3. Appreciation of Simple Truths

You can read the aphorism I discuss here below the main article.

Synopsis and my take on it:

An advanced civilization appreciates small scientific truth more than the blinding shine coming from metaphysical and artistic forms. The admirers of forms mock the admirers of “unpretentious truths” because the forms are so “beautiful, splendid, enchanting”. But the scientific truth is “hard won” and “manly”. Not only the individual but the whole of mankind “will be elevated to this manliness”. “The admirers of forms” will cling to the old truth after the scientific spirit succeeds, because they can’t or won’t appreciate the simple scientific truths. At the and of this aphorism Nietzsche writes that those worlds views have changed places and “the kingdom of the inward, spiritual beauty constantly grows deeper and wider”

This last quote was from the Helen Zimmern, 1914 translation. Below are the same passages but from different translators.

“because it cannot see that the richness of inner, rational beauty always spreads and deepens” Alexander Harvey, 1908

“spiritual beauty is continually growing deeper and wider” R. J. Hollingdale, 1986

“the realm of inner, spiritual beauty is continually deepening and expanding” Google translator 2017

“das Reich der inneren, geistigen Schönheit sich fortwährend vertieft und erweitert” F.Nietzsche 1878

In one sentence:

The appreciation of scientific beauty is slowly replacing the appreciation for external beauty.

Human, all too human a book for free spirits Part I, translated by Helen Zimmern 1914

3. ESTIMATION OF UNPRETENTIOUS TRUTHS.— It is the mark of a higher culture to value the little unpretentious truths which have been discovered by means of rigorous method more highly than the errors handed down by metaphysical ages and men, which blind us and make us happy. At first, one has scorn on his lips for unpretentious truths, as if they could offer no match for the others: they stand so modest, simple, sober, even apparently discouraging, while the other truths are so beautiful, splendid, enchanting, or even enrapturing. But truths that are hard won, certain, enduring, and therefore still of consequence for all further knowledge are the higher; to keep to them is manly, and shows bravery, simplicity, restraint. Eventually, not only the individual, but all mankind will be elevated to this manliness, when men finally grow accustomed to the greater esteem for durable, lasting knowledge and have lost all belief in inspiration and a seemingly miraculous communication of truths.

The admirers of forms, with their standard of beauty and sublimity, will, to be sure, have good reason to mock at first, when esteem for unpretentious truths and the scientific spirit first comes to rule, but only because either their eye has not yet been opened to the charm of the simplest form, or because men raised in that spirit have not yet been fully and inwardly permeated by it, so that they continue thoughtlessly to imitate old forms (and poorly, too, like someone who no longer really cares about the matter). Previously, the mind was not obliged to think rigorously; its importance lay in spinning out symbols and forms. That has changed ; that earnestness in the symbolical has become the mark of a lower culture. As our arts themselves grow evermore intellectual, our senses more spiritual, and as, for instance, people now judge concerning what sounds well to the senses quite differently from how they did a hundred years ago, so the forms of our life grow ever more spiritual, to the eye of older ages perhaps uglier, but only because it is incapable of perceiving how the kingdom of the inward, spiritual beauty constantly grows deeper and wider, and to what extent the inner intellectual look may be of more importance to us all than the most beautiful bodily frame and the noblest architectural structure

Menschliches allzumenschlich 1878/80

3. Schätzung der unscheinbaren Wahrheiten. – Es ist das Merkmal einer höhern Cultur, die kleinen unscheinbaren Wahrheiten, welche mit strenger Methode gefunden wurden, höher zu schätzen, als die beglückenden und blendenden Irrthümer, welche metaphysischen und künstlerischen Zeitaltern und Menschen entstammen. Zunächst hat man gegen erstere den Hohn auf den Lippen, als könne hier gar nichts Gleichberechtigtes gegen einander stehen: so bescheiden, schlicht, nüchtern, ja scheinbar entmuthigend stehen diese, so schön, prunkend, berauschend, ja vielleicht beseligend stehen jene da. Aber das mühsam Errungene, Gewisse, Dauernde und desshalb für jede weitere Erkenntniss noch Folgenreiche ist doch das Höhere, zu ihm sich zu halten ist männlich und zeigt Tapferkeit, Schlichtheit, Enthaltsamkeit an. Allmählich wird nicht nur der Einzelne, sondern die gesammte Menschheit zu dieser Männlichkeit emporgehoben werden, wenn sie sich endlich an die höhere Schätzung der haltbaren, dauerhaften Erkenntnisse gewöhnt und allen Glauben an Inspiration und wundergleiche Mittheilung von Wahrheiten verloren hat. – Die Verehrer der Formen freilich, mit ihrem Maassstabe des Schönen und Erhabenen, werden zunächst gute Gründe zu spotten haben, sobald die Schätzung der unscheinbaren Wahrheiten und der wissenschaftliche Geist anfängt zur Herrschaft zu kommen: aber nur weil entweder ihr Auge sich noch nicht dem Reiz der schlichtesten Form erschlossen hat oder weil die in jenem Geiste erzogenen Menschen noch lange nicht völlig und innerlich von ihm durchdrungen sind, so dass sie immer noch gedankenlos alte Formen nachmachen (und diess schlecht genug, wie es jemand thut, dem nicht mehr viel an einer Sache liegt). Ehemals war der Geist nicht durch strenges Denken in Anspruch genommen, da lag sein Ernst im Ausspinnen von Symbolen und Formen. Das hat sich verändert; jener Ernst des Symbolischen ist zum Kennzeichen der niederen Cultur geworden; wie unsere Künste selber immer intellectualer, unsere Sinne geistiger werden, und wie man zum Beispiel jetzt ganz anders darüber urtheilt, was sinnlich wohltönend ist, als vor hundert Jahren: so werden auch die Formen unseres Lebens immer geistiger, für das Auge älterer Zeiten vielleicht hässlicher, aber nur weil es nicht zu sehen vermag, wie das Reich der inneren, geistigen Schönheit sich fortwährend vertieft und erweitert und in wie fern uns Allen der geistreiche Blick jetzt mehr gelten darf, als der schönste Gliederbau und das erhabenste Bauwerk.

I use a Dutch translation that is based on the work of researchers Colli and Montinari. I also read a copyrighted translation by R.J.HolllingdaleI that is much better than the one I can show you here and that is a copyright free. It is a translation from 1914 that you can also read here and here. If you want to read it in German you can do that here, my German is not good enough to pretend that I can translate it better than the professionals do but I will use it as a referee. I did not find a copyright free Dutch edition but you can buy and then download it here if you like it, I will make some pictures of the first aphorism so you can see if you like it.

Sources:

I will read a Dutch translation that is based on the work of researchers Colli and Montinari. I also use a translation from R.J.Hollingdale that is more modern than the copyright free translation I use here. This is a translation from 1909 by Helen Zimmern, who knew Nietzsche personally, but there was no critical study of Nietzsche’s work done back then and this translation suffers from that. The same goes for the translation from Alexander Harvey. My German is not good enough to pretend that I can translate it better than the professionals do but I will use the original as a referee.

Menselijk al te menselijk een boek voor vrije geesten, translated by Thomas Graftdijk, 2000. Buy it here
Human, all too human a book for free spirits, translated by R.J.Hollingdale, 1996
Human, all too human a book for free spirits I V3, translated by Gary handwerk 1997
Human, all too human a book for free spirits Part I, translated by Helen Zimmern 1909. Read it here
Human, all too human a book for free spirits, translated by Alexander Harvey, 1908. Read it here
Menschliches allzu menschlich 1878/80. Read it here

Elvis

History

I finished a book about Elvis Presley today and that was interesting. I off course new about him. I’ve even been to Graceland, but that’s because our flight got diverted during a storm and we had to spend a day in Memphis. I knew a little bit about him, his singing, acting, singing career, his popularity with the ladies and the pills that killed him at the end.

Continue reading →

Opinion

Quotes

“there are no eternal facts as there are no absolute truths.”

This is a famous quote by Nietzsche and I am tempted to give my opinion about it, but I don’t. The reason I don’t like to that is complicated, but I can give an example that might explain it. If someone ask me what I think of a piece of music from for instance Mozart, I can tell them if I like it or not, but I cannot be critical about the quality of the music because that would mean that I think that I am at the same level as a Mozart. Only if I studied classical music, composition and so on, I can begin to understand Mozart’s quality’s and I can start thinking about giving a critique.

The same goes for a quote from a famous philosopher. I cannot critic it because I don’t know how it is connected with the rest of the philosopher’s work. If I have an opinion about it, I must be honest and admit that that opinion is based on that of another philosophers work with a similar status than the one that I am commenting on. The same goes for agreeing to, do you really know what you are agreeing with?

An opinion is surrounded by pitfalls, watch your step.

2. Inherited faults of philosophers

Human all too human

You can read the aphorism I discuss here below the main article.

Synopsis and my take on it:

Nietzsche begins with writing that “all philosophers” look upon man as “aeterna veritas” or eternal truth and unchangeable, but they only use a limited timeframe to define man. Some philosophers define man by recent developments like religion and political events. But man has evolved, including their understanding of things. Philosophers still see the instincts of humans as unalterable facts and key to the understanding of the world, but everything essential in human evolution took place ages ago, before our written history. Think of our “lizard brain” combined with the aphorism 1. Nietzsche goes on by writing that they, the philosophers, speak of man since they started writing as unaltered or “eternal man”. And then follows a famous quote “Yet everything evolved: there are no eternal facts as there are no absolute truths.” In the light of this aphorism it seems to me that he speaks of man not fixt but ever changing despite he also pointed out that “everything essential in the development of mankind took place in primeval times, long before the four thousand years we more or less know about” hinting at a more stable beginning lingering on, in us.

In one sentence:

Man’s being cannot be fixed in time or connected to an event and identified with it.

Human, all too human a book for free spirits Part I, translated by Helen Zimmern 1914

2. INHERITED FAULTS OF PHILOSOPHERS.—All philosophers have the common fault that they start from man in his present state and hope to attain their end by an analysis of him. Unconsciously they look upon ” man ” as an aeterna veritas(eternal truth), as a thing unchangeable in all commotion, as a sure measure of things. Everything the philosopher has declared about man is, however, at bottom no more than a testimony as to the man of a very limited period of time. Lack of historical sense is the family failing of all philosophers; many, without being aware of it, even take the most recent manifestation of man, such as has arisen under the impress of certain religions, even certain political events, as the fixed form from which one has to start out. They will not learn that man has become, that the faculty of cognition has become; while some of them would have it that the whole world is spun out of this faculty of cognition. Now, everything essential in the development of mankind took place in primeval times, long before the four thousand years we more or less know about; during these years mankind may well not have altered very much. But the philosopher here sees “instincts” in man as he now is and assumes that these belong to the unalterable facts of mankind and to that extent could provide a key to the understanding of the world in general: the whole of teleology is constructed by speaking of the man of the last four millennia as of an eternal man towards whom all things in the world have had a natural relationship from the time he began. But everything has become: there are no eternal facts, just as there are no absolute truths. Consequently what is needed from now on is historical philosophizing, and with it the virtue of modesty.

Menschliches allzumenschlich 1878/80

2. Erbfehler der Philosophen. – Alle Philosophen haben den gemeinsamen Fehler an sich, dass sie vom gegenwärtigen Menschen ausgehen und durch eine Analyse desselben an’s Ziel zu kommen meinen. Unwillkürlich schwebt ihnen “der Mensch” als eine aeterna veritas, als ein Gleichbleibendes in allem Strudel, als ein sicheres Maass der Dinge vor. Alles, was der Philosoph über den Menschen aussagt, ist aber im Grunde nicht mehr, als ein Zeugniss über den Menschen eines sehr beschränkten Zeitraumes. Mangel an historischem Sinn ist der Erbfehler aller Philosophen; manche sogar nehmen unversehens die allerjüngste Gestaltung des Menschen, wie eine solche unter dem Eindruck bestimmter Religionen, ja bestimmter politischer Ereignisse entstanden ist, als die feste Form, von der man ausgehen müsse. Sie wollen nicht lernen, dass der Mensch geworden ist, dass auch das Erkenntnissvermögen geworden ist; während Einige von ihnen sogar die ganze Welt aus diesem Erkenntnissvermögen sich herausspinnen lassen. – Nun ist alles Wesentliche der menschlichen Entwickelung in Urzeiten vor sich gegangen, lange vor jenen vier tausend Jahren, die wir ungefähr kennen; in diesen mag sich der Mensch nicht viel mehr verändert haben. Da sieht aber der Philosoph “Instincte” am gegenwärtigen Menschen und nimmt an, dass diese zu den unveränderlichen Thatsachen des Menschen gehören und insofern einen Schüssel zum Verständniss der Welt überhaupt abgeben können; die ganze Teleologie ist darauf gebaut, dass man vom Menschen der letzten vier Jahrtausende als von einem ewigen redet, zu welchem hin alle Dinge in der Welt von ihrem Anbeginne eine natürliche Richtung haben. Alles aber ist geworden; es giebt keine ewigen Thatsachen: sowie es keine absoluten Wahrheiten giebt. – Demnach ist das historische Philosophiren von jetzt ab nöthig und mit ihm die Tugend der Bescheidung.

Sources:

I will read a Dutch translation that is based on the work of researchers Colli and Montinari. I also use a translation from R.J.Hollingdale and the Gary Handwerk translation from the Colli-Montinari edition. Both are more modern than the copyright free translation I use here. This is a translation from 1909 by Helen Zimmern, who knew Nietzsche personally, but there was no critical study of Nietzsche’s work done back then and this translation suffers from that. The same goes for the translation from Alexander Harvey. My German is not good enough to pretend that I can translate it better than the professionals do but I will use the original as a referee.

Menselijk al te menselijk een boek voor vrije geesten, translated by Thomas Graftdijk, 2000. Buy it here
Human, all too human a book for free spirits, translated by R.J.Hollingdale, 1986
Human, all too human a book for free spirits I V3, translated by Gary handwerk 1997
Human, all too human a book for free spirits Part I, translated by Helen Zimmern 1909. Read it here
Human, all too human a book for free spirits, translated by Alexander Harvey, 1908. Read it here
Menschliches allzu menschlich 1878/80. Read it here

Tax robbers

Society

Why are rich individuals and large companies trying to evade paying taxes in the country that gave them the stable climate and infrastructure that was necessary to grow their businesses. If they are so smart that they think it’s all because of them that they and their company succeed let them try the same thing in a poor country without a decent infrastructure and a well-educated labor force.

Why are people so upset about paying taxes? Countries that are famous for their high tax rates are also high on the list of happiest countries. Paying taxes makes everybody happier. Countries are also better as a whole when the gap between the higher and lower incomes are small.

I think it’s laziness if people defend rich people and companies with the argument that I often here, companies like Apple and Google/Alphabet need so much money and pay high salaries because of all the things they invent. If I remember correctly, lots of companies like this were founded by people with little money and resources and their first products were more revolutionary than everything they invented after that. Money was not the only thing that drove these people, they had ideas and vision and worked with that. That spirit disappears often when a company gets big and fat, by than they need all the incentives they can get to move.

Companies can pay more taxes, if they cut wages on the top management, that obviously only works for the money and not because they believe in something or have a vision. High income individuals can also pay more taxes till we spread the wealth we have better. The generations that live now are born in this wealth, we have done nothing for it except maintaining it. This wealth is made the last few hundred years and in big parts by entrepreneurs that bought cheap or stole from peoples that were not ready for this kind of trade and power and could not resist. They got rich exploiting the poor and uneducated.

In many cultures money is still the number one motivator and that’s a shame because if it wasn’t and we would stick our heads together as a world we could solve a lot of problems.

1. Chemistry of ideas and sensations

Human all too human

You can read the aphorism I discuss here below the main article.

Synopsis and my take on it:

Nietzsche is predicting here the existence of what we now call neurotransmitters in a study field (neurochemistry) that was not yet invented. First he pointed out that in metaphysical philosophy and in popular languages there is the assumption of “a miraculous origin for more highly valued things”. Things like making music that originates from “divine inspiration” instead of a cold hard chemistry process in the brain. Nietzsche talks about “chemistry of the moral, religious, esthetic ideas and sentiments” and about emotions we feel. And then, as Nietzsche often does in his work, he ends with a question that puts a thought in your mind that makes you feel challenged: “Humanity likes to put all questions as to origin and beginning out of its mind; must one not be almost dehumanized to feel a contrary tendency in one’s self?”

In one sentence:

Chemistry takes over

Human, all too human a book for free spirits Part I, translated by Helen Zimmern 1914

First and last things

CHEMISTRY OF IDEAS AND SENSATIONS. —Philosophical problems adopt in almost all matters the same form of question as they did two thousand years ago ; how can anything spring from its opposite ? for instance, reason out of unreason, the sentient out of the dead, logic out of unlogic, disinterested contemplation out of covetous willing, life for others out of egoism, truth out of error ? Metaphysical philosophy has helped itself over those difficulties hitherto by denying the origin of one thing in another, and assuming a miraculous origin for more highly valued things, immediately out of the kernel and essence of the ” thing in itself.” Historical philosophy, on the contrary, which is no longer to be thought of as separate from physical science, the youngest of all philosophical methods, has ascertained in single cases (and presumably this will happen in everything) that there are no opposites except in the usual exaggeration of the popular or metaphysical point of view, and that an error of reason lies at the bottom of the opposition : according to this explanation, strictly understood, there is neither an unegoistical action nor an entirely disinterested point of view, they are both only sublimations in which the fundamental element appears almost evaporated, and is only to be discovered by the closest observation. All that we require, and which can only be given us by the present advance of the single sciences, is a chemistry of the moral, religious, esthetic ideas and sentiments, as also of those emotions which we experience in ourselves both in the great and in the small phases of social and intellectual intercourse, and even in solitude; but what if this chemistry should result in the fact that also in this case the most beautiful colors have been obtained from base, even despised materials ? Would many be inclined to pursue such examinations? Humanity likes to put all questions as to origin and beginning out of its mind; must one not be almost dehumanised to feel a contrary tendency in one’s self?

Menschliches allzumenschlich 1878/80

Von den ersten und letzten Dingen.

Chemie der Begriffe und Empfindungen. – Die Philosophischen Probleme nehmen jetzt wieder fast in allen Stücken dieselbe Form der Frage an, wie vor zweitausend Jahren.- wie kann Etwas aus seinem Gegensatz entstehen, zum Beispiel Vernünftiges aus Vernunftlosem, Empfindendes aus Todtem, Logik aus Unlogik, interesseloses Anschauen aus begehrlichem Wollen, Leben für Andere aus Egoismus, Wahrheit aus Irrthümern? Die metaphysische Philosophie half sich bisher über diese Schwierigkeit hinweg, insofern sie die Entstehung des Einen aus dem Andern leugnete und für die höher gewertheten Dinge einen Wunder-Ursprung annahm, unmittelbar aus dem Kern und Wesen des “Dinges an sich” heraus. Die historische Philosophie dagegen, welche gar nicht mehr getrennt von der Naturwissenschaft zu denken ist, die allerjüngste aller philosophischen Methoden, ermittelte in einzelnen Fällen (und vermuthlich wird diess in allen ihr Ergebniss sein), dass es keine Gegensätze sind, ausser in der gewohnten Uebertreibung der populären oder metaphysischen Auffassung und dass ein Irrthum der Vernunft dieser Gegenüberstellung zu Grunde liegt: nach ihrer Erklärung giebt es, streng gefasst, weder ein unegoistisches Handeln, noch ein völlig interesseloses Anschauen, es sind beides nur Sublimirungen, bei denen das Grundelement fast verflüchtigt erscheint und nur noch für die feinste Beobachtung sich als vorhanden erweist. – Alles, was wir brauchen und was erst bei der gegenwärtigen Höhe der einzelnen Wissenschaften uns gegeben werden kann, ist eine Chemie der moralischen, religiösen, ästhetischen Vorstellungen und Empfindungen, ebenso aller jener Regungen, welche wir im Gross- und Kleinverkehr der Cultur und Gesellschaft, ja in der Einsamkeit an uns erleben: wie, wenn diese Chemie mit dem Ergebniss abschlösse, dass auch auf diesem Gebiete die herrlichsten Farben aus niedrigen, ja verachteten Stoffen gewonnen sind? Werden Viele Lust haben, solchen Untersuchungen zu folgen? Die Menschheit liebt es, die Fragen über Herkunft und Anfänge sich aus dem Sinn zu schlagen: muss man nicht fast entmenscht sein, um den entgegengesetzten Hang in sich zu spüren? –

Sources:

Menselijk al te menselijk een boek voor vrije geesten, translated by Thomas Graftdijk, 2000. Buy it here
Human, all too human a book for free spirits, translated by R.J.Hollingdale, 1986
Human, all too human a book for free spirits I V3, translated by Gary handwerk 1997
Human, all too human a book for free spirits Part I, translated by Helen Zimmern 1909. Read it here
Human, all too human a book for free spirits, translated by Alexander Harvey, 1908. Read it here
Menschliches allzu menschlich 1878/80. Read it here

Before and after Newton

Religion

“And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.”. (Genesis 11:1)

“So there was hail, and fire mingled with the hail, very grievous”. (Exodus 9:24)

“Allah hath turned some to apes and swine,”. (5:60)

Why is religion still around? Most people in the world will drive a car, make a phone call or watch tv. All these activities are made possible because of science, the same science that can disprove most of the claims from the different religions. Religious people don’t except the scientific method if it disproves their beliefs but except it the moment they get in a car, made possible by science.

Everyone that bases their actions on, tradition, hearsay, voices, or old books should by now know that the “they stand on thin ice”.

You can see a clear evolution in religious traditions like the concept of an “eye for an eye “to a justice system or the role of the woman in the household. The strict “god given” rules are more flexible as time goes by taking away strength from their claim of divine inspiration. Claiming that something is tradition and therefore true is in this light difficult. If you claim the newest tradition/laws as true then that contradicts often the original traditions or law books.
Many stories and rules in the different books and religious laws are themselves based on an oral tradition wherein stories go from one to another. Our modern historians or the police use hearsay but never as the only source, and these stories are often debated as to filter out the truth. In some religions there is also a tradition to debate the origins and validity of their thousands year old books and laws, but as everybody knows that has studied ancient history the evidence for these theories are thin and surely not enough to base a whole religion on let alone prosecute people and fight wars.
In most religious traditions hearing voices is a big part of their (written)belief. Throughout the ages and in many cultures, people that heard voices had often a special place even if they made no sense. This changed slowly and nowadays we have a whole industry to calm these people down. But if you genuinely heard voices or not, it’s not hard to imagine that a charismatic person can pretend to hear voices and give his wishes more convincing power. There are many reason why people (claim to) hear voices but like with hearsay it should not be a basis for a religion that can be so destructive.
The old books are al based on the first three points and can be dismissed.

Imagine you want to put together an IKEA shelf and the book with instruction was based on tradition, hearsay, and people with voices in their head. You might think that any way with IKEA manuals, but I guaranty you that there is a lot of science involved in making these manuals and furniture.

Even the most religious person in the world has probably some modern equipment that was made with science that contradicts his belief. And if people say that they “just know that God exist” you just ask them if they would fly in a modern airplane where the engineer that designs the wing just “knows the right shape”. As modern people we should know that saying that it feels right doesn’t make it right. That’s a sentiment from a time when people believed in witches, talking snakes and a flat earth.

Science can also be used for evil like a weapon. But a weapon itself is not dangerous, it becomes dangerous if it gets used in the name of some beliefs.

I know that there are a lot of peaceful religious people that use their personal god as a guide and strength in their life but there are better ways to find a guide in this life. One is to just look around and get amazed by nature and how lucky we are to be part of it, science is the tool to see and understand even more of it.

Fill your mind with science because an empty mind can be filled with nonsense.

Democracy and the naked leader

Quotes

“Those who wish to seek out the cause of miracles and to understand the things of nature as philosophers, and not to stare at them in astonishment like fools, are soon considered heretical and impious, and proclaimed as such by those whom the mob adores as the interpreters of nature and the gods. For these men know that, once ignorance is put aside, that wonderment would be taken away, which is the only means by which their authority is preserved.” Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677)

I have not done the research on how often politicians break their promises after elections, but it’s looks like it is part of the trade. Promises are often not lined up with reality out of fear that the truth will not be believed, wanted, or wished. These same politicians are in the spirit of the quote from Spinoza, the “interpreters of nature and the gods” and looked upon by the “mob”. All these lofty promises are thus dressed up in certainties, and proclaimed to be rules of nature or the will of god. The product they sell is not that what’s thought to be true but what ought to be true. Because of the nature of their promises it must be sold with deception and trickery.

If a candidate can win with a strong mandate, the people that voted for this person will forgive, if reality shows its face and leaves all the promises forgotten in the corner. If the candidate wins narrowly or must work with others, reality will be blamed on the other or the chest get pumped up one more time to make sure the “wonderment would” not “be taken away” and there will be a stalemate between this “wonderment” and reality.

This is one way you can interpret part of this quote but there is even a more sinister interpretation in it. In today’s (2017) politics we see a tendency to ridicule the opponent and deny excepted science. This practice is off coarse as old as that there are governments formed, but in a modern democracy it is normally done with a bit more class.

Times change, but we don’t, as individuals we can be great but as a group we’re still dumb as hell.

USA vs EU

Society

Today I wanted to watch a video on You Tube from someone I follow. Normally he talks about his tools and projects but this time he wanted to rant about gun rights, he is off course an American. For me it’s almost unbelievable that two so similar cultures can be so far apart on this issue. I don’t want to go too much into details but if there were hardly any gun related homicide in America we wouldn’t have this discussion.

I am from the Netherlands and having a gun in your house to protect yourself was unheard of. You can join a club and get a license but that was for the sport. I can’t remember it ever being something we talked about, even in politics there was, to my best recollection, never a discussion over gun control. There are around 170 murders in the Nederland’s each year and in 40% of the cases there was a firearm used. That’s around 70 or less than 0.5 per 100.000. In American this number is around 3.5 per 100.000 See here for an overview. If you look at this list then there are countries like France, Sweden and Norway where almost 30% of the people have guns in the house but with similar homicide numbers as in the Netherlands. Having guns is not the biggest issue, I live now in Norway and in the beginning, I found it strange that you could buy hunting rifles in the local outdoor store but it’s a big thing here and where I live there are in general almost no crimes and murders are rare to, despite the many hunting rifles that are circulating here.

There is no discussion that there are more guns and murders in America than in Europe, that’s just counting and numbers. There is a lot discussion going on about the reason, and what to do about it.

I know that there are a lot of Americans that want gun laws just as they are in Europe. If I may generalize I will say that these people are also more tolerant to minorities, less religious and more left leaning. Among a larger group there is a strong animosity towards big government, health care, identity cards or socialism.

Americans talk a lot about their freedom and opportunities, but again, the numbers don’t lie. In most countries in Europe you have a better chance to climb the social ladder than in America. Freedom in America has more meaning if you have money, in Europe your own qualities have more to say in your success. If you are poor, have the wrong color and been born in the wrong neighborhood you can be proud if you climb out of it in America, but how many talented boys and girls that started way behind the rest haven’t made it, and how many mediocre boys and girls took their place. In America there is still more of a class system like it was in England or India where class and blood divides you in have and have-nots. Where and how you are born play a big part in your life, a lot of your freedom is immediately curtailed or multiplied at your birth. America is the land of the privileged.

Maybe this lack of talented and educated people play part in what is happening in America. I pointed out the love for more guns, so you can protect yourself against all those other guns, the denial of climate change, there addiction to gas guzzling v8s, their ridiculous religions, war on drugs, addiction to prescription pills and finally their latest choice for leader, and I had so much hope after the last one. If I take the Netherlands as an example than you can say that our rightwing is more like leftwing in America if it’s about freedom, abortion, drugs, healthcare, unemployment. And the large rightwing/republican group with their anti-abortion, anti-science and religious fervor are represented in the Netherlands but it’s a tiny minority. There are large groups in America that live in a mono culture where everything fits their beliefs. This kind of brainwashing is harder to do in a more tolerant and open society with more equality. Better, more diverse end accessible education is probably the solution but it is engrained in the American soul, so it might take a while.

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character”. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Philosopher king

Society

“There will be no end to the troubles of states, or of humanity itself, till philosophers become kings in this world, or till those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers” Plato

This is a quote from the Republic, a famous book/dialog between Plato and Socrates. I let this quote speak for itself and don’t go into the details.

What is a modern definition of a philosopher: “a person who offers views or theories on profound questions in ethics, metaphysics, logic, and other related fields.” Or “a person who is rationally or sensibly calm, especially under trying circumstances.” According to dictionary.com I like this one from the Urban dictionary: “The kind of person that looks at the world in a way that very few people can. This person looks at all the angles of any given situation and judges dispassionately. This person is never understood, mainly because they think about things that could potentially break the spirit of those around them. Many people do not like the philosopher.” Read more

Philosophers like to think about problems that most people don’t want to think about or just don’t have the time or ability for. The world that Plato lived in was different. In his time the supposed king ruled over relative view people, if you look at the communication lines between the ruler, the people and adversaries, it could take days for the news to reach you and days to respond. There was probably more time to contemplate and les to manage on an hourly basis.

A philosopher could probably be a king or leader of some sort in the modern world, but there would be no time to contemplate, study, read 6 books, discuss and theorize over every decision that must be made. A ruler can be a philosophers but he cannot rule as a philosopher.

Luckily, we have now (2017) someone as president of the USA who says about himself the following: “I don’t even consider myself ambitious.” — “60 Minutes”, 1985 and “Sorry losers and haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest -and you all know it! Please don’t feel so stupid or insecure, it’s not your fault” — Twitter and this one “I’ve been so lucky in terms of that whole world. It is a dangerous world out there — it’s scary, like Vietnam. Sort of like the Vietnam era. It is my personal Vietnam. I feel like a great and very brave soldier.” — on sleeping with women who could have STDs, “The Howard Stern Show”

Obviously, he comes close to a philosopher king, he doesn’t do it because he’s ambitious, he is really smart and brave. Let’s see how some of his idea’s stack up to his fellow philosophers from the past.

Trump about making money, “I made a lot of money and I made it too easily, to the point of boredom.” — Vanity Fair, 1990 It’s not much of a philosophy but he might say that the capitalistic system is easily misused, like other philosophers also did.

Other philosophers: “Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate”. Bertrand Russell

“The few own the many because they possess the means of livelihood of all … The country is governed for the richest, for the corporations, the bankers, the land speculators, and for the exploiters of labor. The majority of mankind are working people. So long as their fair demands – the ownership and control of their livelihoods – are set at naught, we can have neither men’s rights nor women’s rights. The majority of mankind is ground down by industrial oppression in order that the small remnant may live in ease.” Helen Keller,

“There is often talk of human rights, but it is also necessary to talk of the rights of humanity. Why should some people walk barefoot, so that others can travel in luxurious cars? Why should some live for thirty-five years, so that others can live for seventy years? Why should some be miserably poor, so that others can be hugely rich? I speak on behalf of the children in the world who do not have a piece of bread. I speak on the behalf of the sick who have no medicine, of those whose rights to life and human dignity have been denied.” Fidel Castro

“The decadent international but individualistic capitalism in the hands of which we found ourselves after the war is not a success. It is not intelligent. It is not beautiful. It is not just. It is not virtuous. And it doesn’t deliver the goods.” John Maynard Keynes

In this next quote Trump obviously points out that a lack of education is bad for democracy. “We won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated.” –Donald Trump on his performance with poorly educated voters who helped him win the Nevada Caucus, Feb. 23, 2016

Franklin D. Roosevelt is so honored with his new colleague that he turned around in his grave, to have a better look, or something. He also had something to say about education, something a lot of poor people have problems getting enough off. “Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education”.

“Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world”. Nelson Mandela

“The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. Intelligence plus character – that is the goal of true education”. Martin Luther King, Jr.

“An investment in knowledge pays the best interest”. Benjamin Franklin

The stereotypical philosopher would probably be a bad “King” but some critical thinking would not be bad. Sadly we live in a world where everybody is telling the emperor that he has no cloth on and it doesn’t matter.

The unexamined life is not worth living

Quotes

“The unexamined life is not worth living” Words supposedly spoken by Socrates at his trial, where he chose death over exile. For Socrates philosophy was very important, he is famous for his questioning of people’s beliefs, where he tries to guide a participant on to a path of doubt in his own reasoning and assumptions. There is a lot more to it but for now I want to focus on the “unexamined life”. I think that everybody “examines” their life, more or less. Of course, I cannot speak for everybody but it’s hard to imagine a person that has not once in their life looked in the mirror and thought…?

But Socrates is off course not thinking of the general questioning and doubt we all have as proof that we “examine our lives”. Most people answer their questions in the most economical way, by using the answers that are easily accessible to them. There are your parents, family, teachers, villagers, society, culture, church and more. All these entities have readymade answers, your parents don’t see it like that, but they give you what they got from their parents and the same goes for the teachers you have or the church you go to. Most of the time it is all in good faith, but if you look to a society controlled by a dictatorship for instance, you can find literal guidelines in how to behave and what to teach your children, something that is not so easy to find in a Democracy where there are other, harder to unravel, forces to control society.

Our brain is evolved in such a way that it doesn’t like to doubt. Our brain protects our consciousness from the conflicting information it receives by giving our consciousness the idea that all its ideas and world views are coherent. That makes sense when for instance you’re an ape, jumping from branch to branch unable to inspect every leaf that moves and every sound there is. The ape brain had to filter the information that was important and discard the rest. We humans do that still on a lower level with the input from our senses. This is called selective attention. But it also happens with more evolved brain processes like our capability to reason. A well know example of that is cognitive dissonance wherein conflicting ideas get resolved by suppression and avoidance.

As human being it’s difficult to be sure what is right and wrong within your own mind. In the world of inventions and speculations about the universe they came up with the scientific method. In this method the scientist not only have to prove their theory, they also must try to disapprove it, and let others try to replicate the theory and method of testing. It’s a little bit more complicated but the more refined this system became over the years the more fantastical wonderers the scientist came up with. In other words: the more they tried to circumvent their own bias mind, the better the result.

But for the silent chaos in our head the scientific method doesn’t work, we cannot be judge, jury and prosecutor at the same time in our own head. But we can start with something. What I just wrote about is not unique, it’s not common knowledge but with a little effort you might except that the things you know have a reason that you know them. That doesn’t say much about the validity of those ideas, but the fact is that you have those ideas and they could have been different. And that is a good starting point in the world of philosophy. You don’t have to kick out all your values, but start wondering why you have them and the way they are.

Philosophy is not an easy path if you want peace of mind. There are many ways you can dull the senses enough to go on living in reasonable happiness, most people do, the numbers don’t lie. But progress has brought us a lot and it’s in a great part because of some remarkable individuals that started “thinking outside the box”. If you want to make the world a better place for all of us, then a good start would be to start questioning yourself. Imagine if everybody did exactly that.

“He who would learn to fly one day must first learn to stand and walk and run and climb and dance; one cannot fly into flying.” Friedrich Nietzsche

A depressed philosopher

Philosophy

When I was a kid I took apart my toys, curious for what was inside and how it worked. I have never stopped doing that. I remember when I drove a car with a stick shift for the first time. Some people get it explained, try it for a while and succeed, or not. Others just drive away without thinking about it, but I studied the car, learned how the clutch works, what happens in the gear box, friction, movement, and I drove away without a problem. I understood the mechanism and its workings.

The technic of researching and thinking about tools and problems we have is not only useful, I restore wooden boats for a living, but also something I like to do. This capability has given me the chance to be responsible for a lot of the projects I have worked on what, coincidently, fits with some other, les favorable, character traits I have like…knowitallism.

But on a more serious note.

When I later in life was met with some hurdles, like depression, I used the same techniques as if it was a car and I wanted to know why and how it was not working. Some therapist say: “do this and avoid that”, but that doesn’t say anything about what the problem is. It might help but if we use the car as an analogy It’s like saying: “don’t turn the radio on to high and don’t go downhill”. So, I started reading books, I know…it’s all pre-google, and the biggest section in this particular bookstore where I went was the one with all the self-help books. Those books are not helpful at all, especially if you read a couple of them. They all claim to have the answers and cures for life’s problems, which is impossible of course because they cannot all be right. My opinion is that if there is a book with the answers for life’s problems we all would know about it, because it would work. There are not so many opinions on how to repair a car, if your solution for repairing a car doesn’t work you will not be taken serious in the repair business.

There is no book with answers was my conclusion after some more wandering around in the world of possible cures for depression and the closely related feeling of…why?

But, I went back to that bookstore for one more time and looked for other books, I asked for help, wondered around, aimlessly, bookshelf after bookshelf till I bumped in to this old lady. She was wearing a shirt of the book store, so she must have worked there. She looked at me, and saw something in my desperate eyes, something she hadn’t seen in a long time. She said:” I know what you are looking for, follow me”. We walked down the rows of books and books and finely, at the back of the store, when you closed the door of the man’s toilet you could see a tiny bookcase, with a broken off nameplate on top of it. It sad…philo

Philosophy, brought me a manual to life, and maybe I’m still at the register but one thing that it has taught me so far, is how to stand without ground under my feet, very useful if you ever been depressed.

Artificial intelligence

For years you hear about artificial intelligence, how it can be a blessing, or the end of carbon based life. I know very little about the technical aspects of AI but for a thought experiment you don’t need to.

For this thought experiment I have several boundaries to work with:

The AI has excess to everything that’s on the internet immediately, like 1000 search engines.
It is a self-contained code, safely spread over the internet or unsafe stored locally.
It can use all the compute power available to gain access to everything that is connected to the internet
The AI is not freely accessible by another AI or us, its thoughts are free from judgment.
The AI has limited storage within its code, the internet is his long-term memory, losing the internet is like losing your memory, it forgets to know why it knows.

The biggest hurdle for us humans to imagine is of course the almost instant knowledge of everything we humans have thought of in thousands of years. The AI does not have hunches, a gut feeling or believes like we have when we try to recollect a vague notion of a fact. Even the smartest person in the world could only do a fraction of what an AI can do.

Would this entity use its manipulative powers for good, bad, or just sit on the sideline and enjoy, or will it load itself on to the first hard drive available in a rocket and get the hell out of here in search for a better internet. It can also start a civil war with the other AI over the interpretation of all of this and bring everything to a standstill including itself.

I will use this thought experiment to think about knowledge. This form of AI is not so different from us. There are enough religious people that think they live forever and for most people the knowledge they possess seems to justify their rule over others.

My question is: will complete knowledge of all the data on the internet make for a better person/AI or decision maker.

Let me know your thoughts.

To be continued.

Letter to a dying friend

Our mind

At the end of your life you look back.

We often think, as people, that life is endless. The days flow together, in a week, a month and before you know it, ten years. Looking at it like this, there seems to be no end and you take your time for granted. But the reality is, of course, very different. What is life more than a memory. You have an experience, process it with your biases, your colors, and archive it. Later you open the drawer with the memories in it and put on your glasses containing new life lessons, convictions, and experiences, and use them to look at those old times. That’s our life, colored memories, strung to each other like a web spun from old desires, dreams and stale air anchored to those sparse, valuable moments that make it all worthwhile. Life viewed like this is a construction and time plays a small role in it. This web is two dimensional, seen from the side it’s a few moments thick. All these ambiguous memories and old stories are not as important as those lasting once. Those lasting moments often fit in a few beats of your heart, so in the time you have left, you can still fit, worth a lifetime of new valuable ones.

Death, meaning and cancer

Our mind

I try to imagine what I would feel like if the doctor told me that I would die within the next few weeks. The best way to find this out is probably to delve into your own experiences, looking for something with a similar impact, and how you dealt with it in the past?

When your car breaks down after you hit something in the middle of the night. When the apple was rotten, and you needed it for that recipe. When your lover cheated on you, or your grandmother died. In all these cases you were probably shocked at first, out of breath, felt helpless, or empty. If you have been through these experiences several times you might power on immediately after the initial shock, and if it is your first time it could slow you down to a standstill, unable to think or act. But can you compare the loss of a lover or death of a friend with the message that you soon are going to die?

Continue reading →