You’re not safe. Life isn’t safe. The world isn’t safe. But you can’t live hiding under the rug. And some things are worth doing. Square your shoulders, decide what you have to do. Then do it. Death will come either from it or from merely living. Death is the price of being alive. * * * As for “We can’t reconcile.” and “We can’t share a nation with people like this.” Well, your ancestors did. After the revolution, after the civil war, wounds were bound, and people learned to live together, even though each had done horrible things to the others. You will too. And most of them not-media-personalities are mostly dumb, lied to and histrionic. Which is bad enough, but not evil incarnate.
You're not the first to face this
Via Instapundit, Sarah Hoyt:
Nicomachean Ethics VI.9
Book VI continues with more fine distinctions. Unhelpfully translations differ, and you really need to know which Greek concept is being put in play. For example, the one we've been using wants to talk about "deliberation."
There is a difference between inquiry and deliberation; for deliberation is inquiry into a particular kind of thing. We must grasp the nature of excellence in deliberation as well whether it is a form of scientific knowledge, or opinion, or skill in conjecture, or some other kind of thing.
You will recall that we already discussed deliberation separately in III.2-3. The translation's use of the term here is ambiguous; the concept Aristotle was discussing in Book III was prohairesis but here it is phronesis, the latter of which began to discuss the other day. If any of you are reading the Irwin translation, he tries to keep the English words he uses linked carefully to the Greek words, but even then you'll see him talk of "inquiry" versus "deliberation" versus "intelligence" versus "wisdom."
Following this section exactly may not be possible on the first pass. These are intricate distinctions about invisible mental faculties, originally in ancient Greek and now in several English translations. If you really want to map this down, it will take a little time.
Scientific knowledge it is not; for men do not inquire about the things they know about, but good deliberation is a kind of deliberation, and he who deliberates inquires and calculates. Nor is it skill in conjecture; for this both involves no reasoning and is something that is quick in its operation, while men deliberate a long time, and they say that one should carry out quickly the conclusions of one's deliberation, but should deliberate slowly.
Irwin translates what they are giving as "it is not skill in conjecture" instead as that intelligence "is not good guessing." The problem with even very good guessing is that you could go wrong; what Aristotle is looking for from phronesis is a little more security that you'll choose your actions correctly.
Again, readiness of mind is different from excellence in deliberation; it is a sort of skill in conjecture. Nor again is excellence in deliberation opinion of any sort. But since the man who deliberates badly makes a mistake, while he who deliberates well does so correctly, excellence in deliberation is clearly a kind of correctness, but neither of knowledge nor of opinion; for there is no such thing as correctness of knowledge (since there is no such thing as error of knowledge)...
"There is no such thing as correctness of knowledge" and "there is no such thing as error of knowledge" both sound very suspicious to contemporary readers. You have to know that Aristotle's definition of knowledge assumes truth: knowledge, per the Posterior Analytics, is "Justified true belief." Thus, your knowledge can't be in error because it would then not be true, and if it's a false belief it wasn't knowledge to begin with.
So, just as he wants phronesis to be more secure than 'good guessing,' he defines knowledge to be safely true.
Socrates was aware of this theory of knowledge and had rejected it (at least in Plato's telling), but Aristotle found it satisfactory. This account of knowledge held up a very long time. It was not until the late 20th century that a serious problem was found with it (though the Wikipedia article does give some earlier examples of people asking questions about it). In 1963 kind of a fun challenge was raised by Edmund Gettier, which nobody has yet figured out how to solve. Actually, epistemology is a lot of fun all the way around. Nothing very serious hangs on it (except for little things like knowledge and truth), and it's a great deal of fun to think about.
Underappreciation
Oh, it's far more dangerous than that, Poppy. (That is her name.)
If men like Charlie Kirk can’t even speak to American students without fearing a gunman in the crowd, America is in a far more dangerous place than anyone has so far been willing to concede.
The gunman wasn't in the crowd. He was 200 yards away with a rifle he knew how to use very competently.
America is a much more dangerous place that you Brits can even imagine. That's the precipice we are on right now.
Nicomachean Ethics VI.8
This is an important chapter. Today is an inauspicious day for it because of the political murder of the early afternoon, but the wisdom it speaks of is eternal.
Political wisdom and practical wisdom are the same state of mind, but their essence is not the same. Of the wisdom concerned with the city, the practical wisdom which plays a controlling part is legislative wisdom, while that which is related to this as particulars to their universal is known by the general name 'political wisdom'; this has to do with action and deliberation, for a decree is a thing to be carried out in the form of an individual act. This is why the exponents of this art are alone said to 'take part in politics'; for these alone 'do things' as manual labourers 'do things'.
So too we don't assign to legislators but to the bureaucrats who execute and define policy the idea of action. In our system, legislators are mostly fundraisers who delegate authority to bureaucrats. It's the bureaucrats who decide; and the police who execute the decisions not of the legislature, but of the bureaucracy.
Practical wisdom also is identified especially with that form of it which is concerned with a man himself-with the individual; and this is known by the general name 'practical wisdom'; of the other kinds one is called household management, another legislation, the third politics, and of the latter one part is called deliberative and the other judicial.
This is Aristotle carefully avoiding the fallacy of composition. It is commonly and wrongly assumed that knowing how to order one level of human activity -- being a good businessman, for example -- ought to transfer to governance, family leadership, etc. It does not. Many a good businessman is a terrible husband; many a politician couldn't run a business to save their lives.
Now knowing what is good for oneself will be one kind of knowledge, but it is very different from the other kinds; and the man who knows and concerns himself with his own interests is thought to have practical wisdom, while politicians are thought to be busybodies; hence the word of Euripides, [Grim: Shocklingly to English speakers, that is pronounced euro-PEE-dees, as Socrates is soh-KRAT-ees.]But how could I be wise, who might at ease,Numbered among the army's multitude,Have had an equal share?
This Movie Has a Sad Ending
It was a good shot. I didn't know Charlie Kirk from Adam before somebody took that shot and made him famous. The only reason I ever heard his name is that somebody decided to kill him; now I know he was a prophet, apparently.
I guess we've been here before; America has a very bloody political history. The whole world does. Maybe it's only violence that ever solves anything. What a shame.
UPDATE:
Havamal 38.
Cyberpunk Revolution
The saying he is trying to think of is: "The internet interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it." The internet was designed to keep information available by routing around damage to the network, expected to be caused by nuclear weapons on key nodes, so that we would know enough to keep fighting. Turns out that's what it does, thanks be to God.
The Glories of Nepal
Every day is a great day for burning down Communist governments, but they picked a beautiful one.
Nicomachean Ethics VI.7
Book VI continues with an exploration of wisdom.
Wisdom (1) in the arts we ascribe to their most finished exponents, e.g. to Phidias as a sculptor and to Polyclitus as a maker of portrait-statues, and here we mean nothing by wisdom except excellence in art; but (2) we think that some people are wise in general, not in some particular field or in any other limited respect, as Homer says in the Margites,Him did the gods make neither a digger nor yet a ploughmanNor wise in anything else. Therefore wisdom must plainly be the most finished of the forms of knowledge. It follows that the wise man must not only know what follows from the first principles, but must also possess truth about the first principles. Therefore wisdom must be intuitive reason combined with scientific knowledge-scientific knowledge of the highest objects which has received as it were its proper completion.
The "highest objects" as Aristotle discusses them are immaterial things of great importance: the soul, the unmoved movers (of which there are several, not one only as with Avicenna and later theological Aristotelians), the Forms as they exist in themselves instead of in things. In fact Aristotle isn't convinced that forms do exist except as immaterial additions to material things; the form of the table is in the table, because the parts have been put into the order of a table. If they were in a heap on the floor, they wouldn't be a table even though they'd still have all and only the same material parts.
So there is at least an idea of what the form of a table might be, separate from actual tables. It exists, perhaps, in our minds. Perhaps -- Plato wanted to say -- it exists as a feature of reality, that such things as tables are possible and this is what they are like. Aristotle is not convinced of that.
Of the highest objects, we say; for it would be strange to think that the art of politics, or practical wisdom, is the best knowledge, since man is not the best thing in the world.
True, but remarkable given that Aristotle has already praised political science as the highest human good.
Now if what is healthy or good is different for men and for fishes, but what is white or straight is always the same, any one would say that what is wise is the same but what is practically wise is different; for it is to that which observes well the various matters concerning itself that one ascribes practical wisdom, and it is to this that one will entrust such matters.
It's difficult to know if 'white' or 'straight' is indeed the same for fishes, or bats.
He's Right, Boys
"When you have horrible killings, you have to take horrible actions."
That's one of those truths I really hate. That doesn't make it less true.
Sometimes you just have to ride it out. That line at the end finishes, “The best thing you can do with death is ride off from it.”
Technology Continues to Outstrip Our Philosophy and Ethics
"Brain in a Box"? Yes, available for purchase (aimed at researchers). What are the implications? We'll figure that out as we go, I guess- onward into the void.
Let's hope that doesn't turn out poorly, but I guess as a species, we are not a patient lot.
Focus & Attention
It can be overdone.
I’m trying to make weight for a Strongman competition in October, so I got this calorie-counter app. It helps me make sure that I’m cutting weight in a reasonable manner, so that I’ll hit the target weight without losing muscle.
For some reason, it is insanely concerned with sodium. If I eat a tortilla, it warns that this is a high sodium choice. If I eat a can of beans, it warns about the sodium.
But tequila on a Saturday night? Good job, buddy! What a responsible decision!
El tequila blanco.
Nicomachean Ethics VI.5-6
I'm moving faster through Book VI than I did through the previous book, but what is being said is quite important. We are talking about how it is possible for a human being to know the truth, and what the practical limits of this are.
Regarding practical wisdom we shall get at the truth by considering who are the persons we credit with it.
That, for example, is an interesting choice. How would we know who is practically wise? (The word in Greek is phronesis; there's a lot of Greek today so I'm going to skip the accent marks) We might look at something empirical, like how well their decisions work out. We can't observe their reasoning process unless they describe it to us, since the mind is not visible; and they could be wrong about it anyway. Many people, asked to justify their decisions, will rationalize what they did. They may not really know why they did what they did, not understand it, or know but be embarrassed by it. We want to know about wisdom, but we have to try to infer what it is like. (This is another place where a good upbringing helps, which meant as you will recall having been raised with good examples and stories. Who was practically wise? Odysseus, for Aristotle; Gandalf was, perhaps for us.)
Now it is thought to be the mark of a man of practical wisdom to be able to deliberate well about what is good and expedient for himself, not in some particular respect, e.g. about what sorts of thing conduce to health or to strength, but about what sorts of thing conduce to the good life in general.
Practical wisdom is about successfully achieving the good life.
This is shown by the fact that we credit men with practical wisdom in some particular respect when they have calculated well with a view to some good end which is one of those that are not the object of any art.
Art is concerned with making, we learned yesterday, so what this means is that we aren't talking about things like breadmaking, or house-building. This kind of knowledge, again, is techne in the Greek; it was Socrates' favorite candidate for real knowledge because it could be reliably explained, taught, and practiced. For Aristotle it is one of the intellectual virtues, but not phronesis. Techne is concerned with making things; phronesis is concerned with making a good life. Phronesis is the intellectual virtue of applying the moral virtues to craft a complete and honorable life. It is about taking specific actions in individual contexts, but also about placing them in the larger context of a vision of what such a complete life looks like.
The Bullfighter
Sadly that young man is already dead, at 32, reportedly from fentanyl. It’s a deadly poison that makes all illegal drugs unsafe these days. I was never inclined to them, but many musicians have been including many good ones. It’s a tragedy to lose a good one.
The Second is for all Citizens
However clever it may be politically, I'm not going along with this push to strip American citizens of their Second Amendment rights just because some government bureaucrat rules that they have debatable 'mental health' issues.
There are people who do have mental health issues, certainly. Yet some of you are old enough to remember when homosexuality was considered a mental illness; the trend has not been to make the 'science' more conservative. There is nothing at all stopping the revision of the categories of psychology to fit present fashion -- usually the fashion of the elites, psychology being the most popular major in the United States and a special predilection of Blue America. That road is going to end up paved with "your prejudices, which I have diagnosed in you whether or not they can be practically demonstrated, make you dangerous to others and in need of being disarmed."
We saw how readily psychology and psychiatry could be weaponized in the Soviet Union, where it was a standard practice to determine that opponents of the state were mentally ill (and thus in need of protective imprisonment, lobotomies, and/or drugging). It can do good in the right hands, on a voluntary basis. I have grave concerns about using it anywhere in the law, especially criminal law, and most especially as an excuse for the restriction of basic rights.
So no, absolutely not.
Rights in Iran
In a post at ChicagoBoyz, Mike quotes Tim Kaine (whom, you may well have forgotten, was once a candidate for Vice President).
The notion that rights don’t come from laws and don’t come from the government, but come from the Creator — that’s what the Iranian government believes. It’s a theocratic regime that bases its rule on Sharia law and targets Sunnis, Bahá’Ãs, Jews, Christians and other religious minorities. And they do it because they believe that they understand what natural rights are from their Creator. So the statement that our rights do not come from our laws or our governments is extremely troubling.
Ah yes, those noted champions of the idea of rights, the Ayatollahs.
It is true that Sharia law endows Muslims with rights (or at least powers) that are not possessed by others. Taking slaves, for example, is part of the double-goodness of jihad:
...the conceptual roots of 'jihadism' are in the faith, and will come to be known to anyone who studies it closely; and anyone who studies the great scholars of Islam will find much support for the idea. Avicenna, that great philosopher, describes jihad as a kind of double good in his Metaphysics of The Healing, because it brings one closer to God's will while also providing you access to practical goods like slaves captured in the war. The philosopher Averroes, in a reflection on Plato's Republic, agrees with Plato that the best kind of women should be admitted to a kind of equality with the best kind of men, and that this equality means that they should be allowed to join in jihad and the taking of slaves and wealth. The Reliance of the Traveler, one of the great medieval works of Islamic jurisprudence, is a favorite example of Andy McCarthy's (who came to know it while prosecuting the World Trade Center bomber, an earlier example of mass killings by bomb).
It isn't true that the Iranian government is or ever has been concerned with rights in the Western sense. Nor is it true that government can or should be conceived of as the origin of rights, since it is the chief danger to the human dignity that is found in nature. What government gives, government can take away. What nature gives, no man may rightly: not even many men with many guns.
Nicomachean Ethics VI.3-4
Book VI continues with an examination of science and art. We'll get through two chapters again today.
Let us begin, then, from the beginning, and discuss these states once more.
"These states" being what we develop out of our sensation, reason, and desire: the states in ourselves that are connected to the truth we find in the world.
Let it be assumed that the states by virtue of which the soul possesses truth by way of affirmation or denial are five in number, i.e. art, scientific knowledge, practical wisdom, philosophic wisdom, intuitive reason; we do not include judgement and opinion because in these we may be mistaken.
It's easy to miss that this implies that truth is necessarily connected to wisdom and intuitive reason. We expect it to be connected to scientific knowledge, the first state he will examine, but not necessarily so: we are used to science being mistaken to a certain degree. That is because our science is experimental. Aristotle's was connected with the apprehension of a Form, which guarantees thing coming to be "always or for the most part."
Now what scientific knowledge is, if we are to speak exactly and not follow mere similarities, is plain from what follows. We all suppose that what we know is not even capable of being otherwise; of things capable of being otherwise we do not know, when they have passed outside our observation, whether they exist or not. Therefore the object of scientific knowledge is of necessity. Therefore it is eternal; for things that are of necessity in the unqualified sense are all eternal; and things that are eternal are ungenerated and imperishable.
The classic example is astronomy, the stars being thought at the time to have been ungenerated and eternal, as well as more necessary than we now think that they are. In Aristotle's time, the motions of the stars had been known for generations and generations, and had not changed. Now we know that stars also have a life cycle, and can change for several reasons.
Mathematics is a purer example. The Forms of points and lines, the postulates and axioms and theorems, that were formulated by Euclid (c. 300) in the generation after Aristotle (384-322) persisted until the 19th century. Though Euclid had not formulated his work in Aristotle's time, the basics of geometry had existed since Pythagoras (570-495) as major entities of Greek thought, and had pre-existed ancient Greece in places like Babylon by perhaps 1,500 years. (All those dates are B.C., and thus reversed in order; lower numbers are later.) You can see how they might be thought to be eternal and ungenerated; indeed, philosophers of mathematics even today argue as to whether or to what degree mathematical truth is created by our conventions about how to handle mathematics, or alternatively are indeed basic features of the reality we inhabit.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)