The room was appreciative of the nuance.
I gather there was a State of the Union address tonight, but it never occurred to me to watch it. That's the first time I think I've ever missed one. I don't care anymore.
If
At a local government meeting the other night -- I'll spare the details to keep people out of trouble -- someone was describing the particular powers of a particular office, which under the right circumstances are extraordinary. The governor can't step in and overrule this local officer, the speaker pointed out, "and if we had a President of the United States, he couldn't either."
Enchiridion L
L
Whatever rules you have adopted, abide by them as laws, and as if you would be impious to transgress them; and do not regard what anyone says of you, for this, after all, is no concern of yours. How long, then, will you delay to demand of yourself the noblest improvements, and in no instance to transgress the judgments of reason? You have received the philosophic principles with which you ought to be conversant; and you have been conversant with them. For what other master, then, do you wait as an excuse for this delay in self-reformation? You are no longer a boy but a grown man. If, therefore, you will be negligent and slothful, and always add procrastination to procrastination, purpose to purpose, and fix day after day in which you will attend to yourself, you will insensibly continue to accomplish nothing and, living and dying, remain of vulgar mind. This instant, then, think yourself worthy of living as a man grown up and a proficient. Let whatever appears to be the best be to you an inviolable law. And if any instance of pain or pleasure, glory or disgrace, be set before you, remember that now is the combat, now the Olympiad comes on, nor can it be put off; and that by one failure and defeat honor may be lost or—won. Thus Socrates became perfect, improving himself by everything, following reason alone. And though you are not yet a Socrates, you ought, however, to live as one seeking to be a Socrates.
This is excellent advice.
The Orthosphere on St. Anslem
In general the Orthosphere is a good site that is worth reading, and this post is also. I simply wish to correct a point about which they are mistaken.
The actual existence of God is implicit in, and so necessitated by, the very concept of God. This is what Aquinas is getting at in his argument that the actual existence of God is essential to his nature.
That is not at all what St. Thomas Aquinas was 'getting at' in that argument, an which is less his than Avicenna's; what you get in Aquinas is a summary of what is fully spelled out in Avicenna's Metaphysics, which is the thirteenth book of his Healing.*
What these philosophers meant is to elaborate a point of Aristotle's, which defines goodness in terms of desire. Aristotle says that the good is what is desirable, and for the most part that differs based on what the thing is doing the desiring. Rain may be very desirable from the perspective of the grass, and therefore it is good for the grass; it may be less good for the sailors at sea, because it is less desirable. If we want to talk about The Good per se, then, we would need to find something that is desirable for all things. Everything, Aristotle suggests, desires existence: both grass and sailors, squirrels and trees all seek to preserve their existence and to extend it through reproduction. In the Metaphysics, the great spirits that drive the stars seek to imitate the perfection of the Unmoved Mover, which they are able to do only by rough imitation: they travel in circles (as the Greeks believed they did, based on empirical observation) because the circle has a kind of infinity in its eternal surface that never ends.
Avicenna goes on to point out that existence is, then, goodness per se: "to exist" and "to be good" are thus phrases that differ only in emphasis. (Aquinas gives his summary of this part in ST I 5a1.) Of these two concepts, being has priority (next article in Aquinas); and thus the idea of goodness derives from existence.
But God's existence is necessary -- and here is where Avicenna greatly outpaces Aquinas' summary. Avicenna demonstrates with two long form arguments that the universe would not exist if it were not for the existence of another being that exists necessarily: and, having proven that such a being must exist, he also proves through another set of arguments that there can be only one of them. Thus, the Orthosphere is wrong to suggest that Aquinas is merely suggesting that necessity is 'contained in the concept' of God. The proof Aquinas is citing is a proof of the logical necessity of exactly one being whose existence is necessary. It is not contained in the concept, but separately established.
Aquinas' summary of this is in ST I 2a3. He gives summaries of five arguments for God's existence. The first one is from Aristotle's Metaphysics, the argument for unmoved movers. He then gives summaries of both of Avicenna's arguments.
The second way [to prove God's existence] is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.
God's existence is necessary, then; and his goodness is then both not only also necessary, but of a kind that is just as different from ours as our possible and temporary existence is different from God's necessary and eternal one.
His fourth and fifth proofs are also Aristotelian -- he explicitly cites Aristotle for the fourth one. His invocations of Anslem are generally critical, though as he was criticizing a canonized saint while he was yet a living man he had to couch his criticisms in respectful terms. Still, Anslem was not what he was 'getting at' in his work.
* Usually "The Healing," because Arabic is one of those languages that prefixes nouns with a definite article, as French does "la" or "le," and Spanish does "el" or "la." Just as "La France" is really "France" in English, though, the definite article is not really always necessary or appropriate in translation.
Enchiridion XLIX
XLIX
When anyone shows himself vain on being able to understand and interpret the works of Chrysippus, say to yourself: “Unless Chrysippus had written obscurely, this person would have had nothing to be vain of. But what do I desire? To understand nature, and follow her. I ask, then, who interprets her; and hearing that Chrysippus does, I have recourse to him. I do not understand his writings. I seek, therefore, one to interpret them.” So far there is nothing to value myself upon. And when I find an interpreter, what remains is to make use of his instructions. This alone is the valuable thing. But if I admire merely the interpretation, what do I become more than a grammarian, instead of a philosopher, except, indeed, that instead of Homer I interpret Chrysippus? When anyone, therefore, desires me to read Chrysippus to him, I rather blush when I cannot exhibit actions that are harmonious and consonant with his discourse.
You will never meet anyone who understands the works of Chrysippus, as they were lost. It is understood that they were respected and influential in his day, and clearly were in Epictetus', but no one now remembers what he said.
Enchiridion XLVIII
XLVIII
The condition and characteristic of a vulgar person is that he never looks for either help or harm from himself, but only from externals. The condition and characteristic of a philosopher is that he looks to himself for all help or harm. The marks of a proficient are that he censures no one, praises no one, blames no one, accuses no one; says nothing concerning himself as being anybody or knowing anything. When he is in any instance hindered or restrained, he accuses himself; and if he is praised, he smiles to himself at the person who praises him; and if he is censured, he makes no defense. But he goes about with the caution of a convalescent, careful of interference with anything that is doing well but not yet quite secure. He restrains desire; he transfers his aversion to those things only which thwart the proper use of our own will; he employs his energies moderately in all directions; if he appears stupid or ignorant, he does not care; and, in a word, he keeps watch over himself as over an enemy and one in ambush.
Indeed on this model only one's self is one's proper enemy. The semblances outside cannot hurt you, not really; but you can hurt yourself, and badly, by doing wrong. If any of you actually read that novel I wrote, you'll recognize this principle: death cannot hurt you, but you can be hurt by life. Those parts that hurt you are the things you do that you shouldn't have done.
Yet Epictetus' instruction here is in tension with an earlier description, from chapter V: "When, therefore, we are hindered or disturbed, or grieved, let us never impute it to others, but to ourselves—that is, to our own views. It is the action of an uninstructed person to reproach others for his own misfortunes; of one entering upon instruction, to reproach himself; and one perfectly instructed, to reproach neither others nor himself."
The tension is resolved if we accept this as degrees of mastery. It is the mark of a proficient to accuse himself if he is hindered or restrained; but the master reproaches no one, neither himself nor anyone else. The master takes the ride: he forgives everything, and he forgives others as he forgives himself. In this way the Stoic satisfies the most powerful commandments of a religion he did not share.
When they're just lying to us again
In the annals of meta, prepared to be shocked by the news that status pages for the big internet hubs sometimes are less than candid about the true state of their service, doggedly proclaiming that All Is Well. Now there is a Status Page Status Page that cheekily compares the official pronouncements with the reported user experience, thus threatening morale and inciting insurgency. Presumably the Attorney General, the CDC, and Justin Trudeau are already on the case. Fact-checking is all very well if top men do it, but this kind of thing is the Wild West, dog-eat-dog capitalism.
Missing links
I play for team eukaryote myself, and have never thought of transitioning to prokaryote. It would seem like abandoning complexity and specialization, and is the simple and undifferentiated life worth living? I don't even have any friends who lack a nucleus or organelles, or who identify as unicellular (pronouns one/one). Also, we are all detectable without a microscope.
The startling news from the world of biology is that this yawning divide, thought to have been complete billions of years ago, is not as nonbinary as we thought.
Enchiridion XLVII
XLVII
When you have learned to nourish your body frugally, do not pique yourself upon it; nor, if you drink water, be saying upon every occasion, “I drink water.” But first consider how much more frugal are the poor than we, and how much more patient of hardship. If at any time you would inure yourself by exercise to labor and privation, for your own sake and not for the public, do not attempt great feats; but when you are violently thirsty, just rinse your mouth with water, and tell nobody.
This part bears very strong resemblance to Matthew 6, but the motivation is completely different. "[W]hen you pray, go into your inner room, shut your door, and pray to your Father, who is unseen. And your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." Here there is no expectation of a divine reward; but the practical advice is the same.
"I drink water" as opposed to wine, I expect; the point is not to be 'virtue signaling,' as we call it today. "Oh, I used to eat expensive dinners at fine restaurants, but these days I cook all my own food. It's just so much healthier, and it leaves us extra money to travel -- which is so important, you know, to opening your mind and understanding the world." There are several good reasons not to do this even apart from Jesus' suggestion that God will reward virtue, such as that it annoys everyone to hear you do it. That isn't Epictetus' point either.
The point is itself about virtue, in the Aristotelian sense of "excellence." If you want to realize this philosophy as fully as possible, this is the way.
And yet, notice the tension with the last chapter. It was said you should be a living example of your philosophy so that people might learn better from your example than from your words. Now you are being told to hide your actions, so that no one can see them or know of them. This protects you, the Stoic, from vainglory and pride and all similar failings. But now the ignorant will remain ignorant; they will never know that you have trained yourself only to wash your mouth when thirsty, and so bear hardship and privation.
Elon Musk steps up again
During the Canadian truck protests, Elon Musk was reported to have established Starlink stations on top of trucks parked near the capitol, when the authorities threatened to interrupt communications. Apparently he did the same for the Tonganese after the volcano. Now he's done the same in Ukraine.
Ukraine and America
Ukraine's defense has been bold and admirable; they have shown us that the Russian forces, even their elite forces, are structurally and doctrinally weak. Russia is almost certain to win, but it is paying a huge price for it. Americans would never accept losing two companies of the 82nd Airborne en route to seize an airfield they never reached; nor having deployed airborne and special operations units to another airfield, only to see them wiped out. The losses of tanks and mobile infantry are already staggering. Yesterday some pundits were speaking of how Putin would press on to seize the rest of Eastern Europe, which he plainly couldn't do with 150,000 troops; today, it's clear that he will be grateful if he manages to swallow, let alone digest, what he has undertaken.
Having said all of that, Lee Smith has an important point on how America has led Ukraine to the bleeding point. It's a long piece, but needs to be considered: the basic lesson is that our intelligence agencies played them for their own advantage, and used them to destabilize other states -- and of course the hated Trump administration, impeached over Ukraine but the administration that actually gave them the weapons they needed to fight Russian tanks.
Enchiridion XLVI
XLVI
Never proclaim yourself a philosopher, nor make much talk among the ignorant about your principles, but show them by actions. Thus, at an entertainment, do not discourse how people ought to eat, but eat as you ought. For remember that thus Socrates also universally avoided all ostentation. And when persons came to him and desired to be introduced by him to philosophers, he took them and introduced them; so well did he bear being overlooked. So if ever there should be among the ignorant any discussion of principles, be for the most part silent. For there is great danger in hastily throwing out what is undigested. And if anyone tells you that you know nothing, and you are not nettled at it, then you may be sure that you have really entered on your work. For sheep do not hastily throw up the grass to show the shepherds how much they have eaten, but, inwardly digesting their food, they produce it outwardly in wool and milk. Thus, therefore, do you not make an exhibition before the ignorant of your principles, but of the actions to which their digestion gives rise.
Note that the discussion of principles is not itself to be avoided, but talking about them among the ignorant. Discussions among those interested in philosophy can be beneficial, and of course for those who wish to become students they are necessary. One can only learn by being exposed to the arguments, and one learns best by working them through with a good teacher.
So if a teacher must talk about principles in order to educate the student, and the student must by necessity begin as ignorant, how can it be wrong to talk among the ignorant about principles? The difficulty is not in talking to a single student, but in talking 'among' the ignorant. The dynamics of the crowd make it difficult for a crowd to hear and learn anything. What is popular will often seem to have the greatest force. Education comes in a different environment than the crowd.
There is a parallel here in Jewish philosophy. Moses Maimonides notes the tradition among the wise of his faith to teach the interpretation of the vision of the prophet Ezekiel "only viva voce," and not to commit it to writing. (He then, of course, commits a great deal of his interpretation to writing; it makes up the first section of Part III of The Guide for the Perplexed.) It was sometimes said that this particular subject should never be taught in the presence of two (or more). Serious matters require a serious, intent discussion among people with the right kind of relationship of trust and respect.
Epictetus is giving two pieces of advice here: the first on how to prevent philosophical thought from coming under mockery by the ignorant, which could bring disrepute upon most worthy ideas and ideals. More importantly, though, he is showing you how to prove your philosophy. If it is the right thing to do, then do it, don't talk about it. By observing your actions, people will come to understand your ideals; and by seeing how well they work, they will better understand their value than by having them explained.
Like the sheep who produces milk and wool, a Stoic who lives his ideas is creating real good in the world. Aristotle's ethics also turns on the importance of actually being virtuous, not just understanding what is and is not a virtue. Practice is essential; it is what makes the real good, virtue, so that the world has virtuous men to rely upon.
Can't you trust any crowdfunding sites?
Patreon has shut down donations to a Ukrainian defense group. Wouldn't want them to use the money for any of those nasty violent weapons. Someone might get hurt.
Good news on the Texas border
Not about immigration, of course, just about the defection of a large swath of formerly loyal Democratic voters to the GOP.
I've always thought it was "swathe," by the way, but that turns out to be the Brit spelling. These are things I learn by obsessively working the Wordle puzzle, which is based on 5-letter words.
Enchiridion XLV
XLV
Does anyone bathe hastily? Do not say that he does it ill, but hastily. Does anyone drink much wine? Do not say that he does ill, but that he drinks a great deal. For unless you perfectly understand his motives, how should you know if he acts ill? Thus you will not risk yielding to any appearances but such as you fully comprehend.
We tried to instill timely bathing, and especially showers, although I'm not sure how much success we had in doing so. Regular bathing, too. Well, boys are a slow crop as Cassandra used to say.
Moderation in wine consumption is also a longstanding goal, one achieved as well as it has been and neither better nor worse.
Canadian Tyranny Continues
Thirty-nine trucking businesses are shut down by the government.
So they’re protesters who — as far as we know — have not been charged with any crime. But they’ve just had their businesses shut down. What does that mean?
A business they’ve built up their whole lives, maybe. A truck, a company, a licence, insurance — all the parts of it — just ended. No trial. No judge. No hearing. No appeal. Just happened. And of course it was done by Doug Ford — but at Ottawa’s direction.
Well, there's no law. That's the point.
UPDATE: Some well-deserved mockery.
A Bright Note on a Dark Day
Those Javelin missiles Trump sent Ukraine turn out to work really well on Russian tanks.
Unpatriotic Conservatives
My reason for wanting to avoid war, shifting to containment rather than deterrence, is that it is strategically the only sensible move. We cannot fight a war with Russia from our present position without losing it and/or escalating into truly disastrous territory.
However, there are others who are opposed to fighting the war for other reasons. Rod Dreher at The American Conservative writes on this today. He begins by reminding us that "Unpatriotic Conservatives" was also a line used to oppose those, like Pat Buchanan, who opposed the Iraq war. [There is a lot of cursing in this post, which normally we don't do at the Hall, but it's an emotional moment and topic.]
[T]he world is full of evil bastards, not all of whom can or should be fought by American soldiers. War is a great clarifier. As I type this, I’m thinking of the gentle kid from my summer baseball league in the 1970s, who grew up to be sent to Iraq with the Louisiana National Guard, and who came home traumatized and unable to set foot inside his family’s church, because he said God could never forgive him for what he did over there. To my knowledge, he has never told a soul what it was (I heard about it from his anguished wife....The people who need to hear it most are utterly incapable of listening. So I’m going to say it both to lay down a marker for the future (for when the talking heads puzzle over how things got to this disastrous point) and to encourage fellow conservatives who are thinking these thoughts, but are confused by them, because they’re new, and feel strange and even kind of dirty.To repeat myself: I am opposed to Russia’s actions in Ukraine. I think Russia should leave Ukraine alone, but whatever happens, I am adamantly against following the US leadership into hawkish actions against the Russians. It’s not at all because I support Russia or in any way approve of what it’s doing. (I hope Russian families and Russian soldiers stop to think about what exorbitant cost is extracted from them so that Putin can restore Greater Russia.) It’s rather that I am sick to the point of puking of these people — the American elites — sh*tting all over so many of us, yet expecting us to send our sons (and daughters) to fight its damn wars.
I would definitely not send my son to fight in a war that cannot be won. I might go myself, although Aquinas reminds us that wars are only justifiable if they have a hope of victory -- otherwise there is no potential good to balance against the certain evil that results from war. It may be, though, that Dreher and Reaboi and others he cites are correct about where our real struggles properly lie.
Thoughts on Ukraine
The great, indeed grave, danger in Ukraine is that our politicians will talk themselves into trying to join the fight. Reportedly NATO has been cleared to execute war plans at the discretion of the Supreme Allied Commander - Europe, who is a fighter pilot by training rather than a maneuver warfare veteran. The war as it is unfolding is a classic maneuver war, with pinning forces and attempted envelopments, plus a flanking maneuver that has already seized the airport at the Ukrainian capital. It is too late now to do anything of value except contain the war to Ukraine if possible.
As I said in January, the West signaled very strongly that Ukraine would be left to the wolves. Changing our minds now, when we are out of position, would lead to a widening war -- the example I used was the Korean conflict, but it might be far worse. The time to move the forces into place that would have been necessary to deter this war is past. The only thing to do now is to try to keep the war from spreading, and start laying the groundwork for a future strategy.
Putin's plan initially seems bolder than my estimate, which assumed he would try only to seize the Russian-majority regions in the east. That may still be his actual plan; claiming that he intends to seize the whole and "demilitarize" it gives him a strong opening negotiation position should he care to bid for having sanctions dropped in return for letting the rest of the country go. Holding the whole thing would be expensive, and insurgency is very likely especially in the west.
In December of last year I suggested raising that cost in Ukraine and Taiwan by urging the adoption of a version of the Second Amendment. I notice that Ukraine has, this morning, granted all citizens the right to bear arms. Better late than never, but this would have been more effective two months ago when there was still time to distribute arms to the people (and ammunition), and to conduct training in their use and maintenance.
There are only long-term answers that are good answers now. We need to do the following:
1) Revisit energy policy, with an eye on nuclearization here at home. We should restore the last administration's all-in approach to production in the meantime, but electrification with clean nuclear power -- the stuff is way cleaner now than in the old days, and actually much cleaner than coal -- would provide us with energy independence in the long term.
2) We need all-new leadership. The political leadership must be replaced, but that is insufficient. The bureaucracies need to be scalped at least: every flag officer should be cashiered for going along with the degradation of our armed forces into an Army that can't execute a withdrawal maneuver without chaos and a Navy that can't paint its ships or prevent collisions or put out fires on them. Some of the bureaucracies should be entirely dissolved and not replaced; others, like State, should be replaced throughout. We need people who understand what national security is actually about, which is not trying to implement 'the successor ideology.' It is preparing for war, and using that strength to prevent war.
3) The United Nations should dissolve in disgrace like the League of Nations before it, and for the same reason: utter failure to perform its claimed mission of preventing war. It should be replaced with nothing. Instead we should reinforce alliance networks where we need to deter predatory powers. (This may include NATO-ally Turkey, which is spending today conducting mock air raids on Greece -- as China is, today, on Taiwan.)
Those are all long-term steps, and we cannot get started on any of them until next year -- after the election seats a partially-new government. So, for now, there's nothing to do but let the wolves take the sacrificial lambs. It may be possible to interfere with their digestion by supporting armed populations and covertly supporting insurgencies, but it is not now possible to stop Russia from eating as much of Ukraine as it decides it really wants to do.
Enchiridion XLIV
XLIV
These reasonings have no logical connection: “I am richer than you, therefore I am your superior.” “I am more eloquent than you, therefore I am your superior.” The true logical connection is rather this: “I am richer than you, therefore my possessions must exceed yours.” “I am more eloquent than you, therefore my style must surpass yours.” But you, after all, consist neither in property nor in style.
This is straightforward, although I suppose it would be surprising to some people to learn that neither wealth nor properly creased pants convey superiority. That was Tyler Durden's insight: "You are not your job. You are not how much money you make. You are not the car you drive; you are not the contents of your wallet. You are not your khakis."
What are you, then?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)