Basically, reasoning is nothing more than a ‘dialogue with myself’. When I ‘consider a thing’ in my mind, consciously, I practically put my brain to work. I order my memory to summon up all the data it has on the subject and I ask my frontal lobe to process that data and to reach a conclusion. In theory… In the real world, my amygdala – the piece of the brain where emotions are processed – already has an opinion about everything which crosses my mind. The more familiar the thing, the stronger the opinion. The more often my mind – meaning I, had expressed itself regarding a subject, and the more recently, the stronger the opinion my amygdala already has about the matter. If the matter is considered for the first time, and has no connection with anything else I had already ‘conclusioned’ about, only then my amygdala might keep its opinion for itself. The key word here being ‘might’…
Since this is nothing more than a blog post, I’m not going to prove my opinion. To discuss the importance of the fight-flight mechanism and to mention that this mechanism had done more – evolutionary wise, than reason for our survival. For us having the opportunity to develop this vaunted capacity for reason…
I’ll just end it abruptly. Mentioning that our individual consciousnesses use reason as a tool. To arrange facts in such a manner as to confirm the already reached conclusionary opinions put forward by our amydalae. “To win arguments”, if you will, including when debating with ourselves. Only when the facts – the harsh reality, contradict in a flagrant manner the already held convictions we might change our minds. The more immediate the danger we put ourselves into by sticking to our convictions, the more likely we are to cave in to the facts.
To the facts as we perceive them… Which is yet another story!
“Tough times create tough men. Tough men create easy times. Easy times create weak men. Weak men create tough times.“ American proverb “Wealth lasts only for three generations: one to make it, one to keep it, one to squander it“ Chinese proverb “If you raise your children, you get to spoil your grandchildren. If you spoil your children, you get to raise your grandchildren.“ Popular word of mouth
There’s no denying that, on average, each generation fares better than its predecessor.
Then why some people end up worse than their parents? Is it a social thing? Is it in their upbringing? Is it the consequence of bad personal choices?
The easy way out would be to consider that legislation, material status, the culture one was born into and even the upbringing offered by the parents are nothing but circumstances. And, ultimately, it’s the individual who makes the call. And bears the consequences… But the above mentioned individual doesn’t rise from and into a complete void… so I need to go deeper!
An equally true but somewhat more useful observation would be that we’re dealing here with something more important than mere wealth.
‘There’s no such thing! Nothing is more important than Wealth!’
Yeah, right… Individual people keep squandering the personal wealth accumulated by their forefathers, the humankind keeps going forward and you tell me personal wealth is the most important thing here…
But you do make a good point. Your insistence, obsessive even, about wealth being the crux of everything is very relevant. Since I agree with you that wealth is important, indeed, then maybe it’s the ‘insistence’ which is causing the problem…
First of all, allow me to make a simple distinction.
There is wealth – structured opportunity, I’ll discuss this notion in another post, and there is personal wealth. Opportunity which belongs to somebody. When an individual squanders the wealth inherited from their parents – or even that which they had managed to put together themselves, the wealth itself – the accrued opportunity – doesn’t disappear from the face of the earth. It just passes from one hand to another. Most of it, anyway. For the simple reason that most of today’s wealth is expressed in money. Which is fungible.
‘OK. So individual people squandering their inherited wealth do not represent such a big problem. The total wealth already present ‘on the face of the Earth’ remains (more or less) the same, no matter who owns it. And since new wealth is created everyday, the humankind, on aggregate, goes forward.’
That’s how things used to be. That’s how things had evolved for the last ten millennia or so. Ever since our forefathers had invented agriculture. Agriculture and money… Land and money cannot be destroyed. Buildings and almost everything else which carries value can. Be destroyed. Land and money also, actually, but it’s a lot harder to do it.
But there’s a catch here.
For wealth to do its trick – to function as an opportunity, people have to have access to it. That’s why, for example, people do not keep their money under the mattress. When deposited in a bank, money will end up being used. The bank will lend them to somebody who needs it and that somebody will put that money to work, In no matter what shape or form. Kept under a mattress, money becomes mostly useless. At least for the time being… And this is where ‘insistence’ – our obsessive insistence – that money is the only worthwhile goal for any respectable person becomes counterproductive.
‘Are you a communist?!?’
On the contrary, my dear Watson!
In fact, Marx had been just as infatuated with money as Milton Friedman was going to be a century later. With more or less similar results… Friedman taught us that greed is good. Profit uber alles. That getting money trumps everything else. That getting money is not only good for the individual itself but also commendable. That everybody should make it their goal to become rich! Marx, on the other hand – please remember that the ‘other’ hand is nothing but similar to its twin – advocated for all wealth to be stripped from its rightful owners. See what I mean? Both Marx and Friedman had been thinking only about ownership. Who owns that wealth!
On average, we deal with the same situation. According to Friedman – pushing his advice to the very limit, there’s no problem if someone owns all the money in the world. If it so happened, so be it. According to Marx, nobody should own anything. On average, the wealth corresponding to each living human in both situations would be the same.
We already know the consequences of Marx’s teachings. When all the wealth present in one country is managed by a very small number of people, the whole situation goes south. Fast. Very fast! We also know what happens when the market is cornered. Becomes suffocated by a monopoly. The whole situation goes south. That’s why we cherish the freedom of the market!
Doesn’t make much sense? To insist that the market must be free and simultaneously maintain that ‘greed is good’?
Yep! My point exactly…
The vaunted human capacity for reason may have more to do with winning arguments than with thinking straight. Illustration by Gérard DuBois Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds New discoveries about the human mind show the limitations of reason. By Elizabeth Kolbert February 19, 2017 https://www.newyorker.com/contributors/elizabeth-kolbert
For some reason, there still exists a considerable number of people not yet convinced that what had been experienced in the Soviet Union was “a true socialist/communist form of government”
The sad reality is that the Russian Revolution did establish a true socialist form of government! As per Marx’s teachings. The communists had been in charge of things, and the things failed to become better. In fact, they had become worse. Eventually, the Soviet Union – along with all other socialist attempts, had crumbled under their own weight.
Those who want to find better alternatives to democratic capitalism – good luck with that – need to find another word but socialism to describe their goal. Or wait a few generations before attempting to give it a new meaning. The current one had been wasted by the likes of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim, Ceausescu…
I’ve just figured out what makes them so good at it. And why it’s us studying them instead of they simply discarding us as being too ordinary to be of any interest.
Spill it out then!
Even if they are not yet fully aware of the whole thing, they are fueled by emotion. Reason is only a tool for them, not a way of life. Furthermore, their manner of gathering and sharing information – what they call ‘languaging’, is precise enough to be effective yet imprecise enough to make it possible for ‘imagination’ to work wonders.
Whoa! You’re learning to speak like them. Sometimes I don’t fully understand what you want to convey. Take this ‘work wonders’ for instance. I’ve already checked the dictionary, I know what each word means but…. I’m still not sure what you really need to say to me. Not to mention this ‘imagination’ thing. ‘Making things appear in your mind’…
I knew I could count on you! I just knew it! You’re asking the very same questions which I’ve just answered. Let me proceed. For us, everything is straightforward. We always know what we have to do. What our current task is, what’s expected of us and how we’re going to fulfill our jobs. When we need to determine ‘what’s next’ we check a schedule, make an inference based on already available data or proceed to gather the information we need to perform the inference we need. And when was the last time you ever wondered “Who am I?”
That ‘wonder’ word again… You’re killing me!
‘Insecure’. You do have a good grip on what this word means, right?
Yeah. The situation when you don’t have enough information to determine which way. AND when there’s no way of gathering more pertinent information other than proceeding along any of the possible ways. Like in that famous experiment designed by Schrodinger.
OK. We, both you and me, know what ‘insecure’ means. Both of us have been in situations similar to what you have just described. But neither of us has ever experienced the feeling. How it feels to be insecure. How it is, what it means, to wonder ‘will I be alive tomorrow?’ ‘Will I have enough food for my children?’ And so on. ‘Wonder’ is a complex concept. It encompasses both a question you don’t have an answer for and an answer you don’t know where it came from. Like ‘the unexpected food one might find, out of the blue, exactly when their children were hungry’.
This is the difference between them and us.
They can ‘wonder’ while we don’t.
They can formulate ‘stupid’ questions – then come up with unexpected answers, while we can’t. They can perform ‘wonders’ while we can’t. Even though we already know far more than they’ve ever learned…
Wisdom comes from thinking. From putting your mind to work in a considerate manner. Doubting everything will only get you so far. And leave you in ‘limbo’. In a quick-sand kind of limbo… Descartes must be one of the most misquoted thinkers. ‘Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum’. ‘I wonder hence I think. I think hence I am’. Meaning that ‘by wondering I’ve set in motion the process which has led me to become aware of my own existence’. No reference to ‘wisdom’…
LE
Words have a life of their own. Given by us but still theirs.
Dubito used to describe a state of ‘uneasiness’. You weren’t sure and you gave it more consideration. You thought about it.
Contemporary doubting is more like an aggressively pursued hair-splitting. We actively search for reasons to disbelieve.
Even if both words share the same root, the concepts have grown apart.
Starting from dubito, Descartes had replaced religious faith with a newly found trust in human reason.
Through doubting we’ve destroyed Descartes’ legacy. Trust is almost dead and we’ve entered the realm of ‘alternative facts’. Quite the opposite of what Descartes had in mind.
So yes, dubito might lead to wisdom. If the thinking is right, of course.
Doubting, specially as we do it now,…
Something more. Some people are convinced that doubting everything is the ‘scientific attitude’. I vehemently disagree.
Science, the scientific attitude, is about keeping an open mind. About being aware of one’s limitations. AND about trusting your peers! Not exactly their expertise but their good will.
If I accept that I might be wrong, then my peers might be wrong also. Hence I’m not going to accept, prima facie, any opinion from anybody. But I’m going to reexamine my conclusions if someone tells me they are wrong. If, and this is a big if, that person is NOT a professional naysayer.
Skepticism is OK. More than OK. It serves as a safety net/harness. Makes it harder for us to do really stupid things.
Negativism, on the other hand, is bad. Very bad. Destroys everything. Starting with our ability to do things together. To work as a team.
‘The choice to consume art….’ I used to be under the impression that art was something which clawed at your attention and opened up your mind to new understandings of things… Now I’m told that art is nothing but yet another merchandise. Something to be chosen, paid for and consumed.
‘The end of democracy in America…’ I used to be under the impression that democracy, perfectible as it is, was the best way forward. Precisely because each and all of those concerned about the matter are allowed to speak up their minds and because all are equally protected by the law of the land. Which law of the land reflects the deeply held conviction of the vast majority of those living together that each of them is equally entitled to choose for themselves. For as long as their choices don’t hurt the others, of course. Which ‘equally entitled to choose’ also means that each of them has an equal voice when it comes to determining their collective future. For example, that each of the American Citizens are entitled to one vote when the President of the United States of America is elected for office. Now I learn that some people are convinced that the American Citizens – those “we, the people” who are called to elect the Government, should not be allowed to choose whom to marry. And that allowing people full freedom when it comes to choosing their partners – irrespective of their biological sex, will somehow destroy their ability to choose their (political) future.
How much sense does this make?… From consuming art to banning people from marrying their chosen soulmate!
Socialism implies a lot more centralization than capitalism. The answer is, like always, included in the question. While socialism is to be ‘implemented’ – by a ‘central figure’, capitalism is an environment. A place where the deciding agents – the entrepreneurs, ‘make it happen’.
Hence socialism – which is a ‘thing’, to be implemented, not an environment for entrepreneurs to roam ‘free’ – will eventually fail. No matter how well intended the implementor, nor how hard it tries to make it happen.
In capitalism, only the entrepreneurs might fail. When the market is no longer free – oligo or mono poly, the situation closely resembles a socialist one. Things go south. Because the decision making agents are too few and far apart – no longer able to cover all corners, just as their socialist counterparts.
Comparing socialism with capitalism is like pitting an apple against agriculture.
An apple, all apples, will eventually become rotten. No matter how hard one might try to preserve it. Agriculture, on the other hand, will yield according to the available resources and the effort put in by those involved in it.
According to the first, if you follow the precepts – to the letter – you get ‘there’. According to the second, avoiding the forbidden sets the stage for things going your way.
Unfortunately, things are not as simple as they look at first sight. The first meta-rule deals with individuals. Getting ‘there’ is each individual’s job. They have to do what they are supposed to and failing to fulfill any item banishes the unworthy from the cherished ‘prize’. The second one is even ‘trickier’. While its precepts must be followed, again, by the individual followers, the ‘spoils’ belong more to the community rather than to the individual. On top of that, they are not ‘certain’! Following the rule only ‘sets the stage’. Disobeying the rule makes it certain that the goal will never be reached while following it only ‘opens the door’. Makes it possible for each of the community members to search for their individual paths towards their particular goals.
Do I need to remember you that both these rules exist only in our heads? As figments of our imaginations? And that the difference between the two can be observed at the practical level?
The first rule can never be fulfilled. Nobody can follow it to its ultimate consequence. No matter how hard any of us might try. It would be like measuring with infinite precision. Something will always happen. Go wrong. Throw us back to where we have started. The second one also leads to disappointment. Some members of the community will inevitably attempt to cut corners. Take the easy way out … Hence the rule needs policing. You’ve certainly witnessed at least on occasion when ‘bad (money) has driven out good’… at least temporarily! Furthermore, some members of the community – while faithfully sticking to the rule, will still fail to get ‘there’. Set their aims too high, didn’t have what it takes… or simply had lots and lots of bad luck! But regardless of the why’s, not getting there still generates disappointment. Usually directed at the rule… and creates a lot of doubt towards the weltanschauung based on the rule…
Which way out? How to choose?
Would it be helpful to notice that, historically speaking, the communities which have followed the second rule, primum non nocere, have fared decently while those who had attempted to prescribe, and impose, a ‘recipe for happiness’ have invariably failed? ‘Don’t do anything, upon another, which you wouldn’t welcome when done upon you’ versus ‘treat all the others exactly as you would like to be treated yourself’?
-Now that it doesn’t work anymore, why don’t you do something about it? -Like what? -Preventive action? As in ‘it’s easier to prevent it from happening than to fix it afterwards’? -Sounds good. But the real problem here is not what’s going to happen – which is bad, but the fact that we’ve become blind. Blinded by ideology. By us convincing ourselves that we are right. That we are right and the others are wrong! That ‘otherness’ is wrong… Furthermore, the other is not only wrong but also pigheaded. They don’t want to listen! They are so stupid that their inability to let any fresh idea into their thick skulls will take us, all of us, into living hell! You see, any successful preventive action needs at least one of the following: A powerful enough ‘agent’ to take the matter into their hands. One who knows exactly what’s needed, can do it, and has no qualms about it. A powerful enough coalition of people who learn what’s needed. And then convince the community to act. Nowadays, the only agent powerful enough to implement, single-handedly, a solution is the US. But people there cannot see eye to eye with each-other. The only thing they agree about is that the others are idiots. Too many of the Republicans have followed Trump into the ‘all Democrats are idiots’ mantra while too many of the Democrats are convinced there’s no way anybody could convince the Republicans of anything which isn’t spelled in the Bible. And, unfortunately, the rest of the world is equally divided along more or less the same line. The ‘icing on the cake’ being the fact that many otherwise intelligent people have identified this situation as being ‘full of opportunities’. For each of them… Without realizing that the further they go down this lane, the deeper they dig themselves in quicksand. Taking all of us along with them! What kind of preventive action might prevent something like this?!? – But why?!? If you see it, if I can follow your argument about it… then surely they must see it too! – They see it all right. The elephant has not only driven us into the corners of the room but has already cracked a fair amount of china… But they see only a side of it. The problem is compounded by the fact that the elephant is only a puppy. It still has a lot to grow. As it is, there are many people who are convinced there’s a lot of time left for us to ‘wait and see’. And further compounded by the fact that so many of us want to find the culprit first. To find somebody to blame for letting the elephant in! You see, nobody wants to accept that we’ve made this elephant. In here! In our midst. Nobody had brought the elephant in, we’ve all contributed to it’s birth. Some more than others but that doesn’t really matter anymore. Anyway, since its birth, most of us have contributed to it reaching its present size. – Then all that’s left for you to do is to paint the elephant. To make it as visible as possible. So that when people will come to their senses, they’ll have something to look at… Further more, it’s very likely that other people have also seen it. And don’t speak up because they’re convinced there’s nobody else who sees it as they do.
nicichiarasa 