tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-79619344170488642522024-03-16T10:42:54.728-04:00walto's worldwaltohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06597500868065913461noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961934417048864252.post-49079798988994179912024-03-08T12:15:00.016-05:002024-03-09T17:37:59.473-05:00Can "Wasted Vote" Really Mean All These Things?<p style="text-align: center;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj8DOY4heA25Xp-O_nPYa0tSqgg3FNloWptruTVRqROmbAICjHI6j1s-kCMaEz7x2BDzLcAIB7j44r2ARqWjziiWUxzV6oaZzr0lqm9v5YA2R1Ic3EznKPjhnh3dKO-yGP-ad-rvOGNwmCp6h7dRZY8i7Jw2YvJ6pxItnKt4HGH2BZ1ZTcNfVg-t-PUd3o" style="background-color: #fff2cc; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="600" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj8DOY4heA25Xp-O_nPYa0tSqgg3FNloWptruTVRqROmbAICjHI6j1s-kCMaEz7x2BDzLcAIB7j44r2ARqWjziiWUxzV6oaZzr0lqm9v5YA2R1Ic3EznKPjhnh3dKO-yGP-ad-rvOGNwmCp6h7dRZY8i7Jw2YvJ6pxItnKt4HGH2BZ1ZTcNfVg-t-PUd3o" width="320" /></a></div><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;"><br /> </span><p></p><p><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-size: large;">Those who have hung around "voting reform" advocates for any period of time will have surely heard nearly every group brag that the particular procedure they are pushing has the most wondrous merit of reducing (maybe even eliminating!) wasted votes. This is claimed to be a big deal because the wasting of votes exhibited by the most common voting method around the world, First-Past-The-Post (or "FPTP," the procedure where a bunch of people or things run against each other, and whichever person or thing gets the most votes wins) is said to be particularly profligate. Lots and lots of votes are claimed to be wasted with FPTP. Maybe all of those cast for losers; even, maybe, a lot of those cast for the winner too if he, she, or it won by a landslide!</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;"><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><span style="font-size: large;">One of the great virtues often claimed for non-FPTP voting methods is that each (brilliant) procedure being proposed is said to cut down tremendously on FPTP vote wastage, which, to its eternal disgrace, rivals that of the tonnage of food still thrown away by wealthy nations--even in our era of widespread inexpensive refrigeration.</span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-size: large;">A problem with this brag is that there are several widely diverging understandings of just what a wasted vote is. The old-fashioned and perhaps still the most common understanding, one that elicited several <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/3324549"><b>papers</b></a> in the scholarly press in the 70s and 80s to the effect that no vote is ever entirely wasted (and the one with which Ralph Nader and other third party supporters have to deal pretty regularly) is this:</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-size: large;">(1) <i>A wasted vote is any vote cast for a candidate or question that has no legitimate chance of winning the election in which the vote is cast.</i></span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-size: large;">It's easy to see why people have claimed that this definition is vague, and that rather than being clarified, it should just be dropped altogether. First, what's a "legitimate chance"? Furthermore, people vote for lots of reasons besides obtaining a winner, and many will deny that a vote they have made as a protest or to improve a party's future or just to piss off a neighbor has been "wasted." But whether or not (1) is a good definition, it may well still be the most common understanding around. And there's little doubt that the fighting over whether somebody has or hasn't absolutely wrecked everything by wasting their vote (as so understood) is likely to continue.</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-size: large;">Perhaps because Definition (1) has caused so much ill-will over the years, a newer and arguably less contentious one has gained prominence. If one looks up "wasted vote" in Wikipedia (as, of course, anyone with a question about anything always does these days), one will find this new, (and maybe improved?) <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasted_vote"><b>version</b></a>: </span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-size: medium;"><span face="Roboto, arial, sans-serif" style="color: #4d5156;">"In </span><span face="Roboto, arial, sans-serif" style="color: #5f6368; font-weight: bold;">electoral</span><span face="Roboto, arial, sans-serif" style="color: #4d5156;"> systems, a </span><span face="Roboto, arial, sans-serif" style="color: #5f6368; font-weight: bold;">wasted vote</span><span face="Roboto, arial, sans-serif" style="color: #4d5156;"> is any </span><span face="Roboto, arial, sans-serif" style="color: #5f6368; font-weight: bold;">vote</span><span face="Roboto, arial, sans-serif" style="color: #4d5156;"> that does not receive representation in the final </span><span face="Roboto, arial, sans-serif" style="color: #5f6368; font-weight: bold;">election</span><span face="Roboto, arial, sans-serif" style="color: #4d5156;"> outcome."</span></span></p><p><span style="color: #4d5156;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">Of course, one might ask, just which votes in an election <b>do "</b>receive representation"? Always happy to help, the Wiki author(s) of this entry have supplied the following answer: </span></span></p><p style="color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; padding-bottom: 0.5em;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-size: medium;">There are two different types of wasted votes:</span></p><ul style="color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; list-style-image: url("/w/skins/Vector/resources/skins.vector.styles/images/bullet-icon.svg?d4515"); margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px !important; margin: 0px 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px;"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-size: medium;">Excess votes are votes that a candidate receives above and beyond what was needed.</span></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-size: medium;">Lost votes are votes that were not enough to make an impact by winning a seat.</span></li></ul><p style="color: #202122; font-family: sans-serif; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; padding-bottom: 0.5em;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-size: medium;">Sometimes the term "wasted vote" is used by those referring only to "lost votes," while others use the term to refer to the sum of the lost votes and the excess votes.</span></p><p style="color: #202122; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; padding-bottom: 0.5em;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">Here, it seems, is where the idea comes from that lots (maybe almost all!) votes are wasted in nearly every election, regardless of the sort of procedure being used. I'll put the definition this way:</span></p><p style="color: #202122; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; padding-bottom: 0.5em;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">(2) <i>A wasted vote is any vote that was not needed for the winning candidate or question to have won. If the person who cast such a vote had stayed home, it would have made no difference to to the eventual results.</i></span></p><p style="color: #202122; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; padding-bottom: 0.5em;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">I must say that, whether or not (2) is less contentious and/or ambiguous than (1), I have no idea what it means. I take it that in a FPTP election, it takes only one vote more than those cast for anybody or anything else to make a winner. So, under this definition, only one vote in any election having a winner will be unwasted. But...which one? Who knows?</span></p><p style="color: #202122; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; padding-bottom: 0.5em;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">It is quite possible that the weirdness of both (1) and (2) has played a significant role in leading to the creation of a third version that can be found around the voting method advocacy water bubblers. FairVote, a large organization pushing Ranked Choice as <i>the way to go</i> defin</span><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size: large;">es "wasted votes" as <a href="https://fairvote.org/the-wasted-votes-wheel/"><b>follows</b></a>:</span></span></span></p><p style="color: #202122; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; padding-bottom: 0.5em;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Wasted votes occur when a candidate's name appears on the ballot after they have dropped out of the race. Early and mail-in voters often fill out ballots a week or more ahead of Election Day, before they know which candidates will be active when their state holds its primary.</span></p><p style="color: #202122; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; padding-bottom: 0.5em;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">While I haven't exactly searched high and low regarding this matter, if I'm honest, I have the sneaking suspicion that FairVote might like this extremely restrictive definition of what a wasted vote is because if you use it, ranked choice looks good. I'm not entirely making this up, incidentally: I get it from this additional remark of theirs:</span></p><p style="color: #202122; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; padding-bottom: 0.5em;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Early voting isn't the problem; our "choose one" voting method is to blame for wasted votes. Ranked choice voting ensures every vote is counted, and every voice is heard when choosing presidential nominees. It empowers voters....If their favorite candidate has dropped out, their ballots are still valid.</span></p><p style="color: #202122; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; padding-bottom: 0.5em;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">Certainly, if "wasted votes" mean what FairVote says it does, we can presume that any system that allows you to vote for a bunch of candidates (this would include Approval Voting too, btw) is much less likely to produce waste. In any case, here is my rendering of this definition:</span></p><p style="color: #202122; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; padding-bottom: 0.5em;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">(3) <i>A wasted vote is any vote cast for a person who is on a ballot in spite of dropping out of that race prior to Election Day.</i></span></p><p style="color: #202122; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; padding-bottom: 0.5em;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">This one has the virtue of being clear and understandable, but even if its sole purpose was not to make ranked choice look good compared to its most popular competitor, nobody prior to this FairVote concoction (and nobody else since as far as I know), has ever put forward such a restrictive understanding of what it is to waste a vote. I mean, it's one way for sure but....aren't there many others?</span></p><p style="color: #202122; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; padding-bottom: 0.5em;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">My point in all this is just to suggest that the next time you use the term "wasted vote," maybe think about what you mean by it. Is it one of the three concepts described above? Something else? And the next time you hear anybody else use it, maybe ask them what <i>they </i>mean. </span></p><p style="color: #202122; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; padding-bottom: 0.5em; text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"></span></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiP-r6HeXgPYLmXWtJeMh63k3BO0lnJUAKW856Q1bbpsFm-R6PHZXNiVNxl6YsL9M1Xe9ZekG2sTW5GrO8kRewl7IOlhCKUTnfJeQk4DfusCHc6ecfhRxN2BJI15plwXZuQbcLoldqg_AQPYG1jOMn4RaBDCCCCHJzXF8Kl9AL53WPg_CJ451RFSzMHBvo" style="background-color: #fff2cc; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="639" data-original-width="1023" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiP-r6HeXgPYLmXWtJeMh63k3BO0lnJUAKW856Q1bbpsFm-R6PHZXNiVNxl6YsL9M1Xe9ZekG2sTW5GrO8kRewl7IOlhCKUTnfJeQk4DfusCHc6ecfhRxN2BJI15plwXZuQbcLoldqg_AQPYG1jOMn4RaBDCCCCHJzXF8Kl9AL53WPg_CJ451RFSzMHBvo" width="320" /></a></span></div><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span><p style="color: #202122; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; padding-bottom: 0.5em;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">Alternatively, maybe switch to "squander"! Because it's now election season here in the U.S.A., folks, and it may be the last time we get to freely squander anything! Fare thee well, my poor fellow Americans! {As you can see, I've rolled back under my bed now.} </span></p>waltohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06597500868065913461noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961934417048864252.post-27364838170988000092024-02-28T09:21:00.000-05:002024-02-28T09:21:02.630-05:00Is Picking Representatives by Lottery More Democratic Than Electing Them?<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiibMSdxAXs29LK6PdGLj8crYOWBUqr2XbMmdC1PaTZrP3aGo7aIjUptCHv9kogP0oH2VmsekdvIWmgZKav_VCA2WmVOvogSl8Lf_fbtWxuUCFpXTGrvwb3swY6F6hbsnr0mzfDpLGm0YULneOae6cKt9MdGBW1TRcyZo7mjPGvEq0pFOP_IfpxlBRu0RM" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img alt="" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiibMSdxAXs29LK6PdGLj8crYOWBUqr2XbMmdC1PaTZrP3aGo7aIjUptCHv9kogP0oH2VmsekdvIWmgZKav_VCA2WmVOvogSl8Lf_fbtWxuUCFpXTGrvwb3swY6F6hbsnr0mzfDpLGm0YULneOae6cKt9MdGBW1TRcyZo7mjPGvEq0pFOP_IfpxlBRu0RM=w354-h212" width="354" /></span></a></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">There is widespread agreement these days that elections aren't working very well for the people of supposedly democratic polities around the world. There's a lot of blame to go around and plenty of suspects to nail it on: Parties, Single-Winner Districts, First-Past-The-Post Majoritarianism, Special Interests, Incumbency Stickiness, Campaign Finance Shortcomings, Endless Campaigns, Polarization, Vote Splitting, Referendums, Lack of Referendums, Anti-Majoritarian Federalism, Recall Perils, Lack of Recall Availability, Etc., Etc., Etc. As a result of all these flaws, it has seemed for some time that electoral politics is a waste of time and money--at least for regular folks.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">It's unsurprising, then, that there has been a big renewed interest in doing things the way the Ancient Athenians (sometimes) did them. The Occupy Wall Street movement notwithstanding, most modern countries--and even their major political subdivisions--seem much too big to have all of the legislative, executive and judicial obligations of government handled exclusively by the entire mass of citizens anywhere, but the idea of picking representatives by lot has made a huge comeback. After all, if that single (though radical) change were made, a lot of the problems mentioned above could simply be scratched off the list.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">And it isn't just political scientists and historians who have been pushing this change* advocates have found their way into popular media as well. A tiny selection of the organs that have included positive pieces on the idea recently include: <i>Vox, Irish Times, Bloomberg, Boston Review, NJ.Com, San Diego Union-Tribune, Aeon, The Boston Globe </i>and <i>India Today</i>. There are many other examples that could be given.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">So, does the ancient past give us the best solution to our current political morass? I take up that question in my new review of David Van Reybrouck's book, <i>Against Elections: The Case for Democracy</i>, <b><a href="https://www.3-16am.co.uk/articles/david-van-reybrouck-against-elections-the-case-for-democracy?c=a-hornbook-of-democracy-book-reviews">here</a></b>.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">_________________</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span>* A</span><span>lthough there definitely </span><i>are</i><span> a bunch of recent books on the subject. You can find a batch of them listed <a href="https://fivebooks.com/best-books/citizen-assemblies-hugh-pope/" style="font-weight: bold;">here</a><b>.</b><i style="font-weight: bold;"> </i>(One quite engaging book on the alleged superiority of Athenian democracy not mentioned there is Roslyn Fuller's <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Beasts-Gods-Democracy-Changed-Meaning/dp/1783605421">Beasts and Gods</a>.</i>)</span></span></p>waltohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06597500868065913461noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961934417048864252.post-28936086378658639302024-01-18T18:18:00.005-05:002024-02-08T09:28:54.863-05:00Fugitive Thoughts on the SEP entry on Democracy<p></p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiX5g2Y73x6rMJCJgeInNp5wRUyJGQK85vQ-5mJr5URspgefxsBvQd1LKCfvfnunxqwR14CJtehtttU3mE0ZrKqm89kxjVJ9D79Nlu4Y1dSpJeVMxp8C-Z5xHmw4iZeVKVE307XoOvjNRJWDXmkSiFJZBM3tgsHL2finOOdn9wGNp8GZGQjx5fnwtTxmLg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="200" data-original-width="200" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiX5g2Y73x6rMJCJgeInNp5wRUyJGQK85vQ-5mJr5URspgefxsBvQd1LKCfvfnunxqwR14CJtehtttU3mE0ZrKqm89kxjVJ9D79Nlu4Y1dSpJeVMxp8C-Z5xHmw4iZeVKVE307XoOvjNRJWDXmkSiFJZBM3tgsHL2finOOdn9wGNp8GZGQjx5fnwtTxmLg" width="240" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /><br /></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Goudy Old Style"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Goudy Old Style";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span>I am a big fan of the Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. I have learned a lot from it over the years and am generally very
impressed by the quality of the content. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top: 12pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Goudy Old Style"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Goudy Old Style";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2 <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span>I do have some problems with the article on
Democracy, though. This, of course, is quite likely the result of my being
more familiar with the matters discussed in that piece than I am with most of the others I have come across. After all, I’ve spent the
last decade of my life reading and thinking about those issues. I do think,
though, that, independent of my own background and interests, this particular
article is somewhat more slapdash than others I have seen. (Just to give one random example of the latter, I recently
read a great entry on Spinoza’s political philosophy, and, even though I did my Ph.D. thesis
on Spinoza, I learned quite a bit from it.) And I want to stress that my admiration for SEP has been there whether
or not I have generally agreed with the author(s) on specific subjects included
in their entries. In my experience, the articles there have nearly always provided fine overviews of the most important controversies in philosophy—old and new. Furthermore, most of the
articles can be read with immense benefit by both interested laypeople and
experts in the field. In my opinion, it's simply an incomparable resource.</span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top: 12pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Goudy Old Style"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Goudy Old Style";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3 <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span>I also want to mention right off the bat (to any suspicious readers in these parts) that I have
nothing against the lead author of the article on Democracy or the positions he
takes on most of the related issues. (And I promise that I am not looking for citations to my own work, most of which has been published in pretty obscure
journals and one widely unread book.) While I have never met or corresponded with Tom Christiano, I
have read some of the (excellent) stuff he has written on a number of the topics
covered in this article, and I think his book on what he calls “public equality” is surely
the most important work anybody is likely to find on that subject. So, while I do think
the article probably follows his <i>Constitution of Equality</i> a bit too
closely, I also think that book is quite good and that people interested in
democratic theory could do a lot worse than making it the cornerstone of
their study.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top: 12pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEihN4OXunbZD7NHHk7K7dEhmGWbbc2psOHei6i-pLaZaAxlWRtFyPUNOFzfEyPQGjXvSpZGlA7M7PoWNYCw7N8Wd2v34G2AdPE4CQof4CyEWE9VBXtgHhAlU--fM-DSKw2s5W45WoWJqC-nuatkNxovdI-iZrN_OFQubG9uw4SP-uNdjxWrmd5go_tx2Yw" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="2026" data-original-width="2490" height="350" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEihN4OXunbZD7NHHk7K7dEhmGWbbc2psOHei6i-pLaZaAxlWRtFyPUNOFzfEyPQGjXvSpZGlA7M7PoWNYCw7N8Wd2v34G2AdPE4CQof4CyEWE9VBXtgHhAlU--fM-DSKw2s5W45WoWJqC-nuatkNxovdI-iZrN_OFQubG9uw4SP-uNdjxWrmd5go_tx2Yw=w431-h350" width="431" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top: 12pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Goudy Old Style"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Goudy Old Style";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">4<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span>OK, my critique. One thing that is likely to be
noticed right off the bat when looking at the “Democracy” entry at SEP, is that,
with the exception of Locke, there is not much discussion of the major figures in the history of
democratic theory. Plato, Hobbes, Mill and Rousseau do get a couple of mentions each as the
article proceeds, but none of their views are considered in detail, and a number
of key thinkers and works are entirely ignored. Furthermore, the development of the concept of democracy through history is largely passed over. Most scholars agree that
democracy's roots go back to ancient Athens, but there’s no mention of Athenian versions here. Moving forward a bit, one book that I think should not have
been missed is Marsilius of Padua’s extremely important 13th Century work, <i>Defender
of the Peace.</i> (I note, in passing, that there is no separate SEP article on Marsilius, which
I think is something that really ought to be remedied, whatever may or may not
be done with the Democracy entry.) In his book, Marsilius not only devotes a lot of space to touting the benefits of democracy over monarchy and
aristocracy, but also spends hundreds of pages discussing the importance of
separating Church and State and arguing that all earthly power should be given
to State—so long as it is a majoritarian jurisdiction. His opposition to Papal powers was quite vehement! </span></p><p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top: 12pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-size: large;"> Of course, authors of articles of this sort will
always have to leave out this or that scholar and may need to decide generally whether
they want their pieces to be focused on history or contemporary debates. But it
was surprising to me that, while the usual large array of contemporary works are
cited, it isn't only the Athenians and Marsilius who are omitted. There is, e.g., no Jefferson, Madison, Tocqueville, Bryce, Kelsen, Lindsay,
or Schmitt. There's also not a single word on the concept of federalism and the difficult problems it poses for majoritarianism. Clearly, a conscious decision was made not to focus too
much on history, so more space would be left for discussion of contemporary debates. But when the best substantive arguments are also to be found among “the greats,”
as I think is sometimes the case here, it’s not clear that readers benefit
by such omissions on the substance front either. (I should say again, though, that Locke is an exception to the practice here: there's quite a bit of material on his views.)</span></p><p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top: 12pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-size: large;"> The idea of <i>consent</i>
pops up here and there, mostly in connection with whether individuals have an
obligation to abide by governmental edicts, but there’s not, as one might
expect, a section devoted to the traditional idea that democracy is, more or
less, an elaboration of what follows from the concept of consenting group members. “Majority
tyranny” (a particular peeve of mine, see <a href="https://philarchive.org/rec/HORWRD"><b>this paper</b></a>) is referred to a few times, but is nowhere defined or even explained.
We read that it should be distinguished from the problem of persistent
minorities because where the latter is found, "it may be the case that the majority attempts to treat the
minority well, in accordance with its conception of good treatment." It would
seem to follow from that way of looking at things, however, that majority tyrannies, unlike many jurisdictions in which we find persistent minorities, cannot not treat minorities in accordance with their conception of good treatment. But that is an odd suggestion, since it seems clear that we can
imagine tyrannical majorities that consistently believe they are treating all of their
citizens very nicely.</span></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top: 12pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Goudy Old Style"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Goudy Old Style";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">5 </span></span>The authors tell us at the outset that they want
to engage in normative, rather than descriptive theory. Their interest is in “the
moral foundations of democracy and democratic institutions, as well as the
moral duties of democratic representatives and citizens.” I will come back to
this choice to focus discussion on moral matters, but first I want to look into
what they claim to mean<i> </i>by “democracy” throughout the piece. The authors
here indicate that by this term they mean (a) in all and only democracies, group
decisions are made collectively and are binding on all group members; and (b) the
decision-makers must be considered equal in some more or less “thick” sense. That
is, maybe all their votes in general elections should be equally weighted, or
maybe they each should get some equal (and significant) time and/or vote strength
in the business of actually making laws—not just voting for representatives:
but there must be <i>some sense </i>in which each citizen is considered equal
to every other citizen. They also note that they don’t want their definition to require
that democracy is a good thing; they require that it be compatible with some other form(s)
of government being preferable.</span></p><p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top: 12pt; text-align: left; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-size: large;"> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg9wM40f63zaIh4EAPb5InYU-iBeNR1Ezn3XdDX0MlgE9VLuBGQ0kIbQAXS4IVG6lvR8FmF3d8vYAw6shzSKav1_LY70cU2RFH6AyrGs9hV2jigPEzd0cIUHGooFKFSOytQeA5HI9wyB-gKAbZkYqG7ogVY8Q-sRgdWrL7wSH9a39mR7qw_jllxpTlXse8" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img alt="" data-original-height="219" data-original-width="165" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg9wM40f63zaIh4EAPb5InYU-iBeNR1Ezn3XdDX0MlgE9VLuBGQ0kIbQAXS4IVG6lvR8FmF3d8vYAw6shzSKav1_LY70cU2RFH6AyrGs9hV2jigPEzd0cIUHGooFKFSOytQeA5HI9wyB-gKAbZkYqG7ogVY8Q-sRgdWrL7wSH9a39mR7qw_jllxpTlXse8" width="181" /></a></span></p><p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: large;"> When we consider the aptness of this definition, it's important to
understand that democracy is often distinguished from monarchy, oligarchy, and
aristocracy. (Marsilius and Hobbes make these distinctions in detail, e.g.). But such
comparisons might not make sense if democracy is defined at the outset as a decision-making
procedure. After all, it wasn’t generally suggested back when the relative merits
of those sorts of governments were being regularly and seriously assessed, that
in monarchies only the monarch can <i>vote</i>; in aristocracies, only elites can
<i>vote</i>, etc. On the contrary, what was being compared was RULE<i> by </i>monarchs,
<i>by </i>elites, <i>by </i>the demos, etc. Now, I want to stress here that I
absolutely agree that something like what is settled on by the SEP authors <i>is
</i>how democracy should<i> </i>be understood. My objection is that I think
this must be demonstrated: it can’t be simply assumed without immediately
begging questions against those who support things like sortition (picking
representatives by lot) or even, arguably, such proposals as term limits. For making
democracy a selection method immediately and without any argument at all turns
sortitionists and term-limit advocates into anti-democrats. Again, I myself think
they <i>are </i>anti-democratic, but I don’t believe it’s right to shove them
into that camp without argument.</span></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: large;"> Consider the fact that sortitionists
generally argue that random choices of rulers from the electorate is <i>more
democratic </i>than picking rulers by plebiscite. Why? Because they think such
a method will produce a <i>government</i> that is much more similar (say in
class or race) to the citizenry at large than selecting representatives by
election will. Any such claim will be immediately foreclosed without argument
if one simply starts with a definition according to which democracy is made
solely a matter of <i>how governors are selected</i>. While I repeat that
I do think this is where one needs to land, I concede that it is not the traditional
understanding (say by the Athenians or Hobbes) of “democracy,” and recognize that picking
a different definition without argument is unfair to those who
continue to approve of that understanding. (On the other hand, I believe what the SEP
authors <i>have</i> provided here is a good initial definition of “majoritarianism.”) </span></p><p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: large;">Interestingly,
the authors write that “proposed justifications of democracy identify values or
reasons that support democracy over alternative forms of decision-making, such
as oligarchy or dictatorship,” but oligarchy, e.g., is most commonly defined as
<i>rule </i>of a country by a small group of elites. Some would claim, reasonably, that it
doesn’t matter at all how such a group is <i>chosen</i>. And it seems clear,
particularly in today’s U.S., that a dictator could be elected by lots of
methods the authors here would have to categorize as democratic. (One other thing I
will mention is that, to the extent the discussion is focused on
majoritarianism, as I think it mostly is in this article, I think space should have been given to such
matters as the recall of public officials and fixed terms of office. There’s nothing at all on either subject.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: large;"> As mentioned above, in a refreshing exception
to the general neglect of historical figures, there is a discussion of Locke’s
argument for majority rule. Unfortunately, it shines a light on the above-mentioned problem of a too-quick definition of democracy. The authors write, “Locke
thinks that a people, which is formed by individuals who consent to be members,
could choose a monarchy by means of majority rule and so this argument by
itself does not give us an argument for democracy.” That, of course, is hard to
square with a definition of democracy precisely as a decision procedure, something
which would seem to be entirely
consistent with <i>rule by a monarch.</i><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgwGFg8IE8QgidOhd_IejWi0rraPB82E2aaiy0SPZ9Lg2LnwnPCqno099qH5A3tigNSLIeiu76IjBV1koq8SQVdQVECi0BTXM7yVy6ucp9Frac0jrlR4QeH5_DXey09tY0fT3ZIXInMrmY6UwFXjk73iNJs41v6ohZTg9abeTrPFpE7-YPKyNuLR3SJHIw" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="420" data-original-width="600" height="224" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgwGFg8IE8QgidOhd_IejWi0rraPB82E2aaiy0SPZ9Lg2LnwnPCqno099qH5A3tigNSLIeiu76IjBV1koq8SQVdQVECi0BTXM7yVy6ucp9Frac0jrlR4QeH5_DXey09tY0fT3ZIXInMrmY6UwFXjk73iNJs41v6ohZTg9abeTrPFpE7-YPKyNuLR3SJHIw" width="320" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top: 12pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Goudy Old Style"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Goudy Old Style";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">6<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->A very substantial percentage of this SEP article is
devoted to epistemic justifications of democracy. The idea, as is nicely
explained here, is that “democracy is generally more reliable than alternative
methods at producing political decisions that are correct according to
procedure-independent standards.” A lot of space is given to Condorcet’s Jury
Theorem, and two other suggestions are given for democracy’s supposed
superiority on the reliability front as well: “the effects of cognitive
diversity” and “information gathering and sharing.” What is not discussed at
all is what it is supposed to mean for a public policy decision to be “correct”
in the first place. I, for one, think it would be entirely unsurprising for any
electoral decision to be “correct” if a vote is (as I think it is) no more nor
less than a matter of asking a person or group what they want. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: large;"> The lack of any discussion
of what it means for a public policy to be correct seems to me to be a major
defect of this article. It functions as an unargued assumption for some sort of
objective list theory of well-being. And from there we can infer that it goes
on to take votes to be inquires of a sort regarding what can be expected to produce
the highest levels of group well-being. I think all of that is not only controversial,
but simply wrong. For whatever it may be worth, much of my <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Democratic-Theory-Naturalized-Foundations-Distilled/dp/1793624976"><b>book</b> </a>is devoted to
those matters.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhCwisu4u1HMMNCeRT8TZHilgRO6ZUHeUchYvbKnGOvRAN0ZRK8HdAzFvnH3PVrwoxX6ud8HH62ziYWwNUsvRRR_InhRdIFwPrKs6Xb27hZ8-CNaUic6ju6yO3BLLzEKbBaVqVX981qcDjWBOZMJ8douHHkAA8nzM58yIt9FflspDl0BxonnlGvEwXksTM" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="259" data-original-width="194" height="421" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhCwisu4u1HMMNCeRT8TZHilgRO6ZUHeUchYvbKnGOvRAN0ZRK8HdAzFvnH3PVrwoxX6ud8HH62ziYWwNUsvRRR_InhRdIFwPrKs6Xb27hZ8-CNaUic6ju6yO3BLLzEKbBaVqVX981qcDjWBOZMJ8douHHkAA8nzM58yIt9FflspDl0BxonnlGvEwXksTM=w316-h421" width="316" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: large;"> To see how important this is to current controversies in democratic theory, consider the following passage: </span></p><p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: large;"><i>[I]f we expect most people to
engage in other difficult and complex tasks, how can we expect them to have the
time and resources sufficient to devote themselves intelligently to
politics?....[O]ne widely accepted estimate puts the odds of an individual
casting the deciding vote in a United States presidential election at 1 in 100
million….Anthony Downs has argued that almost all of those who do vote have
little reason to become informed about how best to vote. On the assumption that
citizens reason and behave roughly according to the Downsian model, either the
society must in fact be run by a relatively small group of people with minimal
input from the rest or it will be very poorly run.</i> </span></p><p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: large;"> And such criticisms are
said to support the Platonic idea that government by a race of wise and
virtuous Guardians is superior to anything that democracy can offer. My point
is that knowing what one wants doesn't seem particularly time consuming or difficult, so
if that’s what’s actually expected of voters, it seems silly to suggest either
that it’s a terribly imposing task or that some other expert(s) could do a better job.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgLcWLiYDIw_lpYDBb3l7ibN_B1PFDCLPfkLrJ1lY8OR1FnhCAOH2RcYVb2yd4NjRykd6I0AABv-nFoOvpoZ5JMXxEJv9a-pv30fpp_j-YOcS27PmxYG6qs1Qml5K5n-PuBk3k7CO749xiVWFZ04VKUcwdDIQghFVlYI6GkTjvwtHspW50m_x4guN93wr8" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="674" data-original-width="1080" height="296" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgLcWLiYDIw_lpYDBb3l7ibN_B1PFDCLPfkLrJ1lY8OR1FnhCAOH2RcYVb2yd4NjRykd6I0AABv-nFoOvpoZ5JMXxEJv9a-pv30fpp_j-YOcS27PmxYG6qs1Qml5K5n-PuBk3k7CO749xiVWFZ04VKUcwdDIQghFVlYI6GkTjvwtHspW50m_x4guN93wr8=w474-h296" width="474" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /><br /></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top: 12pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Goudy Old Style"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Goudy Old Style";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">7 <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span>I very
much like the Christiano-based arguments against epistocracy found here, which
are largely based on his original analysis of “public equality.” Again, I think
this is a very interesting and important approach to political authority. But
it does bring us back to the claim that normative assertions about democracy
and governmental authority must be <i>moral </i>assertions. That claim may well
be correct, and whether it is or not is certainly a thorny issue, but it’s
another matter that I think requires argument, and none appears here. Another
way of looking at whether we <i>ought</i> to have democracy and whether citizens
<i>ought </i>to abide by democratically produced edicts—regardless of the sort
of outcomes this style of government does or is deemed likely to produce, is to
ignore morality in favor of an entirely different sort of value, the <i>prudential</i>
sort<i>.</i> That is, we can leave the question of whether democracies are <i>ethically
</i>preferable to other sorts of government arrangements, and instead consider
only whether democracies are <i>better for</i> the populace. (And it’s
important to recognize that such assessments may be made <i>ex ante</i>, as
well as <i>ex post,</i> so every prudential value judgment need not be seen as
an outcome assessment of resulting well-being<i>. </i>I talk about this issue a bit in a recent interview that can be found <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL1nyKDWI1U"><b>here</b></a>.) </span></p><p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top: 12pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-size: large;"> Again, in order to get an understanding of such judgments, one has to enter into questions about just what it is that makes--or
is expected to make--a life go well (<i>ex ante</i>). And, as indicated above,
that means getting into various theories of well-being. Is it a bunch of
objective items, like, say, health, wealth, loving relationships, knowledge,
etc. that makes everybody’s life better, (whether they know or agree with this list or not)? Or is well-being, as hedonists think, actually determined by the level
of pleasure in some person’s or group’s life? Or is it, perhaps, a function of how
many or what percentage of one’s desires get satisfied? In my work, I have
argued that <i>ex ante </i>well-being is a matter of getting to freely choose what
one wants. No doubt, I may be entirely wrong about this, but I don't think that’s really relevant here. The main point is that where one comes down on the
nature of well-being is likely to determine how one decides both the question
of whether votes are likely to be “correct,” and whether democracy is a “good
thing” or not. So, I don’t think one absolutely must take a position here on whether democracy
is—or should be thought to be—<i>morally good. </i>Rather, it's possible to reasonably stick to the
question of whether (and how one determines whether) democracy is <i>good for</i>
persons or groups. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top: 12pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Goudy Old Style"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Goudy Old Style";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">8<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span>Now, independently of whether we decide
democracy is generally (prudentially) good for a group of people, we may also
wonder whether those who are in a democratic polity have a <i>duty to obey</i> appropriately passed laws. How one is likely to answer this, must, I suppose, be at least partially a
function of where one stands on moral obligations generally. If one denies such
obligations or is just skeptical about our knowledge of them, one may again
turn to the (at least apparently) less mysterious questions involving whether
one will generally be <i>better off </i>by obeying such laws. And this
distinction may be relevant not only to any claimed <i>duty to obey, </i>but also
to any ostensible <i>duty to vote.</i> (Indeed, it should be mentioned that the authors make even the
question of “What sort of representative system is best?” a moral matter!)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: large;"> A<i>s</i> indicated, in
his book, Christiano has given what I consider an ingenious theory involving treatment of
others to explain why such obedience makes us both morally better and better off. Unsurprisingly, he takes the same tack in this article as well. But,
in any case, while the<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>question of
whether one ought to follow democratically derived laws certainly can be reasonably
construed as a moral question, I again insist that it is not the only possible perspective
here--even when one considers Christiano's own approach to the subject. And, in fact, much of the discussion of instrumental versus inherent
reasons for claiming this or that with respect to democratic issues found in
the SEP entry seems to me to confuse or conflate these matters to some degree because prudential
and moral values are not carefully distinguished. I note here, e.g., that
discussions of the merits of proportional representation would be considerably clarified
by distinguishing the type of value being talked about. </span></p><p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: large;"> On the other hand, I will concede
that I’m not entirely sure myself whether or not to make civil obedience a <i>moral</i>
matter. It is my view, e.g., that giving minorities appropriate voice (i.e.,
voice reflective of their numbers) in some sense <i>ought</i> to be done regardless
of the outcomes generated by that approach. That is, it seems to me axiomatic or
fundamental in some sense, just as the equality of persons (from which we
derive majoritarianism in the first place) is axiomatic. That is, although I have no great arguments to give for these principles, I resist the
claim that I need to have any if I am right that they are simply fundamental starting places--whether they are moral claims or not. To conclude, if these axioms are seen as moral claims, so be it, but whether
or not that is actually the best way to look at this matter is simply not
obvious to me.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg2-0dbUxAYtEErZahlnSNBfRLx_LNyKLLHQr2ySmxXezJS9W_w1i3l4FKHYvlhHTm33gyHb6q7c_wrKaN33A5zm9LpCUzzupjz_6AZVVuEiBB-kG8ROkNqHqBdAhbz9ZQDQDn8alYIe91AmJ5FVBrp90F0smnCVIzaJMMhvWwy8c5ld5ZmU_hFCO9D1Ig" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><img alt="" data-original-height="501" data-original-width="500" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiSEBmIOadvBVgwknyJ4ZkId3nqM6GFvzZ_iCWDR4U-_xNBcE0eWQQuGHvSaewLFu9OicMch2hEiK34itXsf5K0sex-mQP9xiU1hLqxzyO4-tz4xofNSlO8GC7ELqP-Q7gEzzyeqsmsWyXNzDaCETRPLiQODRyDUbzP_LxpzLBUnO-zsAKE8Cnjs5r8D9w" width="240" /></div></a></span></div><p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top: 12pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Goudy Old Style"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Goudy Old Style";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">9 <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span>There is some discussion here of the “all-affected”
theory for determining which persons should be considered subject to a polity’s
laws, and I entirely agree with the negative conclusions reached in the SEP article. In
fact, in my view, any number of additional attacks might have been successfully
leveled against that position. It just seems to me indefensible. I believe, however,
that more could have been said here on behalf of a strictly geographical
determination of who must comply, and generally, on such things as who should be allowed to
vote considering matters of age, competence, and alleged moral depravity (or felony convictions). There’s a lot of good literature on this.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top: 12pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Goudy Old Style"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Goudy Old Style";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1 Moving on, t</span></span>he authors' discussion of Arrow’s theorem misses what I take to be an essential matter: whether
the preferences in question are ordinal or cardinal. I won’t go into this here,
but I devote a significant amount of space to it in my book. Those sorts of
considerations (rightly or wrongly) result in my support for Approval Voting
and the Single Non-Transferable Ballot. Whatever the value (if any) of my thoughts on the particulars of voting, my
general sense is that this SEP article would be better without any discussion
of them at all. Voting theory is pretty arcane, and I think technical matters of that type would probably have been better left
to one or more separate articles put together by other experts (maybe from the
world of political science). In any case, the material on voting theory here is pretty slim and skeletal,
while the literature and number of controversies regarding such issues are
mountainous and dense--as well as momentous in today’s political climate. I therefore think removing that
material in its entirety would make space for more philosophy and history without much reduction in quality. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top: 12pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-size: large;"> In sum, fellow democracy researchers,</span></p><p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top: 12pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEip190-6-DlkKXMY3Gss8RLA3vzbnRgCNd6fIluo9oSDMS79VJtRMYVx4mQYidEC6i1ct9dzmi-keolhEOPdax375ynCk_p-BenqzNpaFjWBVqDUWU_hiVEWLw3ZGbUz8wCd8ILSe0GftbQ48n4VZjhaemFBMZwdwzOzGRk7jMzMV-mNfY4qDrlshouo3g" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="600" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEip190-6-DlkKXMY3Gss8RLA3vzbnRgCNd6fIluo9oSDMS79VJtRMYVx4mQYidEC6i1ct9dzmi-keolhEOPdax375ynCk_p-BenqzNpaFjWBVqDUWU_hiVEWLw3ZGbUz8wCd8ILSe0GftbQ48n4VZjhaemFBMZwdwzOzGRk7jMzMV-mNfY4qDrlshouo3g" width="320" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><p></p><p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top: 12pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></p><p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top: 12pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /><br /></span><p></p><p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top: 12pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><br /><p></p>waltohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06597500868065913461noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961934417048864252.post-10025792138306293792024-01-05T12:11:00.000-05:002024-01-05T12:11:46.083-05:00Disinformation and the Seductiveness of Wonder<p style="text-align: center;"> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjwoVkVLtK7gv5EpvDWVCCY_gyyPabZOtyuiBLNgXLHk5dEcOH6pqSlEdCkBooGLc72ia4j6nkA4B4kf6WHGQ3TzQe6zXmXRzRRB-4-E4jx2RfvbTAdrd4Bdr5mk4ZD3BbQCmlAKbwt4coie8vEXZPtQVnp2PAmO40VmqciUpeWIirQ-279kuDZmb8RDWg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="229" data-original-width="639" height="172" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjwoVkVLtK7gv5EpvDWVCCY_gyyPabZOtyuiBLNgXLHk5dEcOH6pqSlEdCkBooGLc72ia4j6nkA4B4kf6WHGQ3TzQe6zXmXRzRRB-4-E4jx2RfvbTAdrd4Bdr5mk4ZD3BbQCmlAKbwt4coie8vEXZPtQVnp2PAmO40VmqciUpeWIirQ-279kuDZmb8RDWg=w479-h172" width="479" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 150%;">In 1960, William Newcomb, a physicist at
the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, concocted what might be called a greed paradox.
He asked people to imagine a game in which players are presented with two boxes.
One of them is transparent and always has $1000 visibly inside it, while the
other is opaque and contains either a cool million bucks or nothing at all.
Players have the choice of taking both boxes or only the opaque one, and either
way they get to keep all the money in the box or boxes that they choose. A simple,
yet always remunerative game.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Newcomb’s rules prescribe that every
participant has the following absolutely reliable information: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-left: .5in; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 150%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Goudy Old Style"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Goudy Old Style";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Whoever puts the money in the boxes is a
prognosticator. If she predicts the next player will take only the million-dollar
box, she will always put the money in there. If she expects the player to take
both boxes, she will never put even a dime in the opaque box.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-left: .5in; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 150%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Goudy Old Style"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Goudy Old Style";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 150%;">This prognosticator has always been
correct. Historically, every prior player who has taken both boxes has gone
home only with the paltry grand. But those who pick just the opaque box leave
rich. (Keep in mind that a million bucks was a very tidy sum in 1960). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-left: .5in; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 150%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Goudy Old Style"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Goudy Old Style";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 150%;">There is no jiggery-pokery of any kind.
The predictor never cheats, for example by somehow sneaking money in or out of
the million-dollar box after hearing a choice made. The money is either in
there or it isn’t prior to the announcement of a participant’s decision, and no
change is made afterwards. There’s neither any fancy technology nor any old-fashioned
legerdemain in play: just incredible predictive accuracy.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 150%;">The literature suggests that there are generally
two diametrically opposed attitudes maintained by those who consider Newcomb’s
brainchild. The logical, apparently scientific sort can always be expected to
take both boxes. I can almost hear one such scholar pleading, “How can it ever
make sense not to take both? The money is either in the second box or it isn’t;
my choice can’t affect the outcome. Obviously, we should take <i>all </i>the
money being offered rather than settle for only a portion of it!” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 150%;">But the pragmatist will be more interested
in past results than in such scientific truisms. She wants to join the
millionaire club and may not care so much (at least not while playing) about
how the historical results are even credible. She’s been assured both of the uniformity
of the past outcomes and of the integrity of those running the game. Concerns regarding
how such apparently baffling results have occurred will seem to her purely
academic. It may be mystifying that the choice to take <i>all</i> the money on
the table is never as financially rewarding as just opting for <i>some of it</i>,
but this may pale before her employer’s warnings about possible upcoming layoffs
and her recognition that mortgage payments will continue to be required by her
bank until hell freezes over.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Now, one might think that this entire debate
is purely academic and doesn’t much matter in the real world. Presumably, after
writing up his intriguing little paradox, Professor Newcomb went back to his
radiation studies and then maybe listened to a radio show about why the California
Democratic Delegation chose not to support JFK at the 1960 National Convention;
or maybe he just caught a movie. After all, even if his thought experiment was cool,
the real world doesn’t actually contain games where causality goes on holiday like
that. Maybe Pascal’s Wager, according to which it’s silly not to believe in God
once you consider the incredible benefits promised to the devout, had long been
touted as a good reason for theism, but like million dollar promises, that pie
has also always been in the sky. Going along with something just because doing
so gives you a kind of wonderful glow, is naïve, nothing but a sucker’s game. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="line-height: 150%; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 150%;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh5nLwHTYrs34lW3jTyscjvIG87IKxUP6a63kT6RkEVpW6REyeM-YmbORDcBHsMeN5eB-WBPtfbYJjHiehomNlp8--2jzlmwYbO0-MsMRqqqTlB3PtftaYXDYYYMGWFVPn3AEqDo6tvnm6_b0FSleS97N2yJ64ilXcycVsTaNpxOOgKM-B0u9w4lq2aqfs" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="222" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh5nLwHTYrs34lW3jTyscjvIG87IKxUP6a63kT6RkEVpW6REyeM-YmbORDcBHsMeN5eB-WBPtfbYJjHiehomNlp8--2jzlmwYbO0-MsMRqqqTlB3PtftaYXDYYYMGWFVPn3AEqDo6tvnm6_b0FSleS97N2yJ64ilXcycVsTaNpxOOgKM-B0u9w4lq2aqfs=w409-h222" width="409" /></a></div><br /><br /><p></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 150%;">But what about when naivety seems to make
good sense? For it seems to do so, at least in the area of medicine. Not long
ago, a neighbor of mine whose entire family had just gotten over bouts of
COVID, told me that her doctor had prescribed ivermectin to each of them. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 150%;">“Well,” I quipped, “it certainly seems to
do its job in keeping my dog free of heartworms.” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 150%;">“Oh,” she shot back with a visible
eye-roll, “the human dosage is very different. Anyhow, that drug was a
game-changer for us.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 150%;">In the area of human health—in fact, human
well-being generally—the benefits of “going along with a trusting heart” has
been well known at least since Henry K. Beecher’s 1955 publication of “The
Powerful Placebo” in <i>The Journal of the American Medical Association</i>.
Beecher’s article described the first clinical studies of something care-givers
had known for centuries: sometimes the only causal connection that is necessary
for improvement of physical symptoms seems to be faith in the healthcare
provider. Here, too, one can take the same tack as those who paradoxically
eschew the second box based on nothing but the guarantee of an ostensibly sage
prognosticator. Given the power of “wisdom” (real or imagined) it’s no surprise
that items with exotic names like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine took off as
plausible COVID remedies while the more mundane recommendations of bleach and
internal lights were, if not always scorned, at least almost universally
ignored. Sufferers want something that at least <i>sounds</i> like science—pseudo
or otherwise. And a number of studies<a href="file:///C:/Users/Owner/Documents/Philosophy/Disinformation%20and%20the%20Seductiveness%20of%20Wonder.docx#_edn1" name="_ednref1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>
indicate that we can again find two different sorts of participants in the game
who will obtain differing levels of success: the skeptics and the arguably more
credulous pragmatists. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Now it’s important to distinguish this
effect from what happens in a traditional con, where there’s no overall or
long-term benefit for the “rube” because all the real goodies go to the
sophisticate running the game. Being “fooled” is a different matter in the area
of one’s health. Just as it seems eminently sensible to choose to become an
instantaneous fat cat rather than retain a foolish pride in one’s high level of
“scientific consistency,” it also seems obviously better for a sick person to grab
an opportunity for a quick and easy return to health rather than worry overmuch
about what “Big Pharma” can or can’t prove to the satisfaction of a bunch of government
bureaucrats (who, after all, may just be pointy-headed know-it-alls or useless patronage
hires). The point is that this formerly maligned “gullibility” can reasonably
be claimed to be valuable across more domains than have been regularly
recognized—and thus, a perfectly sensible approach. And while it’s possible
that a bad actor might profit from a bit of hyperbole, those winnings might be
swamped by benefits either to the alleged “greenhorn” or to the community at
large. So, it’s a mistake to treat my neighbor’s choice as analogous to a Ponzi
scheme being perpetrated on an unsuspecting lamb.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="line-height: 150%; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 150%;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEifprr4gWWeqYv4hWoaj0fxmwxanxyA_fJXddKPt4EGzx5m4CcAHgu2bLsvTwhhWhtPwxCGSzyOCIJgaeA_DWVeO_bpcPV9CMMM3YygmToZ9N0C2BII2Ahe6vU81Oy6SxKhAGIUgsuekJMlPWqIA6edHH8Y8BnHsVkb9ts0Wf_XhEDpX0SZzrv-vxZsgUs" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="700" data-original-width="1400" height="247" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEifprr4gWWeqYv4hWoaj0fxmwxanxyA_fJXddKPt4EGzx5m4CcAHgu2bLsvTwhhWhtPwxCGSzyOCIJgaeA_DWVeO_bpcPV9CMMM3YygmToZ9N0C2BII2Ahe6vU81Oy6SxKhAGIUgsuekJMlPWqIA6edHH8Y8BnHsVkb9ts0Wf_XhEDpX0SZzrv-vxZsgUs=w442-h247" width="442" /></a></div><br /><br /><p></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Consider a few other areas where this sort
of effect can be seen. First, the movies. Perhaps many of us can recall the
reaction they had upon first learning that the movie <i>Fargo </i>(1996) wasn’t
really based on actual murders in North Dakota, as is stoutly claimed in its
opening moments.<a href="file:///C:/Users/Owner/Documents/Philosophy/Disinformation%20and%20the%20Seductiveness%20of%20Wonder.docx#_edn2" name="_ednref2" style="mso-endnote-id: edn2;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> Director
Joel Coen’s thinking was clearly that the film would be more effective if it
proclaimed that it was based on events that really occurred. He likely thought,
“Hey, it’s a movie, and movies are allowed to be fictional, so it doesn’t
matter whether it’s true when this particular one claims it <i>isn’t </i>fiction.”
I myself felt a sort of betrayal when I found out about that move, but it was
wedded to a kind of vertigo, because I couldn’t deny that Coen was right. The
movie really <i>was</i> more effective because I bought the lie that it was a
docudrama. So the disinformation didn’t just benefit the movie-makers. And, many
will ask, what’s the harm? If anyone is terribly interested, they can just look
it up and they’ll find out exactly how much actual truth there was in Coen’s
grisly story. If it turns out that there was even less than found in the
Hollywood telling of Butch Cassidy’s life, so what? Maybe the truth-stretching film
makes more money, but that’s because moviegoers have benefited from increased
astonishment. Who is hurt? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="line-height: 150%; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 150%;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgETbq2r24YWcGB3I_iQd1QNEAumlMmdsftzoJuSRiX7uFRR7qRitqepfJUoZlYVwjvaUm-ucY7vS8wo-7idz2IGyoab-ycm8wF04WWvzph_13e0V9evYsH6lQBVUJojo62P_EoctuYf8mpEHndUxmmyoRDOO8CDDYxUQ3OKAfmetQkNCof0wVxrNMWn8I" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="689" data-original-width="1024" height="290" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgETbq2r24YWcGB3I_iQd1QNEAumlMmdsftzoJuSRiX7uFRR7qRitqepfJUoZlYVwjvaUm-ucY7vS8wo-7idz2IGyoab-ycm8wF04WWvzph_13e0V9evYsH6lQBVUJojo62P_EoctuYf8mpEHndUxmmyoRDOO8CDDYxUQ3OKAfmetQkNCof0wVxrNMWn8I=w431-h290" width="431" /></a></div><br /><br /><p></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Next, consider a modest institution which,
since its founding in 1988, has been considered a paragon of harmless wonder
generation via its clever use of “the little white lie.” I’m referring to an
odd storefront attraction just northwest of the Culver City section of Los
Angeles called “The Museum of Jurassic Technology.” If the place remains a bit
too eccentric to categorize even after a visit or two, an engaging book<a href="file:///C:/Users/Owner/Documents/Philosophy/Disinformation%20and%20the%20Seductiveness%20of%20Wonder.docx#_edn3" name="_ednref3" style="mso-endnote-id: edn3;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>
by Lawrence Wechsler about the museum and its brilliant originator and continuing
curator, David Wilson, may help. Wechsler seems to start out sharing my bewilderment
at Wilson’s systematic doling out of cloudy but convincing half-truths, but he
ends up lionizing the exhibitor for his appreciation and effective use of wonder<i>.
</i>Among Wilson’s most baffling creations are a couple of quite believable but
entirely fabricated pseudo-scientists. One, called Geoffrey Sonnabend, is
supposed to have written a three-volume tome on the mechanism of memory while
he was a faculty member at Northwestern University in the 1940s. Sonnabend’s
“plane-and-cone theory of obliscence” doesn’t seem <i>that </i>crazy once one spends
a bit of time deciphering the framed diagrammatic models on the museum wall,
and even if it <i>is</i> a bit cuckoo, lots of weird hypotheses have been
proposed over the years by quack “scientists”—especially those focusing on “the
mind.” Both Sonnabend’s speculations and his personal history are admittedly vague
and quite bizarre, but how much midcentury American neurophysiology is a casual
museum visitor supposed to have at her fingertips? And what is unreasonable to imagine
about the effects scholarly obsessions might have on a sensitive, middle-aged
psychologist? After all, Sonnabend (in common with the absolutely non-fictional
German scientist, Gustave Fechner, by the way) was said to have suffered a
severe nervous breakdown prior to coming up with his off-kilter theory. And isn’t
our faculty of memory mysterious by its very nature? I mean, what, exactly is
“the past,” anyhow? If it doesn’t exist anymore, how can we manage to have
access to it? If facts are weird, why can’t they have equally weird
explanations and explainers?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Wilson’s museum is piled high with such
stuff—much of it poorly lit and purposely askew. One exhibit may cause us to
reflect that, while we are quite sure that the breath of a duck has never cured
a single human ailment of any kind, we aren’t quite so certain that no
now-crumbling witchcraft book (maybe a Bulgarian one?) ever suggested the
effectiveness of such a cure. Is Wilson’s duck breath display approvably
“historical” if what it claims <i>can</i> be found in a suitably old or exotic
book? Is it enough that some person or group <i>did</i> once believe in the
duck breath cure? If the bogus Professor Sonnabend is a sufficiently reasonable
facsimile of actual pseudo-scientists to make for a legitimate museum exhibit, maybe
it’s also enough that some person or group <i>might </i>have believed (in the
now “obliscent” past) that the breath of a duck was curative for ague or quinsy.
So why fight the delicious experience enabled by our ingenuousness, no matter
how naïve it makes us seem? Who is the buzz-kill who would fault anyone merely for
exhibiting a childlike innocence? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Wechsler quotes Einstein’s remark that
“The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious….Whoever does not
know it can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his
eyes are dimmed.”<a href="file:///C:/Users/Owner/Documents/Philosophy/Disinformation%20and%20the%20Seductiveness%20of%20Wonder.docx#_edn4" name="_ednref4" style="mso-endnote-id: edn4;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>
Wechsler adds that Wilson’s attitude seems to be that the “delicious confusion”
produced by a visit to the Museum of Jurassic Technology “may constitute the
most blessedly wonderful thing about being human” (p. 51).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Well, I can’t deny that the place is<i> </i>a
kick. But is there really no societal cost at all associated with shrouding the
very idea of truth in an everlasting ambiguity? Everyone knows that cheap and
widespread dissemination of what is now widely called “disinformation” is available
nearly everywhere today, and this fact is seen by some as being an existential
danger to civil society. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="line-height: 150%; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 150%;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh_-HoLAc0YxfdQgMp1awJzc7uJ_QQjbT6NT1u5aMop3k_sUA1WWMQrTGwg0G8TBc3hun5DNGAPCJwWmbjHxA4NSZd8-WxhweRwU_5m7CHPA1sGL6uzwe3w9T4_L-z1ZLcLJE6lQqBswbmUtzkX6QTCC08V8jLZEd8wF5WD-q4OskM8Kxxy0C6XcldQnTk" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="239" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh_-HoLAc0YxfdQgMp1awJzc7uJ_QQjbT6NT1u5aMop3k_sUA1WWMQrTGwg0G8TBc3hun5DNGAPCJwWmbjHxA4NSZd8-WxhweRwU_5m7CHPA1sGL6uzwe3w9T4_L-z1ZLcLJE6lQqBswbmUtzkX6QTCC08V8jLZEd8wF5WD-q4OskM8Kxxy0C6XcldQnTk=w425-h239" width="425" /></a></div><br /><br /><p></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 150%;">It certainly can’t be disputed that a lot
of new work on disinformation is currently being published. In fact, I’ve
reviewed a few books on that matter myself.<a href="file:///C:/Users/Owner/Documents/Philosophy/Disinformation%20and%20the%20Seductiveness%20of%20Wonder.docx#_edn5" name="_ednref5" style="mso-endnote-id: edn5;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>
One recent one I had been intending to write something about caused me to think
more about a possible connection between the accommodation of an (apparently
innocent) wonder and the known dangers of “fake news.” It was the late David
Graeber’s final published work, <i>Pirate Enlightenment, or the Real Libertalia.</i>
Graeber was an anthropologist, but is probably at least as well known for being
a firebrand anarchist, and as I began to read, I realized that the book was at
least as much activism as it was anthropology. My interest in this work
centered on the author’s claims about the effects on enlightenment thinking produced
by certain democratic experiments allegedly taking place in several early 18<sup>th</sup>
Century pirate kingdoms in Madagascar. But it wasn’t long before I began to
suspect that a significant portion of Graeber’s history was based on wishful
thinking. His goal was to credit such “great utopian experiments” as
Libertalia, a storied pirate republic, for certain egalitarian and democratic
ideas that would later be found in the works of Montesquieu, Voltaire, and
other enlightenment figures. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 150%;">To be fair, Graeber explicitly admits that
there’s never been much evidence for Libertalia’s existence. But he nevertheless
believed that white, male Europeans have taken far too much credit for the
intellectual breakthroughs of the 18<sup>th</sup> Century, and he noticed that the
description of Libertalia in the 1724 <i>General History of the Pyrates </i>(by
one “Captain Charles Johnson”) depicts a much more diverse origin for majority
rule, equal rights for women, the jury system, decent treatment of laborers,
and so on. Furthermore, Graeber argued that even if Libertalia was entirely
made up, there were certainly other pirate collectives around at that time,
some of them in Madagascar (and thus possibly infused with multi-racial and
women-dominated institutions) that could reasonably be inferred to have had
significant influence on Enlightenment thinking.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Naturally, most of Graeber’s readers will share
with me the characteristic of having no knowledge whatever of what was
happening around the Indian Ocean and its islands during the early 1700s. Given
this ignorance, what attitude should readers take toward Graeber’s assertions
about the intellectual origins of modern democracy? Suppose we do what it was
suggested above that <i>Fargo </i>skeptics do: perform a little independent
research. For example, we could pick up <i>The General History of the Pyrates </i>ourselves
and skim a few chapters to see what strikes <i>us </i>as plausible. If that’s
our tack, the first thing we’re likely to notice while hunting around for a copy
of the book, is that about half of the numerous available versions will be
attributed to Daniel Defoe, the author of <i>Robinson Crusoe</i>, while the
rest won’t mention Defoe at all, but instead give the author as Captain
Johnson. So, perhaps, we will move on to Wikipedia and see what the (possibly
self-appointed) experts there say about Libertalia. There we will find a
thorough description and history of the community’s supposed leader, a certain
Captain Misson, but will encounter no mention of Defoe’s possible pseudonymous authorship
of the story. If we continue our investigation by looking at the Wiki pages for
both Defoe and <i>The General History of Pyrates</i>,<i> </i>we will see that
there is no evidence for Libertalia besides what can be found in that book, which,
since the 1930s has almost unanimously been held to have been written by Defoe.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Does that settle matters? Not at all! We
will also discover that the most recent, detailed scholarship absolutely denies
that Defoe could have known enough about the geography of Madagascar to have
been the writer. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 150%;">It's all a bit dizzying, but, like the
other examples given above, Graeber’s thesis was partly dependent on the
accepting spirit of his readers. He had a point that he believed was important,
and it was one that he knew could be more effectively made if certain questionable
facts were quietly assumed to be in evidence. This is not to suggest that he should
be thought of as cruelly taking advantage of his readers. He was simply moved
by what he took to be an important thesis that could make the world better if somebody
would successfully advance it. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Suppose he was right. Let’s say we agree
that women, blacks, and Muslims have never gotten the credit they deserve for
intellectual advances in the West. We might then try to defend his maneuver by
noting that, in addition to righting that wrong, it is no worse than that of the
ivermectin prescriber, Newcomb’s perfect predictor, or the inventor of a
counterfeit murderer or midwestern neurophysiologist for purposes of
entertainment. What is gained, we might ask, by being overly scrupulous? After
all, sometimes the facts are simply impossible to obtain no matter how persnickety
we are. We know, for example, that it’s very unlikely that any new information
about Malagasy pirate societies will be unearthed in the foreseeable future. Can’t
we just go with our gut and allow society to reap the benefits? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 150%;">I don’t think so. It rather seems to me
that the feeling of seasickness produced by a combination of an obstinate
inability to discern the actual facts of some matter with a representation by
an advocate (even one with whose societal goals we find congenial) is a warning
that we should take seriously. It provides us with a good reason <i>not</i> to just
go on. Well, what is my argument for this harsh position? How did what seemed
to have been attitudes of innocent altruism suddenly turn into cases of
culpable negligence? The answer is that times have changed dramatically since
Beecher and Newcomb published the works for which they are now remembered—indeed,
even since Coen may have reasoned that troubled viewers could just “look it up.”
The fact is, we’re in a much more precarious world now than we were even a
decade ago. Today, AI might be responsible for the design and composition of
every person who can be seen cheering in a political advertisement (or beer
commercial<a href="file:///C:/Users/Owner/Documents/Philosophy/Disinformation%20and%20the%20Seductiveness%20of%20Wonder.docx#_edn6" name="_ednref6" style="mso-endnote-id: edn6;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-font-kerning: 0pt; mso-ligatures: none;">[6]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>),
and ChatGPT may, in a single minute, have written every paper that some hapless
English Literature professor is now dutifully grading. Rather than involving a quaint
“Jurassic” description of the intent of an obscure (if even real!) Danish monarch
to suppress a group of bashful artisans who are claimed to be capable of carving
incredibly intricate pieces of controversial art onto cherry pits, the
conspiracies now may concern the drinking of children’s blood by members of a large
political party in the basement of a Washington, D.C. pizza shop. While both indictments
might harm the falsely accused, an incredibly wide distribution of nonsense is
now so inexpensive, so easy, that the perils are unimaginably greater. No one
is—or was ever—likely to bring a car full of weaponry to threaten the (real or
imagined) former Danish King because of his allegedly severe treatment of a commune
of (possible) artists. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="line-height: 150%; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 150%;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgjTEMWu-VXtcBvtsM8Ijx-RCOXXdVb-8Ktqr_1a8XIkX2-98IlVIKxiq940AxquB_JmhFcoJzJKj0qnpA45HKEV79PwINaoV0xjOoYFlLuFMlnVyNOns946oNBYEzlZjV_nYS_DvrwR5cC8XPTr5CIcAUKBCLs3jlCa5FtWVlbbhjeWJf8Y7Dmq_XrfFI" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1456" data-original-width="2059" height="226" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgjTEMWu-VXtcBvtsM8Ijx-RCOXXdVb-8Ktqr_1a8XIkX2-98IlVIKxiq940AxquB_JmhFcoJzJKj0qnpA45HKEV79PwINaoV0xjOoYFlLuFMlnVyNOns946oNBYEzlZjV_nYS_DvrwR5cC8XPTr5CIcAUKBCLs3jlCa5FtWVlbbhjeWJf8Y7Dmq_XrfFI" width="320" /></a></div><br /><br /><p></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 150%;">It’s just different now. Many of us wake
up each day to find our email inboxes filled with fantastic proclamations about
the war Biden has secretly declared on China or a stunning proof of Trump’s murder
of three of his former mistresses. We may even see something suggesting that Q believes
we’ll all be enslaved by Venusian Democrats in precisely one month’s time. In
today’s political and technological environment, there simply seems to be a newly
born duty of increased diligence. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 150%;">Does this mean we should now refuse the
million-dollar box and laugh off any nutritional supplement not backed by a
double-blind study? Not necessarily. The moral may be only that we need to be increasingly
skeptical of assurances, and not just those regarding past winners of games
like Newcomb’s or that are made by people supposedly cured by a newly hyped
supplement. We need also to be generally wary of those making the most
“wonderful” political promises and charges of “incredible” evildoing. Some of
this work is easy and arguably has no real-world consequences. Consider “Do we
really know that the chooser of the single box always got more money in the
past? What’s the evidence for that wildly counterintuitive claim?” There’s no
hard lifting there, and no one is likely to get angry at us for asking. But others
are much trickier: “Who is funding the marketing for the drug or political prognosticator?
Is there any reasonably impartial science that supports your allegation? Are
there really no dangers associated with taking your word for this without
evidence?” Of course, sometimes the matter at hand will be deeply vague and
uncertain. There just may not be any sufficiently impartial experts who can be relied
on to provide the authorship and degree of truthfulness of a particular history
book or who really grasp <i>what Republicans are currently thinking about
abortion</i> or <i>how Democrats really feel about immigration.</i> In such
cases, it may be better to withhold our judgment completely rather than just go
on—which would be to go off half-cocked. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 150%;">In modern capitalistic democracies, every
voter and every consumer is thought to be in a position of (at least a teensy
bit of) power. That means that reliable information is essential if we aren’t
going to make an even worse mess of the world than we have already. And as we
have this morsel of power both to vote and purchase, there’s little doubt that
if an interested person or group sees a way to alter our preferences through
the use of wondrous untruths, they will try to do so. In a word, we need to
understand that wonder is sublimely seductive, and the modern world makes it
extremely easy to partake of items that are <i>almost</i> too amazing to be
believed. So, in these CGI times, we should try to keep in mind that hard
evidence and truth have deeper, longer-lasting value even than such glorious
marvels as are most wondrous to behold.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div style="mso-element: endnote-list;"><!--[if !supportEndnotes]--><br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><a href="file:///C:/Users/Owner/Documents/Philosophy/Disinformation%20and%20the%20Seductiveness%20of%20Wonder.docx#_ednref1" name="_edn1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> <span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">See, e.g., Zhou,
Wei, et al, “<span style="color: #212121;">The Influence of Expectancy Level and
Personal Characteristics on Placebo Effects: Psychological Underpinnings” in <i>Frontiers
in Psychiatry</i> (2019; 10:20).</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="edn2" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><a href="file:///C:/Users/Owner/Documents/Philosophy/Disinformation%20and%20the%20Seductiveness%20of%20Wonder.docx#_ednref2" name="_edn2" style="mso-endnote-id: edn2;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> I understand that
the 1974 <i>Chainsaw Massacre </i>also falsely claimed to be based on real
crimes.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="edn3" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><a href="file:///C:/Users/Owner/Documents/Philosophy/Disinformation%20and%20the%20Seductiveness%20of%20Wonder.docx#_ednref3" name="_edn3" style="mso-endnote-id: edn3;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> <i>Mr Wilson’s
Cabinet of Wonder </i>(1995).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="edn4" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><a href="file:///C:/Users/Owner/Documents/Philosophy/Disinformation%20and%20the%20Seductiveness%20of%20Wonder.docx#_ednref4" name="_edn4" style="mso-endnote-id: edn4;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> <i>Ideas and
Opinions </i>(1954).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="edn5" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><a href="file:///C:/Users/Owner/Documents/Philosophy/Disinformation%20and%20the%20Seductiveness%20of%20Wonder.docx#_ednref5" name="_edn5" style="mso-endnote-id: edn5;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> See, for example
the reviews of books by Sophia Rosenfeld, Rick Hasen, and Lani Watson here: </span><a href="https://www.3-16am.co.uk/articles/.c/a-hornbook-of-democracy-book-reviews"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">https://www.3-16am.co.uk/articles/.c/a-hornbook-of-democracy-book-reviews</span></a><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="edn6" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoEndnoteText"><a href="file:///C:/Users/Owner/Documents/Philosophy/Disinformation%20and%20the%20Seductiveness%20of%20Wonder.docx#_ednref6" name="_edn6" style="mso-endnote-id: edn6;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[6]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Geja6NCjgWY" target="_blank"><span style="background: white; color: darkblue; font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Geja6NCjgWY</span></a><span style="font-family: "Goudy Old Style",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>waltohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06597500868065913461noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961934417048864252.post-58608386563034872422023-12-25T16:22:00.001-05:002023-12-25T16:22:54.963-05:0050 Ways To Leave Democracy<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgA8qdi9lTz2yGRnqs2mFdqPGpyJIbqigl-Qct1PSxIPG8WV0t9KeB_R4mAhtxB-mFbhgoZ9V2sZAXyAqNPDqfqqvBbWfmH6_TaOneYhImpoWym3zMPpeyxfDCOYYVJtEo_GmtcqUpEmSzl7xevHLVEwzMi-q45mg0v4P19_fNQRTL4_zOoKTkYR9Ffyzg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-size: x-large; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj1RyzzhFcnjPF7JwV3RPnqHsKLhczmatHrDEkJYR6Izvj18dcRWp2gJAcUcgabIuLcMZI4rPP5Z7rJjFmKLL4Z32cs5zkQPLTqvLEqWmTJcReyryrFiNK3TuSstV-SNwdTsI4qOpo5U7igWlUONJ6VUWeTdqownyas8noktdmVKEf2YHHUKNvejM7AFis" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1024" data-original-width="1024" height="411" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj1RyzzhFcnjPF7JwV3RPnqHsKLhczmatHrDEkJYR6Izvj18dcRWp2gJAcUcgabIuLcMZI4rPP5Z7rJjFmKLL4Z32cs5zkQPLTqvLEqWmTJcReyryrFiNK3TuSstV-SNwdTsI4qOpo5U7igWlUONJ6VUWeTdqownyas8noktdmVKEf2YHHUKNvejM7AFis=w352-h411" width="352" /></a></div><br /><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-family: Kalam; font-size: xx-large;">MAYBE, BUT ALSO MAYBE NOT</span></div></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /><span style="text-align: left;">I suppose if you see a title suggesting there are an awful lot of ways people can (or maybe do?) fail to be "good democrats," you will expect a political rant about, I don't know, a spineless Congress, or corrupt Judiciary, or the crappiness of the U.S. Constitution, or gerrymandering, or the Electoral College, or winner-take-all elections, or the lack or proportional representation, or whatever. [Maybe you see that title and think, </span><i style="text-align: left;">OK, maybe I should be giving more money to some group or other or be going door to door for some stainless candidate. But I'll just stop reading this if Horn is going to rant at me--it's supposed to be the most wonderful time of the year. Anyhow, screw him. He can fix his own house first! I'll watch some football and he can lecture his dog and cat.</i><span style="text-align: left;">] </span></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I mean, most people reading this blog wouldn't deny that pretty much any item on the above list--and a ton of other important things mentioned in the news every day--could be the subject of a Walto blog rant. Hell, I <i>have</i> posted harangues along those lines on more than one occasion.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But I don't think there's much new growth in that vineyard. The whole patch is overrun with deadly weeds that will likely kill us all before we know it. There are plenty of pundits worrying out loud on TV and the web about an imminent Trump dictatorship. Most of these pundits seem to me quite correct in so worrying, but their ubiquity seems to make it pointless for me to blather on about the same subjects myself. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>Anyhow, let's just agree, even for the sake of argument, that what's called democracy in the U.S. i</span><span>s already pretty bad and going downhill fast. I do think that anybody who disagrees with more than one or two of the facts mentioned above is a bad excuse for a democrat; if, for example, you're a worshipper of the U.S. Constitution, my take is that you are actually <i>afraid of democracy</i> rather than an exponent of it. But whatever; that's not my subject today. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I have a particular democratic failure of a much different kind in mind that I want to prattle about at present. My intended object is, at least mainly, those who hold one or two philosophical positions, positions that one may not think of in connection with political theory. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>And, however Grinchy I may seem on this Xmas day, I'm also not interested in fighting with everybody who disagrees with me on the value of democracy. I mean, there are a handful of present-day philosophers who are willing to say out loud that they don't support democracy. Maybe they think that the general electorate is too dumb or uninformed to be given the power to make rules for everybody who lives near them. As I said, I don't want to have a go at that group either--at least not today. To be honest, I'm kind of impressed that these anti-democrats have the guts to push for <i>epistocracy</i> [government by the wise] publicly, since the idea of "self-government" (you know, something that's both <i>of the people and by the people </i>and has "no taxation without representation, goddammit!")<i> </i>is accepted by nearly everybody nowadays, much like automobiles or microwave ovens or electric guitars. I'm aiming at people who probably <i>say </i>they support democracy, but have philosophical views that are inconsistent with such advocacy. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>So, what is this failure that I'm on about, and who are these alleged democratic poseurs already? L</span><span>et me try to put this as clearly as I can. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>I take it that i</span><span>t's people who hold any one of these (or any combination them):</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>1. The position that what's good for persons or groups has nothing to do with what anybody wants or likes, that it may even be a strictly scientific question, a function of how much the items foster individual or group "flourishing." This might be assessed by, say, measurements of life expectancy in some jurisdiction, or levels of income and its "fair distribution," the availability of open spaces, amounts of pollution, crime, infant mortality, availability of top notch, low cost health care, and/or other such arguably objective and determinable items. </b>(I suggest we call these folks "objective-list theorists." <i>While I take my own position on well-being, "CHOICE Voluntarism," also to be an objective position, it's a function of what people freely choose, not what's good for them whether they want it or not.</i>)</span></p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;">AND/OR</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>2. The position that elections should be ditched in favor of <i>Sortition</i>, which involves picking leaders by lottery instead. And a leader lottery exists whether or not the group from which leaders may be picked is narrowed down by education level, vocational testing, identity group, or prior experience of those in the pool.</b> (I will refer to this view as "Sortitionism" and such "election denialists" as Sortitionists.")</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;">AND/OR</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span>3. T</span><span>he position that democracy should be supported only because there's nothing clearly better around that can be feasibly used. Maybe someone thinks a wise person or group (or AI device) would be better in theory, but realizes that there'd be so much opposition that the populace (unfortunately) has to be allowed to vote. Or maybe</span></span><span style="font-weight: bold;"> they think there's some other sort of utility case that can be made for democratic </span><b>governance. </b>(I will call this group "reluctant democrats," since they really would prefer something else, if getting it were feasible. it. For them, Winston Churchill was absolutely right about democracy being a bad system but the best there is anyhow.)</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>****************************</b></span></p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: PT Sans Narrow; font-size: large;">FULL DISCLOSURE/<i>MEA CULPA</i></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: PT Sans Narrow; font-size: large;"><i> I want to admit straightaway that I could (and should) have made the point I'm trying to make here in my book, </i>Democratic Theory Naturalized<i>. In a particularly (and arguably too) dense and complicated chapter--one of the two focused on prudential values--I list a bunch of advantages of my own theory of well-being , a view I call "CHOICE Voluntarism." I there mention as that position's virtues: anti-paternalism, value-naturalism, explanatory depth, and the possibility it provides of possibly allowing for the eventual objective calculation of the well-being of individuals and groups. The problem is not only that the last supposed benefit ought to have either been left out or explained more clearly, but also (and more importantly ) that I didn't mention the most important virtue CHOICE Voluntarism provides: being the only position that's consistent with a foundational (i.e., not just utilitarian) demand for self-government. Not mentioning this key point in a book on democracy was obviously a serious error. That's why I'm taking this matter up here. It's not just that it's Xmas.</i></span></p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>************************</b></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b><br /></b></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">I'll take up Sortitionism first. Let me start by noting that I am sympathetic with many of the reasons brought up by its backers and the goals they seek. Sortitionists don't like negative or misleading electioneering, campaign finance inequities, the power of incumbency, and various other well-known problems connected either with elections or government by elected officials or both. They seek to eliminate these problems simply by doing away with elections completely and instead picking leaders by lot. </span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">However, I contend that they are throwing out the baby (democracy) with the bath water (election problems). They will likely deny this and claim that, in any case, the earliest democracies in ancient Greece used sortition rather than elections. To some extent, then, this is no more than a definitional dispute--with each side preferring a different meaning for the word "democracy." I would suggest extricating ourselves from that battle by not using the word in contention at all, and switching to "self-government." I take it that self-government must require the citizenry getting who it wants for its leaders. If Sortitionists want to take the (to my mind odd position) that self-governed polities are not democracies, they can do so and I will be satisfied in simply noting (loudly) that Sortitionists oppose self-government. They don't want to allow the people to get what they want, but will rather impose upon polities leaders whom the majority very likely does not want--because, they say, it's good for them. If you want to join these theorists in calling sortition true democracy, you can do so, but I don't see in what way it's much different from seeking an allegedly wise "philosopher king" to make all the laws and execute them.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">Sortitionism is, of course, closely related to --because it's a suggested way of implementing--objective list theory. That is, Sortionists are quite likely to hold, independently of the election problems mentioned above, that we would have better leaders than we have if we selected them in some other way than by asking an electorate who they'd like to have as their leaders. Well, what would make these leaders who are chosen by lot "better"? According to the Sortitionist, too many elections end up with leaders who do the wrong things, like distributing income unfairly or starting wars or giving short shrift to free health care. In other words, these theorists believe there is a true list of what's good for societies that may be entirely unconnected to what the citizens actually want. Some people just know better. Like Maslow.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">It should be easy to see, then, that both 1. and 2. above are much more consistent with autocracy than with democracy (at least insofar as the latter term is understood as requiring self-government). </span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">That just leaves the reluctant democrats of paragraph 3. Those are the folks that will say, "OK, we <i>do </i>have to have elections because nobody wants to return to a monarchy or let some other person, group or super computer run a place just because somebody insists those leaders would do the right thing for everybody better than anybody (or anything) else could. But this reluctance is just a function of there not being any good way to get these actually wise leaders in power. There would surely be fights about which leader would be best. Or, again, reluctant democrats might concede that science isn't as far along as Maslow or other objective list theorists think, meaning that it might still be best to ask people what they'd like their governments to do. Either way, on their view, even if democratic systems are the best we can do--for the present anyhow--they still stink.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">I take it that none of those three positions is actually supportive of self-government, but I'd be willing to bet that most philosophers and political theorists who support either objective list theories of well-being or sortition don't realize that their views necessarily make them hostile to authentic democracy. </span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">Well, what I say is: <i>Authentic democracy has enough enemies as it is. Inconsistent supporters don't actually help matters at all. So, g</i><i>et a new plan, Stan.</i></span></p>waltohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06597500868065913461noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961934417048864252.post-9380915076154865402023-12-20T20:52:00.002-05:002024-02-24T15:25:32.167-05:00Freaking "POLARISM"?!?<p style="text-align: center;"> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiHTheIjMeRXr9fVqY917Dnkp0nlr-Ozs5HqrIkpAE_cO4k33i1w2vN4qZf0nrI7aojKVQ1UFkTNIl16tihdpVmy3B_wt1mUbfx0tvywjE3ArcgnZ6b8Hy7oMfWpiMnd0-qRfFoyDlZv8u5FlmY9Pyb1r0DM6_5ujbeh1FuNaddo_r_ztK0musZVK6jdY8" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="354" data-original-width="354" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiHTheIjMeRXr9fVqY917Dnkp0nlr-Ozs5HqrIkpAE_cO4k33i1w2vN4qZf0nrI7aojKVQ1UFkTNIl16tihdpVmy3B_wt1mUbfx0tvywjE3ArcgnZ6b8Hy7oMfWpiMnd0-qRfFoyDlZv8u5FlmY9Pyb1r0DM6_5ujbeh1FuNaddo_r_ztK0musZVK6jdY8" width="240" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">So (no fewer than three years after the publication of <i>Democratic Theory Naturalized</i>), I was interviewed about my book's contents by old friend Ed Dodson, for the 99th episode of a web series called <i>Smart Talk</i>.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">Besides democracy discussion, viewers will be treated to a lot of me rocking back and forth hypnotically and some interestingly distracting reflections emanating from my glasses. But, at least for me, the best bit is right at the end, when the word "polarization" escapes me, and I settle for...um..."polarism." </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">Ah well, for whatever it's worth, you can find it <a href="https://youtu.be/zL1nyKDWI1U?si=WikukUGk0oAmreOE" style="font-weight: bold;">here</a>. I understand that when one eggs oneself this time of year, the thing to do is make egg nog (or something that at least smells a little like it.)</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">Anyhow, Happy Holidisms to all!</span></div><p></p>waltohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06597500868065913461noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961934417048864252.post-20544834580777373992023-09-30T15:35:00.000-04:002023-09-30T15:35:06.947-04:00Where's Walto on the New APSA Study on Political Parties?<p style="text-align: center;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEipxalNdm5jnVcTT_FJUbM8DOp2L6PFGGT8SrUD-Exxl0_zY4gZMScgdzP5KBHr06ZI_Cz5T1T2rTws5NXDtmM9LOCRpPz-eizBWtaPGZqu0-VPAGv8qanGlz-ad9lfcLQclSS1u9xI6xxaB9qtCnwzbvjk9CAcO90LWxaKky6X8ZpW_GPFxmTzt0hNbW8" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="194" data-original-width="259" height="325" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEipxalNdm5jnVcTT_FJUbM8DOp2L6PFGGT8SrUD-Exxl0_zY4gZMScgdzP5KBHr06ZI_Cz5T1T2rTws5NXDtmM9LOCRpPz-eizBWtaPGZqu0-VPAGv8qanGlz-ad9lfcLQclSS1u9xI6xxaB9qtCnwzbvjk9CAcO90LWxaKky6X8ZpW_GPFxmTzt0hNbW8=w433-h325" width="433" /></a></div><br /><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">As many of you probably know, the American Political Science Association just put out a report on political parties in the U.S. It contains somewhere around 15 chapters (depending on whether or not you include the Executive Summary, Foreword, Preface, Introduction, Conclusion, and Afterword as chapters). </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">Unlike APSA's 1950 report "Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System," which pushed hard for quite specific changes to the U.S. party architecture, this study is (intentionally) less single-minded. It consists of a batch of mostly interesting and relatively easy to understand papers by a variety of scholars who are not in compete agreement with one another--except about the current crisis facing American democracy. There is, for example, no unanimity on whether expansion of Ranked Choice Voting around the country would be a good thing for American democracy. At least one article here pushes that scheme for its moderating effects on candidates and office-holders, but at least one other one advises against it because it seems to weaken parties.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">The 1950 report is fairly widely seen to have been a significant factor in our current hyper-partisanship/polarization. Some will say that the APSA committee got exactly what it asked for--in trumps! But while today's Democratic and Republican parties are "sorted," they are hardly strong or responsible. We do have exactly two clearly separated parties: there are few liberal Repubs or conservative Dems to be found around the country anymore. Most of the APSA membership of 1950 would consider that a good thing. But the leadership of the 2015-16 Republican Party could not keep Donald Trump from the Presidential nomination, and that organization currently has as its "platform" <i>whatever Donald Trump happens to want at any given time.</i> It may be a fervid party, but it is hardly a strong or responsible one. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party isn't even particularly fervid about anything--except its dislike of Republicans. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">Today's APSA members generally want more than two parties and they want each to be a staunch guardian of real democracy, rather than just be focused on winning elections by any means necessary. They worry that today's parties are powerless to stem widespread autocratic impulses among the citizenry.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">Anyhow, check out my fairly lengthy review (even though I did not discuss every paper) over at<b> </b><a href="https://www.3-16am.co.uk/articles/.c/a-hornbook-of-democracy-book-reviews"><b>3:16 AM Magazine</b>.</a> And, if you'd care to, let me know what you think about it.</span></div><p></p>waltohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06597500868065913461noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961934417048864252.post-25845808695664649782023-09-14T18:53:00.007-04:002023-09-15T09:50:04.495-04:00Carl Schmitt III: For an Authentic Democrat, Who are "Friends"?<p style="text-align: center;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjG7sMGruJvs8EZGtarWUSGBYVFxzah47yy_1m3JmijeHlSfCvwoVBGNyjZUOGHbJ2zagUuEia67eC2Z9dvjiIAonQkAgX-wq6cVTezMv9iBFsamZfQ8iNvL7DBPncjFXySQRiHy1tuImGgMdHzwIoVGNJ4BNIItIdQvPSfRRIho4-Zj8RxxshSIbtFJ4o" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img alt="" data-original-height="357" data-original-width="635" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjG7sMGruJvs8EZGtarWUSGBYVFxzah47yy_1m3JmijeHlSfCvwoVBGNyjZUOGHbJ2zagUuEia67eC2Z9dvjiIAonQkAgX-wq6cVTezMv9iBFsamZfQ8iNvL7DBPncjFXySQRiHy1tuImGgMdHzwIoVGNJ4BNIItIdQvPSfRRIho4-Zj8RxxshSIbtFJ4o" width="320" /></span></a></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /> </span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">From the moment that Carl Schmitt got cozy with the National Socialist Party in pre-WWII Germany, it has been nearly impossible to separate his famous "Friend-Enemy" distinction from a virulent anti-Semitism according to which, from the perspective of "real Germans," Jews should be seen as "others": worthless--but nevertheless dangerous--<i>enemies</i>. Of course, the fact that Schmitt did occasionally exhibit loathing both for individual Jews and Jewishness in general can't help but reinforce that idea. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But the claim that any sound democratic theory depends on something like an <i>Us</i> versus <i>Them</i> picture is hard to refute. It is intuitive that only some people should be allowed to vote and make laws, and that others should have no piece of that authority. It might be thought that this privilege is just a matter of where one lives (or has lived for a while), but maybe that's not enough. Back in the 1870s, Ferdinand Tonnies divided the civilized world into two basic groups: forthright, family-centric, communitarian country folk on one side and a more atomistic/selfish, cunning urban elite on the other. The two groups didn't seem to him like they consisted of the same <i>people. </i>And before Tonnies, (the sainted) John Locke didn't seem to care a whit how long native Americans had resided in the new world or how recently the sons of England had gotten there: no "natural rights" could ever pertain to "savages"!<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Today, many "liberals" are willing to sweetly intone that <i>all men are brothers </i>(and even include various non-males in their hymn), but may not agree on which of their many brethren (and maybe sisters) should be entitled to voting rights. Not babies and toddlers certainly; maybe not teens and pre-teens. (Vivek Ramaswamy is in favor of raising the voting age to 25--a bar some may suggest he only recently conquered himself). There are also differences of opinion regarding voting rights for felons, ex-felons, and the aged or demented. And the specifics of residency requirements are commonly contested as well. It may be worth noting in this context that at a recent Republican debate, Ron De Santis suggested to abundant applause that many Mexicans deserve nothing more than to be rendered "stone cold dead" for setting foot in Florida. But as all these issues are discussed at length in my book, I won't take them up here.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But I do want to mention here that humanness might be thought unnecessary as well as insufficient for voting status. For example, in her recent book on political legitimacy, Fabienne Peter makes correctness, or at least satisfactory epistemic standing, necessary--and perhaps sufficient too--for a vote to be counted. She is concerned that if a substantial portion of people continue to get issues like global warming wrong, everybody might die. So she joins long-standing paternalists and anti-government types like Jason Brennan in claiming that some folks may just be too stupid or ignorant to be allowed to have any authority over the rest of us. My point here is that if correctness is key, it might be best to give the wise and beneficent non-human visitor depicted in <i>The Day the Earth Stood Still </i>or a disinterested digital brainiac like ChatGPT <i>all</i> the votes. If democracy means that votes should be counted only if they're not <i>wrong</i> (or are at least sufficiently evidenced), we might better turn things completely over to the extremely wise. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The danger with that approach, as depicted in M.T. Anderson's <i>Landscape With Invisible Hand </i>(soon to be a television series!) is that extra-terrestrials might be very intelligent but only <i>seem </i>to be benevolent. In Anderson's engaging book, the alien Vuvv, who may resemble granite tables but can outcompete human beings at pretty much everything, are quick to share their advanced tech with us lowlifes, but end up turning humankind into a fairly complacent colony of impoverished idolators whose main purpose becomes the entertainment of their overlords. The Vuvv may be correct about everything, but it seems clear that they are unlikely to cast any votes that might benefit <i>us</i> if it isn't even more good for <i>them. </i>It seems clear that Anderson believes that those who collaborate with--or indeed suck up to--the Vuvv should be seen as pathetic turncoats who have foolishly abandoned their birthrights.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Returning to those who have always been denizens of terra firma, it's not hard to see why (perhaps Tonnie-inspired) rural Schmittians might believe that urban, globalist elites aren't sufficiently "down home" to be considered one of the "good folks" (especially if they're of the Jewish persuasion). One might say the "form of life" of those globalists is sufficiently different for them to be treated in much the same way Locke considered apt for the Onondagas: not because the city dwellers are "savages," but because "down home country decency" is simply beyond them.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Ludwig Wittgenstein famously suggested that if lions could talk we'd never understand them. In his view, Simba's radically different <i>form of life </i>must make him forever unintelligible to humans. But, of course, Native Americans and European invaders of the new world <i>did </i>learn to understand each other passably well. And ChatGPT is called a "large language model" precisely because of the lovely way it has been taught to "understand" and communicate with human beings. In the two sci-fi stories mentioned above, the aliens and earthlings, though wildly different, nevertheless seem capable of communicating with each other pretty well, either with a stern <i>Nictu barrata!</i> or some gurgles. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">So there are a bunch of choices that one might have to make if one is to be an authentic democrat. The array of options ranges all the way from ruling out everybody that annoys one in some way to including everybody who can understand what a vote does. One might constrict territories to neighborhoods or extend them to the far reaches of distant galaxies. One can even allow in non-organic computing mechanisms based solely on the possibility of reaching a perhaps weak sort of mutual understanding. One might stop anywhere on a road that stretches between the inclusion of those who are "dumb as a stick" on one end and a place requiring a lofty epistemic footing on the other. Are there answers that are more sensible than others...or is it all just a matter of picking a place we like?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Well, in a way, both. As I always say, to move forward in philosophy one has to start somewhere. My own launching pad is generally to exalt democracy and see where it takes me. But, of course, to advocate for "self-government," one needs to know what the "self" refers to in that term. Who is it, precisely, that I'm saying should get to govern themselves? Who is included, who sent off? Was Schmitt right that this is simply a question of power? While I don't specifically discuss extra-terrestrials or AI entities in my book, I think many of the relevant questions are taken up there. For example, I spend a good deal of space on territories, residence, and mental competence, so I won't go into those matters again here. But is there anything I can say about the claimed necessity of sharing a "form of life"? Put another way, wherever we land on a residency requirement, do we have to include computing machines or Vuvv visitors if they stay around long enough to meet it?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I would say No and Yes, respectively to that question. In my view, one which follows from what I call "CHOICE voluntarism," a position inspired by some fairly obscure writings of early 20th Century American philosopher Everett Hall, the only defensible basis for majoritarianism requires that each individual be granted the same value as every other, and that is a position which itself must be based on the assumption that each choice has the same value (though perhaps a different fecundity) regardless of a desire's intensity or its wisdom. This concept of choosing requires wantings, and as AI machines don't have those, they don't qualify as possible voters. In other words, they mustn't be allowed suffrage because the sort of value machines can have is only instrumental. We may be (indeed we often <i>should </i>be) interested in their recommendations, but we never have any obligation to take one. But alien life forms are different. If (i) they want things; and (ii) we can understand each other on some basic level, then if we are living together (i.e., in the same territory) we must each of us be allowed one vote. I doubt there are any better ways of distinguishing "forms of life" than Wittgenstein's language-based one, so that's what I recommend using. Thus, persons share a form of life if and only if they can learn to understand each other's languages. If we begin to include items like "comfort" or "weirdness" or "trustworthiness" among our criteria, the Schmittians (and their current anti-elitist successors) will have won the day. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>I don't know how many Vuvv visitors Anderson took to be present in his story. But if they stay around long enough, I think their votes should be counted. Furthermore, even if they do not meet the residency requirements for voting, as they are persons according to our "form of life" criterion, it's my view that no unfair discrimination (in either direction) should be countenanced. They may rise to the top economically, physically, or intellectually: that's as may be. And they may not be terribly nice. But when there are disagreements on <i>policy </i>(i.e., what we should do, not what is <i>true</i>) the majority must rule. [</span><span>I don't deny that counting votes of "compound persons" like "The Borg" or determining whether an allegedly emotionless Vulcan </span><span>like "Mr. Spock" may properly be said to </span><i>want something. </i><span>Such questions are</span><span> difficult. But, sadly,</span><span> philosophy--like other excellent things--is nearly always difficult (as well as rare).] </span><span>For the authentic democrat, it can'</span><span>t matter at all how much smarter Vuvv may be than humans. Or how weird they seem.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In sum, our Friends are those who (i) live in our territories long enough; (ii) have desires; and (iii) understand both our language and what it means to vote. They, i.e., WE together, constitute the entirety of the citizenry. <i>That is US. </i>And, at least for me, our Enemies are those who believe that they exclusively (or some other person or group they can point to) should get to make the laws because they are wiser or better or cooler or folksier or better looking or less weird or the only really good people--the only people that one really ought to trust. That is an anti-democratic, authoritarian position that I believe must be resisted at every turn.</span></p>waltohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06597500868065913461noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961934417048864252.post-32290446760445599652023-08-15T09:57:00.001-04:002023-08-15T09:57:42.612-04:00Carl Schmitt II: Two Fascinating Books on the Fall of Weimar<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIs_6lXoDBaFU1UehkRsHk0_ELLa1oIY0kqoFvX9hzoD5BKLqGn9f4yCpYASQxQdNJovKlrFORmkAlY1PZtvAaJa3HAhjgYMcjVtwm4FKQ9kjVC_PnjhAfU1spAcamAKvrxLv2z9uUHppA8q6QIlvxQTDJ_nHFWF9FMUXrwqCoxA661TY70GAxA8JKY3Y/s500/Weimar-Government-1919-e1602294028199.jpeg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="314" data-original-width="500" height="248" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIs_6lXoDBaFU1UehkRsHk0_ELLa1oIY0kqoFvX9hzoD5BKLqGn9f4yCpYASQxQdNJovKlrFORmkAlY1PZtvAaJa3HAhjgYMcjVtwm4FKQ9kjVC_PnjhAfU1spAcamAKvrxLv2z9uUHppA8q6QIlvxQTDJ_nHFWF9FMUXrwqCoxA661TY70GAxA8JKY3Y/w394-h248/Weimar-Government-1919-e1602294028199.jpeg" width="394" /></a></div></span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The incisive criticisms Schmitt aimed at both liberalism and democracy, and their role in the collapse of the 1919 Weimar Constitution and the Nazi takeover of Germany (all discussed a bit in my last post) are discussed at greater length and depth in two relatively recent books, one by David Dyzenhaus the other by William Rasch. I have reviewed them <b><a href="https://www.3-16am.co.uk/articles/david-dyzenhaus-legality-and-legitimacy-carl-schmitt-hans-kelsen-and-hermann-heller-in-weimar-william-rasch-carl-schmitt-state-and-society?c=a-hornbook-of-democracy-book-reviews">here</a></b>.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The books substantially differ in their tones. The first, <i>Legality and Legitimacy</i>, reads a bit like a carefully constructed legal brief, the second, <i>Carl Schmitt: State and Society</i> is more of an intellectual history and is somewhat more rhapsodic. However, both display impressive scholarship. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Now, there is room, in my view, both for J.S. Bach's <i>Art of the Fugue</i> and Cecil Taylor's<i> Spring of Two Blue-J's</i>. Both of those works are praiseworthy in spite of their extremely different styles. That's true of these two fascinating books on Weimar as well. However, leaving their undeniable artistic merits aside, one may ask: <i>Was either of their authors able to rehabilitate parliamentarianism after Schmitt's devastating assault?</i> Please remember that I don't claim that that was the goal of either work, or that it is generally acceptable to criticize a work for failing to reach a bar that was never sought by its creator. Nevertheless, the question of the soundness of Schmitt's critique is not only a matter of particular interest to me, but is today something that should be of prime importance to...well...everyone. So, without claiming this as a demerit of either book (after all, neither the Bach nor the Taylor does much on this front either), I feel the need to mention that I think the answer to the question of whether either book manages to restore democracy to a solid footing is NO. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But, to be honest, I'm not sure that anybody can pull that off. Because, of course, it remains quite possible that, however wrong Schmitt was about any number of things, and however disingenuous and otherwise reprehensible he was as a person, he actually DID mount unanswerable objections to both democracy and liberalism. In any case, I hope to take my own crack at a more directed response to his refutation in upcoming work on those subjects.</span></p>waltohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06597500868065913461noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961934417048864252.post-66775397080413180362023-07-07T18:24:00.015-04:002023-08-14T07:45:19.526-04:00Carl Schmitt I: The Refutations of Liberalism, Democracy, and Legal Positivism<div><span style="font-size: large;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjdckB_7wxXdSWSv1DewOHyMYgw7ycGfCueHQF0OvAZ6B3MxF6gluue06C41EUb1i2SnWF7k5oDV9h2rFASEmgBjJQEYt1Iq2ls1t1iYGbTWv-yNstbvT62rbNYRv5RcK6P3uMMTXH9ICauYlr0o0YIrZEluo1yz708g8eGLjrS-x4k2VIaMsyBuVAHDVQ" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="2172" data-original-width="1796" height="391" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjdckB_7wxXdSWSv1DewOHyMYgw7ycGfCueHQF0OvAZ6B3MxF6gluue06C41EUb1i2SnWF7k5oDV9h2rFASEmgBjJQEYt1Iq2ls1t1iYGbTWv-yNstbvT62rbNYRv5RcK6P3uMMTXH9ICauYlr0o0YIrZEluo1yz708g8eGLjrS-x4k2VIaMsyBuVAHDVQ=w323-h391" width="323" /></a> </div><br /><br /></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>For at least the last 20 years, there has been a steady flow of books about Carl Schmitt, the man sometimes referred to as "Hitler's Favorite Jurist." In fact, my desire to write a review of some recent book or another on Schmitt has been regularly stymied by the fact that there are so many interesting ones to choose from. (So, nothing <b><a href="https://www.3-16am.co.uk/articles/.c/a-hornbook-of-democracy-book-reviews">here</a> </b>yet.)</span><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">There are several reasons for this lasting fascination. First, Schmitt was both very smart and an extremely engaging writer. He could put the deepest questions surrounding democracy, the rule of law, or constitutionalism in a way that can not only be understood by the non-specialist, but that is actually as captivating as a novel. He had a particular flair for the jarring proclamation and famously started off a couple of his books with absolute corkers.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Second, he is attractive to xenophobes (including unabashed racists and anti-Semites), as well as to extremely partisan "Us vs. Them" types of many other stripes. Whether or not his signing on to Nazism and descent into explicit anti-Semitism were entirely sincere or more matters of self-protection, his division of the world into "Friends" and "Enemies" certainly makes fandom captivating for those with certain proclivities.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Third, as suggested in the first reason above, his critiques of liberalism, democracy and legal positivism are incisive and deep. Anyone wanting to hang on to some more conventional (read: "acceptable") theory of government or jurisprudence is likely to feel like they are struggling as helplessly as the Nemean Lion in Hercules' grasp. Schmitt's arguments for "decisionism" and against the effectiveness of government by norms of the Kelsenian variety are very, very good. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Schmitt argued that constitutionalism, indeed the rule of law generally, is a kind of pathetic joke. Because, after all, somebody had to make these constitutions and must continue to bless the alleged meanings of their contained provisions if they are to have any effect. Furthermore, since liberalism is animated by a certain sort of proposition, for example, that all people have the unalienable right to free speech, whatever some majority may want, it seems to be contrary to democracy. For the latter requires that the people must get what they want, and that it cannot be subservient even to glorious-sounding propositions. However, democracy has its own needs. It requires that each person be equal to every other one, at least in some extremely important respect, and that is itself a principle of liberalism--or at least an example of what is claimed to be an undeniable truth. Self-government needs equality to make sense, but it cannot itself establish it.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Such considerations may all seem pretty abstract, so consider a particular event: the creation of the U.S. Constitution, a document taken by many Americans to be a sort of divine gospel, handed down to a bunch of conventioneers gathering in Philadelphia in the late 18th Century (arguably for a little bloodless coup). It's worth noting that Schmitt would say that gang pretty much <i>had </i>to have been commissioned by the Almighty for this work, because there wasn't the slightest thing democratic about their pleas for a more powerful Congress. The Articles of Confederation (under which they presumably operated) explicitly prohibited amendment except by unanimous consent of all the states. But, after the failure of a few half-hearted attempts to revise the Articles by Charles Pinckney, the Constitutional Convention convened and simply blew the whole thing up and started over. By what right could that batch of "founders"--or anyone else not specifically sanctioned by the Articles --have produced a law with actual effect? (And, of course, the same objections may be brought against the drafters of those old Articles.)</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">A similar description would fit the birth of the Weimar Constitution ("formally promulgated" in 1919) with which Schmitt was so closely connected: as no <i>people </i>gave anyone the authority to claim that document was law (and how could they?) either such authority was granted by the heavens or was simply <i>taken </i>as if it had been<i>. </i>And in either case the drafters would have to insist on the existence of one or the other brand of authority. For Schmitt, that means that some person or group would have to make a <i>decision</i>. Even if that decision provides for an extremely democratic parliament, it can have done so only in an entirely undemocratic fashion. It must have simply taken control and winged it.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">In spite of appearances, this situation isn't essentially changed once a constitution is claimed to be in effect. Someone--a court, legislature, or executive--must be empowered to determine when its provisions are relevant, and if so, precisely what they mean. The constitution supersedes the legislature it has created only when, if, and because someone with sufficient power says it does. Even those who insist that there are moral entailments lodged within every statute and legal situation that need only to be sussed out by competent jurists, will have to admit that these "experts" must be granted the authority to find and publish these entailments as new law. Otherwise, as Hilary Putnam might say, "They're just more theory."</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">So, Schmitt concludes, no matter how imperious any legal proclamation may sound, such "norms" are no more substantial than crusty, moth-eaten papers that disintegrate into powder when touched. Somebody must always decide what is and what is not required by law.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Well then, <i>who </i>gets to decide? The people surely...but if there is disagreement (as there nearly always is), <i>which </i>people? (If we were in a majoritarian democracy, we'd have an answer to this, but alas....) Answering this question is where Schmitt's friend/enemy analysis comes into play. First of all, as may be obvious, where there are disputes, the ultimate decision-makers can only be, let's call them, "the winners," those with the ultimate power to enforce their will. And only <i>they </i>will be able to determine just who <i>they </i>are, who gets to be part of the in-group. We can know, though, that they will be united by their beliefs. Schmitt says that such unity makes them <i>friends</i>, in this sense, a homogeneous group. Those who would deny them their power are perforce their <i>enemies--</i>the "other." </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">As no norm--say, some supposed "natural law"--constrains this group of winners, they can do anything they want to do. (Not "pretty much anything they want to do" but exactly anything at all.) Their sovereign power is absolute and unlimited--to an even greater extent than Hobbes' Leviathan. It is easy to see why Schmitt's philosophy was found congenial by the Nazi Party.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">What responses can be given to Schmitt's arguments? One might try to push anarchism, which, having no interest in state power, can insist on the existence of liberal rights but agree with Schmitt that, since both norms and formal democracy are impotent, there is no way to create lawful state power through their use. Another approach would be to claim that one cannot coherently deny the truth of certain liberal norms at all. One might say, in other words, that as certain truths are "self-evident," no <i>decision </i>made in violation of any of them can be rational. That's a pretty response, certainly. Perhaps the easiest thing to do is simply call Schmitt's position reprehensible. (After all, he embraced Nazism!) Even more convenient, one might just ignore it and let things go on however they happen to be going on. Of course, that approach works best for those who are doing well as things are, those who happen to be living the dream in a limited government maintaining a liberal conception of such rights as the popularly claimed one to personal property. That blessing is, naturally, particularly inviolable as creator-endowed "rights" go.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">I myself think there is another approach that can be taken to Schmitt's quite difficult challenges. I will try to indicate its general direction in my next couple of blog posts (and, if I can ever figure out which book(s) to focus on, in my next Hornbook review at <i>3:16 AM Magazine, </i>perhaps there as well).</span></div>waltohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06597500868065913461noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961934417048864252.post-55907192100326916912023-06-24T12:16:00.000-04:002023-06-24T12:16:34.896-04:00Something I Wrote in 2019 About a Musical Analog to "A Failure to Communicate"<p><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; color: var(--primary-text);"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"></span></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjjkFXoEfWMxHANKOyqR2BEvOaXRPEN0kbPvIcXYhyrwcO3OiQbT-dNK3kADi8NboKBjNA44KtuiZvmHN2StKARh2VIVF3kPbQiUuGnsHcg7oEtWoqAltKU6YlRYqG5z_yM7QVbhV_V-ELCxjcyv6fxyodA_68Qn7bUQcC6t-3z9FD84ZODYkncaLZO7mE" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1371" data-original-width="2048" height="281" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjjkFXoEfWMxHANKOyqR2BEvOaXRPEN0kbPvIcXYhyrwcO3OiQbT-dNK3kADi8NboKBjNA44KtuiZvmHN2StKARh2VIVF3kPbQiUuGnsHcg7oEtWoqAltKU6YlRYqG5z_yM7QVbhV_V-ELCxjcyv6fxyodA_68Qn7bUQcC6t-3z9FD84ZODYkncaLZO7mE=w421-h281" width="421" /></a></span></div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><br /><br /></span><p></p><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; color: var(--primary-text);"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;">I want to say something about two of Morton Feldman's final works, <i>Piano and String Quartet </i>(1985) and<i> Piano, Violin, Viola, Cello</i> (1987). Something that, perhaps weirdly, seems to me connected with the current polarization of political thought in America.</span></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; color: var(--primary-text);"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="x1e56ztr" style="color: #050505; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u" style="background-color: #fff2cc; color: var(--primary-text); line-height: 1.3333; max-width: 100%; min-width: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;">Both the piano quartet and the piano quintet go back to the late 18th Century. In fact, both Mozart and Beethoven wrote piano quartets in 1785, exactly 200 years before Feldman published his Piano and String Quartet. I believe, though, that Feldman's two works are unlike any other pieces written with this instrumentation in one important respect: in both pieces, the strings almost never play at the same time as the piano. In all prior (and, I assume, all later) works, there is some sort of "melding," harmonization, or counterpoint between the voices. In Feldman's, the only interaction or "discussion" is a sort of confused, sometimes completely uncomprehending, statement and response. In these works the strings and the piano are entirely polarized, in different worlds, and none of the members of either group (hands or fingers in the case of the piano) "disagrees" very much with anyone within its own tribe, There may be occasional slight discrepancies in the "view" expressed by the cello as compared with that put forward by the violin, but they are generally in accord, both rhythmically and harmonically.</span></span></div><div class="x1e56ztr" style="color: #050505; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u" style="background-color: #fff2cc; color: var(--primary-text); line-height: 1.3333; max-width: 100%; min-width: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;">So, in both works, there is this utter inability to really communicate or coalesce with "others." In each one can imagine two species (or cultural groups) slowly making their way through immense chunks of time, each entirely unable to grasp what the other is doing. Bad mimicry is the extent of the "understanding."</span></span></div><div class="x1e56ztr" style="color: #050505; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u" style="background-color: #fff2cc; color: var(--primary-text); line-height: 1.3333; max-width: 100%; min-width: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;">These pieces are often called "melancholy" because of their length, slow pace, and repetitiousness. And also, of course, because of the choice of chords and timbres Feldman favored throughout his career. But to me they also seem sad because they show inherent limitations, both within individuals and groups, in getting outside oneself. For me, each work is a good musical expression of both contemporary political polarization and what can happen to the earth when species fail to understand each other.</span></span></div><div class="x1e56ztr" style="color: #050505; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u" style="background-color: #fff2cc; color: var(--primary-text); line-height: 1.3333; max-width: 100%; min-width: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;">That is what the two pieces seem to me to have in common. There are differences too, however. The earlier and more aptly named Piano and String Quartet is, to me, quite difficult to listen to because the piano plays nothing whatever except single, upward-flowing arpeggios, separated by whatever (usually harmonics) chord the strings respond with. After about five minutes, I want to stick a pencil through both of my eardrums--especially when I remember that the piece will go on like this for over an hour. Each group here has nothing much to say: it is the incomprehension between ocean waves (at low tide) and a piece of sea glass that's stuck in the sand. Maybe this music could be background for those who find it relaxing while reading or trying to fall asleep, but I don't think one can really attend to it. I can't, anyhow. It's just irritating.</span></span></div><div class="x1e56ztr" style="color: #050505; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u" style="background-color: #fff2cc; color: var(--primary-text); line-height: 1.3333; max-width: 100%; min-width: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;">The later piece is very different in that regard. While there is again a ton of repetition, there is the sort of variety one can find on Fox News or CNN broadcasts or within a batch of various canines. They are again stuck in their separate, inviolable boxes, but are not really one-note Johnnies--at least to those who can "get" their spiels. Here, the name of the work is (I bet intentionally) misleading. They are not individual voices--piano, violin, viola, cello at all. Rather they are two groups again, but now, not entirely homogeneous. Each has become inherently interesting, even in its stubborn isolation from all other groups.</span></span></div><div class="x1e56ztr" style="color: #050505; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs x1xmvt09 x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u" style="background-color: #fff2cc; color: var(--primary-text); line-height: 1.3333; max-width: 100%; min-width: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-break: break-word;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;">Anyhow, I think it is a great masterpiece, and a fitting swansong to Feldman's incredible legacy. You can listen to it <b><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9gNrEUBPu8">here</a></b></span></span></div>waltohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06597500868065913461noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961934417048864252.post-79941783573182888722023-06-09T09:22:00.006-04:002023-06-12T17:28:20.333-04:00Which Views are Sensible, Which Off the Wall?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjSNi9s27NbmLxpU5VpKLeWwWUkaEeaRYXUwBivh9cThQE0yKNLNZ4zseBpx0CspJpFdMQiMfuNWXyrMa06RHS3wVM1mBdqdtGNcU0YS6nrxXyH1a0FpzwoiCfNMQKj3wq6zslG5pMsdy6gcSjobIMonk3qIWMAvhdvbCplSdttjL5x9QZIzWYu2cF-" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="960" data-original-width="924" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjSNi9s27NbmLxpU5VpKLeWwWUkaEeaRYXUwBivh9cThQE0yKNLNZ4zseBpx0CspJpFdMQiMfuNWXyrMa06RHS3wVM1mBdqdtGNcU0YS6nrxXyH1a0FpzwoiCfNMQKj3wq6zslG5pMsdy6gcSjobIMonk3qIWMAvhdvbCplSdttjL5x9QZIzWYu2cF-" width="231" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">Is it <i>obvious </i>that the Earth is a globe or is it actually more certain that it couldn't be? And does it really matter which view is the more natural one for an unbiased investigator to take? When we are assaulted on all sides by claims that may seem crazy on their face, should we commit to finding things out on our own and not taking anybody else's word for anything, or is the sensible thing to look around for experts, since we surely have neither the time, money nor expertise to figure out most things on our own? But what if the experts are wrong--or worse, members of a powerful group that has the intention of deceiving the rest of us? Who, <i>what </i>can we trust?</span></div><div style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-size: large;">Kelly Weill's <i>Over the Edge </i>provides her deep take on these matters. It's<i> </i>about conspiracy theories and how they grab some people and seem to wrestle all the rationality out of them. Thanks to the internet, craziness--including some very perilous versions--is growing by leaps and bounds. This makes her book not only gripping but politically important. You can read my review of it <b><a href="https://www.3-16am.co.uk/articles/kelly-weill-off-the-edge-flat-earthers-conspiracy-culture-and-why-people-will-believe-anything?c=a-hornbook-of-democracy-book-reviews">here</a></b>. </span><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Naturally, Weill can't answer <i>all </i>the crucial epistemological questions: some have puzzled history's greatest thinkers. But it provides insight into both the most personal and the most dangerous angles. There is infinite Antarctic ice to be found here, and brazen hucksterism, and blatant antisemitism, and lizard people, and arguments with cracked premises and only insults for conclusions, and accidental death on behalf a cuckoo theory, delivered by a powerful steam rocket's impact with the Earth. </span><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">The crossword in the picture above is an homage to Susan Haack's classic <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Inquiry-Pragmatist-Reconstruction-Epistemology/dp/159102689X">Evidence and Inquiry</a></i>, a a book whose "foundherentism" centers on the fact that we cannot just get lost in the "across clues": we must always also consider the "downs."<br /></span><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span></p></blockquote><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"></span></p></div></div></div>waltohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06597500868065913461noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961934417048864252.post-27647103349402227052023-05-11T16:56:00.000-04:002023-05-11T16:56:30.675-04:00Two-ish Cheers for Samuel Issacharoff's New Book <p style="text-align: center;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi_U99RoSDyNpgJkp-aZA0M6MWN6GWZM-7D3VgJyn4lqrmY6MyqgZNqABfmdZUJ4zXC9fwim8obGaU5xMQ9O506ypSZl13xaIXJJZR7deY5468WUxcdtY9EltscxZlhvQPdthD9TfDqC3TbuncmFBQMLed-9XOXZ-GTFCy39CK3_XPL6s3s9kBX1jL6" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="500" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi_U99RoSDyNpgJkp-aZA0M6MWN6GWZM-7D3VgJyn4lqrmY6MyqgZNqABfmdZUJ4zXC9fwim8obGaU5xMQ9O506ypSZl13xaIXJJZR7deY5468WUxcdtY9EltscxZlhvQPdthD9TfDqC3TbuncmFBQMLed-9XOXZ-GTFCy39CK3_XPL6s3s9kBX1jL6" width="240" /></a></div><br /><br /><p></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">My Hornbook review of <i>Democracy Unmoored </i>is now out at <i>3:16 AM Magazine </i><a href="https://www.3-16am.co.uk/articles/samuel-issacharoff-democracy-unmoored-populism-and-the-corruption-of-popular-sovereignty?c=a-hornbook-of-democracy-book-reviews"><b>here</b></a><i>. </i>I had actually expected it to appear at a different venue, but, based on the multitude of revision requests I received (including some pretty strange ones), I got the feeling that the book review editor there vehemently disagreed with my take on the work. So I pulled it.<b>*</b> </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Anyhow, it should be easy to see that I think the book has considerable merits, even if Issacharoff's overall take is somewhat more conservative (or perhaps just less <i>Rah! Rah! Democracy!!</i>) than my own perspective. And I want to add here that interactions of that sort make me even more grateful to Richard Marshall for the pulpit he has generously afforded me at <i>3:16.</i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">As always, comments are most welcome.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><b style="font-size: large;">*</b><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Of course, it's also quite possible that they just thought my review was crappy. Naturally, I don't love that interpretation, but I'll let my readers decide that for themselves.</span></p>waltohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06597500868065913461noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961934417048864252.post-73527048058016276642023-04-21T11:03:00.000-04:002023-04-21T11:03:29.718-04:00Yascha Mounk's New Book Isn't Really THAT Bad<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTWZg0vS91dbUDjUDTtNB3T50EmxHZ0N8Reqw1lfPd9sZOJrLJQ1EiMAOXSaG-h8CdVJmnLclkgBAppdjWQmm-iHA54xu72dWnCd8v-pAzAhpcp--O2gbyEy-FAzn_1bn_c91cCcBaVxn5J4QFIQBvj5pl4VSxMknYVScD6c-okTmnyzg3lCiPyiwa/s800/ellis.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="641" data-original-width="800" height="365" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTWZg0vS91dbUDjUDTtNB3T50EmxHZ0N8Reqw1lfPd9sZOJrLJQ1EiMAOXSaG-h8CdVJmnLclkgBAppdjWQmm-iHA54xu72dWnCd8v-pAzAhpcp--O2gbyEy-FAzn_1bn_c91cCcBaVxn5J4QFIQBvj5pl4VSxMknYVScD6c-okTmnyzg3lCiPyiwa/w457-h365/ellis.jpg" width="457" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><p></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Yascha Mounk's <i>The Great Experiment: Why Diverse Democracies Fall Apart and How They Can Endure </i>has taken some fairly visceral abuse of late. (See, in particular Ian Beacock's <a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/167037/yascha-mounks-misguided-war-wokeness-great-experiment-review">review</a> in <i>The New Republic</i>.) This response may stem not so much from anything within the pages of the book but rather result from Mounk's participation on the punditry circuit--particularly within <a href="https://www.persuasion.community/">Persuasion</a>, his centrist, neo-liberal Substack. In any case, he seems to have managed to inspire somewhat biting commentary from both his left and his right.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">While I don't myself think <i>The Great Experiment</i> moves the discussion very far forward--and I'm pretty confident that none of Mounk's proposed remedies are capable of doing much to reduce the frequency or intensity of conflicts occurring either between diverse ethnic, racial or cultural groups or within individual groups--I also don't think this book deserves quite the pounding it has taken in some quarters. I mean, even sketches of inhuman brutality around the world along with the description of bromides claimed likely to reduce their number can be put engagingly, and--somewhat unusually for writers on democracy--Mounk has done that. His book is both elegantly written and interesting throughout, and those alone seem to me noteworthy merits.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Anyhow, my new Hornbook review of the work can be found <a href="https://www.3-16am.co.uk/articles/.c/a-hornbook-of-democracy-book-reviews">here</a>.</span></p>waltohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06597500868065913461noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961934417048864252.post-83641876744150813762023-03-27T19:19:00.000-04:002023-03-27T19:19:05.117-04:00Why Not Parliamentarism?--Review and Rejoinder<p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi4r--W4uhFS9_VWilKAoshXCtyAiM4HRx5lrRwMc7ZZJ8QFaHBWCDGwnuYGLQUgFONzN44SAuR4xGybVbKZBbJGHri2rMomXMyUOpZlvuwT3NIeh_EQQRlvA_45cCQQ6ZNOZqDVZ5_kfAM9-C_GCnT43J7x5Qy4jDnPhcDeXQMNVKXPu2600l72Hih" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="163" data-original-width="309" height="223" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi4r--W4uhFS9_VWilKAoshXCtyAiM4HRx5lrRwMc7ZZJ8QFaHBWCDGwnuYGLQUgFONzN44SAuR4xGybVbKZBbJGHri2rMomXMyUOpZlvuwT3NIeh_EQQRlvA_45cCQQ6ZNOZqDVZ5_kfAM9-C_GCnT43J7x5Qy4jDnPhcDeXQMNVKXPu2600l72Hih=w421-h223" width="421" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">My latest Hornbook Review at <i>3:16 AM </i>is of Tiago Santos' excellent book on parliamentarism and can be found <a href="https://www.3-16am.co.uk/articles/.c/a-hornbook-of-democracy-book-reviews">HERE</a>. While we agree on the main issues, I did find a couple of things to complain about in Tiago's work (when do I ever not?), so I thought it would be nice to give the author an opportunity to respond here at luckorcunning. I'm grateful that he did generously provide the following remarks:</span></p><div dir="ltr" style="font-family: garamond, "new york", times, serif;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;"><b style="background-color: #fff2cc;"><i><span style="font-size: large;">I</span><span style="font-size: x-large;">t is probably petty of me
to write a rejoinder for such a flattering review, but anyway, here we are. It is
clear that Horn and I agree on a fundamental level on the majority of issues.
Still, I would like to address the two paragraphs where there is some
disagreement and try to clarify my views. Setting aside that I am not sure I
would endorse democracy if it were consistently associated with terrible
outcomes, I would point out that the parliamentary type of democracy is exactly
the one most prone to bringing about “what the people there want”. My point is
that whatever justification you think is most important for a form of
government, whether achieving good outcomes, or achieving what people want,
parliamentary democracy is superior to presidential democracy.</span></i><span style="font-size: x-large;"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;"><b style="background-color: #fff2cc;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>I also do not think the
book the book has an epistocratic tinge. I admit I do agree with Jason Brennan
that the quality of votes can matter significantly. However, I don’t think an
epistocratic form of government could be implemented in any practical way. One
reason is that those qualities are distributed normally, so that any cutoff
point would seem arbitrary. A second is that any such proposal, even if
theoretically sound, would face insurmountable political challenges. However,
the main point is that neither Caplan’s nor (Geoffrey) Brennan and Hamlin’s
analysis of voting, which are the ones my book relies on, depend on there being
any kind of difference in rationality among voters for the undesirable results
(both from an outcome point of view as well as from a “what voters actually
want” view) to come about. In fact, Both Caplan, as well as Brennan and Hamlin
assume rationality.</i><o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;"><b style="background-color: #fff2cc;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>And this does matter for
the parliamentary-presidential debate. In elections for president, it is much
easier for a candidate to choose a few salient issues (while ignoring the vast
number of other problems a country may have) and run their campaign on those
issues alone, making the presidential elections close to a plebiscite on them.
Smart candidates with little concern to the actual consequences of their
promises will pick exactly those kinds of issues which will gather expressive
support. Candidates in parliamentary systems, however, will much more often
depend on a well-organized party, which will not have the luxury of ignoring
the consequences.</i><o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;"><b style="background-color: #fff2cc;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>All in all, the fact that
both a critic of epistocracy such as Walter Horn as well as a proponent of it
as Jason Brennan have endorsed parliamentarism* over presidentialism appears to
show the robustness of parliamentarism (or, conversely, the fragility of
presidentialism).</i><o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;"><b style="background-color: #fff2cc;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>*As readers of my book
will have noted, Jason Brennan was very kind to have written a blurb for the
book. In a terrible lapse, I failed to thank him in the acknowledgment section.
So I hope I can use this opportunity to very belatedly thank him (and Horn, of
course) for the words.</i><o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;"><b><i>--Tiago Santos</i></b></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: calibri, "sans-serif"; line-height: 15.6933px; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt;">
</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; line-height: 107%;"><b><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></b></span></p></div><p><br /></p>waltohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06597500868065913461noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961934417048864252.post-76644977662571351882023-01-10T10:35:00.003-05:002023-01-10T12:02:07.903-05:00Jan-Werner Muller's Book is Very Good<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhJ__SVsq8EHdHjpoF3XEBklVsTHdclCSlh7NC1FlUKfZlnGLedajbDfe46UgHa5ijZAgaVpXq0_Ukx7YP1RXPKwOLT2ObJhRgLXPW8cB0PDDZ5rSjpQnNxx8FAxHLaqBIU-BwKpmPAsz2BBL83MquhzIiMsc5Q0UdelUfWOIQmuh_Q1NhFPYigZfAK" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="306" height="354" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhJ__SVsq8EHdHjpoF3XEBklVsTHdclCSlh7NC1FlUKfZlnGLedajbDfe46UgHa5ijZAgaVpXq0_Ukx7YP1RXPKwOLT2ObJhRgLXPW8cB0PDDZ5rSjpQnNxx8FAxHLaqBIU-BwKpmPAsz2BBL83MquhzIiMsc5Q0UdelUfWOIQmuh_Q1NhFPYigZfAK=w251-h354" width="251" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">I have now reviewed a baker's dozen worth of books on democratic theory and closely related subjects for <i>3:16 AM Magazine </i>since about the time COVID-19 started to amuse itself around the world by messing with human beings. Most of these books have seemed to me quite good, somehow managing to add a section or two to the vast quilt of sometimes useful information on self-governing that has gradually accumulated since Plato's time. For it's worth, I think this one may be the best of this little batch. There is just something...I don't know...<i>wise--</i>or maybe <i>farsighted--</i>about Muller's way of handling the issues. He seems to have a solid understanding of pretty much everything that needs to be reckoned with for a reasonable comprehensive theory to emerge. Not only does he consider all the possible counter-examples to views he suggests, he doesn't simply bat them away: he takes them into account. I suppose part of this vibe might be attributed to stylistic elegance. But it infuses the substance as well.</span></div></div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="text-align: center;"><br />Anyhow, that's enough kvelling. My complete review can be found </span><a href="https://www.3-16am.co.uk/articles/.c/a-hornbook-of-democracy-book-reviews" style="text-align: center;">here</a><span style="text-align: center;">.</span></span><div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></div></blockquote><br /></div>waltohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06597500868065913461noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961934417048864252.post-15755461532695762142022-12-21T16:56:00.004-05:002022-12-29T09:15:13.720-05:00Two Sets of Strange Bedfellows on How to Live<p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 15pt;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 15pt;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 15pt;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgc8ps96LLz5ZtQsozXFsdg2d_JeCvPpauf54pFeuxgLlnnB3AjtN5MYG_I8d53I3k61Zyu-RO6SRKx-ZgJ6C1eKuQ6hrY-HrM5PMMQSGw8Pr87GxQgAUHQ7honxzi557OiAq10835AajlIcXMtdrwiTIoi8AFxkNm1p2XinqFlGEp8ENSisMXdsUqv" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="476" data-original-width="950" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgc8ps96LLz5ZtQsozXFsdg2d_JeCvPpauf54pFeuxgLlnnB3AjtN5MYG_I8d53I3k61Zyu-RO6SRKx-ZgJ6C1eKuQ6hrY-HrM5PMMQSGw8Pr87GxQgAUHQ7honxzi557OiAq10835AajlIcXMtdrwiTIoi8AFxkNm1p2XinqFlGEp8ENSisMXdsUqv" width="320" /></a></div><br /><br /><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: 15pt;">In an even more violent break
from democratic theory than exemplified in
my last couple of “Eastern Philosophy” entries (a practice I will almost certainly
not continue–at least not very often–in the new year!), I decided to put together a
seasonal “philosophy of life” piece containing positions found in the work of two
prominent religious figures that I (a distinctly non-religious person) happen to
find congenial. Whether this amalgamation should be considered an actual “philosophy” or is just a pastiche will, of course, be a matter of opinion. I hope, though, that it at least manages to be internally
consistent in spite of its being little more than a concatenation of portions of
</span></span><i style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 15pt;">Ecclesiastes </i><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: 15pt;">(purged of all God talk and its own internal contradictions)
and Buddhism (purged of all talk of Karma, rebirth and emptiness, and </span><span style="font-size: 20px;">utilizing</span><span style="font-size: 15pt;"> a simplified concept of Dependent Origination). </span></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 15pt;">Even without making any attempt to produce a decent case for the view outlined here, this project seemed a lot to manage without significant
research. Clearly, it would take a ton of time and trouble if I had to do it on my own. Having no ready human collaborators available,
I called upon the vast computing power of ChatAI for help.† And with the assistance of that behemoth, I was able to
fabricate the Frankenstein monster found below in about a week.</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: 15pt;">In addition to consistency, I hope our result manages a decent level of coherence, for it must be acknowledged that the two thinkers being thrown together here have only rarely been thought of as compatriots over the last couple of </span><span style="font-size: 20px;">millennia</span><span style="font-size: 15pt;">. Of course, it's a lot easier to fit two world pictures comfortably
together if the puzzle-solver is allowed to alter or truncate pieces wherever
it is convenient to do so; and that is what ChatAI and I have done. But, in spite of the liberties that my digital assistant and I have taken on that front, I believe a number
of contemporary Buddha and Qoheleth devotees may find our goulash
agreeable. In any event, ignoring Buddhist warnings about the dangers of fabricating,
what follows is our concoction.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 15pt;">Among the most basic Buddhist injunction is that each seeker should engage in a quest (though without craving!) for equanimity. And that aspiration must take precedence over
any such activities as hating, mourning, killing, dancing, laughing
or casting stones–all the sorts of behaviors the author of <i>Ecclesiastes</i> says
(so eloquently) that there “is a time for.” Perhaps, Qoheleth's admonition that
these activities should take place only in their appropriate times handles that
peril. It may also be, however, that it's not only particular <i>times </i>that are required
for the various activities, but also particular <i>ways</i> of weeping, laughing
and the rest.</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 15pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 15pt;">There are other tensions between
the writings of these two sages too. But however stark the differences between these texts may be claimed
to be, it should be obvious that there are a number of similarities as well. Consider,
e.g., “The labor of the wise enriches them, but the foolish only exhaust themselves"
(<i>Ecclesiastes</i> 10:15 CSB). This suggests that toil can bring fulfillment/enrichment,
only so long as it is approached with wisdom and understanding. That sort of “mindfulness-in-action”
is, of course, a staple of Buddhist thought.</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 15pt;">Again, "He who loves money
will not be satisfied with money, nor he who loves abundance with its income. This
also is vanity" (5:10). This passage will surely remind many of the Buddhist
principle that excessive craving for material possessions or wealth can never
satisfy; indeed, it can lead only to frustration and disappointment.</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 15pt;">It may seem that even Qoheleth
is of more than one mind regarding our labors, claiming both their value and
that they are all “vanity and vexation of spirit.” I think, though, this apparent
contradiction is handled by realizing that when Qoheleth instructs us to take pleasure
from “our works” at the same time he accuses nearly everything “under the sun” of being little more than vanity, he means that we should enjoy the labors themselves, whatever may be derived from their products. It cannot be denied though, that in addition to seeing labor itself as a fitting object of personal satisfaction, Qoheleth sometimes seems quite confident that no harm comes
from enjoyment of such fruits of our work as wealth, success, or wisdom, so long as this gratification
is taken in moderation and without excessive pride. He seems to say that when we
partake of such goods, we must simultaneously remember that our lives are quite short and we can never know much about the mysteries of the universe or where it’s ultimately
taking us. Some of us may be more prone to folly than others, but the basic, essential
limits of human knowledge are largely unaffected by how rich, famous, or “wise” this
or that thinker is or might become. We are all infinitesimal creatures.</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 15pt;">In any case, hard work and productivity
are claimed to be importantly valuable aspects of life if considered in the appropriate light and enjoyed
in the appropriate manner. The theory, somewhat similar to that urged upon Arjuna by Krishna
on the battlefield, is that engaging in honest labor provides its own satisfaction regardless of one's station, and those benefits may be obtained without necessitating the acquisition of any harmful attachments. Our
toil may also contribute valuable distractions from our inescapable and universal
fate; distractions which, if handled correctly, contain no toxins. In sum, Qoheleth may be understood to say that if we are careful to do so in a manner that avoids craving and clinging,
enjoying food, drink, and other simple pleasures will contribute to happy and fulfilling
lives. A Buddhist might put it that, to be safe, such pleasures must always be sought
and ultimately enjoyed with mindfulness, and should be consequent only upon a meditation-engendered
understanding of appropriate and inappropriate desires, based not only on their
objects, but also their nature and intensity.</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 15pt;">The Buddha agrees with Qoheleth
that the quest for any sort of enjoyment must be of a particular, moderate sort: "Those who are slaves to craving go round
and round in samsara, bound by their… thoughts of 'I' and 'mine'" (<i>Sutta
Nipata</i> 713). This emphasis on the dangers
of clinging and attachment, and their tendency to keep us trapped in a cycle of
suffering and dissatisfaction can be found throughout the Suttas. Here is another
example: "Bhikkhus, the craving of a person who is not free from craving for
sensual pleasures is like the hunger of a person who has not eaten for a week. Bhikkhus,
the craving of a person who is not free from craving for becoming is like the hunger
of a person who has not eaten for a month. Bhikkhus, the craving of a person who
is not free from craving for not-becoming is like the hunger of a person who has
not eaten for a year" (<i>Sutta Nipata </i>714). This is a key element of Buddhist thinking: cravings and attachments all
eventually become all-consuming. They must therefore be understood to be absolutely
destructive to well-being. And in addition to the dangers of attachments, the Buddha
also warns of harms necessarily attendant upon excessive anger, aversion, jealousy,
resentment, hate, etc.</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 15pt;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 15pt;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi8Kz-AJhmds-v-3Y4mT19-gZLVSHkAiIy84X--jlNIbkVou4JRhY05UjsstI9M_YVmOkBoSR-AIO0P5smuM_hzwL3WGPM39QRLl4qnggjwiU1VFzSFWfxoG23dFyH2mnieeH482k8VqKJ1sg1Gj-RB3rpGQuOje2X4vk5tVJF5F1z7soLZkI7Fcm0V" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="576" data-original-width="1038" height="280" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi8Kz-AJhmds-v-3Y4mT19-gZLVSHkAiIy84X--jlNIbkVou4JRhY05UjsstI9M_YVmOkBoSR-AIO0P5smuM_hzwL3WGPM39QRLl4qnggjwiU1VFzSFWfxoG23dFyH2mnieeH482k8VqKJ1sg1Gj-RB3rpGQuOje2X4vk5tVJF5F1z7soLZkI7Fcm0V=w415-h280" width="415" /></a></div><br /><br /><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 15pt;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 15pt;">Not an entirely melancholic
religion, Buddhism provides an antidote to this predicament in its teaching of Dependent
Origination. This law of universal causation is thought to provide a way to prevent the acquisition of a wanted
good–or the resentment, jealousy or disappointment ensuing from a failure to obtain
it–into addiction, depression or withdrawal. According to the theory, the solution to omnipresent suffering starts with the recognition that every event and individual object in the world
arises in dependence on other factors as well as causal laws. This means that no state
of affairs or thing exists independently or in isolation from prior and concurrent
causes and conditions, but each is instead interconnected with and dependent on
other states and things for both its existence and its particular characteristics.
As we have little control over most of the relevant prior conditions that affect us,
we should infer that we have quite limited control over our fates–except as they
are a function of acceptance/resistance of what happens to confront us. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 15pt;">But why is there claimed to
be this crucial difference between our control over what happens to us and our subsequent
reactions? Isn’t all of it beyond our ability to change? The Buddhist idea
seems to be that we retain a portion of autonomy in spite of the universality of
Dependent Origination. How is this possible? In attempting an exit from this maze, I think it is helpful to begin by recognizing that various
wildly different species of “cause” pop up in the many specifications of Dependent Origination found in the Suttas,* and to proceed we must first excise from the theory all supposed
elements that are not clear examples of efficient
causation (an event X bringing about event Y, the way a shove may bring about someone's fall).
This simplification is important because, e.g., it is odd to call oxygen (or, say, the shape of the Earth) “the cause–or even <i>a cause</i>–of one of Shakespeare’s
sonnets or of Argentina’s recent victory in the World Cup Final. Without the removal
of several of the types of elements commonly included in the Dependent Origination theory, we will be left with just such misleading anomalies. To say, for example that John's misstep was "caused by ignorance" is bound to lead to the same sort of confusion. However, after we complete a filtering intended to leave only such
items as can be reasonably claimed to be efficient causes, we will see that that even
the remaining (billiard-ball-hitting-type) events are not by themselves sufficient to do the work proposed of them: each is still only a necessary predecessor that cannot make anything happen without help.
</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 15pt;">How does this lack of sufficiency
provide an escape from utter powerlessness? Consider just these causal event
types that remain in our modified version of Dependent Origination: ".....From contact [through one of the
six sense media] as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite
condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance.
From clinging/sustenance as a requisite come….sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress,
& despair." (<i>Samyutta Nikaya</i> 12.2). Arguably, we have examples only of
efficient causes now: a particular perceptual experience causes a particular feeling, etc. But it remains the case that more seems to be required to ensure the
emergence of any particular consequence that is specified. The Buddhist idea is that human beings can prevent
the addition of some of these required “extras.” We can, that is, simply stop
the process between a percept and particular sort of feeling or between dangerous
types of feeling and the emergence of cravings.</span><span style="font-family: "Cambria Math", serif; font-size: 15pt;">⟡</span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 15pt;"> For according to Buddhist doctrine, we can learn to dissociate our sense perceptions
from ensuing incidences of either pleasure or pain.</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 15pt;">⸋</span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 15pt;"> Thus, from sense-content no particular feeling need arise, and even if we cannot stop things there, craving and the rest
need not inexorably follow.</span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 15pt;"> That, in a word, is the
power to stop new addictions and overcome old ones. In the same way, aversions and
other negative responses can be avoided. This ability is thought to be the key to overcoming <i>dukkha,</i> the existential suffering that may seem to be irrevocably attached
to human existence. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 15pt;">There thus seems no problem
with taking Qohelethian, tempered, enjoyment in simple pleasures: those who partake in that fashion need not become overly attached to anything as a result. No more, certainly than will be associated with minimal nutritional sustenance. Gaining this ability would seem to allow us to live more balanced
and less ascetic or guilt-ridden lives. Our goals must always be sensible ones however, and our strivings to reach every one of them them restrained. A recognition of the interdependence of all living beings may
also encourage the cultivation of a sense of compassion for others and help us overcome resentment and jealousy. It may be that to reach our goal of equanimity we will
need to walk some distance along the Buddha’s Eightfold Path of <i>right speech</i>, <i>right thinking, right livelihood</i> and the rest, but we need not follow
it down any turning where it disallows such activities as laughing, weeping, dancing,
eating, drinking or mourning; perhaps even hating and killing can be allowed when
and where there is good cause and these activities are undertaken without excessive
malice.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 15pt;">It can be seen that recognizing
the truth of Dependent Origination must involve accepting the limits of our ability
to control our destinies or understand what will happen to us after we
die. It also seems to entail that wishing and petitionary prayer are not only a waste of
time, but may actually be pernicious, both because they are inconsistent with an
understanding of the causal constraints on everything in the known world, and because
they may be expressions of unhealthy types of desire. By acknowledging the uncertainty and
impermanence of life, we can let go of such attachments and live in the present
moment with a sense of peace and contentment. Again, however, we must maintain only
sensible goals and be willing to work at achieving them, rather than spend our
time wishing or praying.</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: 15pt;">So far, so good. But where both
sages seem to me to err is in their failure to recognize that claims about such
matters as God, rebirth, “self,” essences, nirvana</span></span><i style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 15pt;">, </i><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: 15pt;">and karma are not the
sorts of things that can ever be substantiated. For these are, as philosophers say
nowadays, “heavyweight” matters. All such
assertions go beyond what any person–or even any scientific investigations–can confirm.
Being metaphysical queries, obtaining definitive, universally satisfying answers to them would require an
ability to go outside all "conceptual schemes" or "categories" produced by our upbringings, language, philosophical training, individual temperaments etc. We are, in the words of Everett Hall all </span><span style="font-size: 20px;">ensconced</span><span style="font-size: 15pt;"> in what he called "categorio-centric predicaments" from which no one can escape. So, for good or ill, deep wisdom of the ontological (<i>What is there in the world?</i>)<i> </i>or axiological (<i>What are the right things to be done?</i>) kinds is simply impossible for <i>homo sapiens</i>.# </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: 15pt;"><br /></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: 15pt;">No doubt both Gautama Siddhartha
and Qoheleth are usually considered religious figures rather than philosophers, and
their works may be counted as “wisdom literature.” Their readers and admirers may therefore not care too much about my concerns with respect to epistemic limitations. However that may be, I hope a feasible course of action for the troubled among us who are uncomfortable
with religion will have begun to come into view. For it seems to me possible to find a humbler, more judicious place to rest in the works of these two thinkers, a plateau where even a skeptic might find comfort.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 15pt;">It is interesting that both
the Buddha and Qoheleth sometimes speak as though they understand and accept the
limits of rational thought, but at others clearly forget these constraints and make
claims that cannot be justified without revelation. <i>Ecclesiastes </i>contains
occasional God-assumptions that should be considered inconsistent with rational limits:
"[W]ho can tell someone what will happen after he is gone? (10:14) and “I applied
my heart to know wisdom and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also
is but a striving after the wind….He who increases knowledge increases sorrow."
(1:16-18) And f</span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 15pt;">or his part the Buddha famously
upbraids those of his monks who pestered him with what he considered to be pointless philosophical queries
by reminding them that he had never promised to "...elucidate to you either
that the world is eternal, or that the world is not eternal, or that the saint neither
exists or does not exist after death." And he tells them that "The religious life
does not depend on the dogma that the world is eternal; nor does the religious life
depend on the dogma that the world is not eternal. Whether the dogma obtain that the world is eternal,
or that the world is not eternal, there still remain birth, old age, death, sorrow,
lamentation, misery, grief, and despair, for the extinction of which in the present
life I am prescribing. The religious life
does not depend on the dogma that the world is finite. The religious life does not
depend on the dogma that the soul and the body are identical. The religious life
does not depend on the dogma that the saint both exists and does not exist after
death; nor does the religious life depend on the dogma that the saint neither exists
nor does not exist after death." He explains why the religious life fails to involve
expounding on such matters: "Because this profits not, nor has to do with the fundamentals
of religion nor tends to aversion, absence of passion, cessation, quiescence, the
supernatural faculties, supreme wisdom, and Nirvana; therefore I have not elucidated
it." (</span><i style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 15pt;">Majjhima Nikaya</i><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 15pt;"> 63)</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 15pt;">Now, it may be objected that
despite my own assurances to the contrary, there is metaphysics aplenty in any claim
that we can somehow exempt ourselves from causal laws by dissociating various perceptual
experiences from pleasure, pain, craving, or aversion. In response, let me first
say that I make no pretense of eschewing metaphysics entirely. To the extent that
I assume the existence of people, causes, aging, individual suffering, death, and the like, I adopt a
common-sense worldview that cannot be strictly demonstrated to be veridical. But as to the specific
objection regarding allegedly sneaking out of the jaws of Dependent Origination in order to capture some sort of “equanimity” for those practicing “right meditation,”
I insist that I am relying on empiricism only. I suggest simply that one may try
and see, and I note that, at the very least, many throughout history have claimed success in their
own searches for equanimity and peace by the use of the proffered techniques. I abjure from speculations about what may be beyond what we can experience for oneselves, and I propose no general
theories involving free will or determinism.$</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 15pt;">In summary, the patchwork philosophy
of life concocted here with the help of my computerized assistant out of various
tenets of Qoheleth and the Buddha acknowledges the depth and inescapability of human ignorance,
emphasizes the importance of hard work/productivity, and, eschewing even partial asceticism, confers value upon simple
pleasures. However, success in achieving
a happy and fulfilling life is argued also to generally require diligent
mindfulness, whatever may be one’s luck (or lack of it) “under the sun.” The good
news is that, no matter the level of success, wealth, or wisdom we may happen to achieve--whether by luck or cunning-- we can, by aspiring for equanimity and practicing
moderation and mindfulness (even in <i>that </i>quest!) overcome harmful craving and unhealthy attachments and come to live in the present moment with a sense of peace. Reaching
a state of such contentment <i>may </i>require an understanding and acceptance of
Dependent Origination in something like the form elucidated here, and there is little doubt that such understanding is useful in this sort of quest. But, however the case may be with respect
to <i>propositional knowledge</i> of the workings of causation in human affairs, it is clear that one must <i>learn how </i>to<i> </i>carry out certain dissociative techniques in
accordance with the precepts of this theory. The balanced approach to life set forth
herein can help practitioners find both fulfillment and calm–as well as relief from
guilt–even in the face of both pervasive constraints on our autonomy and the apparently ineliminable uncertainty attached to every single philosophically "heavyweight" proposition that can be asserted, whether factual or moral.</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 15pt;">**************************************</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">† For a brief and fairly breezy explanation
of the background for and mechanics of my collaboration with ChatAI, see my new
<a href="https://erraticus.co/2022/12/22/a-wise-thing-bearing-gifts-my-conversations-with-chatgpt/?fbclid=IwAR2eBc1L_2ccK-iFVM1T15KwJNmxpSwogPOvDpxSwUukorx0TMifG99t0x0">essay</a> in <i>Erraticus</i>.</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">* So, for example, <i>ignorance
</i>is not the sort of thing that can be an efficient cause, however it may be thought
to function in “producing” our (defective) understandings of the world. Nor should
“<i>name-and-form”</i> <i> </i>be thought
to be an efficient cause, even if it’s true that we could have no <i>concept</i> of causation without its operation. Finally, neither <i>birth</i>, nor <i>aging and
death</i> seem to me appropriately placed in customary statements of Dependent Origination.</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Cambria Math", serif; font-size: 12pt;">⟡</span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"> Techniques
for throwing a wrench into this machine can be found in Buddhadasa, <i>Under the
Bodhi Tree </i>(2017) and Leigh Brasington, <i>Dependent Origination and Emptiness
</i>(2021). It is important to understand, however, that neither of those authors–unorthodox
as they may be considered by some traditionalists–would ever suggest making amendments to Buddhist doctrine.
When they differ from other, more orthodox Buddhologists, they simply insist that interpretations contrary to their own exhibit misunderstandings of the <i>Suttas</i>. My skeptical bent (and,
perhaps, excessive hubris?) has made me quite comfortable with changing or deleting
any tenet that seems indefensible--or even inadequately supported. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">⸋</span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"> For arguments in support of the possibility of these perhaps unintuitive
claims, see Richard Hall, </span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">“</span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">Are Pains Necessarily Unpleasant?</span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">”</span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"> (1989).</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"># This notion is explained and
defended by Everett Hall’s (Richard's father!) in his <i>Philosophical Systems: A Categorial Analysis </i>(1960).
I have written extensively on this subject--and Hall’s work generally--in my <i>The Roots of
Representationism: An Introduction to Everett Hall</i> (2013).</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 9.0pt; margin-right: 81.0pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 81pt 0in 9pt;">
</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;">$ I talk in some detail about
various types of meditation and the practical effects they can have on one’s life
in my <i>The Perennial Solution Center </i>(2003).</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 13.5pt; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 13.5pt 0in 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></p><p></p>waltohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06597500868065913461noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961934417048864252.post-46755197333275960712022-12-05T14:53:00.007-05:002022-12-05T15:29:31.939-05:00A Deeper Dive Into Choosing, Wanting and Getting<div style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: left;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-81626256-7fff-f63e-bfc2-d30ca408bb5f"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "EB Garamond", serif; font-size: 16pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></p></span></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: left;"><span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "EB Garamond", serif; font-size: 16pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhAtryXLWnE4LBUe56I0b0AMCAXqrz8iyqy7CyDZ5F3duVF0Vqzc7m2rvs8wFS9MRv1OUMtuH-uM1uH3AYnLddjPFQ7gHoduKMK6pTpXyOB7OOkU3pCd12fNOxWCMwF1pZRjxSeAkImJ5BgaV42FGTY6mKoKwXs_EowK-i0_QDdJkubJKWXymhwABiK" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="187" data-original-width="602" height="199" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhAtryXLWnE4LBUe56I0b0AMCAXqrz8iyqy7CyDZ5F3duVF0Vqzc7m2rvs8wFS9MRv1OUMtuH-uM1uH3AYnLddjPFQ7gHoduKMK6pTpXyOB7OOkU3pCd12fNOxWCMwF1pZRjxSeAkImJ5BgaV42FGTY6mKoKwXs_EowK-i0_QDdJkubJKWXymhwABiK=w331-h199" width="331" /></a></div></div></span></div></span></div></blockquote><div style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: left;"><span></span><span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "EB Garamond", serif; font-size: 16pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj6IOnyakN7W6r0yx_UXulcpLWBKstFR5C4iJpWIu0gDF5i-_eVQP8xNcV3eiqv4PK4fPfAQkSvEIPGPEbkzlmDGbybpYZRXbUi3SIFazT5zTxhkiGH60jxElqwZp1X-7lqMv9pIvW6GTPgzFdes6aoHwla-22YFzgJ8PMSmObjb710O0bJvDXK_OCu" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj6IOnyakN7W6r0yx_UXulcpLWBKstFR5C4iJpWIu0gDF5i-_eVQP8xNcV3eiqv4PK4fPfAQkSvEIPGPEbkzlmDGbybpYZRXbUi3SIFazT5zTxhkiGH60jxElqwZp1X-7lqMv9pIvW6GTPgzFdes6aoHwla-22YFzgJ8PMSmObjb710O0bJvDXK_OCu" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj6IOnyakN7W6r0yx_UXulcpLWBKstFR5C4iJpWIu0gDF5i-_eVQP8xNcV3eiqv4PK4fPfAQkSvEIPGPEbkzlmDGbybpYZRXbUi3SIFazT5zTxhkiGH60jxElqwZp1X-7lqMv9pIvW6GTPgzFdes6aoHwla-22YFzgJ8PMSmObjb710O0bJvDXK_OCu" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a></div></div></span></div><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "EB Garamond", serif; font-size: 16pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "EB Garamond", serif; font-size: 16pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Not long ago I uploaded a <a href="https://luckorcunning.blogspot.com/2022/09/the-more-good-better-vs-wheel-of-samsara.html">piece </a>here about the apparent tension between obtaining the goods of the world and what might be called an Eastern take on craving–any position according to which desires are essentially harmful to the desirer. However, as I mentioned in that entry, it is arguable that trying to conquer the natural tendency to want things in the world might itself be seen as just one more desire. This tension has sometimes been called “the paradox of desire.” In an interesting 1979 paper in <i>Philosophy East and West</i>, A.L. Herman provided what he termed a solution to this paradox of someone achieving a condition of desirelessness through desiring it. His way out was to suggest that desirelessness can be obtained not by wanting it, but by coming to understand that one cannot actually obtain it by wanting it. Instead, after the manner of a certain McCartney, one has to “let it be.” </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "EB Garamond", serif; font-size: 16pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Before going into this matter in more detail, I probably should indicate again what this issue, which has mostly stayed within the boundaries of Buddhology, has to do with democratic theory. Unlike most (maybe all?) other normative democratic theories, I attempt in my <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Democratic-Theory-Naturalized-Foundations-Distilled/dp/179362495X">book</a> to derive electoral procedures from conclusions I reach regarding what makes states of affairs good for persons or groups. My inquiry into prudential value relies on an axiom according to which, for both individuals and polities, <i>The More Good, The Better</i>. The goods I settle on, based on a post-WWII suggestion by American value theorist Everett Hall, are successful free choices--even if they are imprudent choices in the long run. But if <i>all </i>successful choices are a breeding ground for future desires because craving is in reality always bad for the person doing it, this would seem to be a big problem for my theory. Furthermore, to be fair to my critics, an aspiration to live a certain way seems quite a distance from the sort of choice that could be part of the basis for public policy. Surely it can be argued that this association is largely metaphorical. So I will take this opportunity to investigate the issue further here.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "EB Garamond", serif; font-size: 16pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">One particularly engaging philosopher and Buddhologist, David Burton, has devoted a significant portion of his work to the question of why so many Buddhist schools are focused on (i) the connection between craving and suffering (<i>dukkha</i>), (ii) exactly how appropriative desires (i.e., the bad type) might be thought to be the cause of unhappiness even when one gets what one wants, and (iii) what people must do to free themselves from what is taken to be the principal cause of human suffering. Burton centers his discussion of these issues on the Buddhist contention that all items in the universe–not just those resembling such things as garden rakes (or ideas of them), but things like persons and prime numbers–are fleeting and impermanent: little more than short-lived ghosts. The Buddhist theory regarding the consequence of omnipresent impermanence is intuitive: Why wouldn't an impermanent thing's desire for the lasting appropriation of some other impermanent thing--say, fame, fortune, sexual pleasure, physical health or a comfortable home life, cause unhappiness? Burton accepts this (arguably questionable empirical) conclusion and then considers how one might transcend such proclivities. He thinks one can do so only by reaching a deeper understanding of the claimed essential impermanence of absolutely everything. The idea is that if we really (REALLY) understand that nothing lasts, we will stop wanting to appropriate things in order to have them always with us. Given this picture, can happiness be found. And, contrary to any theory like mine that relies on the principle of <i>The More Good, The Better, achieving</i> well-being does not require the choosing of any "goods" at all.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "EB Garamond", serif; font-size: 16pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "EB Garamond", serif; font-size: 16pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Burton recognizes that he and many others already <i>do </i>seem to realize that many (perhaps <i>most</i>) desired items in the world are fleeting, and some of these folks, including Burton himself, also hold that there are no permanent souls, i.e., they take even persons, soul-free as they believe we are, to be in no sense everlasting. But he can't deny that such recognition generally does <i>not</i> cause the extermination of either suffering or future cravings. That seems problematic. How have the many generations of Buddhist sages failed to see that understanding that everything is fleeting simply <i>doesn't </i>put an end to either desire or misery? Well, says Burton, there’s knowing and then there's <i>knowing</i>. He says that we must distinguish a flimsy sort of propositional knowledge (“knowledge by description”) from a deeper perceptual kind of knowledge (“knowledge by acquaintance”). </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "EB Garamond", serif; font-size: 16pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "EB Garamond", serif; font-size: 16pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Those who have taken one or two philosophy courses are likely to agree that both Frank Jackson’s famous Mary, who knows everything about the color red but has never herself <i>experienced </i>redness, and the fellow in John Searle’s “Chinese Room,” who in a quite limited sense can be said to know the definition of every word in some foreign language with which he's basically unfamiliar because he has learned to match each one of them with a synonymous word or phrase in that same foreign language, are both missing something crucial. Surely their "understanding" is severely limited. So, Burton speculates, some of those who <i>seem </i>to understand that every worldly thing is impermanent may have only a bloodless, propositional type of knowledge of the fact that nothing in the universe is lasting, and it could be that <i>that </i>isn't enough to develop a thoroughly life-changing dismissal of all appropriative desires. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "EB Garamond", serif; font-size: 16pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Burton is untroubled by Herman’s paradox of desire, because he sees two ways out. First, he notes that many Buddhists have long distinguished lustful, grasping types of desire from what might be called “aspirations.” Wanting to rid oneself of all cravings would, of course, be considered an example of the latter, beneficial-rather-than-harmful, type of wanting. And, as I have conceded above, it doesn't seem to be quite fair to count such a "desire" as included in the sort of "choices" made a body politic. In any case, Burton says that rather than <i>craving </i>desirelessness, we can, as Herman had also suggested, strive for it in some less appropriative way. Alternatively, if one doesn't want to distinguish two types of wants, one can instead throw a partition between two sorts of objects of desire: those for things that are good for us and those generally addictive items that not only don’t make us particularly happy when we get them, but actually make our lives worse the more we obtain them. Either solution saves us from any alleged paradox according to which we can get what we’re looking for only if we can get to a state where we don't want or get anything at all. (My own Hallian position on prudential values doesn't make a sharp separation between those two approaches, since it makes a CHOICE a matter involving both the wanting and an obtaining.)</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "EB Garamond", serif; font-size: 16pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Returning to the types of knowing distinguished by Burton, that scholar suggests that only one sort–acquaintance–is the sort of thing that can transport us to where he believes we should all like to be (<i>Nirvana</i>), I do agree with him that we need to distinguish two quite distinct types of knowledge here. I just think he’s settled on the wrong two. </span><span style="font-family: "EB Garamond", serif; font-size: 21.3333px; white-space: pre-wrap;">A more natural distinction to turn to here, would, I think, be that between <i>knowing that</i> and <i>knowing how</i>. It is this distinction, made famous by English Philosopher Gilbert Ryle, that clarifies that it is not propositional knowledge that enables one to, e.g., ride a bicycle, but an entirely different thing: a bodily ability. We cannot rely on book learning to stay afloat when trying to swim, and, to look at it from the other direction, it's also true that we are unlikely to be able to write a book about the mechanics of swimming just because we have learned how to do a couple of strokes, because providing theory requires propositional knowledge. <i>Knowing that </i>and <i>knowing how</i> are importantly different animals. </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "EB Garamond", serif; font-size: 21.3333px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "EB Garamond", serif; font-size: 21.3333px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Why does Burton not just turn to <i>knowing how </i>to give up our cravings when that move would seem to take care of any possible paradox? I think it's because he has the terribly</span><span style="font-family: "EB Garamond", serif; font-size: 16pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"> ambitious goal of reaching "<i>Arahantship</i>." That is, it’s not just equanimity that he’s looking for, i.e., relief from occasional bouts of <i>dukkha</i>, but full Awakening--a permanent escape from the wheel of <i>Samsara </i>altogether. He thus thinks that <i>complete understanding </i>is necessary, and <i>knowing how </i>just can't supply anything of that depth. What Burton is seeking must provide what might be called a thorough “grokking” of the natures of impermanence, selfhood, craving, clinging, and suffering. So</span><span style="font-family: "EB Garamond", serif; font-size: 16pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">, while he understands the possibility of a move toward "mere ability," he is not interested in taking that tack himself. Instead, he embraces what has been a so-called “intellectualist position” regarding knowing how to do things. On his Awakening-oriented view, the ability to stop craving requires an entire elimination of </span><i style="font-family: "EB Garamond", serif; font-size: 16pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">ignorance, </i><span style="font-family: "EB Garamond", serif; font-size: 16pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">th</span><span style="font-family: "EB Garamond", serif; font-size: 16pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">e achievement of <i>wisdom</i>. Thus, for Burton, “mindfulness,” which one would naturally consider a technique that might be used to kill off this or that particular craving, must, to be effective, be a form of knowledge by acquaintance, for only that would be inconsistent with ignorance in the relevant area. As he puts it, “craving and ignorance [are] interwoven and mutually supportive. They cause one another, and the weakening of one results in the weakening of the other.”* So, while he doesn't deny that there is an ability that must be obtained, he elaborates that,</span></p><br /><p style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 72pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "EB Garamond", serif; font-size: 16pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">When one begins to practice the Eightfold Path, one would gradually acquire what modern epistemologists refer to as ' competence knowledge', 'capacity knowledge' , or 'knowing how' . That is, with experience and effort one would learn how to cut off craving and attachment by applying the Buddhist teachings about right action, right speech, right effort, and so forth. One would not simply know the theory; one would actually be doing it…. In this respect, the Buddhist training can be likened to the acquisition of a skill like riding a bicycle or learning to swim…. Thus, one's conviction that craving causes suffering and that cutting off craving is the way to eliminate suffering would become stronger. Furthermore, one would become convinced that the Buddhist path is the way to achieve this result.*</span></p><p style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 72pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "EB Garamond", serif; font-size: 16pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "EB Garamond", serif; font-size: 21.3333px; white-space: pre-wrap;">While Burton acknowledges this connection between these two types of knowledge, he seems to remain unsatisfied with any "mere skill"--even if it might be claimed to allow one to stop craving or clinging to a troublesome attachment. Instead, he seems to insist that any such aptitude be associated with a grand theory about what the self and world are like. In other words, it's Burton's contention that to achieve the real Buddhist prize of <i>Nirvana</i>, what we learn on the craving/aversion front must eventually lead to total Awakening, That means that meditation/mindfulness cannot be used simply to learn how<i> </i>to disengage pleasure or pain from particular experiences.** It can't just be a practice that enables us to dissociate some experience from pleasure or suffering: there has to be an entire epistemological/metaphysical theory interwoven with these concepts that is both believed and demonstrable. </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "EB Garamond", serif; font-size: 21.3333px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "EB Garamond", serif; font-size: 21.3333px; white-space: pre-wrap;">I think Burton is wrong about this, and I take it to be an entirely empirical question whether any non-sage has ever learned to stop craving this or that item. I myself believe that o</span><span style="font-family: "EB Garamond", serif; font-size: 21.3333px; white-space: pre-wrap;">ne can (i) want to get out of the craving/aversion business and (ii) gradually learn to do so without embracing a vast quantity of highly controversial philosophical theory. But I understand too, that that means lowering one's bar and accepting the possibility that <i>Arahantship </i>may simply be too lofty a goal for most mere mortals.In any case, political theory is not made for gods but for regular folk.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "EB Garamond", serif; font-size: 21.3333px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj6IOnyakN7W6r0yx_UXulcpLWBKstFR5C4iJpWIu0gDF5i-_eVQP8xNcV3eiqv4PK4fPfAQkSvEIPGPEbkzlmDGbybpYZRXbUi3SIFazT5zTxhkiGH60jxElqwZp1X-7lqMv9pIvW6GTPgzFdes6aoHwla-22YFzgJ8PMSmObjb710O0bJvDXK_OCu" style="font-size: 21.3333px; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="620" data-original-width="620" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj6IOnyakN7W6r0yx_UXulcpLWBKstFR5C4iJpWIu0gDF5i-_eVQP8xNcV3eiqv4PK4fPfAQkSvEIPGPEbkzlmDGbybpYZRXbUi3SIFazT5zTxhkiGH60jxElqwZp1X-7lqMv9pIvW6GTPgzFdes6aoHwla-22YFzgJ8PMSmObjb710O0bJvDXK_OCu" width="240" /></a></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "EB Garamond", serif; font-size: 21.3333px; white-space: pre-wrap;">To conclude, if I may descend now from the heights of Buddhist metaphysics to the more mundane world of democratic theorizing, let me conclude by saying that I think it is fairly obvious that an ability to discard </span><span style="font-family: "EB Garamond", serif; font-size: 21.3333px; white-space: pre-wrap;">inutile graspings in order that a person's or group's remaining choices can be for items that actually make lives better (if only for a moment) is an <i>ability </i>that many can learn/obtain without becoming monks, sages or Kant-level philo</span><span style="font-family: "EB Garamond", serif; font-size: 21.3333px; white-space: pre-wrap;">sophers. The existence of that potential is all one needs to justly claim that there is nothing at all paradoxical in insisting that </span><i style="font-family: "EB Garamond", serif; font-size: 21.3333px; white-space: pre-wrap;">The More Goods Chosen, The Better. </i><span style="font-family: "EB Garamond", serif; font-size: 21.3333px; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Put another way, even devout, </span><span style="font-family: "EB Garamond", serif; font-size: 16pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">practicing Buddhists can be considered to be <i>learning how</i> to achieve equanimity through giving up particular unhealthy cravings/clingings, rather than necessarily to be reaching for the goal of obtaining some sort of perceptual knowledge that will eventually carry them to <i>Nirvana. </i>Furthermore, whether or not one shares the Buddhist belief that acting on such a goal will actually improve one's own or anybody else's life (or extinguish anyone's ignorance), intentional progress on such a path carries with it no accompanying tincture of paradox. </span></p><br /></span></div><div style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: left;"><span><i style="font-family: "EB Garamond", serif; white-space: pre-wrap;">*</i><span style="font-family: "EB Garamond", serif; white-space: pre-wrap;">David Burton, <i>Buddhism, Knowledge and Liberation, A Philosophical Study </i>(2004).</span></span></div><div style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: left;"><span><i style="font-family: "EB Garamond", serif; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></i></span></div><div style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: left;"><span><i style="font-family: "EB Garamond", serif; white-space: pre-wrap;">** </i><span style="font-family: "EB Garamond", serif; white-space: pre-wrap;">On the claim that even the severest pains need not cause suffering, see the extremely interesting classic paper by Richard Hall (Everett's retired philosopher son!), "Are Pains Necessarily Unpleasant?" </span></span><span style="font-family: "EB Garamond", serif; white-space: pre-wrap;">(1989). </span></div><div><span><span style="font-family: "EB Garamond", serif; font-size: 21.3333px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div>
waltohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06597500868065913461noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961934417048864252.post-82480078166375422912022-10-21T09:42:00.358-04:002022-10-30T10:12:30.407-04:00Partisanship, Polarization, and Halloweenish Fears<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiiowgcmxK60PqMH3E9vQzqLDIPIcf8e4V9U6agxtUaRPEqcqyGO5GQ4YWixmQ7o64WBI35dnPcx3pHvwn972jZvkEmKfIKxkbMMGPbhNBmrV55ZP1rqaZbT2AxmtKXlmuiHUZoG-RrKBBjlCJq6mazICkoMPZK8NNI0jcjIayfYhmFi8A-BRRkhuwn" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: large;"><img alt="" data-original-height="587" data-original-width="800" height="293" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiiowgcmxK60PqMH3E9vQzqLDIPIcf8e4V9U6agxtUaRPEqcqyGO5GQ4YWixmQ7o64WBI35dnPcx3pHvwn972jZvkEmKfIKxkbMMGPbhNBmrV55ZP1rqaZbT2AxmtKXlmuiHUZoG-RrKBBjlCJq6mazICkoMPZK8NNI0jcjIayfYhmFi8A-BRRkhuwn=w397-h293" width="397" /></span></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Ok, so hundreds of people running for office in elections being held in the U.S. in a few days are guaranteeing that if they win, they already know which party's candidates will certainly prevail in future elections. And a lot of those people are candidates for secretary of state, which means they'll be in charge of those future elections. That should seem like a pretty dangerous situation to anybody who thinks elections should be fair. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">And that is the kind of thing that has caused me to hide under my bed with my laptop--not just for the Halloween season, but for the foreseeable future. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Lots of pundits talk about how polarized the country is now, but sometimes they probably mean to say "partisan" rather than "polarized." The difference is that, while two groups who absolutely despise one another are certainly hyperpartisan, that alone wouldn't make them polarized. Polarization requires that the opinions on issues of a person or group have moved out toward "the polar regions." Consider the Crips and the Bloods. They've generally been extremely partisan, but they're not polarized: in fact their views may be in accord on almost everything except who are the best people to hate/fight. It's pretty clear, though, that the Dems and Repubs aren't just engaging in that sort of Hatfield/McCoy imitation. They really <i>have </i>been moving farther and farther apart in addition to hating each other more and more each day. That's not good--especially when one of the parties has become enamored with autocrats like Viktor Orban and doesn't seem to care much about maintaining democratic norms in the U.S. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">This may explain why I'm starting to bring several seasons worth of provisions under my bed with me and the laptop. (I know: everything down here is going to get extremely dirty. But...what can you do? If it seems weird to people who stop by, I'm thinking of blaming my condition on a particularly acute ability to perceive poltergeists. Not sure, but I may have picked up this power from Neil of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQlaMCWuRyg">The Young Ones</a>.)</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span>Anyhow, my newest Hornbook review, of Sam Rosenfeld's <i>The Polarizers, </i>a detailed history of how things in the U.S. got this way,<i> </i>is now </span><span>up </span><a href="https://www.3-16am.co.uk/articles/.c/a-hornbook-of-democracy-book-reviews">here</a><span>. Rosenfeld </span><span>mostly</span><i> </i><span>blames an old (1950) American Political Science Association study for for our current, perilous situation. </span><span>As he tells it, back in Eisenhower's day, the parties really were more like sororities without dues, clubs in which stated goals are mostly just window-dressing. But the APSA study made the case that there should instead be crystal clear distinctions between the policies that each group would like to see enacted. Such a change would allow the electorate to know what every candidate a party puts forward must stand for and so have reasonable expectations of what to expect if the people they vote for win. Since </span><span>on this view there shouldn't be a mix of left- and right-wingers in each party, we can infer that b</span><span>ipartisanship wasn't seen as a very important objective. </span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span>Well, except for the fact that the Republicans now won't deign to provide any platform at all (</span><i>Whatever Trump happens to want at any moment is just fine!</i><span>)</span><span> we now seem to have precisely the condition the APSA committee called for. The two major parties in the U.S. have completely sorted: there are no more Dixiecrats or Republican Ripon Society members to be found either hither or yon. There's very little incentive for legislatures to do much besides making the other party look evil, stupid, and incompetent. In other words, things are extremely bad in the U.S.</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Would a different package of electoral rules be better for the country? Absolutely! With or without perfect sorting, every democracy requires both majority rule and (proportional) minority representation; we have neither of those now. Maybe we also need more parties, since, as my earlier <a href="https://luckorcunning.blogspot.com/2021/02/can-non-partisan-electoral-systems.html">entry </a>on that subject indicates, it seems that we can't do very well without them. Furthermore, as Lee Drutman argues in his Doom Loop book, two seems not to be a particularly magic number. Rosenfeld doesn't get into the theoretical stuff himself, but according to what used to be called "Duverger's Law," if we had multi-winner elections, we'd probably have more parties. (I want to point out, though, that if, like federalism in big countries, parties are needed, they will produce some of the same problems that subsidiary districts make for majoritarian democracies. Unalterable ethnic connections and other sorts of closely held identifications inevitably also generate those issues. I discussed that kettle of complicating but probably ineliminable fish <a href="https://luckorcunning.blogspot.com/2021/08/abizadeh-on-majoritarianism.html">here</a>.)</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Whatever may be done with parties, the main thing, as I press over and over in my <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Democratic-Theory-Naturalized-Foundations-Distilled/dp/1793624976/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=walter+horn+democratic+theory&qid=1666276841&qu=eyJxc2MiOiIwLjg5IiwicXNhIjoiMC4wMCIsInFzcCI6IjAuMDAifQ%3D%3D&s=books&sprefix=walter+horn+democ%2Cstripbooks%2C80&sr=1-1&ufe=app_do%3Aamzn1.fos.18ed3cb5-28d5-4975-8bc7-93deae8f9840">book</a>, is that we need a new and different form of democratic populism: a carefully distilled variety. And, of course, we need a renewed affection here for the rule of law. Real democracy requires a much more sensible constitution than we now have, one that is both more democratic, and also less focused on what may NOT be done. I'm sorry to say that getting involved in a "Save our democracy" movement, as if we actually ever had a decent system here, simply isn't going to cut it. There's never been anything closely resembling authentic democracy in the U.S. And what has perhaps been justly describable for a couple of centuries as 'someplace south of mediocre' (except in it's treatment of rich white males) has now descended to the subterranean level of 'absolutely awful' for nearly everybody.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">To me, this is all not just exasperating: it's horrifying (which is why I just pulled a hot plate under here with me and am now frantically searching for another outlet). So let me close by saying that while I wish you all a safe holiday season and wonderful new year, I don't really believe that those lovely things are in the cards. 😣 </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;">Nevertheless, to show that I can be supremely generous in spite of my intense fear and loathing, here's an old tape loop piece of mine you can use to scare trick-or-treaters while I'm </span><span style="font-size: large;">down here tending my bedpan and trying not to inhale dust bunnies. Or you can use it for personal psychedelic purposes. I don't care. The point is, even if Rowman & Littlefield continues to refuse to reduce the price of my book much below 40 bucks, you won't be able to say I never gave you anything for free.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DMDLEFhuN_A" width="320" youtube-src-id="DMDLEFhuN_A"></iframe></div><br /></span></div><p></p>waltohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06597500868065913461noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961934417048864252.post-33715418467206176762022-09-14T12:50:00.000-04:002022-09-14T12:50:02.739-04:00The More Good, the Better vs. The Wheel of Samsara<p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Georgia; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Georgia; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjtLui2a80J2LJTbAEoIsPZgfu-KW2gyfUjSe7_CprVbzm-0nVITiFlcO-_VAQnSrBYUZXqNblVFLKgpS80Kq-hqNlybBYr3ogeofLl3i0b9l7MR9yLRGjcRbOr6kEHyx6W8iCnLwAxQdgea3Sn0sD6_aS9aHcyXrRF64XJEvF_HuJP3lgvFMAV2BX3" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="594" data-original-width="457" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjtLui2a80J2LJTbAEoIsPZgfu-KW2gyfUjSe7_CprVbzm-0nVITiFlcO-_VAQnSrBYUZXqNblVFLKgpS80Kq-hqNlybBYr3ogeofLl3i0b9l7MR9yLRGjcRbOr6kEHyx6W8iCnLwAxQdgea3Sn0sD6_aS9aHcyXrRF64XJEvF_HuJP3lgvFMAV2BX3" width="185" /></a></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Georgia; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">It may seem that there is significant tension between what in Buddhist circles causes dukkha (the suffering that consists of existential dread) and the principle I rely on (borrowed from Everett Hall) for determining what makes both individual lives and societies well off: </span><span style="font-family: Georgia; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The More Good, the Better</span><span style="font-family: Georgia; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. After all, getting things is a condition for constant craving, and craving and clinging is thought to be the cause of suffering. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Georgia; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In my book I wrote the following regarding that apparent conflict:</span></span></p><span id="docs-internal-guid-86b8cb6f-7fff-b148-1df4-b91d5e409928"><span style="font-size: large;"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">It is generally agreed that it is worse to have unsatisfied wants than to have no wants at all (assuming one remains alive, sentient and autonomous). There may thus be (perhaps Vedantist- or Buddhist-tinged) concerns that truly good societies will not only contain the fewest individuals with unsatisfied desires, but the fewest individuals with any desires at all, and consequently, the fewest possible satisfactions or successes. Given such a perspective, CHOICE, with its focus on more, may seem to bestow its blessings on the most horrendous ‘wheel’ of craving—getting—craving that one can imagine. I think, however, that genuine autonomy is inconsistent with the complete absence of striving and getting. I therefore think we should handle this concern by construing desires and satisfactions broadly enough to consider “going beyond wanting” something that itself could be a successful choice. While it may seem that we are perversely attempting to call the absence of desire something that may be sought, it cannot be denied that a sort of bliss is often promised to those who succeed in attempts at asceticism. If the value of sadhana is considered somehow exempt from rebukes stemming from the praiseworthiness of giving up desires, it seems acceptable to count the seeking for this promised state of bliss a value and the finding of it a success. An autonomous person can’t “just be.”</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The readers of this blog, who I presume are more interested in democratic theory than the psychology of religious experience may not realize that I once wrote a book (nearly 20 years ago) on mysticism and various religious practices: </span><span style="font-family: Georgia; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="border: none; display: inline-block; height: 311px; overflow: hidden; width: 204px;"><img height="311" src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/7RZxYePZPvCuqLX3-jRAt75ZerHyu-0G0T3UliOgZisvYyVuQmtN2EofIJXMJJR3SMtbcEc38vVbRlxbWms3FU12YbPGrGDBY6apDK34yoaeSVt-98SN-Y_Dvz5OPnp941CFR65orA58_eEhgcJEOPWjdGMJDSuDcqjoRGC38Yf1HV9IWG8gT88fCQ" style="margin-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px;" width="204" /></span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So, these matters have some urgency for me. But I have come to the conviction that none of that actually matters so much. It’s not that I am no longer interested in those things--particularly Eastern religious views and practices--or that I no longer think that the tenets they preach have real importance for everyone’s life and wellbeing. That is not the case at all. But I have come to believe that, i</span><span style="font-family: Georgia; white-space: pre-wrap;">f we are to have any democracy at all, </span><span style="font-family: Georgia; white-space: pre-wrap;">just as the principles underlying it must be exalted over any such legitimate concerns as climate change, abortion or prenate rights, what's owed to labor or capital, taxation policy, etc., its axioms of equal rights and procedural fairness must take precedence over every religious tenet too–from “the golden rule” and “turn the other cheek” to “the four noble truths” and "not this, not that." Taking any one of these religious doctrines to trump democracy means that the views of one’s peers on what is most important will sometimes be rightly demoted. We will have come to think that our own take on some value is to be given the highest importance regardless of what anybody else may believe. And that is an authoritarian take on the way public policies should be made. </span></p></span><span style="font-size: large;"><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">No doubt this will be an extremely difficult conclusion for most people to reach. Certainly it has not been easy for me (see my discussion of Thanatos in my democracy book for a particularly dramatic example). But just as the great Oregonian progressive W. S. U’ren was at some point forced to demote his abiding love for a Georgist take on land value taxes in order to become a democratic reformer, all true democrats must always attenuate their own particular ends to a level below those of the people at large, always treating each person equally. For if they fail in that, they will cease to be any kind of authentic democrat at all. </span></p><br /><span style="font-family: Georgia; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So let those “enlightened ones” among us take what positions they will on suffering, emptiness, aggregates, selfhood, being, Brahman, Jesus, cravings and all the rest. If their views do not coincide with the general will, while they must given an appropriate volume of voice in public matters, they need not get their way–regardless of how crucial their faith may seem to them, or even how crucial it actually is</span><span style="font-family: Georgia; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> to all of us</span><span style="font-family: Georgia; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. </span><span style="font-family: Georgia; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><i>The more good, the better </i>must be taken to prevail even over all of the religious credos. Indeed, it must take precedence even over the commands of any deity–no matter how great or good.</span></span></span>waltohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06597500868065913461noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961934417048864252.post-29495970657688709482022-08-15T10:40:00.000-04:002022-08-15T10:40:56.875-04:00Democracy and Truth<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjJVyss3lV1fGdK-wer5roPjJ5t8z4bkV2tH2TOyjDeRyjh_W6BB6MmnACy2VslkWOWFW2zCvIYQDeLFAwYk1G2T1Y4bRyhY_wEbCP_8G0w1Aq7SLA-MsX80H8SeTXVcNzog_fmU8eoG8qoL6A8ZGQmv8_VScgcKN4h_XXEUIAlkoBqM8NWVk2r_VbA" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="202" data-original-width="249" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjJVyss3lV1fGdK-wer5roPjJ5t8z4bkV2tH2TOyjDeRyjh_W6BB6MmnACy2VslkWOWFW2zCvIYQDeLFAwYk1G2T1Y4bRyhY_wEbCP_8G0w1Aq7SLA-MsX80H8SeTXVcNzog_fmU8eoG8qoL6A8ZGQmv8_VScgcKN4h_XXEUIAlkoBqM8NWVk2r_VbA" width="296" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">My Hornbook review of Sophia Rosenfeld's fascinating <i>Democracy and Truth: A Short History </i>is now up at <i>3:16 AM Magazine <a href="https://www.3-16am.co.uk/articles/.c/a-hornbook-of-democracy-book-reviews">here.</a></i></span></p>waltohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06597500868065913461noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961934417048864252.post-39907852025650201442022-08-04T19:40:00.002-04:002022-08-19T14:16:31.152-04:00Review of Democratic Theory Naturalized in The Journal of Value Inquiry<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjMjrCcBxwJGXT6rI7TO1Ezga4o06VIFvpqD--PbOjLF-3sdFSdCQSQ0lPzDVWcGnZsgqXxHq1it7NjEnjxMCss6O8_is9Yv1FBza47PrkgkvH0D2wzKkRSvdJj3ToEE8VJqh_zq5YTLJL-JPy_0r9BOkRHpZMgN7w3koXST7w43AOufqhJKMIDOBPf" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="228" data-original-width="150" height="299" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjMjrCcBxwJGXT6rI7TO1Ezga4o06VIFvpqD--PbOjLF-3sdFSdCQSQ0lPzDVWcGnZsgqXxHq1it7NjEnjxMCss6O8_is9Yv1FBza47PrkgkvH0D2wzKkRSvdJj3ToEE8VJqh_zq5YTLJL-JPy_0r9BOkRHpZMgN7w3koXST7w43AOufqhJKMIDOBPf=w197-h299" width="197" /></a></div><br /><br /><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">So delighted to see this thoughtful <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10790-022-09902-9">review</a> of my <i>Democratic Theory Naturalized: The Foundations of Distilled Populism</i> by Daniel Layman. It's very generous, so I'm quite grateful and have but a couple of teensy nits I can't help but tug at.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The first one involves a sentence that suggests I don't believe in judicial review. I probably shouldn't blame Layman for this. Likely I was insufficiently clear on the matter in my book: perhaps I gave a misleading impression of my take on the judiciary when I defended a limited Reversal theory along the lines pushed by Teddy Roosevelt in his later, Progressive days. But, with or without Reversal, I'm a firm supporter of an independent judiciary and, more generally, the rule of law. Without that, I don't think there can be anything like authentic democracy--and that's kind of my <i>summum bonum</i>. There's a brief summary of my take on judicial review in a recent <a href="https://www.rjsp.politice.ro/why-radical-democracy-inconsistent-mob-rule">paper</a> of mine on the inconsistency of legitimate democracy and "mob rule." (See especially footnote 23.)</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">My second (again inconsequential) beef is that <i>The Journal of Value Inquiry</i> only saw fit to mention the (wildly expensive) hardback edition of my text. There are now also the much cheaper paperback and e-book versions! <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Democratic-Theory-Naturalized-Foundations-Distilled/dp/179362495X">Amazon</a> sells the Kindle version for about $37. Still a lot, but quite a bit less than a C-note.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Anyhow, I'm done kvetching so you can start fetching! {But seem my comment below!}</span></p>waltohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06597500868065913461noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961934417048864252.post-13643759873414642762022-07-17T16:16:00.008-04:002022-07-29T08:12:46.401-04:00Should "Legitimate" but "Unjust" Laws be Implemented and Obeyed?<p style="text-align: left;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhf4WM-unD64aKpEpAorX4vj7UlJHyc7Zo8_izmvzxGrY2d-amP5UF-D7QVQ_wVrrGbmyR0aU8NlJZxTpT_Mq-mc06D0EKcX6ou395YydHpuZZX0X8h8DlZsJ6hlL9e1Dm1zVLh1haz439eZwCc3BxwfROjNx-PFK4B4PkrYj1-rKh1OQyNjVn8B-Hv" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="701" data-original-width="570" height="202" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhf4WM-unD64aKpEpAorX4vj7UlJHyc7Zo8_izmvzxGrY2d-amP5UF-D7QVQ_wVrrGbmyR0aU8NlJZxTpT_Mq-mc06D0EKcX6ou395YydHpuZZX0X8h8DlZsJ6hlL9e1Dm1zVLh1haz439eZwCc3BxwfROjNx-PFK4B4PkrYj1-rKh1OQyNjVn8B-Hv=w164-h202" width="164" /></a> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjb40yYoR05dFexvAF-CUzbmYcUOMXBDc4Gm7oYtwJLtOjzDrAx-1aSz67wdEdB-LA2QMPACesxNFCmtguWQsQs9FUDA3iJVmg_M47Kbzr7MqaQMNpD_HBEeZrcBtiHJEwCtToQ8yt-07HA1388HmwV6xjd5Wkd1Z31iaR-NymdO195Ekoci72PDByB" style="clear: left; display: inline; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img alt="" data-original-height="336" data-original-width="347" height="198" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjb40yYoR05dFexvAF-CUzbmYcUOMXBDc4Gm7oYtwJLtOjzDrAx-1aSz67wdEdB-LA2QMPACesxNFCmtguWQsQs9FUDA3iJVmg_M47Kbzr7MqaQMNpD_HBEeZrcBtiHJEwCtToQ8yt-07HA1388HmwV6xjd5Wkd1Z31iaR-NymdO195Ekoci72PDByB=w187-h198" width="187" /></a></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhf4WM-unD64aKpEpAorX4vj7UlJHyc7Zo8_izmvzxGrY2d-amP5UF-D7QVQ_wVrrGbmyR0aU8NlJZxTpT_Mq-mc06D0EKcX6ou395YydHpuZZX0X8h8DlZsJ6hlL9e1Dm1zVLh1haz439eZwCc3BxwfROjNx-PFK4B4PkrYj1-rKh1OQyNjVn8B-Hv" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a></span></div></div></div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"> Gustav Radbruch Franz Neumann</span></div><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">In my previous blog entry on <a href="https://luckorcunning.blogspot.com/2022/04/laws-legal-systems-and-government-power.html">Laws, Legal Systems, and Government Power</a>, I tried to explain the difference between laws that I take to be <i>authoritative</i> and those that want to call not just authoritative, but also <i>legitimate. </i>The idea was, roughly, that a societal norm within some polity which has the formal features of a law is authoritative if and only if it emerges from procedures which are correct at every turn. I then claimed that while only authoritative laws can be legitimate, legitimacy additionally requires that the government prescribing the procedure for making laws is <i>democratic. </i>What that means is a longer story (see my book). but I don't mean to suggest that only perfectly democratic systems have legitimate laws--after all, there may not ever have been a perfectly democratic system in the history of our planet. I'm not now (and likely never will be) prepared to provide precise minimum requirements for a governmental system to be considered "democratic enough" to produce legitimate laws. But I will repeat what principles I consider to be basic to democracy. There must universal suffrage including those in their mid-teens; every person must be treated equally, with no discrimination allowed on the basis of race, gender, orientation, etc.; the majority should rule, counting each vote equally--but significant minorities should be given a voice in government with the volume of that "voice" mirroring the size of the minority; elections must be "fair" and consequently not buyable; both the referendum and recall should be available to the electorate; and the elected governments must make good faith, transparent efforts to get the electorate what they want based on appropriately aggregated vote tallies.</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">It seems impossible to deny, however, that governments satisfying those minimal conditions could enact horrific laws that would, therefore, be legitimate according to my theory. Even if the principle of equal treatment prevents any law from calling for discrimination against any particular ethnicity or gender, it could still be the case that a legitimate statute is randomly inhuman or results in brutality to everyone, indiscriminately. Must judges apply such laws? Must citizens obey them? In blog entry linked to above, I promised to do what I could to answer these questions. Here is my attempt.</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">The two distinguished gentlemen pictured above were German jurists in the Weimar Republic who were particularly interested in whether what the Nazis were soon to put into could reasonably be called laws, and they wrote about what obligations (if any) on judges and regular citizens followed from the passage of such commands. Now, of course, one can reasonably complain both that Hitler was not governing pursuant to majority rule and that very many of his putative laws certainly <i>did </i>involve unfair discrimination (quite essentially, in fact). So it unproblematic to to deny legitimacy to every edict emanating from the so-called "Third Reich."</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">But let's make this harder by considering some putative law that derives from a regime that <i>is </i>democratically elected and which <i>doesn't </i>discriminate against Jews (or Catholics or Blacks or Gypsies or Gays). This edict could surely remain brutish. Suppose, e.g., that the polity simply won't allow any citizen to emigrate. In fact, imagine that a law is (appropriately) enacted according to which, if anybody is caught trying even to briefly vacation elsewhere, that person may be disemboweled! (If we like, we can even hypothesize that after its passage, this anti-emigration law was subjected to a fairly conducted referendum and was kept in place by a majority of the populace.)</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">It might seem then, that, according to a strictly positivist legal theory--even one which contains my democracy criterion--(i) every judge should condemn to a horrible death anyone found guilty of violating this duly enacted provision, (ii) those with the prescribed duty (and scalpels) should carry out its hideous requirements, and (iii) if this polity utilizes juries (or trials at all!), everyone impaneled for such a case should declare guilty any individual he or she believes had the temerity to step over the border.</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">Does this hypothetical "law" show that legal positivism is a terrible mistake whether or not one adds democracy requirements to the criteria for legal legitimacy? Can civil disobedience really never just be the right thing to do? Both Radbruch and Neumann meditated on this matter--a particularly crucial one after the fall of Weimar. For Radbruch, the moral was beyond any doubt. Positivism is acceptable only until a law is so horrific that it exceeds any reasonable bounds of decency. He wrote that, "One thing...must be indelibly impressed on the consciousness of the people as well as of jurists: There <i>can</i> be laws that are so unjust and so socially harmful that validity, indeed legal character itself, must be denied them."* Radbruch believed that there might be obligations to carry out and obey even some unjust laws, but that there must be a limit. That line is where "the conflict between statute and justice reaches such an intolerable degree that the statute, as 'flawed law,' must yield to justice."** And he concluded that "Where there is not even an attempt at justice, where equality, the core of justice, is deliberately betrayed in the issuance of positive law...it lacks completely the very nature of law. For law...cannot be otherwise defined than as a system and an institution whose very meaning is to serve justice."</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">To the extent that this criterion, eloquent as it is put here, is conceived to essentially rely on the concept of equality of persons, it cannot not help us much, because we have already locked that criterion in when we insisted that only authentically democratic jurisdictions can enact legitimate laws. For there can be no democracy without equal treatment. We will, then, have to rely on Radbruch's more quantitative approach: <i>it can't be legitimate if it's extremely bad. </i></span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><span>In a valuable paper on Radbruch written about a decade ago,*** </span> <span>Brian Bix warns that we should not confuse support or criticism of legal positivism with any particular position regarding what putative laws ought to be obeyed. He writes, "</span>Legal positivism is a theory about the nature of law, even if it is too often confused with entirely different kinds of claims (e.g., about when and whether laws should be obeyed, or about how statutes and constitutional provisions should be interpreted). Bix argues that it is crucial to distinguish any general theory concerning connections between law and morality from questions about how judges should decide any particular case and that Radbruch's admonitions must be restricted to the latter questions. According to Bix, one way of seeing this is to consider that legal positivism must be a theory about the nature of law in every conceivable jurisdiction while what judges should or should not do is necessarily a function of the particular system that jurist happens to inhabit. Furthermore, as some jurisdictions clearly contemplate the use by judges of extra-legal norms in making their decisions, a determination that some proposition is not a law in those places would not entail what Radbruch wants--a norm absolutely requiring that any judge ignore the proposition in question because of the gross injustices it would call forth if enforced.</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">For our purposes here--involving the appropriateness of civil disobedience among judges, jurors and citizens in particular circumstances--we can focus only on this second interpretation of "Radbruch's Formula," and leave more general questions regarding alleged necessary connections/divergences between law and morality to others. Let us, therefore, continue to call procedurally correct laws ensuing from democracies "legitimate," and just focus only on when we may nevertheless ignore them. Radbruch says, roughly, that we may do so when and only when they are particularly terrible. But that seems to offer very little help. When is a command so immoral that it is really, really terrible?</span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Neumann also addressed this issue. In a 1952 paper on appropriate disobedience,</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">****</span><span style="font-family: georgia;"> he provides what he takes to be four essential characteristics of the content of any legitimate edict. Like Radbruch, he starts with the legal equality of all rational persons, and he adds that nothing requiring slavery can be legitimate, since slavery requires inequality. Second, he says laws granting or limiting liberty must be general and not apply only to certain specified individuals. Third, retroactive or</span><span style="font-family: georgia;"> </span><i style="font-family: georgia;">ex post facto </i><span style="font-family: georgia;">legislation affecting life or liberty are claimed to be </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">improper and so need not be obeyed. Finally, he tells us that the agencies enacting, interpreting, and enforcing laws must all be sufficiently separate.</span></span></span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"> </span></p><p style="margin: 0px;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">Neumann claims here, without much argument, that his principles two, three, and four are derivable from the first, equality-endorsing axiom. That seems to me an extremely interesting and important claim if true, because any such derivation would seem to prevent a number of versions of illiberality in authentically democratic regimes. But I confess that I cannot myself see how retroactive law-making or parliamentary forms of government--distasteful as they may be to many observers--are inconsistent with providing everyone with equal treatment and protection. Democracy alone does not seem to me to prevent certain types of official cruelty (or require judicial independence) in instances where the people in that polity are themselves illiberal and cruel. In any case, if all the varieties of illiberality singled out by Neumann are made impossible by authentic democracy, I have not managed to see how or why.</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">Returning to his main argument, Neumann clearly believed that his four principles are all that we can appropriately agree upon as content-bases for legal legitimacy; but he also worried that they will not seem sufficient to everyone. He writes that his four reeds "may sound very thin and unsatisfactory." But he thinks that this will be so "only if we forget that man may morally resist any command of his government if his conscience impels him to do so." Why? Because, Neumann insists, "There cannot be made a universally valid statement telling us when man’s conscience may legitimately absolve him from obedience to the laws of the state. Every man has individually to wrestle with this problem. If he decides to resist, he cannot invoke a 'right,' but he will evoke our sympathy. Beyond the four statements on the unconditional right of resistance, each man must make his decision." (Interestingly, he appeals to Hegel's early-19th Century <i>Philosophy of Right</i> for this individualistic stance.)</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">A "you'll-have-to-figure-this-out-yourself" stance certainly appeals to me in this area, for, as I have written elsewhere, while I believe that moral claims are like factual propositions in either being true or false, and even think that they may be warranted to some extent for a particular individual (perhaps by her emotional responses to various states of affairs), no human being seems to me ever to be in a position to <i>know</i> the truth of any ethical judgment. For it is my view that any such knowledge would require a reasonable and at least partially justified general theory of morality, and I don't think any of those exist.***** Moral claims therefore seem to me akin to astrological predictions, for those are also true or false, and may in some cases be inductively warranted. But, being (let's say) "unhinged," they can also never be known to be the case. As my book shows, I am much more comfortable about our epistemic relations with propositions involving <i>prudential</i> value than with those involving morality.</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">To conclude, whether or not civil disobedience is appropriate in a particular situation is, without doubt, a strictly moral matter, and as I am a skeptic with respect to moral knowledge, I believe Neumann was right. We will each have to let our own conscience be our guide.</span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><i>* </i></span><span style="font-family: georgia;">"</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Five Minutes of Legal Philosophy</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">" (1945)</span></span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">** "</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Statutory Lawlessness and Super-Statutory Law</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">" (1946)</span></span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">*** "</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Radbruch's Formula and Conceptual Analysis" (2011)</span></span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size: medium;">**** "On the Limits of Justifiable Disobedience" (1952)</span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-size: medium;">***** Most of those that have been offered have been species of hedonism, and no form of moral consequentialism seems to me to have fared very well after being subjected to centuries of criticism. I will admit, however, that I have just been informed of a new paper suggesting an entirely different sort of theory: Andre, DeBove, et al., "Moral Cognition as a Nash Product Maximizer" (2022). Perhaps something along those contractualist/game theory lines will do better than any version of consequentialism has to date, though I have my doubts.</span></p>waltohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06597500868065913461noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961934417048864252.post-65199845960170579982022-06-20T09:22:00.001-04:002022-07-11T10:01:33.417-04:00My Review of Rick Hasen's Cheap Speech<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhnYxlIZfWm-vnLR_o567dzyCe3ZFLMwEexicoGFtqV1GYJBi0N1D2SVexMgXiX5-Lq561xyM_VdIb8-WsfpuLkKG0vqrmPkl4gdKZZUKx_AZOSlvVL2PT2E_23z5UnGjMzr2yZId-7qot91aVijx8DZW3ptRwIP0suUMzzQvP1vBOzTRZwCFL3BGGf" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="525" data-original-width="526" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhnYxlIZfWm-vnLR_o567dzyCe3ZFLMwEexicoGFtqV1GYJBi0N1D2SVexMgXiX5-Lq561xyM_VdIb8-WsfpuLkKG0vqrmPkl4gdKZZUKx_AZOSlvVL2PT2E_23z5UnGjMzr2yZId-7qot91aVijx8DZW3ptRwIP0suUMzzQvP1vBOzTRZwCFL3BGGf" width="240" /></a></div><br /><p></p><div><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;">Here's an excerpt: </span></div><div><br /></div><div>"<span style="-webkit-text-stroke: 1px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-color: white; color: #252525; font-family: Merriweather, Arial, sans-serif;">Suppose you are on a sea vessel that is rapidly taking on water. You are given an honest description of the cracks in the hull, and you are told, too, what steps the crew and passengers might take toward mending those holes and what the realistic chances are that any of these procedures might do all that could reasonably be expected of them. This crisis response, which I take to be analogous to what Hasen has provided in the area of democracy, would all be well and good, I think, if (i) water were not being taken on in an amount and speed that will surely s</span><span style="-webkit-text-stroke: 1px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-color: white; color: #252525; font-family: Merriweather, Arial, sans-serif;">ink the ship within an hour, and (ii) the crew were not simply passing out a couple dozen ladles."</span></div><div><span style="-webkit-text-stroke: 1px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-color: white; color: #252525; font-family: Merriweather, Arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="-webkit-text-stroke: 1px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); color: #252525;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;">You can read the whole thing <a href="https://www.3-16am.co.uk/articles/richard-l-hasen-cheap-speech-how-disinformation-poisons-our-politics-and-how-to-cure-it?c=a-hornbook-of-democracy-book-reviews">here</a></span></span></div>waltohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06597500868065913461noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961934417048864252.post-7321191068034954102022-06-16T16:52:00.003-04:002022-08-20T23:48:10.496-04:00What makes for a stable democratic regime?<p><span face=""Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj48pWgJrCzDz7V0FVm1mH7ekEnPNGPJlTCUMLOIFOYWhI7ffnJ0DkxwIU1W2JR-tFANF0oqjs96ItbgQptdcmdGERXpDo60KbuzqQPXoLUCThD-95LzeDm5Jfn1T85HAljRO6gSbtxVTBUM77iPoM6_e-hwK2pvrv2IJ01i1VyZyc8g96B5ZYsvuxc" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgHaCOWBOqPx2k5YBjz_OpJXq2ru9DhM1SiS8ms97R_e6rhbpuU7qm80Kaajz81F6AYHzTTU3dc9yb3C_NbuuNJvHq_3abr4iA5G7oDSgGe3KXE_4kmYsAnzsMhuUVjBQb5dqbRED6V1XM6Z5V46zXEiEbVEUtG8GP2FOh16J_NFnG5x-841IoHVQJp" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgHaCOWBOqPx2k5YBjz_OpJXq2ru9DhM1SiS8ms97R_e6rhbpuU7qm80Kaajz81F6AYHzTTU3dc9yb3C_NbuuNJvHq_3abr4iA5G7oDSgGe3KXE_4kmYsAnzsMhuUVjBQb5dqbRED6V1XM6Z5V46zXEiEbVEUtG8GP2FOh16J_NFnG5x-841IoHVQJp" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgHaCOWBOqPx2k5YBjz_OpJXq2ru9DhM1SiS8ms97R_e6rhbpuU7qm80Kaajz81F6AYHzTTU3dc9yb3C_NbuuNJvHq_3abr4iA5G7oDSgGe3KXE_4kmYsAnzsMhuUVjBQb5dqbRED6V1XM6Z5V46zXEiEbVEUtG8GP2FOh16J_NFnG5x-841IoHVQJp" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhPNC8i_f6Oepjb6tUd5zz8-5HKNDQ_GSVgY94cu7yf6XGabhcPAL4oI7QSybZDf8lshr9x8NyFB9uYCH0P5Ed-lVdGhZRTIacTXfOOig4VaHBoEP9NW2BI0CKw00V5MQ18QcbO0XpmSGYAi5Hj8nhHDnYtarSJP3yacBTCOEgjTsFDtX_WXOti6VJA" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="300" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhPNC8i_f6Oepjb6tUd5zz8-5HKNDQ_GSVgY94cu7yf6XGabhcPAL4oI7QSybZDf8lshr9x8NyFB9uYCH0P5Ed-lVdGhZRTIacTXfOOig4VaHBoEP9NW2BI0CKw00V5MQ18QcbO0XpmSGYAi5Hj8nhHDnYtarSJP3yacBTCOEgjTsFDtX_WXOti6VJA" width="240" /></a></div><br /></div><br /><br /><br /></div><br /><br /><p></p><div style="color: #050505; text-align: left; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="color: #050505; white-space: pre-wrap;">I</span></span><span style="color: #050505; font-family: georgia; white-space: pre-wrap;">n my newly published <a href="https://journalispri.wixsite.com/journal/archive-copy">paper</a> </span><span style="color: #050505; font-family: georgia; white-space: pre-wrap;">on Harry Eckstein's "congruence theory" of democratic stability, I</span><span style="color: #050505; font-family: georgia; white-space: pre-wrap;"> make a plea for political scientists to attempt either to confirm or disconfirm my simplified "majoritarian consonance" version</span><span style="color: #050505; font-family: georgia; white-space: pre-wrap;"><a class="oajrlxb2 g5ia77u1 qu0x051f esr5mh6w e9989ue4 r7d6kgcz rq0escxv nhd2j8a9 nc684nl6 p7hjln8o kvgmc6g5 cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x jb3vyjys rz4wbd8a qt6c0cv9 a8nywdso i1ao9s8h esuyzwwr f1sip0of lzcic4wl gpro0wi8 py34i1dx" href="https://journalispri.wixsite.com/journal/archive-copy" rel="nofollow noopener" role="link" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; border-color: initial; border-style: initial; border-width: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; cursor: pointer; display: inline; list-style: none; margin: 0px; outline: none; padding: 0px; text-align: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; touch-action: manipulation;" tabindex="0" target="">.</a></span></span></span></div><div style="color: #050505; text-align: left; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;"><span style="color: #050505; font-family: georgia; white-space: pre-wrap;"><a class="oajrlxb2 g5ia77u1 qu0x051f esr5mh6w e9989ue4 r7d6kgcz rq0escxv nhd2j8a9 nc684nl6 p7hjln8o kvgmc6g5 cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x jb3vyjys rz4wbd8a qt6c0cv9 a8nywdso i1ao9s8h esuyzwwr f1sip0of lzcic4wl gpro0wi8 py34i1dx" href="https://journalispri.wixsite.com/journal/archive-copy" rel="nofollow noopener" role="link" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; border-color: initial; border-style: initial; border-width: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; cursor: pointer; display: inline; list-style: none; margin: 0px; outline: none; padding: 0px; text-align: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; touch-action: manipulation;" tabindex="0" target=""><br /></a></span></span><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-family: georgia;">My sense is that a comparative politics guru could likely settle this "authority patterns" doctrine once and for all quite quickly. So I hope some of those folks will check it out!</span></span></div><div style="color: #050505; text-align: left; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-family: georgia;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #fff2cc; font-family: georgia;">(BTW, if my article seems dry or abstruse, it may help to contemplate while reading it that after escaping Nazi Germany as a child and in spite of publishing a ton of important work and teaching at Princeton as an adult, Eckstein somehow also managed to get married four times.)</span></span></div>waltohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06597500868065913461noreply@blogger.com0