Philosophy: books and discussion

[TimMason]

The strongest of course.

You teeter on the lip of tautology. Those who take control are the strongest. It is the strongest who take control.

But why assume that anyone takes control? This is what Clastres teaches us; humans do not wish to be controlled, and are willing to give up many things rather than submit to authority. If they allow one or another of their number to direct operations, it is for a specific purpose, and once the purpose has been achieved, the erstwhile controller becomes one of the herd once more.

It is only when we find ourselves caged - by frontiers, rivers, mountains, deserts, by agriculture or bank accounts - that we allow permanent distinctions to arise. Even then, they need armed policemen.

[kennyc]

I never said that, altruism is part of being a "herd" eh?

we were talking about a specific situation that you proposed:

"if armageddon strikes, how quickly will society revert to its basic instinct of every man for themselves. "

I'm just saying that the banding together in groups will happen as par for the course...

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by TimMason

You teeter on the lip of tautology...

I'm not teetering anywhere.

We're discussing human nature and what happens in an Armageddon situation.

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by TimMason

You teeter on the lip of tautology. Those who take control are the strongest. It is the strongest who take control.

But why assume that anyone takes control? This is what Clastres teaches us; humans do not wish to be controlled, and are willing to give up many things rather than submit to authority. If they allow one or another of their number to direct operations, it is for a specific purpose, and once the purpose has been achieved, the erstwhile controller becomes one of the herd once more.

It is only when we find ourselves caged - by frontiers, rivers, mountains, deserts, by agriculture or bank accounts - that we allow permanent distinctions to arise. Even then, they need armed policemen.

I'm not convinced that will happen in the scenario under discussion. This assumes 'normal' society ?

The armageddon scenario assumes society breaks down, similar to the book "The Road" ... How much of the book is likely to be true? (I suspect more than we'd like to think ..... )

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

I'm not convinced that will happen in the scenario under discussion. This assumes 'normal' society ?

The armageddon scenario assumes society breaks down, similar to the book "The Road" ... How much of the book is likely to be true? (I suspect more than we'd like to think ..... )

And remember the band of armed men they ran into and hid from?

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by kennyc

And remember the band of armed men they ran into and hid from?

more than one, from what I recall - the first with the truck and the second in the cannibal house.
even the old man had suffered....

and yet the end scene was for hope (though somewhat false? - as the premise seemed to be the end of normal food supply).

I'm not too convinced about altruism being a herd condition - the empathy towards others, surely could be to other groups outside ones own ?

[TimMason]

It remains tautological. You'll need to define what you mean by 'strongest'. In a situation in which normal state controls have broken down, people may survive for all kinds of reasons. Some will control resources, simply because they are there. Others will be persuasive, others will use violence, and so on. If we look at the characteristics that may lead to survival, we could list :

1. Physical strength (Fast runners - the Rincewind solution : Good fighters - the Popeye solution)
2. Mental strength (Interpersonal intelligence - the Witch solution : Technical competence - the Geek solution)
3. Rhetorical strength (The good story-teller - the Puss-in-Boots solution)

... and so on.

If we look at such natural experiments as failed or failing states, what seems to be true is that people survive best who have already got good networks in place - family, associates, political links and so on.

And then, there's always luck.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

more than one, from what I recall - the first with the truck and the second in the cannibal house.
even the old man had suffered....

and yet the end scene was for hope (though somewhat false? - as the premise seemed to be the end of normal food supply).

I'm not too convinced about altruism being a herd condition - the empathy towards others, surely could be to other groups outside ones own ?

I'm still thinking The Road is one of my top three books of all time. And it was the truck guys I was thinking of, but yea a couple of other strong/immoral groups as well.

Many think it is totally pessimistic but I think it show the ultimate hope that we all have deep down in our beings.

And yes I thought the ending was totally hopeful.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by TGS

There are popularizers - Alain de Botton, Mark Rowlands/, and even Bertrand Russell spring immediately to mind.

How could I forget Russell, whose work I even mentioned in this thread? And Peter Singer; we can't forget him. Still, in this country, with the possible exception of Singer, most people aren't that aware of philosophers and what they do; and the main reason reason Singer is so well-known probably has more to do with his advocacy of animal rights and the fact that the religious right and pro-life groups have kept his name alive; if only for the purpose of unfairly misrepresenting his words and comparing him to Hitler.

Originally Posted by TGS

Both Mark Rowlands and Alain de Botton are professional philosophers - in the sense that they earn their living from teaching in universities and writing about philosophy. Most of what they write is written for other philosophers - and their popularizing books are not the same thing as what they teach to their students or write in academic journals.

I must confess that I hadn't heard of either until you mentioned them. I'll have to look into them.

Originally Posted by TGS

I don't think the likes of Hawking are belittled by their academic peers, but it has to be recognized that what their popularizing books do is popularize - and in order to popularize they have to simplify, and in order to simplify they have to be less precise - which is why popular versions of science or philosophy don't have the rigour of, and are not taken seriously by people in the academic study of, those disciplines.

Hawking may have benefited from entering the sphere of popular science writing after pioneers like Sagan and Gould, both of who experienced criticism from their colleagues for taking time from their serious endeavors to write for popular audiences. Sagan, in particular, received undue criticism for his flamboyant television style and his efforts as a popularizer; even though he was a respected astronomer and astrophysicist before coming to the public consciousness. Many feel to this day that was the reason he was refused entry into the National Academy of Sciences after being nominated in 1992.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Still, in this country, with the possible exception of Singer, most people aren't that aware of philosophers and what they do;

I always had the impression that the US education system was much broader than in the UK and that kids graduating from high school could quote James and Peirce! But what about Dan Dennett and John Searle - they are seen as the pop stars of philosophy this side of the pond - always good entertainment, (but probably not at the same time). Douglas Hofstadter, George Lakoff? Are they not well known over there?

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by TGS

I always had the impression that the US education system was much broader than in the UK and that kids graduating from high school could quote James and Peirce! But what about Dan Dennett and John Searle - they are seen as the pop stars of philosophy this side of the pond - always good entertainment, (but probably not at the same time). Douglas Hofstadter, George Lakoff? Are they not well known over there?

That's funny, because I was under the assumption that European countries had much better educational systems. Many kids here are fortunate if they can make make change from a dollar without a calculator when they graduate. Only rarely can one quote Pierce, and if they've heard of William James, they probably have a very simplistic and wrong conception of what Pragmatism really teaches. Dan Dennet is a familiar name, but he's more widely known for his atheistic writings than his work as a philosopher. (I like Dennet, but I think his advocacy of the term "Brights" is off-base. But that's me; if others want to use it, fine. I just think it's counter-productive.) Most people in this country have probably never heard of John Searle, and if you mentioned his Chinese room argument it would probably only bring to their minds images of kung-fu fighting, floor mats, and bamboo decor.

To be fair, I'm speaking of the general population; among whom there's not a great deal of interest on this side of the pond in philosophy. I have no idea about Denmark, but I suspect British students are much better versed in the subject than American students. I couldn't imagine American comedians coming up with a comedy sketch such as Monty Python's Philosophy Football and having the general population relate to it. If they did, it would probably only be appreciated by a niche audience.

George Lakoff is not a household name, but there is a good review of his The Political Mind: Why you can't understand 21st-century American politics with an 18th-century brain at newscientist.com. They also have an interview with Douglas Hofstadter you can read here.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

To be fair, I'm speaking of the general population; among whom there's not a great deal of interest on this side of the pond in philosophy. I have no idea about Denmark, but I suspect British students are much better versed in the subject than American students. I couldn't imagine American comedians coming up with a comedy sketch such as Monty Python's Philosophy Football and having the general population relate to it. If they did, it would probably only be appreciated by a niche audience.

George Lakoff is not a household name, but there is a good review of his The Political Mind: Why you can't understand 21st-century American politics with an 18th-century brain at newscientist.com. They also have an interview with Douglas Hofstadter you can read here.

I guess it does depend on how general one takes the general population to be. In a snobby and elitist sort of way I suppose when I think of the general population I'm thinking of "people like us" - reasonably well-educated middle class folk who are generally interested in in the cultural life around them. And to be honest I suspect that doesn't describe the general population either in Denmark, where I live, or in the UK, where I'm from.

As for Monty Python, they were the epitome of elitism - Oxbridge educated, middle class chaps. Hilariously funny and ground breaking for all that. But it's still a mystery why "Heidegger, Heidegger, was a boozy beggar" was thought to be a funny line by most people - who presumably had never heard of Heidegger!

[troymc]

In the vein of popular philosophy, what does everyone think of the relatively recent barrage of pop philosophy books?

In my favorite bookstore (soon to be ex-favorite), one cannot even find a volume of Hegel or Wittgenstein. But there sure are 5 feet of shelving with titles such as The Philosophy of Battlestar Galactica, Facebook and Philosophy, If You Can Read This: The Philosophy of Bumper Stickers, etc.

I personally, find it depressing. Particularly when compared to the Occult section - which is 3x the size of Philosophy. And the Religion section - which is twice the size of the Occult section.

But maybe I'm just an old stick-in-the-mud.


Troy

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by troymc

In the vein of popular philosophy, what does everyone think of the relatively recent barrage of pop philosophy books?

In my favorite bookstore (soon to be ex-favorite), one cannot even find a volume of Hegel or Wittgenstein. But there sure are 5 feet of shelving with titles such as The Philosophy of Battlestar Galactica, Facebook and Philosophy, If You Can Read This: The Philosophy of Bumper Stickers, etc.

I personally, find it depressing. Particularly when compared to the Occult section - which is 3x the size of Philosophy. And the Religion section - which is twice the size of the Occult section.

But maybe I'm just an old stick-in-the-mud.


Troy

I feel your pain.

[GeoffC]

For one of us, this thread is their first experience of Philosophy !