

"Its irreducibility is all the more reason for treasuring it: we have no substitute. At the same time there is a good reason not to try to weave it into our scientific theory of the world to make a more comprehensive system. Without it science can enjoy the crystalline purity of extensionality: that is, the substitutivity of identiy and more generally the interchangeability of all coextensive terms and clauses, salva veritate...As long as extensional science can proceed autonomously and self-contained, with no gaps of causality that intensional intrusions could serve to close, the sound strategy is the linguistic dualism of anomalous monism." Pg. 71-2

He nonetheless encourages efforts "to reclaim territory from the intentional side...Whatever is thus reclaimed is better understood for the reclaiming." Pg. 72

"The sublimity of necessary truths turns thus not quite to dust, but to pretty common clay." Pg. 73

"Champions of modal logic mean necessity to have an objective sense, as if to say metaphysical necessity or physical necessity. But then it must make sense to think of a thing's essence, comprising those properties that it has necessarily." Pg. 74

"A similar second-order role is cut out, then, for 'possibly'. Since it simply means 'not necessarily not', 'possibly' marks its sentence as one that the beliefs or working assumptions of concerned parties do not exclude as false. Thanks to our overwhelming ignorance, the realm of possibility thus conceived is vaster far than that of necessity. It is the domain of all our plans and conjectures, all our hopes and fears." Pg. 74

"We see the archaic dominance of mentalism in a preference for final cause over efficient cause as a mode of explanation...This predilection for explanation by final cause is evident still today in people who seek the meaning of life. They want to explain life by finding its purpose." Pg. 75

"Necessity, then, would be a projection of the subjective sense of constraint, or abridgment of capability [possibility]." Pg. 75

Darwin reduced final cause in biology to efficient cause through his theory of natural selection. [me: unless there is, in the natural history (ontogeny) of selective outcomes, a common thread that characterizes and sorts the set of "biological entities", or even better, the set of "A-theoretical biological successes" -- something algorithmic.]

"'Fragile' and 'soluble' are physical predicates on a par with others, and the dispositional form of the words is just a laconic encoding of a relatively dependable test or symptom. Breaking on impact and dissolving on immersion are symptomatic of fragility and solubility." pg. 76

"What are true or false...are propositions."

Commenting on the Truth as Disquotation:

'Snow is white' is true if an only if snow is white.
To ascribe truth to the sentence is to ascribe whiteness to snow; such is the correspondence, in this example. Ascription of truth just cancels out the quotation marks. Truth is disquotation. Pg. 80

"Semantic ascent serves also outside of logic. When Einstein propounded relativity, disrupting our basic conceptions of distance and time, it was hard to assess it without leaning on our basic conceptions and thus begging the question. But by semantic ascent one could compare the new and old theories as symbolic structures, and so appreciate that the new theory organized the pertinent data more simply than the old. Simplicity of symbolic structures can be appreciated independently of those basic conceptions." Pg. 81

"The truth predicate is an intermediary between words and world. What is true is the sentence, but its truth consists in the world's being as the sentence says." Pg. 81

"One might accordingly relinquish the law of the excluded middle and opt rather for a three-valued logic, recognizing a limbo between truth and falsity as a third truth value...But a price is paid in the cumbersomeness of three-valued logic. Alongside 'not', which sends truths into falsehoods, falsehoods into truths, and now limbo into limbo, there would be a truth function that sends truths into limbo, limbo into falsehoods, and falsehoods into truths; also three more such one-place truth functions, playing out the combinations -- as contrasted with a single one, negation, in two-valued logic. When we move out to two-place truth functions (conjunction, alternation, and their derivatives), proliferation runs amok. It can still be handled, but there is an evident premium on our simple streamlined two-valued logic." Pg. 92

"The question that motivates the quest beyond disquotation can perhaps be phrased thus: if to call a sentence true is simply to affirm it, then how can we tell whether to affirm it?...The more sympathetic answer is a general analysis of the grounds of warranted belief, hence scientific method." pg. 93

"What the empirical under-determination of global science [i.e., there is insufficient possible evidence to clinch the system] shows is that there are various defensible ways of conceiving the world." Pg. 102

Friday, November 07, 2008

Moral Minds, Hauser, notes

Everything henceforth is verbatim from the book, except for the comments in brackets. Those, happily or otherwise, are from me.
__________________________________________
Notes:

Marc D. Hauser, Moral Minds, HarperCollins Publishers, New York (2006).

Quotes Darwin, Descent of Man (1871), Chapter IV: "of all the differences between man and the lower animals, the moral sense or conscience is by far the most important. This sense, as Mackintosh*(2) remarks, "has a rightful supremacy over every other principle of human action"; it is summed up in that short but imperious word ought, so full of high significance. It is the most noble of all the attributes of man, leading him without a moment's hesitation to risk his life for that of a fellow-creature; or after due deliberation, impelled simply by the deep feeling of right or duty, to sacrifice it in some great cause."

Quotes David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature: "Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions. Reason of itself is utterly impotent in ths particular. The rules of morality, therefore, are not conclusions of reason."

Quotes Noam Chomsky: "Why does everyone take for granted that we don't learn to grow arms, but rather, are designed to grow arms? Similarly, we should conclude that in the case of the development of moral systems, there's a biological endowment which in effect requires us to develop a system of moral judgment and a theory of justice, if you like, that in fact has detailed applicability over an enormous range."

"The central idea of this book is simple: we evolved a moral instinct, a capacity that naturally grows within each child, designed to generate rapid judgments about what is morally right or wrong based on an unconscious grammar of action."

"Facts alone don't motivate us into action."

"The only way to develop stable prescriptive principles, through either formal law or religion, is to understand how they will break down in the face of biases that Mother Nature equipped us with." pg 4

"Authority figures cannot mandate moral transgressions." pg 5 [me: but they can manipulate the operative parameters of particular situations to accomplish this result.]

"In our past, we were only presented with opportunities to help those in our immediate path: a hunter gored by a buffalo, a starving family member, an aging grandfather, or a woman with pregancy complications. There were no opportunities for altruism at a distance...Although there is no guarantee that we will help others in close proximity, the principles that guide our actions and omissions are more readily explained by proximity and probability." pg 10

"As the psychologist Jonathan Baron explains, intuition can lead to unfortunate or even detrimental outcomes...Once intuitions are elevated to rules, mind blindness turns to confabulation, as we engage in mental somersaults to justify our beliefs." Pg. 11, citing Baron's guidebook to intuition blindness (1994; 1998)

"Reasoning and emotion play some role in our moral behavior, but neither can do complete justice to the process leading up to moral judgment." Pg. 11

"[Lawrence] Kohlberg was right in thinking that conflict fuels the moral machinery." Pg. 19

"Hume's theory gets off the ground by looking at moral judgments through the lens of a three-party interaction: agent, receiver, and spectatory." Pg. 23

Quoting Hume: "Reason is and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."

"Conscious moral reasoning often plays no role in our moral judgments, and in many cases reflects a post-hoc justification or rationalization of previously held biases or beliefs." Pg. 25

Quoting developmental psychologist Martin Hoffman: "[Empathy is] the spark of human concern for others, the glue that makes social life possible." Pg. 28

"We are like chameleons, designed to try out different colors to match our social partner's substrate." Pg. 29

"But rather than playing a role in generating a moral judgment, our emotions may function like wieghts, moving us to lean in one direction rather than another." Pg. 31

"We can unify and explain these ideas by appealing to the principle that it is permissible to cause harm as a by-product of achieving a greater good, but it is impermissible to use harm as a means to a greater good...the principle of double effect." Pg. 33 [me: this principle speaks to the fact that as spectators we are really judging the agent rather than the action-effect -- a sound discerning strategy that will, in the long run, make us the spectators better off, insofar as we must have future dealings with the agent.]

"It is not until about four years of age that children can maintain two different beliefs in mind and spontaneously flip between them." Pg. 34

"When it comes to language...what we express as our knowledge pales in relationship to the knowledge that is operative but unavailable to expression." Pg. 38

"The language faculty maintains a repository of principles for growing a language, any language...The problem of language acquisition is therefore like setting switches. Each child starts out with all possible switches, but with no particular settings; the environment thn sets them according to the child's native language." Pg. 38 [me: to ensure the "overlapping consensus", the centripetal 'unitary language", we must concern ourselves with setting switches.]

"When we speak about the language faculty, therefore, we are speaking about the normal, mature individual's competence with the principles that underlie their native language. What this individual chooses to say is a matter of performance, which will be influenced by whether she is tired, happy, in a fight with her lover, or addressing an audience of five hundred at a political rally." Pg. 39 [Me: radically local contingencies.]

"This boils down to a question of the child's initial state -- of her unconscious knowledge of linguistic principles prior to exposure to a spoken or signed language -- and the extent to which this state constrains not only what she learns and when, but what she can learn from listening or watching." Pg. 40 [Me: Initial boundary conditions, conditional algorithm, degrees of freedom.]

"To answer "How did it evolve?", we look to our history and recognize two distinctive parts: phylogeny and adaptation. A phylogeny analysis provides a depiction of the evolutionary relationships between species, yielding twiggy branches of the tree of life...To address the question of adaptation, we can look to the relationship between functional design and genetic success." [Me: the latter asks the question, what in fact did the moral faculty do for our selfish genes?]

Quoting Rawls: "There is no reason to assume that our sense of justice can be adequately characterized by familiar common sense precepts, or derived from the more obvious learning principles. A correct account of moral capacities will certainly involve principles and theoretical constructions which go beyond the norms and standards cited in every day life." Pg. 43, citing to (Rawls, 1971; pg. 46-47) [Me: the principles must derive from the "what for" -- i.e. they must be outside "morality".]

"Once an individual acquires his specific moral grammar, other moral grammars may be as incomprehensible to him as Chinese is to a native English speaker." Pg. 44 [all acquired moral languages come with opportunity costs: a decrease from the original degrees of freedom].

"Analyses of the motivation or intentions underlying an action, together with analyses of intended and foreseen consequences, provide the relevant material for our moral faculty. Emotions may only function to modulate what we actually do as distinct from what we comprehend or perceive as morally permissible." Pg. 46. [the importance of judgment not immediately acted upon: judgments can combine over time; they can amplify or dampen doubts and certitudes about specific agents or agent-types -- in essence coloring a person or role with an emotional prefix].

"Like phonemes, many actions lack meaning. When combined, actions are often meaningful. Like phonemes, when actions are combined, they do not blend; individual actions maintain their integrity. When actions are combine, they can represent an agent's goals, his means, and the consequences of his action or the omission of an action." Pg. 47 [me: meaning = distinguishability]

"To attain its limitless range of expressive power, the principles of our moral faculty must take a finite set of elements and recombine them into new, meaningful expressions of principles." Pg. 47

Citing Jonathan Haidt, "who proposes that we are equipped with four families of moral emotions: 1) other-condemning: contempt, anger, and disgust; 2) self-conscious: shame, embarrassment, guilt; 3) other-suffering: compassion; 4) other-praising: gratitude and elevation." Pg. 52

"Because the moral faculty relies on specialized brain systems, damage to these systems can lead to selective deficits in moral judgments. Damage to areas involved in supporting the moral faculty (e.g., emotions, memory) can lead to deficits in moral action - -of what individuals actually do, as distinct from what they think someone else should or would do." Pg. 54

"Morality regulates social interactions." Pg. 54

Quoting Thomas Henry Huxley (1860): "A man has no reason to be ashamed of having an ape for a grandfather. If there were an ancestor whom I should feel shame in recalling it would rather be a man -- a man of restless and versatile intellect -- who, not content with an equivocal success in his own sphere of activity, plunges into scientific questions with which he has no real acquaintance, only to obscure them by an aimless rhetoric, and distract the attention of his hearers from the real point at issue by eloquent digressions and skilled appeals to religious prejudice." Pg. 60

"What has allowed us to live in large groups of unrelated individuals that often come and go is an evolved faculty of the mind that generates universal and unconscious judgments concerning justice and harm." Pg. 60 [Me: not exactly true. what has allowed this are expressed norms called Laws -- their relative harmony with contemporaneous morality, and their regular enforcement by authority.]

"Action at a distance generates a weaker altruistic pull, because we lacked the evolved psycholgoy. Helping individuals that are out of arm's reach, sometimes out of sight, is a newly developed pattern of action and interaction." Pg. 64 [me: manipulable by new media.]

"From a finite and often limited set of experiences, we project our intuitions to novel cases." Pg. 65 [me: problem of projection]

"Rawls's suggestion, building on the linguistic analogy, was that many of our morally relevant judgments emerge rapidly, often without reflection, in the absence of heated emotion, and typically, without access to a clear justification or explanation. Moreover, these judgments tend to be robust, as evidenced by the vehemence with which individuals stick to their intuitions in the face of reasonable alternative judgments." Pg. 67

"When people give explanations for their moral behavior, they may have little or nothing to do with the underlying principles. Their sense of conscious reasoning from specific principles is illusory. And even when someone becomes aware of an underlying principle, it is not obvious that this kind of understanding will alter their judgments in day-to-day interactions." Pg. 67 [me: thus, the goal is to use the empirical knowledge of the moral faculty to supplement it's raison d'etre: i.e., use it to inform Law.]

"If we reject [our innate moral principles], deciding that other principles are more consistent with our sense of justice, we must be prepared for conflict and instability." Pg. 70 [me: is this not the "ultimate cause" of our moral faculty -- i.e., the moderation of intragroup instability?]

"Once parameters are set, judgments of fairness may seem as incomprehensible across cultures as judgments of grammaticality for word order." Pg. 72 [me: if the psychology of justice exists because it is a successful environmental stabilizer, dissonant conceptions of justice are bastard mutations that do exactly the opposite.]

"As the mathematical biologists Martin Nowak and Karl Sigmund put it, 'The fiction of a rational "homo economicus" relentlessly optimizing material utility is giving way to "bounded rational" decision-makers governed by instincts and emotions.'" Pg. 79

"Mathematical models of this problem reveal that fairness evolves as a stable solution to the ultimatum game if proposers have access to information about a receiver's past behavior. When it comes to group level activity, reputation fuels cooperation and provides a shield against defection." Pg. 79

"In the fourteenth century, British villages repeatedly fell victim to the logic of the commons [Garrett Hardin's "tragedy of the commons"]. Each village was associated with a common pasture for their cattle and sheep. The pasture represented a shared resource. But since household wealth increased with the number of animals grazing on the pasture, the temptation to acquire more emerged. More animals meant more use of the pasture. More use of the pasture, less pasture. Less pasture, more competition. More competition, more strife. More strife, less village cohesion. Eventually, village after village dissolved." Pg. 81

"One way to maintain cooperative use of the land is to make resource use public knowledge. An individual's image or reputation can thus play a critical role in cooperation." Pg. 81 [me: thus, true cooperation is limited by group size, since the larger the group, the more diluted the impact of reputation regulation.]

"That individuals will pay to punish cheaters shows that moral indignation can fuel actions that are of immediate personal cost but of ultimate personal benefit as public goods accrue." Pg. 81

"The only way to guarantee stable, cooperative societies is by ensuring open inspection of reputation and providing opportunities for punishing cheaters." Pg. 81 [Me: communities, rather than "societies".]

"Although strong reciprocity is not selfish, it is strategic: only cooperate with those you can trust and nail those who are untrustworthy because they have cheated." Pg. 82

"The punisher's intent is not to convert. It is to make cheaters pay by excluding them from the circle of cooperators. It is to make explicit the difference between the in-group and out-group." Pg. 82

"Those who punish most are also those who contribute most in public goods games, which suggests that they have the most at stake, and have the greatest interest in maintaining the circle of cooperators; as expected, cheaters both contribute and punish least." Pg. 82 [me: calls to mind the international arena.]

Citing the studies of Norman Frohlich and Joe Oppenheimer: "Just as Rawls predicted, subjects readily settled on a principle of fairness. But the winning principle was not quite as Rawls predicted. No group selected the difference principle, where distribution is anchored by the worst off. Instead, groups settled on a principle that maximized the overall resources of the group while preventing the worst off from dropping below some preestablished level of income. This principle provides a safety net for those who are disadvantaged, for whatever reason, while allowing for extra benefits to flow toward those who contribute more to society." Pg. 88

"Attitudes toward these principles were high, and showed little change over the course of the experiment. However, when subjects had the freedom to choose, and vote unanimously, their satisfaction and confidence in the principle were significantly higher than when the same principle was imposed on them. The average-income [maximizing] -and-floor principle emerged as the clear winner. As a principle, it was stable after multiple iterations of the work-pay-redistribution cycle, but functioned to insill confidence in people, both those at the top and those on the floor. Contrary to many current political analyses, an income-distribution principle that allows for inequalities while taking care of those who are most in need does not reduce incentives to work hard, nor does it create a sink of free riders...Those who received from other players, and who actively participated in deciding the best principle, almost doubled their efforsts in order to contribute to the overall income. In contrast, those working under the same regime, but with the principle imposed, cheated and decreased their efforts, because they perceived redistribution through taxes as their right." Pg. 89 [Me: confidence, morale, increases stability and productivity.]

Referencing Daniel Kahneman's "prospect theory"-- i.e. the "anchoring effects of a reference point in our perception of fairness": "When we consider the value or utility of a resource, we do so in reference to our current state and the extent to which obtaining the resouce will significantly change this reference state...Fairness can therefore be assessed in terms of gains and losses relative to the individual's subjective experience of how good and bad things are right now...[this fact] mandates an understanding of current subjective experience in order to predict the utility of changing this state." Pg. 91-2

"Following Kahneman's lead, you consider the peak and end experience...We therefore make our judgments based on peak and end experiences, blind to overall duration." Pg. 94

"As Kahneman explains, 'Duration neglect remains a cognitive error...built deep into the structure of our tastes and is probably impossible to prevent...Intuition alone would not persuade us of the pitfalls of an evaluative memroy that each of us has trusted for a lifetime. and the intuitions evoked by carefully crafted thought experiments will not reliably yield correct predictions of the responses to cases seen in between-subjects designs. In short, I have tried to convince you that it could occasionally be useful to supplement philosophical intuition by the sometimes non-intuitive results of empirical psychological research.'" Pg. 94-5 [Me: on duration neglect: a bad situation that has a duration twice as long as another, equally bad situation will, due to this "cognitive error", be deemed "better" than the shorter equally bad situation if the end of the longer experience is better than the end of the shorter.]

"[The effectiveness of social norms] lies in their unconscious operation, and their power to create conformity." Pg. 97 [Me: consonant behavior rather than dissonant -- moderation of entropy.]

"An emotion's effectiveness relies upon two design features: automaticity and shielding from the meddling influences of our conscious, reflective, and contemplative thoughts about what ought to be." Pg. 98

Quoting Eric Posner: "In a world with no law and rudimentary government, order of some sort would exist. So much is clear from anthropological studies. The order woudl appear as routine compliance with social norms and collective infliction of sanctions on those who violate them, including stigmatization of the deviant and ostracism of the incorrigible. People would make symbolic commitments to the community in order to avoid suspicions about their loyalty. Also, people would cooperate frequently. They would keep and rely on promises, refrain from injuring their neighbors, contribute effort to public-spirited projects, make gifts to the poor, render assistance to those in danger, and join marches and rallies. But it is also the case that people would sometimes breach promises and cause injury. They would discriminate against people who, through no fault of their own, have become walking symbols of practices that a group rejects. They would have disputes, sometimes violent disputes. Feuds would arise and might never end. The community might split into factions. The order, with all its benefits, would come at a cost. Robust in times of peace, it would reveal its precariousness at moments of crisis." [Me: on the last, this is classic behavior of a self-organized dissipative system at criticality. dissolution and recombination.]

"When formal laws intervene, it is typically because the operative principles underlying a social norm cause harm to individuals." Pg. 99

"Once group size exceeds that of a typical hunter-gatherer group -- about 150 -- punishment is necessary, in one form or another, to preserve stable cooperation." Pg. 101

"[In the Ju/'hoansi], when the strong are punished, through mockery, pantomime, or criticism, they usually resort to self-mockery, which helps their reputation and maintains the egalitarian nature of the society." Pg. 102

"Scarlet-letter punishments -- as they are now called -- potentially solve two problems. They provide safety for the community by flagging its criminals and they deter future offenses by instilling shame, guilt, or fear." Pg. 105

"As philosopher Alvin Goldman points out, 'When punishment does not at least approximate giving satisfaction to the victims of crime and to those in the community who wish to demonstrate their moral outrage, these individuals will take it upon themselves to extract punishment instead of, or in addition to, that officially imposed. This would be likely to lead to an escalation of private vendettas, substituting the reigns of private terror for law and relative tranquility.'" Pg. 107 [Me: The amplification of entropy when the conceptions of justice become dissonant.]

"We must recognize the seductive power of seeing punishment in light of principles of fairness, and to design legal systems that indicate the pitfalls of this intuition, case by case. Legal systems, in turn, must recongize that if they go against people's tastes for punishment, they may create more problems, as individuals seek revenge and take the law into their own hands." Pg. 107 [Me: the psychology of justice is a first-order constraint on the general problem of social cohesion, and social cohesion is a first-order imperative of Law and the art of system-maintenance. All theories of punishment must be sublimated into this first-order imperative of the Self-Regarding Ourworld.]

"When Petrinovich's scenarios revealed information about identity, then subjects saved kin over non-kin, friends over strangers, humans over nonhumans, and politically safe or neutral individuals over politically abhorrent monsters." Pg. 122-3

"Killing is wrong if it is intended as a means to some end. Killing is permissible if it is an unintended but a foreseen by-product of a greater good." Pg. 125

"Our experience with these dilemmas influences our judgments, the impact on judgment does not translate into our justifications and ability to access the underlying principles, and there appear to be people who for unknown reasons are more likely to judge certain situations as permissible or impermissible." Pg. 131 [Me: the heteroglossia, not only of judgments but also of preparednesses, is a clear signal that the moral instinct is an imprecise instrument with which to pursue the precisely defined goals of living-system maintenance: indefinite cohesion, covalence, and complexity.]

"The best predictor of violence is the number of unmarried young men!" Pg. 132

"Our violence imposes constraints on the pattern of violence, allowing for some options but not others; which options are available and selected depends upon prior history and current conditions. As...Margo Wilson and Martin Daly suggest, 'dangerous competitive violence reflects the activation of a risk-prone mindset that is modiulated by present and past cues of one's social and material success, and by some sort of mental model of the current local utility of competitive success both in general and in view of one's personal situation...[such as] ecological factors that affect resource flow stability and expected life span." Pg. 132

"Cultures of honor also showcase the economic notion of discounting...they discount the future, and the temptation for immediate gratification rules them." Pg. 136

[Stanley] Milgram's studies show [that] obedience to authority is universal, but the degree to which authority rules varies between cultures." Pg. 140

"[A]ttitudes can...force a shift from the descriptive level of what is to a prescriptive level of what ought to be. Southerners not only respond with violence to insult. They think this is what people ought to do." Pg. 141

"[Alan] Gibbard's intuition is that there are also emotional norms--apt feelings--that lead to particularly relevant and appropriate actions--wise choices." Pg. 153Citing to Wise Choices and Apt Feelings, and the biological notion of norm of reaction.

[A]cknowledging...observed variation does not constitute a rejection of constraints." Pg. 166

"When an action violates expectation, a negative emotion often ensues. Negative emotions are aversive. I propose that one branch of the root of our moral judgments can be found in the nature of expectation concerning action." Pg. 168 [me: paradigmatic crisis, aversion to uncertainty.]

"What adults say is the morally right or wrong thing to do may be different from what they would actually do in the same situation. And for both their judgment and their actions, they may have little understanding of the underlying principles." Pg. 171

"[H]ow we divide an event into pieces depends on our familiarity with the event." pg. 181

"Self-knowledge is a prophylactic." Pg. 183

"Emotions work like well-designed engines, propelling us in different directions depending upon the task at hand...Our emotions are thus biasing agents that work together with our perceptions of planned or perceived action." Pg. 188

"Empathy is...a matching up of emotions in the displayer and observer." Pg. 194

"Disgust carries two other features that make it a particularly effective social emotion: It enjoys a certain level of immunity from conscious reflection, and it is contagious like yawning and laughter." Pg. 198

"Like visual illusions, when our sensory systems detect something disgusting, we avoid it even if we consciously know that this is irrational and absurd. Disgust engages an automated sequence of actions that leads to tactical evasion." Pg. 199

"To engage with any moral dilemma, it is necessary to imagine one world in which an action is take and consequences follow, and a second world, where no action is taken and a different set of consequences follow." Pg. 203

"The capacity to wait, exert patience, and fend off temptation is a core part of the support team associated with our moral faculty." Pg. 214

"The child's genome generaly creates a style of engaging with the world that either internalizes or externalizes actions. Children presenting the internalist signature take greater responsibility for what happens...The signature of an externalist is exactly opposite. When someone offers ice cream, it is because the person offering is nice [rather than the ice cream was deserved]." Pg. 215

"Self-control predicts the tendency to trangress the unstated rule." Pg. 216

"The number of seconds a two-year-old waits is like a crystal ball that predicts her future moral behavior; her ethical style, if you will. Watch how long she delays gratification, and you can extrapolate what she will be like as an adolescent and even a thirtysomething...These studies suggest that impatience or impulsivity on the delayed-gratification task is an excellent predictor of who will trangress the mores of the culture." Pg. 216

"These results show that a child's capacity to wait for something good sets boundaries or constraints on her capacity to be nice to others." Pg. 217

"This variability [between control and impulsivity] doesn't influence our moral judgments, but it does influence our moral behavior." Pg. 218

"Unambiguously, when people confront certain kinds of moral dilemmas, they activate a vast network of brain regions, including areas involved in emotion, decision-making, conflict, social relations, and memory." Pg. 222

"For a full-fledged utilitarian, Frank-on-the-footbridge isn't a moral dilemma at all. There is no conflict (anterior cingulate isn't engaged), no competing duties (no voice from the limbic system), simply one and only one choice: push the heavy man and save five people. Solving Frank's dilemma is like judging whether the inequality 1< 5 is true." Pg. 222-3

"Unambiguously, all of the imaging studies to date show that the areas involved in emotional processing are engaged when we deliver a moral judgment, especially cases that are personally charged." Pg. 223

On the mirror neuron system: "Neurons in the premotor crotex show the same level of activity when the individual reaches for an object as when he watches someone else do the same, or when the individual hears a sound associated with an action or performs the same action himself...[R]ecent studies suggest that part of this system turns on when we directly experience a disgusting event or observe someone else experiencing the disgust, with parallel findings for the experience of pain and empathy toward others in pain." Pg. 224-5

"Patients with damage to the frontal lobes...fail to integrate their emotions into their rational deliberations, [in fact], they appear to operate without ever consulting their emotion." Pg. 227 See Antonio Damasio's tests on "emotional temperature" by reading skin sweat.

"When everything is working properly, our emotions function like hunch generators, a flittering of unconscious expectations that guide long-term decisions." Pg. 228

"If the frontal lobes malfunction, an inappropriate decision is likely to follow due to a general insensitivity to consequences." Pg. 229

"Social conventions are relatively flat emotionally, whereas moral conventions--and especially their trangressions--are emotionally charged." Pg. 238

"This suggests that moral rules consist of two ingredients: a prescriptive theory or body of knowledge about what one ought to do, and an anchoring set of emotions." Pg. 238

"[T]here is evidence that emotions can shift events from conventional to moral." Pg. 240

"[Shaun] Nichols's study raises the interesting possibility that norms acquire their robustness when they are tied to strong emotions. Upholding such norms makes people feel good, while violations make them feel bad, ridden with guild, shame, or embarrassment." Pg. 240e can immediately see why emotions are nature's best strategy for behavioral regulation.]

"Amotz Zahavi argued that signals are honest if and only if they are costly to produce, if the costs are proportional to the signaler's current condition (e.g., the same signal is costlier to produce fro an individual in poor rather than good condition), and if signaling ability is heritable, passed on genetically from parents to offspring." Pg. 247

"Crying, especially with tears, qualifies as a "handicap". It is difficult to produce on command, costly in terms of energy and the blurring of vision, and is the only emotional expression to leave an enduring physical trace after the initial incident." Pg. 247

Quoting Rawls: "Therefore one might conjecture that the capacity to act from the more universal forms of rational benevolence is likely to be eliminated, whereas the capacity to follow the principles of justice and natural duty in relations between groups and individuals other than kin would be favored." Pg. 252

Me: Moralizing the rule of law is an excellent strategy of Ourworld.

"s a species, we are born with two quantificational systems, innate machinery that enables infants to compute small numbers precisely and large numbers approximately." Pg. 256

"Thus, infants discriminated four from eight, and eight from sixteen objects, but not four from six, or eight from twelve." Pg. 256

"The development of a large precise number system does not dependon language in general. It depends on words for numbers specifically." Pg. 257 [Me: if we are interested in more precise constraints, rather than approximate and diverse judgments, where do we look to for "moral words"? Law, in its prescriptive and punishment capacity, gives us the precise normative vocabulary.]

"Results showed that for the individual receiving fewer stickers, even the youngest children immediately stated that the distribution was unfair...For children receiving more stickers, a different pattern of response emerged: they seemed perfectly content with the situation. Of considerable interest, especially in terms of the competence of chldren's intuitions about fairness as opposed to their performance or what they would do if they had been in charge of distribution, is the observation that children raarely gve coherent explanations or justifications." Pg. 258-9

Quoting Richard Alexander: "Indirect reciprocity involves reputation and status, and results in everyone in a social group continually being assesed and reassessed by interactants, past and potential, on the basis of their interactions with others." Pg. 259

"[O]ur moral facultyis sensitive to contingencies, if-then rules, that allow for exceptions to moral rules about what is or isn't forbidden. These competencies emerge early, presumably in every child, and without the help of teachers, parents, and other sages." Pg. 266

"The path from competence--recognizing a trangression--to performance--doing something about it--may not line up as parallel or integrated paths. Other faculties may intervene..." Pg. 269

"Once again, a rigid deontological stance is problematic, because it is sometimes permissible to lie, breaking a promise to keep a secret. The intention of the liar and promise-breaker is essential." Pg. 270 [Me: again, the judgment is of the social value of the agent.]

"Cosmides and Tooby's insight was that our minds evolved the capacity to solve socially relevant problems, such as detecting cheaters who violate rules." Pg. 274

[They] have mounted an impressive amount of evidence to support their claim that problems involving social contracts tap a specialization that is present in all human beings...Social contracts, whether stated over a beer or written in legalese, are commitments. They engage trust. Violating them engages distrust and a cascade of emotions designed to enhance vigilance and catalyze retribution." pg. 276 [Me: trust is a therefore a key indicator of cohesion. How do you augment social trust?]

"Dan Sperber and... Vittorio Girotto argue that people's performance greatly improves when there is some kind of payoff to finding the violation, and where the context's relevance depends on understanding the speaker's intent--what he or she wishes to convey." Pg. 277

"[The] brain is running different reasoning software for social contracts and precautions." Pg. 279

Quoting Dorothy Sayers: "Envy is the great leveler: if it cannot level things up, it will level them down...rather than have anyone happier than itself, it will se us all miserable together." Pg. 282

"Envy is useful, serving a key role in survival, motivating achievement, serving the conscience of self and other, and alterting us to inequities that, if fueled, can lead to escalated violence." Pg. 283

Quoting Shakespeare's Henry VI: "When Envy breeds unkind division, there comes the ruin, there begins confusion." Pg. 283

Quoting Oscar Wilde: "Scandal is gossip made tedious by morality."

"[Many] have stressed the importance of emotions in stabilizing cooperative relationships and anchoring commitment. Emotions provide an involuntary mechanism for creating the equivalent of a binding contract." Pg. 285

"Guilt is often triggered when we cheat and recognize the consequences of the act. But guilt may also play a stabilizing role, reversing an instability caused by deception...those who admittedly feel guilty are more likely to cooperate in future rounds [of the ultimatum game]." Pg. 286

"When reciprocity fails or the offer is unfair, imaging studies reveal significant activation of the anterior insula, an address of the brain known to play a role in negative emotions such as pain, distress, anger, and especially disgust. How interesting that cheaters might be considered disgusting. Equally interesting is the fact that wehn subjects engage in altruistic punishment, paying a personal cost in order to impose a larger cost on someone else, the punisher experiences relief and satisfaction, evidenced by activation of the caudate nucleus, a key center for processing rewarding experiences. When we punish, our brains secretly relish the experience." Pg. 287

Quoting Helena Antipoff: "What we have is an affective perception of justice."

"The universal moral grammar is a theory about the suite of principles and parameters that enable humans to build moral systems." Pg. 300

"One signature of an innate faculty is a narrow time window for expressing a skill that is relatively immune to differences in experience." Pg. 303

Quoting Rousseau: "Nature lays her commands on every animal, and the brute obeys her voice. Man receives the same impulsion, but at the same time knows himself at liberty to acquiesce or resist."

"From the gene's-eye view, the way to think about the evolution of moral behavior is to think selfishly." Pg. 311

"Natural selection builds organisms with complex design features based on nonrandom but directionless process." [Me: the non-random comes about because computational prowess is the difference between success and failure.]

"Conflict is associated with stress, reconciliation with the reduction of stress...when conflict is followed by a peace offering, heart rate and cortisol levels drop, as do accompanying behavioral correlates of stress." Pg. 330

References John Conway's program of Life.

"Yawning is generally contagious. But it is really contagious if you have a big heart, unable to turn off your compassion for others." Pg. 352

"We are the only animal that cooperates on a large scale with genetically unrelated individuals and that consistently shows stable reciprocity, exchanging within the same market currencies or different ones." Pg. 378

"By-product mutualism arises when the outcome of an act benefits both participants." Pg. 380 [Me: covalence]

Timing of benefits can be the difference between stable and unstable systems of cooperation.

Quoting Rawls: "Social cooperation is distinct from merely socially coordinated activity--for example, activity coordinated by orders issued by an absolute central authority. Rather, social cooperation is guided by publicly recognized rules and procedures which those cooperating accept as appropriate to regulate their conduct." [Me: coordination speaks to cohesion, while cooperation speaks to covalence.]

"[T]he significant variation between human groups creates an opportunity for group selection." Pg. 416 [me: with the same universal standard of success: relative computational prowess, useful complexity.]

The utilitarian takes as his "central tenet that we evaluate moral dilemmas in terms of consequences." Pg. 418 [Me: In fact, we evaluate moral dilemmas because it's necessary for a social being, who derives evolutionary advantage from group integrity and functionality, to be able to compute the value of agents; moral judgments are our way of branding informative prefixes on agents, agent-types, and meaningful circumstance.]

"The systems that generate intuitive moral judgments are often in conflict with the systems that generate principled reasons for our actions, because the landscape of today only dimly resembles our original state." Pg. 418

Wednesday, July 09, 2008

Positivism

Richard von Mises, Positivism notes:

"Presumably the reader knows what he would regard as a reasonable or judicious attitude in most situations of life. No doubt a major component of such an attitude is, in the first place, to judge on the grounds of experience, that is, the rememberance of the contingencies of one's own life and the knowledge of those of others. Furthermore, such an attitude requires a continual readiness to give up a judgment once made or to change it if new experiences require. It also implies a lack of prejudice, superstition, obstinacy, blind trust in authority, mystical thinking, fanaticism."

"As a first tentative and quite rough approach to the definition of positivism, we may say that whoever, when confronted with any practical or theoretical problem, acts as we have just described it, is a positivist."

"No procedure based on systematic observations from which conclusions may be drawn is declined to positivism . . . Even less than the method are the subject matter and the aim of research subject to limitations from the standpoint of positivism."

On things antipositivistic: "First of all is the idea that there exists an area of problems in which the intellect is not 'competent,' in which one cannot think or must not think. Next is the conception that there exists a realm of 'truth' which cannot be shaken by any experience, previous or future." [Cf. Wittgenstein: "Things which cannot be said we must pass over in silence."]

"It is the aim of positivistic theory to review and to sum up the stock of experience acquired by men in a uniform picture so that mutually consistent judgments are possible in all situations in life." [Me: Positivism is the correct approach to the intersubjective Weltanschauung, the shared theory of Ourworld.]

"The first and greatest difficulty in striving for reasonable judgments and in constructing a consistent world picture lies in language."

"All school philosophers from Plato through Kant and Hegel to Jusserl and Heidegger have tried to solve the unsolvable problem of deriving a consistent world image by using (and slightly modifying) the stock of ready-made expressions in their language. Present-day logical positivism (which has had rather early predecessors, too) starts from the fact that the 'logic' stored in our language represents a primitive stage of science. The positivist, like everybody else, has to use colloquial language in order to make himself understood; but he uses it critically. He knows that all terms in use are conventions which refer to a limited area of experience and beyond that mean nothing."

"For the positivist, ever word, every phrase, of colloquial language means a dissection of the world into three classes. The first class consists of things or situations to which the word, according to the existing linguistic conventions, applies without any doubt. The second class comprises those things for which the word in question is definitely not meant; and the third is formed by all those phenomena for which the linguistic conventions are not sufficient to enable one to decide whether or not the given expression applies." [Me: Core + Periphery]"

"The metaphysicians attitude toward language is entirely different. He thinks that a word, e.g., the word 'justice,' corresponds, independently of all conventions, to some specific entity, and he seeks to discover this entity, i.e., to find the 'true' and correct definition of justice. To the positivist the question 'What is justice?' can mean only one of two things. Either one wants to find out what in the course of time was denoted by this word within different cultural areas (historical semantics), or one seeks, with a specific aim in mind, to fix a new concept of justice, that is to say, to suggest a new linguistic convention for use within some limited field of action or of science."

"Wittgenstein shows that the theorems of pure mathematics or of logic say absolutely nothing about reality (about the experienceable, observable world), but are, in a specific sense of the word, tautologies . . . Theorems of logic or pure mathematics are said to be 'correct' if they are in agreement with the system of accepted definitions and rules, just as in chess only those moves are accepted which are in accordance with the rules of the game."

"The symbols and transformation rules of logic correspond as an approximation to certain facts and relations of everyday life." [Me: Their appearance of accuracy is scale-dependent. See also "Detection and Emergence": "Emergence can then be defined with respect to the same tools used to define the complexity of a system. It occurs when an object or phenomenon cannot be detected or understood with a given set of tools but can be detected or understood by allowing some additional tools. For some reason (dynamic evolution of the system or changes in the set of observational tools) a new apprehension of the system becomes possible that offers a shorter overall description, and hence a smaller relative complexity. Emergence is thus associated with a decrease of the relative complexity.]

"Our answer to the Kantian problem of epistemology is therefore this: One can construct in many ways tautological systems in which there exist -- according to fixed rules -- absolutely correct statements; but if one wants to state anything about relations between observable phenomena, e.g., in astronomy, then one is subject to control by future experiences. The application of mathematical methods can never guarantee the correctness of a nonmathematical proposition."

"But we [positivists] also observe that metaphysicians make propositions which are framed in such a way that they neither form parts of an established tautological system nor are testable in experience."

"We do not claim that a scientific theory, either in physics, or in economics, or in any other field, is uniquely determined by the observable facts. Theories are inventions, constructions. A theory is useful if it predicts the phenomena correctly. Different theories may make the same predictions with respect to large areas of facts. Under otherwise equal circumstances one will prefer that theory which covers a larger field of phenomena or which from some point of view appears to be 'simpler.'" [me: prefer one whose terms are definitionally connected to all other theories.]

"Experience teaches that all theories are constantly subject to larger or smaller modifications and that, as Ernst Mach expressed it, science consists of a continually progressing adaptation of ideas to facts."

"Since the time of Ernst Mach, natural scientists have known that the explanation or the theory of a group of phenomena is only a description of the facts on a higher level."

"It is always the search for, and the exposition of, typical and recurring elements within the unique course of the world that is the subject of science."

"The aim of intellectual endeavor of man may in the last analysis consist in the attempt to arrive, for all phenomena that are of some interest, at a description that is connectible across the boundaries of all fields . . . In the meantime, the gaps are filled by nonscientific theories, i.e., theories that are not connectible with the language of science. They appear in the form of metaphysics or of religious systems or of poetry."

"If an engineer computes the relation between the dimensions of the girders of a bridge and the load that the bridge can stand, he can phrase the result in the form: The bridge must have these dimensions . . . the connection between statements of fact and the ought-sentences derived from them is evident. We can formulate it thus: Ought-sentences are elliptic statements; they suppress one part of the implication."

"A justification of a prescription can only consist of statements that express the relation between the prescribed conduct and certain consequences . . . no useful purpose is served if one tries to mislead oneself or others about the fact that all moral systems, including their justifications, are creations of the human intellect of a similar kind to scientific theories."

"Positivism does not claim that all questions can be answered rationally, just as medicine is not based on the premise that all diseases are curable, or physics does not start out with the postulate that all phenomena are explicable. But the mere possibility that there may be no answers to some questions is no sufficient reason for not looking for answers or for not using those that are attainable."