Nothing is Neutral

I am often amused when people say things such as this person is biased or this person is stating just the facts. People often do not realize that while their is an objective truth, all truth is subject to subjective interpretation. One of my favorite scenes in Ruroni Kenshin was when Kaoru, a kendo instructor, was talking about the self developing benefits of learning how to fight with a sword. One person mocked her saying that a sword only has one purpose, to kill one’s enemies. Kenshin, a wandering Samurai, would later chime in and state that while it is true that a sword is solely meant for killing, he preferred Karou’s idealist view over the truth.

This scene shows us that all things are saturated in subjective interpretations. In a Christian context, this reveals how the world is fallen and blessed at the same time. Let’s take food. Food is essential and tastes good when made well. However, the fallen part of food is gluttony, bad health, and disease. Now one might think that because one eats healthy and moderately they are free from the fallen nature of the world based on their decisions. However, with the healthy lifestyle comes pride, an unhealthy attachment to life, and in some cases an extreme psychological compulsion that becomes all consuming. 

What can be seen in this discussion is that within all human actions, the seeds of blessedness and fallen nature is present. Bombs can be used to clear away old building to make better building, but they can also be used to kill thousands in an instant. Explosives were made with both intentions in mind simultaneously. All actions contain both elements. As one saint put it, Satan’s net covers the whole world in all that is in it. One must fight back with the only thing that can help guard against this net, humility. Humility is the key in realizing that one is sinful and that the fallen world is ever present in all things. One can use a sword for physical and spiritual benefit, but remember, that the sword is a tool for killing as well. Humbly realize that one learns to kill and you may hold back from ever using it to do so. 

On Power

After reading the The 40 Laws of Power, I feel most people misunderstand what power really is. Power to some means getting what you want. The author of the mentioned book provides a number of circumstances where he defines power along those lines and that a person can break any rules to get the power and rule. However, this is a mistaken view and the book provides several examples in specific situations but does not provide the general rules that accompany power.

First, power must be understood not so much as getting what one wants, but establishing the rules which govern the world around oneself. When someone wants to break those rules, this is when conflict ensues. Now, it might be that one wants to sacrifice what they want for power. Imagine you get into an argument with your friend and your friend is right. Is it not better to sacrifice your view to your friend’s if it means you will be better for it? True power is understanding that the ends and means must be inline with each other. To understand this one must understand the various views of the ends which are employed in power.

Ends are divided into 3 parts: tactics, strategy, and grand strategy. Tactics are the tools to handle specific situations, whether it is planning on how to increase production or win an advantageous position in battle or rhetoric. Tactics are the most superficial aspect of power and are often to heavily focused upon. As a teacher, I am often dismayed that grades and test scores play a more important role than content. A good score in a meaningless subject is far worse than an average or even poor score in a content filled with meaning and purpose. The book mentioned is filled with the tactics of power with none of the higher levels of power that make it worth having to begin with.

The next level is strategy. This is the more bird eyes view of power. Strategy is the way one overcomes the conflict that is presented before them. It is the why and the tactics are the how. To understand strategy is to understand the goal one is trying to accomplish. America had brilliant tactics during the war in Vietnam. In fact, America never lost a battle. How did America loose the war? It is because they did not understand why they were fighting. They had no strategy. Usually many brilliant tacticians loose because they do not have a clearly defined goal or their goal is not in accordance with reality. In schools we often teach students that if they get all the right answers, they will pass the test. Life, however, does not work that way. One could do everything right, but if the person does not have a clearly defined goal, then all their right answers will result in solving the wrong problem. It will be like trying to solve a math equation by writing a good narrative. The narrative might be right in every way, but that is not what is being asked of the person.

The last level is grand strategy. Grand strategy is what works hand-in-hand with strategy. Grand strategy is preparing for the next conflict and how to best deal with it or avoid it altogether. Let’s say I present you with an emergency like your car will breakdown tomorrow. What is your plan? A grand strategist will use one of two means of solving the problem. One they will have money saved up, they will call into work and let their boss know they have a problem, they may call an Uber while their car is in the shop etc. Lots of planning, but there is one better strategy. Take it to the mechanic now and prevent the problem later. Both ways are the way grand strategy works. Both are essential in maintaining power and control over one’s life.

Of course there is one more element of power is to understand one’s own powerlessness. Know your strengths and weaknesses. Don’t be afraid to admit where your are weak. You may be able to do something about it. You may not. However, knowing this means you can be a more accomplished strategist. As the wise general Sun Tzu once said, “Know your enemy and Know yourself and you will win 100 of 100 battles.” Good strategists know when to avoid a fight they cannot win or simply what to do in situations where they will loose. Stoic philosophers have long pondered the nature of defeat and how to gain from it in other ways. Good generals know when a fight is lost and learn how to fight another day. America gained its Independence by knowing that fighting the much more powerful British army head on will be suicide.

Leaving the Cave

What is philosophy? It is leaving the cave. Unchained, a new world is opened. People play with their shadows trying to seem better. People try to imitate, but the philosopher chooses to be creative. They create a world for themselves. Others may share that world, but the world is the one you build. It is the freedom to say, “I am”. I am a thinker, creator, one who peers into the unknown. I know life can be hard, absurd. I seek to be practical, but only on my terms. A philosopher stands before the faceless, nameless crowd. The crowd can mock him. Who cares? The crowd can hate him. That only proves he is great. He shattered their world to make his own. “Crucify him,” the Pharisees cry. They crucified the Logos when they asked “What is truth?” When the could not get Socrates to recant, they made him drink the Hemlock... No, he made the choice to drink it because “The unexamined life is not worth living.” The Mind, the Spirit, and the Logos, united in one Trinity. Let me also share in your energy. What is philosophy? A life well lived.

What is the Purpose of Philosophy? (An Act of Stream of Consciousness)

It is a very good question. Today we are going to discuss the philosophy of well... philosophy. To understand the ontological meaning of philosophy we must first look at the philosopher themselves. People who engage in philosophy are doing so to solve some sort of problem. They are applying a means (their brain) to solve a problem (discovery of some truth). However, what is this truth they are trying to discover? The axiom above is true simply because human beings act to achieve an end all the time. I am doing this very thing right now. Right now I am trying to peer into the mysteries of man’s mind to discover what truth he is searching for.

But let us leave the Telos of philosophy and focus on how one philosophizes. The act of philosophy is to apply a means to achieve an end to figure something out. I want to make sure that I am right, therefore, I wish to discover what is true and be able to discern what is true from what is false.

Now of course the truth I am trying to discover is not a total truth of all things. I am not interested in facts that have no bearing to my cause. I do not care what the tallest building in the world is or who is the strongest man. I only care to discover more about philosophy.

Now this means that there are two categories that must be discovered, personal and universal truth. Personal truths are those truths that interest the individual. That Sombra is a hacker can only interest those people who want to play a game like Overwatch. The mating habit of flies may seem rather boring to the average joe but is of infinite interest to the scientist. Philosophy must then not be a matter that only pertains to the few, but to all men who are trying to employ means to achieve some end. This means that philosophy must have a universal applicability. But why?

A thing like science is only of interest to a scientist, but the fact that he is a person who is trying to use means to achieve an end....... means that he is employing the same rational factualities as other people trying to do their own thing. This means that one of the goals of philosophy is trying to figure out how people figure things out. I suppose this is where logic, cosmology, ontology, and epistemology come into play. It is merely an interplay of taking something apart to figure out what it is and then putting it back together to see how it works and then applying it to solve some personal end. However, is there more to philosophy? What if people have the same ends in that they are people?

In one case we can see that if all people are trying to achieve some end by some means, then we can also say that all people can benefit from understanding philosophy’s more actionable items. Rather than using it to simply learn what some famous philosopher said, they can apply that saying to solve some problem and learn to keep applying it to meet various circumstances. However, is philosophy nothing more than a toolbox? Is there more to a common end for humanity other than being a creature trying to solve problems? What happens to this creature once all his problems are solved? Is he then useless? What is a man when he has no problems but is merely content with his life? Will philosophy still be useful?

It would be absurd to state that man is in a constant cycle of means and ends as if their ends never leave them in a state of contentment. I suppose one goal of philosophy is to go beyond the end and figure out what it means to fulfill one’s ends. What is a person who fulfill’s his ends? What does he do?

Let’s say I decide to answer this question from experience or analogy. When I finish eating my food, I no longer want food once the problem is solved. Once I play Overwatch, however, a single victory does not mean that I do not wish to play another round. I seem to find a sense of enjoyment is solving problems that are purely intellectual. When I watch a movie or t.v show, I also seem interested in seeing how people try to solve their problems and I feel a sense of enjoyment in that as well.

This seems to be interesting as we can now separate problem solving into two categories, the necessity and the entertaining. The necessity is one that keeps us alive. It is a need in the sense that not having it means survival will cease. Meanwhile, entertainment is one where I am interested in solving problems or at least watching other people solve problems. It could be that problem solving is in our very nature; it is the essence of what it means to be human.

Okay this thing is acting up every time I type. I am stopping here for today.

Man and Machine

Today, I was reading “The Power of Myth” by Joseph Campbell and a interesting argument was presented in the book:

Moyers: Machines help us to fulfill the idea that we want to make the world in our image, and we want it to be what we think it ought to be.

 Campbell: Yes. But there comes a time when the machine begins to dictate you. 

 The book goes on to explain how the modern story telling surrounding technology has been one where man has to battle with the new technologies he invents. In creating their own technological environment, man has stumbled upon a new problem that they are becoming a slave to the new world of their own making. In this new world, the computer has replaced nature as the primary driving force of man. Guns and bombs are the new wrath of god as most diseases in the advanced world are being conquered one by one. We see this struggle play out in several different ways in video games, t.v., and movies.

Star Wars: Star Wars probably was the first major movie that saw man trying to break from the technological world view. On one side you have the empire who built a massive industrial machine run by a humanoid computer, Darth Vader. Through the use of cold reasoning and extreme desire for order in the collapse of the Old Republic, the Empire decided to build the Death Star. Meanwhile, the Jedi are a group that is in touch with the natural and spiritual forces and wish to live in harmony with the universe rather than trying to control it. The Jedi, however, were destroyed as they tried to desperately unite their spiritual ideals unite themselves to the social and technological machine of the Republic. Here we see the struggle between two very opposing views of civilization clash, one founded on nature and the other on technology.

Black Mirror: A more modern telling of the story of the struggle between man and machine is Black Mirror. Several episodes show how technology influences society when it is given priority in dominance. Some episodes show how technology ruins the human person’s authenticity either through a society run by social media or one where everyone is given a memory chip that records their life. Other times we see how technology can lead to tyrannical behavior such as when one game designer holds his digital clones captive through intimidation and unspeakable tortures. All in all, technology is something that can bring out the darkest parts of human behavior or even erase a person’s humanity completely.

Overwatch: Overwatch was once the most popular FPS game winning multiple awards. The game showcases some of the best examples of the problems of technology and how it can disrupt the very fabric of society. The Omnics, creatures given artificial intelligence that seems to give them a sense of self awareness, rebel against the humans who created and enslaved them. This brings to light that human beings need to consider the moral implications of the way they treat the technology they create, or even non- human animals, as not mere things, but part of the human personality. The Omnics are the best example of  this moral implication as they are made with human personalities embedded in the programming. The next group is the underground gang known as Talon who wants to use technology to enhance humanity to bring it to its new evolution. For Talon’s main scientist, Moira, there is not ethical boundary besides this evolution. No matter how much pain it will cause the world, her belief is that humanity should, and in the case of Doomfis must, evolve no matter the cost.

There are tons of other media that showcase this struggle between man and machine from the Matrix to Neir Automata to I-Robot. However, the case always seems to be the question of man living with technology without becoming assimilated into it to such an extent they loose their humanity. In Star Trek, this became the centeral struggle with the race of aliens called the Borg which preferred to live life as machines with no individuality, and by prefer, force others to assimilate to this way of life. This may be one of the greatest struggles. Will the new technological age allow people to opt out or does it force assimilation against our will?

Reading Inbetween the Words

Language is often considered a pretty concrete thing. When I say the word “baseball bat”, most people who speak English assume to know what those words mean. No one is thinking of a flying rodent pitching a baseball. However, language is only part of how we know the world around us and often relying too heavily on language can result in misunderstandings.

First, an introduction to linguistics may be in order. A word or group of words that form a single idea is called a signifier. This means that words signify some concept in a person’s mind. A “tree” for example is the signifier to a particular genus of plant. However, within this one signifier is a plethora of other denoting signifiers like trunk, leaves, branches, roots, color, shape, size, soil... etc. In his “Blue Book” Ludwig Wittgenstein said that to know one part of a language is to know all of it (at least conceptually). This conception of a word or group of words is called the signified and the process is called signifying.

Now, let us come to the fun part of language where misunderstandings happen. Misunderstandings usually occur to a words ambiguity (having more than one signified concept) or vagueness (having a mostly ignorant concept of a word). Justice in Plato’s “The Republic” fits the concept of vagueness. When someone says Justice, most of the people in Plato’s work are at a loss on how to define the word. What ends up happening is a who competing concepts of the word Justice begin to emerge from might makes right to everyone getting what they deserve. These competing concepts of justice reveal that sometimes the vagueness of a word is due to the ambiguity of the connotations that come with a word. A connotation of a word is a specie or specific application of a word. For example, a peach tree, a maple tree, or an apple tree can connote the word “tree”. The word tree can also take on subjective concepts like feelings or telos (ends or purpose) for each individual person.

How can one then avoid misunderstanding? It is mostly impossible, really. The best that people can hope for is to avoid the wall of misunderstanding when misunderstandings arise. The wall of misunderstanding occurs when one side completely shuts out the other side’s point of view, which is often the result of generalities. Let’s go back to our justice argument. One side said “Might makes right” while the other said “When a person gets what they deserve”. Might both arguments be right in a sense? Imagine a world where only the unjust were powerful and could do as they please without any consequence or moral compass. Such a world would obviously be a bad one. No one would be able to get what they deserve. So might is a factor in justice. However, if it were the sole factor of justice, then, how would one measure might. By usefulness in maintaining power one would suppose. If a person does not have the skill and talent to maintain a country, then all the might makes right will result in a better able ruler to come and take the power. Sure, one might be great at military power, but there is also economic power, cultural power, and to be more powerful means one must be more useful and thus deserving of the power.

This where we come into what is called a language game. The goal of the language game is first to understand the rules of the game so both people can then play it. This requires that all parties understand each others’ arguments and what their logic, emotion, and ethical point of view they are working with. The basic rule is first understand, then be understood. Once you understand where someone is coming from on the multiple levels of language, then you can figure out what they really want. Sometimes this will require you to be less logical and more emotionally understanding. If someone is ranting, for example, understand that the argument carries a lot of emotional weight. Sometimes people are more interested in being right (retaining their honor) than their argument being true (that there argument in accord with reality). Long internet debates are often the result of egos clashing. There is more honor than truth on the Internet. But that is the language game and understanding what game one is playing can help to avoid or manage misunderstandings when they arise and can even tell a person which game is even worth playing.

Scienctism and Religion

Last night my Men’s ministry meeting had a little discussion on religion and science. The debate went about as usual, spotting the problem of Darwinian Evolution, the ethical role religion plays in science (like in bioethics and weapons and stuff). The debate, to me anyway, was very straightforward with nothing new to add to the conversation. As I sat there, I almost predicted all the talking points among my fellow intellectuals and decided to remain silent as I really had nothing new to contribute. However, as my mind started to simmer in the issue, I realized that the debate between science and religion did not start with Darwin, but with Epicurus.

Epicurus was the first to believe that man was made of nothing more than atoms (smallest units of physical matter) and that man had no immortal soul. While stoic philosophers tended to speculate on this matter, they never really adhered to the philosophy and remained mostly theists. This belief that man is nothing more than matter plays a huge role in the debate between science and religion.

What science is not.

Science must first be stated by what it is not. It is not value free as many scientists want to claim. Even religious people, like those who sat around me, claimed that religion is about “Why” while science is more the “What and How”. However, the rules of praxeology do not permit any value free judgements. Famous economist, Ludwig von Mises, once stated that all human action is ration. Man is a creature who wishes to solve problems and uses means to accomplish some subjective end. This end in all action is never objective, but subjective to their taste, which means that all action has value. A scientist who studies medicine wants to cure people (or make money), a person studying meterology may want to figure out how the climate works (or make money), or even an astrophysicist may want to study the stars to see how far human knowledge can go with regard to space travel (or get famous because there really is no money in that). Jokes aside, we see that every time a scientist wants to start an experiment they are starting with their whole “being”, not some objective scientific ideal.

Now that we have determined that science is not value free, we must ask, “Why the war between science and religion?” Firstly, this statement itself is a slight of hand. There is no war between faith and reason. The question is loaded with preconceptions that one cannot both be into science and religion. As was pointed out in the discussion some of the greatest saints in the Orthodox Church were scientists like Basil the Great, Pantelemon, Cosmas, and Damian. St. Luke, the writer of one of the four Gospels, was a doctor. The myth of science v religion is nothing more than a ruse to distract from the real debate, sin v holiness.

Sin v Holiness in the Debate
Epicurus was a man who lived for pleasure. To live for pleasure meant that he believed he needed to break the back of religious ideals that could hinder his goal for self fulfillment. This does not mean he was a drunk or sexually active, in fact he was practically a monk in sobriety and chastity, however, he was one who believed that an organized faith would only get in the way of man seeking after pleasure in this life because they were willing to suffer for the promise of the next life. Frederick Nietzsche would echo this in his work “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” where he ties the belief that “God is dead” with the “Ubermench” or “Superman” who, by sheer act of will, will carve his own destiny off grave of a dead God. This is where sin and holiness differ.

Science is a convenient metaphysical belief that can be used as an excuse to support all kinds of behavior. Eugenics was an excuse to kill Jews, blacks, and other non desirables during the early 20th Century. A so called scietific approach to the sexual preferences makes the sins of homosexuality into a natural part of the world. However, the “natural” of scietific understanding is a value judgement. If it is natural, then it is good. However, coincide is natural, but that does not mean it is good for you to injest.

Not all natural actions are good because we live in a fallen world. In the words of St. Paul, “Man has exchanged what is natural with what is unnatural.” This means that ignoring the faith handed down to us from God has made man into something unnatural and science, while it can study the physical world, it cannot make man holy, which is his natural state. Science is incomplete without faith, but to be fair, faith can gain a lot of tools to help it along the way from science. That is my view.