What does it mean to admire someone?
It’s silly Sunday, and as I take a break from shoveling another 18 inches (plus high winds and bitter cold and ice dams causing roof leaks, etc.), I’d like to offer some thoughts on Tyler Cowen’s recent post asking whom we most admire (among people still alive.) I’m more interested in what it means to admire someone, and also what we mean by “someone.”
I might refer to “my” arm or my kidney, or my left foot. That suggests there is some sort of personal identity—me—that possesses these things. And this doesn’t just apply to parts of the body, but also intangible attributes. I could speak of Paul Krugman’s analytical brilliance, or Tom Cruise’s charisma, or Russell Westbrook’s athleticism. Then there’s my memory, or my consciousness, etc. In the end, I’m skeptical of the idea that there is some sort of core personal identity that possesses all these things—people are probably just a bundle of attributes. It’s not even clear where “Scott Sumner” ends and “not Scott Sumner” begins. Are my tooth fillings part of me? What about an artificial limb (if I had one.) In the future we may have brain implants. How about our clothing?
One theme that comes up in Tyler’s discussion is that people seem a bit embarrassed to admire people for certain personal attributes (say artistic or athletic skill that is partly genetic) as opposed to attributes like courage and hard work, which may require lots of self-sacrifice. Of course courage and willingness to work hard may also be partly genetic.
I also wonder whether ability to understand something reduces our admiration. The behavior of a very good person (Gandhi) or a very bad person (Hitler) seems mysterious in some way, and I think at some level we want it that way. There’s an old saying, “to understand all is to forgive all.” We don’t really want to be able to say, “I know how Hitler felt” because we don’t want to forgive him. Now of course there’s something illogical about assuming that understanding goodness or evil makes it less good, or less evil, but I think that’s how most people look at things.
I have sort of contrarian views on this. I don’t believe in free will, and yet oddly I think we should admire good people, and scorn evil people, because people react to incentives. By admiring people who do good things, we encourage good behavior. Deep down we feel that we should devote more effort to encouraging Aung San Suu Kyi to fight for freedom in Burma, than to encourage Tom Cruise to be even more charismatic when he smiles. So that provides some justification for thinking heroes are more worthy of admiration, although we may underestimate how much pleasure we derive from artists, athletes and other people engaged in seemingly “superficial” activities.
Not sure anyone cares, but I’ll list people I admire, in two categories. The first is heroic figures, who fight for classical liberalism at great personal risk:
Heroes: Aung San Suu Kyi, Liu Xiaobo
Now I’ll list people I admire for specific talents or attributes. Oddly I don’t have any scientists, and the only economist is not admired for his economics. If Einstein was alive I might include him, but I don’t know much about modern science. The people I admire most for attributes is artists. (Here I don’t care about what the person is like “deep down,” whether they cheat on their wives, etc.) I’m most admiring of people whose achievements seem miraculous. Recall the earlier discussion of good and evil; we want to think it’s somehow mysterious, as if demystifying the achievement would drain it of any real meaning.
Music: Bob Dylan — My favorite living artist, even though I’m not a musically-oriented person (I prefer literature and the visual arts.) His achievements in the first 25 years of his life seem incomprehensible to me. Perhaps that’s because I know little about music. Please don’t demystify it in the comment section.
Writers: Karl Ove Knausgaard, Haruki Murakami, Orhan Pamuk
Athletes: Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Russell Westbrook, Giannis Antetokounmpo
Directors: Wong Kar Wai, David Lynch
Actors: Tony Leung, Gong Li
Intellectuals: He is an infovore who’s read everything, heard everything, and travelled everywhere. He seems to have an Apollonian view of the planet that us mere mortals struggle to comprehend. He’s an economist. And a blogger. And I sort of work for him. Can you guess?
Business: I don’t admire business leaders, except perhaps Elon Musk
Politicians: Can’t think of any
Good people: Mom, former colleague Ted Woodruff
PS. I sort of admire some other bloggers, but I decided not to start down that road, as I don’t know where to draw the line.
Tags:
15. February 2015 at 14:41
For economist, only Caplan and Hanson really fit.
15. February 2015 at 14:59
Hi Scott,
I don’t know if I agree with the assertion that incentives for good behaviour and the general reverence of the population, and derision upon bad behaviour are the only things that encourage people to remain good and avoid being bad.
Furthermore, if we are to assume that people with different moral frameworks are to be incentivised to conform to ours, this would depend upon “them” seeing our moral frameworks as valid, which I do not think is the case.
15. February 2015 at 15:25
“I don’t believe in free will, and yet oddly I think we should admire good people, and scorn evil people, because people react to incentives. By admiring people who do good things, we encourage good behavior.”
That requires free will.
“The behavior of a very good person (Gandhi)”
Ghandi was an anarchist. His theory of Satyagraha was based on the principle of Swaraj, or “Self-Government”.
If Ghandi were alive today, and he was not surrounded by any awe and grandeur of his personality, if he were just some random schmoe, then if history is a guide would Sumner have called him an ideologue whom he “hates”?
I strongly doubt Sumner’s claim that he believes Ghandi was a “good” person. I suspect he is only saying that to make himself appear to others as someone who thinks Ghandi was a good person. It probably would not be “pragmatic” to say he doesn’t think Ghandi was a good person. Probably wouldn’t “get away with” that truth.
If Ghandi’s philosophy were practiced, market monetarist politics would be criminal.
“I’m most admiring of people whose achievements seem miraculous.”
As did Hegel. He called them world historical figures.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_figure#Hegel.27s_world-historical_figure
15. February 2015 at 15:44
Yutaka Harada, the central banker who said, “We need to print more money.”
A unique central banker who speaks clear English…er, I assume he spoke the above line in Japanese, but the point stands.
15. February 2015 at 16:35
E. Harding, Those are two that I admire.
Giftofgab, You said:
“I don’t know if I agree with the assertion that incentives for good behaviour and the general reverence of the population, and derision upon bad behaviour are the only things that encourage people to remain good and avoid being bad.”
I don’t think I said that, but if I did I shouldn’t have. I certainly agree with you on that point.
Ben, I think he’s a big improvement, but I don’t admire people who do things that look easy to me.
15. February 2015 at 16:52
Scott, can you explain your statement that you don’t believe in free will? How can we criticize central bankers for poor policy choices if they didn’t have the free will to make those choices to begin with? How can we criticize or praise Krugman for writing a misleading or good column if he had no free will in choosing to write that column?
15. February 2015 at 17:08
If Norman Borlaug were still alive, he would get my vote without even needing to think about it. Another person I might consider is Tim Berners-Lee. I don’t see him as a brilliant innovator given that http and html are logical evolutions of previous protocols and data formats. But there’s no denying the impact that the web has had on the world. And the full impact of what it can do has yet to be realized.
15. February 2015 at 17:20
Thinking about it some more, I’d also nominate Burt Rutan for technical genius. He led a team of a few dozen people in building SpaceShip One which is constructed of what is essentially cloth and epoxy. No one else came close to meeting the requirements of the X-Prize for a manned reusable spacecraft. It still boggles my mind on how he was able to design his craft to re-enter the atmosphere without a heat shield or other special materials.
15. February 2015 at 17:26
I love Murakami novels but a friend of mine who also loved them once said that most of them are fundamentally the same: same youthful/20-something protagonist (typically male), same teenage girl, same sexual older woman, same mysterious/absent female love interest of similar age. 1Q84 and a few others have reversed roles and changed things around a bit. Don’t get me wrong, I still love reading him, but I think my friend’s observation is fair.
15. February 2015 at 17:42
Don’t you think it’s a little strange that we tend to admire athletes and not business people when it’s business that is responsible for our standard of living.
15. February 2015 at 18:07
BC, You said:
“How can we criticize central bankers for poor policy choices if they didn’t have the free will to make those choices to begin with?”
There are several ways to respond here. I could say it’s one of those face/vase things, you either see it or you don’t. Or I could get cute and say I criticize them because I have no free will. But seriously, criticism is one of the environmental factors that influences behavior. So I’m trying to change the environment in such a way that they are led to make fewer mistakes. I do not mean that people don’t make choices, just that the outcome is determined ahead of time by genetics, environment, and other factors. Anyway, it makes no difference whether people have free will or not, it’s a silly argument.
Gordon, I don’t follow science and technology that closely, which is probably why I tend to admire artists more. I’d also say that just because someone does something really useful, doesn’t make me admire them. I am drawn toward behavior that seems amazing, or beautiful. But you certainly make some good choices, especially Borlaug.
Rajat, Good observation. The only thing I’d quibble with is the term “fundamentally”. I see characters (and plot) as among the most superficial, least fundamental aspect of a novel. Thus with Murakami each novel seems quite different to me in feel, as different as two novels by most other novelists.
John, Actually lots of people are responsible for our standard of living, although I agree that business people are very important. But merely being important in a utilitarian sense doesn’t make me admire someone. I look for something special, and I don’t see it in many business people, perhaps because I have little interest in business. I do realize that Tyler’s commenters mentioned lots of business people, it’s just not the sort of activity I admire most. Having said that, I have SOME admiration for the accomplishments of people like Steve Jobs. Certainly much more than for union bosses or politicians, as an example.
15. February 2015 at 18:46
My guess for the “infovore” intellectual is Tyler Cowen.
P.S.: I liked that Cowen included Ben Bernanke on his list of admired people.
15. February 2015 at 19:25
I don’t think we really *can* forgive Hitler, since he is dead. Forgiveness means admitting a person back into one’s society without demanding compensation or penance for some transgression (or alleged transgression) of his–perhaps also without keeping one’s guard up against the possible recurrence of transgression. Obviously it is impossible thus to readmit a dead person. At the same time, it would be ridiculous to demand compensation, penance, or anything else of Hitler.
In other words, forgiveness is treating a living person as if he had not committed an offense, though judging that he actually did commit one. But there is no “treating” a dead person; there is only judging.
15. February 2015 at 20:36
I kind of dislike agreeing with MF but…
Seriously Scott, how can you not agree with free will? There is enormous evidence in favor of free will, and very little evidence against it. Besides you kind of are FORCED to operate in a framework that accepts free will as a given. You make choices everyday, if there is no free will what’s the point.?
Quantum mechanics= fundamental uncertainty built into the world. Free will requires ontological uncertainty. Here you go.
The nature of memory. You would expect memory if the brain were like a computer, to remember things kind of like that. Instead, our memories are constructed, and greatly depend on how we interpret the
Past in the here and now. There have been cases of patients under hypnosis who remember things in crystal clear clarity that turn out to be false plants by the hypnotist.
The general neuroplasticity of the brain.
Out of body Experiences.
Qualia.
Where is the gene that provides the “illusion” of free will?
The list can go on..
15. February 2015 at 22:46
Edward:
I don’t mind agreeing or disagreeing with anyone, because truth is not contingent upon who believes it. You saying you dislike agreeing with me is admitting you accept and not accept ideas as true based not on logic and evidence, but on ad hominem.
Congrats.
———
Sumner:
“But seriously, criticism is one of the environmental factors that influences behavior. So I’m trying to change the environment in such a way that they are led to make fewer mistakes.”
That also requires free will.
15. February 2015 at 23:00
Sumner:
“I do not mean that people don’t make choices, just that the outcome is determined ahead of time by genetics, environment, and other factors.”
That means people do not make choices.
“Anyway, it makes no difference whether people have free will or not, it’s a silly argument.”
How utterly irresponsible. This question has a profound impact on human life. All metaphysical ideas have social impacts.
The idea that everything we do is predetermined makes all morality at best an illusion. It makes Hitler and Ghandi equally moral, that is, both amoral and none is more or less moral than the other, since morality requires free will.
Your statement that Hitler was bad and Ghandi was good, would not be an encouragement to others to act more like Ghandi and less like Hitler, for everyone’s actions are already predetermined.
16. February 2015 at 01:51
dylan’s first 25 years? more like the first 15 (and then from ‘time out of mind’ onwards?)
16. February 2015 at 01:55
ok i realized scott meant until 1966.. (comment above can be removed? and this one too)
16. February 2015 at 03:33
Free will defenders in this thread have successfully tangled prof summer up. I will jump in to defend him–the important part is where he claims that ‘prof sumner’ does not exist as a coherent entity. He puts this point up front bc it all flows from there. Free will is out of the discussion from the start bc he has denied that unit the discussion of free will centers on (one human, making a choice) even exists in the first place.
After working hard shoveling the lawn, P sumner’s arms and back exert their free will in forcing his brain to stop? His brain fails to exert free will as it attempts to make his hands move but finds that it is constrained by previous conditioning? It’s all meaningless once we lose track of individual humans as entities.
16. February 2015 at 05:31
Philo, What word should I have chosen there?
Edward, You said:
“Quantum mechanics= fundamental uncertainty built into the world. Free will requires ontological uncertainty.”
To the extent that randomness exists, there is no free will. If my decisions are random, I have no control over them. In any case, the random interpretation of QM has never been proved–I find other intepretations more plausible.
None of your other “evidence” has any bearing on the question, because the free will hypothesis is irrefutable. It has no testable implications. It’s useless.
A universe with and without free will look identical.
Miguel, Yes, before his 25th birthday.
Nick, Good point.
16. February 2015 at 05:34
Nick, I’d put it this way. The reason free will doesn’t exist is not because you have no choice, it’s because the “you” doesn’t exist. There is no personal identity.
Your brain may make (deterministic) choices, but you can’t control your brian, because “you” don’t exist.
Deep down there is . . . nothing.
16. February 2015 at 05:45
Edward – quantum mechanics is not a good model for free will. Consider a chess playing computer program that, after determining the three best moves according to its position assessment module, selects its next move from among these three by generating a random number. Do you want to say that the program has “free will”?
Nor do your points about memory provide any evidence against determinism. Evolution can explain why memory works the way that it does. Indeed, you might want to ask yourself where and how “free will” first appears in the process of biological evolution. Is a capuchin monkey that rejects a piece of cucumber when he sees another capuchin receiving a grape exercising “free will”?
If you are interested in learning more about determinism, you might want to read Dennett’s Elbow Room. If you want to see how moral terms are compatible with determinism, you might want to read Responsibility and Control, by Fischer and Ravizza.
16. February 2015 at 06:54
There is no proper word. I think you were overlooking an important difference in status between living people and everything else. If Hitler were alive one could, possibly, forgive him; now that his is dead there is no attitude one can assume towards him that is at all similar to forgiveness. (Nor can one *forgive* an object that is not *and never was* alive.)
16. February 2015 at 07:41
Philo, You said;
“There is no proper word. I think you were overlooking an important difference in status between living people and everything else.”
Actually I was not–I do get that distinction. I just used the wrong word. I was thinking of something along the lines of “think less poorly of him.” Or “regard him as less evil.” I have to try harder to avoid using the wrong term, something I do too frequently.
Gordon, Thanks, you are much more well read on the topic than I am.
16. February 2015 at 08:29
Malcolm Butler is a recent addition to my list of admired athletes.
16. February 2015 at 09:35
Sumner wrote:
“The reason free will doesn’t exist is not because you have no choice, it’s because the “you” doesn’t exist. There is no personal identity.”
There can’t be right? After all, the “illusion” of the Ego leads to evil and violence…which has never existed in the far East, the land where the drive towards Ego Death has originated, where the future of the world hinges and secretly depends. Sun Tzu meets Alan Watts meets Sumner.
Better to believe the Ego is an illusion. That way, Ying Yang, balance, harmony, camaradarie, and peace. [GONNNNNGGGG]
It is interesting how pragmatism takes a back seat when the topic is individualism. The thought that we are each separate and distinct entities is definitely a pragmatic thought, since it allows for “the universe to become more Rational”. It is not a coincidence that China has grown more prosperous with more individualist “illusions” clouding their previously clear and thousands of years old harmony of oneness in nature.
No wonder NGDPLT is perceived as an ideal! It is a singularity that destroys individuality! The world is not composed of individuals who have separate interests and who engage in separate acts of producing, investing, and consuming. We are deluded in thinking that. This is why we need…um…individuals who will act…to maintain the singularity of NGDP in balance. See what deviating away from that has caused.
If “you” claim “you” do not exist, and “I” claim “I” do exist, and every phenomena in the universe is predetermined, then the statement “I do not exist” is no more true than “I do exist”. Both are equally true, which is to say both are both true, and not true, and undefined, and snarglefargle, and etc.
It would also imply the holocaust was inevitable, and necessary. It would also imply it was not inevitable and not necessary, if such a statement were to be uttered since all statements uttered are predetermined. Snarglefargle is true. Woppityboppity is true and false and not true and not false. Gibberish cannot be avoided and it can be avoided.
All Ego Death really is, is a subconscious desire for a subject to die as a means to reconciling the dichotomy between, in epistemological terms: Subject and Object; in political terms: Ruler and Ruled; in economic terms: Owner and Owned.
Milton Friedman, who does not exist but I, who also do not exist, refer to him anyway as if he did, once suggested during an interview to read an obscure paper by a Russian mathematician, who also does not exist, by the name of Igor Shafarevich. The paper is titled “The Socialist Phenomenon”. I don’t want to spoil it, because it is quite an enlightening read, but it goes a long way to understanding the inner most deep core of Monetarism.
Link:
http://robertlstephens.com/essays/shafarevich/001SocialistPhenomenon.html
“Your brain may make (deterministic) choices, but you can’t control your brian, because “you” don’t exist.”
Can anyone spot the contradiction?
Sumner first refers to someone’s brain. He wants to say something about a thing outside himself. But then he asserts that that same thing he just referred to and wanted to focus our attention on, does not actually exist.
“Deep down there is . . . nothing.”
I feel sorry for you. Believing you need to latch onto Ego Death as a means to subjective and ontological fulfillment.
It does not have to be that way.
You know of the concept of nothing only because of a dependence on the concept of something. Nothing has no meaning without something. The concept of “deep down” is itself a something. The concept of “deep down” presupposes something exists with depth.
That something is what you are taking for granted when you then have the thought “what else is there?” and conclude it must be “nothing.” That doesn’t mean nothing underlies or grounds everything, it just means that nothing is what is thought of when one tries to get to the back of everything, which is to say when one tries to negate everything.
Nothing is just a negation of something. It is not an independent concept that can exist in the absence of something.
16. February 2015 at 09:40
‘Deep down there is . . . nothing.’
…
That is kind of chilling. Very nihilistic, explains a lot of the bad stuff that happened in the 10th Centruy.
It also explains your frequent disagreements with the major.
He is espousing a libertarian, free-person, free-market economic view in which the individual is the central actor. Your view has led many intellectuals to the position that the individual is a ‘nothing’, just a cog in the machine. The central actor in your economy is the state.
16. February 2015 at 09:57
Prof Sumner,
My eyes see your argument, and certain parts of my brain find a pleasing symmetry between the information they are receiving and the information they already contain.
16. February 2015 at 10:24
I greatly admire LeBron James’s dunking but though he seems like a decent person I really do not know if he is. On your list Russel Westbrook is fun to watch.
16. February 2015 at 10:36
Just this week-end I added Andy Garcia to my list of most admired actors (athletes?);
http://www.rantsports.com/videos/2015/02/14/andy-garcia-and-ray-romano-comments-during-round-3-of-att-pebble-beach/
I say, make him Sec’y of State.
16. February 2015 at 10:50
And Roland Fryer for Sec’y of Education;
http://issues.org/31-1/21st-century-inequality-the-declining-significance-of-discrimination/
———–quote———-
We found five actions that explain roughly 50% of the variation among charter schools. We then conducted an experiment to see if those same five actions would have the same result in a typical urban public school system. The results are truly encouraging. In three years these public school students made remarkable progress in math achievement and some improvement in reading. That’s not everything, but it is far more than what was achieved in decades with the conventional wisdom of smaller classes, more teacher certification, and increased spending.
It is not rocket science. It is not magic. There is nothing special about it. When the film Waiting for Superman came out, people complained that the nation is undersupplied with supermen. But an ordinary nerd like me was able to uncover a simple and readily repeated recipe for progress. Anyone can do this stuff.
One last story. During the experiment in Houston, an education commissioner from another state came to tour Robinson elementary school, one of the toughest in the city. He knew Houston and was familiar with Robinson. At the end of the tour, he pulled me aside. He had one question: “Where did you move the kids who used to go to school here?” I said that these are all the same kids, but they behave a lot differently when we do our jobs properly. They are listening. They are learning. They will live up to the expectations that we have for them.
———-endquote———
16. February 2015 at 11:31
[…] Scott Sumner on admiration. I am also a Kareen Abdul-Jabbar […]
16. February 2015 at 11:42
Charlie:
I think what Sumner said suggests he is already at that position that the individual is a ‘nothing’; just a cog in the machine. His view isn’t what leads to that idea, his view is that idea.
I’ll agree that one possible conclusion such a belief leads to is that the central actor is the state, but it would have to also be a shaky reasoning because the state is also composed of individuals who must be regarded as nothings. Some apologies and accommodations to logic are required.
Hegel for example believed all world history is Geist (God) in a perpetual “knowing” conflict within itself. The spirit which reaches infinity, and the empirical world which is composed of finitudes, are constantly in conflict. Geist must “win”. Geist turns previously “alien” objectifications into known, subjectively sublimated self-awareness. Geist knows itself more and more through Aufhebung, is at the same time Mankind knowing the mind of God. Man becomes God, as it were. Hegel believed himself to be the man God.
Here too all humans are mere cogs in the machine of Geist, or so it seems.
Yet Hegel, as all such absolutists are want to do, left himself an escape hatch. Some individuals, including of course Hegel, are special. The more powerful and influential individuals, however evil and horrific their deeds, are doing more of the work of Geist in going through all the travails of history as a necessary path towards Geist fully understanding itself. Hegel as a result greatly admired tyrants like Napolean and Caesar, and if he lived at the time of Hitler, would have admired him too.
Sumner for his part of course leaves the exact same escape hatch for himself. He wants us to believe we don’t exist, and are not ourselves, but nevertheless we are supposed to regard his statements as definitive truth.
Sumner is doing what all nihilists do. He is trying to reach infinity, true freedom, by denying the individuality of everyone and everything in his path, claiming he also does not exist, but is nevertheless presupposing he exists in eliciting such nihilism.
This is the seed of tyranny. His beliefs cannot be satiated. No matter how much he destroys intellectually, there will remain that intolerable “other” in its objectified form.
This is why I linked to that paper from Shafarevich. He wrote that this tradition in thought is a subconscious desire to not just translate humanity to a divine realm, but to ontologically destroy all humanity as the only path towards true freedom defined as abolition of subject and object, into a singular self-contained self-knowing limitless Mind.
His epistemological beliefs when fully translated into action cannot but result in annihilation of all human life.
What he should do is keep reading philosophy and not stop at the Alan Wattsian concept of Ego Death. He should read more and more until he finds actual harmony in his own body as separate from that which is not his body.
For one reason or another, some people just can’t psychologically tolerate being a something that is not everything else. That the historical dichotomy between subject and object is an evil, where subject must destroy and absorb object. Freud believed that because humans arose out of non-living matter, where life results from an unsettling shift and force against inorganic matter, that there remains a cosmic drive of all living subjects to go back into objectivity. Those who want to destroy the Ego, i.e. Subjectivity, are in that same tradition.
For me, Ego is a benevolent gift. How amazing is it that protons have some nature in them whereby certain patterns of them result in consciousness, in self-awareness. Life is something to maintain.
I’ve tried the hallucinogenics whose effects have been known to result in people feeling/experiencing Ego Death. I experienced it too. But I don’t think it is actually Ego Death. I think the opposite. The true nature of Ego is pure thought of only “the other”. In this way what Sumner says is “deep down…nothing” is a Creative Nothing. The Ego creates and organizes, but cannot itself be self-contained and self-known in isolation. The Ego Death is Ego in its pure form, dissolving the dichotomy between subject and object to make it seem like there is only object.
The Ego really does destroy objectivity. When you produce a good to benefit your life, you are turning previously unknown objectivity into knowledge. You are destroying the “alien-ness” of objects when you act. There is nothing wrong with this. Where problems arise is when this thought is abstracted and turned into a rigid conception under which you must prostrate yourself. Some people call this commodity fetishism. I call it ignoring cultivating your inner self.
Ego can either destroy other Egos, or “enslave” itself to other Egos.
THIS is where libertarianism fundamentally diverges from socialism.
Socialism is a subconscious drive to destroy multiplied Egos and replace it with one grand Ego under which all individuals are cogs. This is the means towards true freedom. Other Egos represent a “fetter” to the socialist mind. That single Ego of socialism is often called “Humanity”, or “Mankind”, or “Society”, or some other reified objectification of what we humans share as individuals.
The inevitable result of this, on the ground, is of course some Egos ruling/destroying/hampering other Egos. Human life becomes a reflection of one Ego, not all Egos. If there are two or more, the socialist drive is not complete. Disagreements imply alienation, estrangement, and a continuing schism in the fabric of reality. Thus more and more powerful Egos are welcomes, if not unintentionally, to cure the schism by more and more powerful acts of oppression to wipe out the illusory non-socialist fetters to progress.
Libertarianism welcomes multiple Egos. Libertarianism does not regard the presence of subjects separated from objects as a flaw, or fault, or some temporary path to travail towards the ideal or true end goal of unity between the two.
In libertarianism, each Ego’s range is limited to the boundaries of where another Ego spreads itself. Now, and this is what many socialist minded folks find intolerable, each Ego is unique. If each Ego is free to expand as far as another Ego’s range begins, what this invariably entails is a world with diverse Ego ranges. Some will have significant “ownership” control over objectivity, while others will have little to no “ownership” control over objectivity. This is intolerable because it allegedly contradicts what humans are, which is that we are all the same in a respect that calls for equal “ownership” over objectivity. Hence the drive to annihilate individual private property, by force of arms if necessary. Or we can wait for the belief in the dialectic of nature to do the work for us in small steps at a time, i.e. Fabianism, which is what guides politics today.
Libertarianism is based on the conviction that I am not you, and you are not me, but we can still benefit each other greatly if we follow certain minimum standards of conduct, a so-called “negative liberty” that socialists find intolerable and allegedly sanctioning of disagreements and conflict. I ought to respect your Ego and you ought to respect mine, and in this way, we can both take larger control over objectivity that we otherwise could have done without such cooperation. We can both live longer, we can both live more healthy, we can both own more, by cooperating in a division of labor than by associating with each other as master and slave.
Libertarianism is the welcoming of diversity, of separation, AND of association and cooperation constrained to certain rules that preserve the multiplied Egos and encourage more such Egos to flourish. The eschatology of libertarianism in theological terms is a universe filled ONLY with multiplied pure Egos, which is not a purposeful goal, but the inevitable goal of there being no single goal imposed on everyone. Now I don’t know about you, but in a world of only pure Egos, there is absolutely no desire for me to destroy everyone so that only I remain as the desirable vision of Hegel as pure Mind unlimited by anything. Just like Hegel presupposed a Geist that split itself into two in order to become enriched, I would immediately create more Egos that are not me, because I want more than just only me. I want as much not me as I can possibly have, because that is what truly expands my horizon.
16. February 2015 at 13:28
Shouldn’t the fact that you don’t admire any politicians suggest that maybe decent politicians are more admirable than you think?
Politicians are almost by trade required to be hacks, to give and give and eat crap constantly for the mere hope of achieving some good, at some point, when the possibility of achieving good is there. This is the Max Weber point in Politics as Vocation. In a sense, politicians sacrifice themselves and their moral standing for our own good a lot of the time.
16. February 2015 at 14:49
I’d put Paul Farmer on my list.
16. February 2015 at 17:02
Scott,
You don’t think you exist? Why do you believe that?
16. February 2015 at 17:12
“Deep down there is… nothing.” Agreed. However, the reason it’s so easy to look deep down into people and find nothing isn’t because there’s nothing to find, including plenty with moral importance. It’s because there’s no deep down. Hierarchy is a helpful metaphor for organizing thoughts, theories, and people, but the world itself isn’t hierarchical (outside of politics, where maintaining norms of hierarchy can be an effective way to create belief-based order).
16. February 2015 at 19:00
People seem to be misunderstanding Scott’s reference to no self. I believe he is saying he does not believe in mind/body separation (dualism). In some sense you must believe in the supernatural to believe in dualism. I am wondering if Scott is a meditator.
16. February 2015 at 20:00
Joel. You said:
“Shouldn’t the fact that you don’t admire any politicians suggest that maybe decent politicians are more admirable than you think?”
Is that also true of bank robbers?
Yes, some are less bad than others, but I prefer to admire people in different fields.
Justin, It depends how you define “You.” I believe I am a bundle of attributes. In that sense I exist. I might talk of my leg, my memories, my lung, my opinions, my emotions, etc. Then I’d say there is no “me” that possesses all those things. I have no personal identity. I’m not there. Just the attributes.
In contrast, if I talk of Frank’s dog, Frank’s car, Franks house, etc., then there is a Frank that has those things. But there is no me that has my leg, my opinions, etc.
16. February 2015 at 20:27
I’m a skilled musician and something of a poet, and I, too, regard the accomplishments of Bob Dylan’s first 25 years as miraculous. He is playing a different game from the rest of us.
Same with Shakespeare, Newton, Beethoven, and a few others (not in their first 25 years, but in their lifetimes).
16. February 2015 at 22:36
Sumner:
“It depends how you define “You.” I believe I am a bundle of attributes. In that sense I exist.”
Existents are bundles of attributes PLUS that which bundles those attributes.
I am I and you are you because of not just the bundles, but also because of the bundling.
When you speak of yourself, there is a yourself and there is a referencing of yourself.
When you say “My arms, my legs, my lungs, etc”, there is more than just your arms, your legs and your lungs in that action. There are those attributes, and there is something referring to those attributes. That “something” is the “you” which only “you” and other “you’s” can recognize and understand. Your abstracted arms, legs and lungs cannot understand this.
Even if you completely exhausted your attributes by listing every single conceivable attribute of yourself, there would still remain after all those attributes that which listed those attributes which is not in the list itself.
Even if you tried to expand that list by including “the attribute that lists all attributes”, so as to exhaust your entire being into a list of attributes, you would run into a paradox, which in mathematical terms was first discovered by Bertrand Russell when he looked at Cantor’s naive set theory.
Long story short, if you tried to define yourself as ONLY a list of attributes, the set you construct would necessarily remain incomplete, because no matter how large of a list, i.e. set, you accumulate in terms of content, there will remain the forming of the list which is not in the list itself.
Gödel’s theorems are key here.
The “you” is the intelligence associated with all the attributes. Even if you tried to include “intelligence” as another attribute, there would remain something that did the attributing.
An attribute attributing itself? You’re still left with a subject and object. The subject objectifying itself!
17. February 2015 at 06:11
Larry, Are there any other major artists whose greatest work was done in their early 20s?
17. February 2015 at 08:14
Steve, you can believe that a man is more than his body or his feelings or his actions and not believe in what you call supernaturalism.
That line of thought does probably lead you to God, or a spiritual belief, but not always.
Certainly most moral codes lead you to that end, but not necessarily. The legal system in the West affirms the dignity and rights of the spiritual man, without requiring you be believe in God.
Nobody really believes that they are their body. So I think most people instinctively accept that separation.
The problem with nihilistic arguments that we are only a collection of instinctive behaviors is that it leads to very bad things. The German philosophers of the 19th Century still have their adherents despite all the damage their ideas have caused.
In the economics front, it would lead to top down planning, in which somebody like Mr. Sumner believes that we should start by imposing his idea on the individual even to the point where his plan takes away individual choices by central bankers, thus making the individual part the collective. Where does he get that authority; why should we put our trust in the machine?
Let’s instead start with the individual’s rights, responsibilities and hopes and goals.
17. February 2015 at 09:57
“Are there any other major artists whose greatest work was done in their early 20s?”
At an age younger than that at which Robert Zimmerman changed his name to Bob Dylan, Arthur Rimbaud had completed his career. And, Dylan, as well as a number of other modern artists], borrowed more than a little bit from that precocious youngster.
17. February 2015 at 11:49
“Nobody really believes that they are their body. So I think most people instinctively accept that separation.”
I think a better description would be “Nobody really thinks critically about this stuff. Being conscious makes it appear we are more than just our bodies.” I’m not saying it is impossible that spirit/soul/mind exists. There is just no evidence for it and a much simpler explanation is that consciousness is confined to the brain.
Scott’s distinction between himself and Frank is interesting. I am not sure I understand it…
17. February 2015 at 14:35
I enjoyed the eclectic nature of your list and share some with you-I guess I like your idea of admiring people vs. attributes. It is hard for instance not to admire Kareem’s skyhook!
17. February 2015 at 14:53
Vivian, Yes, I don’t know how I overlooked Rimbaud.
Adrian, In what other sport is the all time record holder for scoring someone who used a shot that NO ONE ELSE DOES, or even knows how to do?
18. February 2015 at 19:43
Scott,
I highly recommend the book “Zero to One” by Peter Thiel for an intelligent businessman’s perspective on economics.
19. February 2015 at 10:23
John. I once met Mr Thiel, and he is very bright. However I don’t think we agree on monetary policy.
20. February 2015 at 04:23
I spent some time trying to find myself and ended up with brain damage. But more on one half then the other. So I think Michael Gazzaniga would be a useful source, on brain lateralization, decisions, free will etc.
21. February 2015 at 14:33
MF writes:
“Long story short, if you tried to define yourself as ONLY a list of attributes, the set you construct would necessarily remain incomplete, because no matter how large of a list, i.e. set, you accumulate in terms of content, there will remain the forming of the list which is not in the list itself.”
Gödel’s theorems are key here.”
I am always suspicious when Godel’s theorems are invoked in this context, but, in any event, you provide no reason why another person cannot define you as a set of attributes that is complete. Perhaps that means that *you* cannot see the truth of the statement of the set, but so what? There could be all sorts of true statements that a given individual cannot see as true. (Note, by the way, that Godel’s first theorem is about the failure to prove a statement, not to recognize its truth. Maybe you want to invoke Tarski rather than Godel.)