“Betraying Big Brother” is not wrong about gender inequality but the author’s anger and personal choices cloud the author’s message. Gender inequality is real everywhere in the world. Education is a beginning, but practice is the end.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Betraying Big Brother (The Feminist Awakening in China)
Author: Leta Hong Fincher
NarratedBy: Emily Woo Zeller
Leta Hong Fincher (Author, American journalist, feminist and writer, first American to receive a Ph.D from Tsinghua University’s Department of Sociology in Bejing., graduated from Harvard with a BA and a master’s degree in East Asian Studies from Stanford.)
The education and experience of Leta Hong Fincher is somewhat betrayed by her anger in “Betraying Big Brother”. Misogyny is an international reality that defies the truth of human equality. This reviewer’s prejudice, like the author’s biases are suspect because of their respective life experiences. This book reviewer was raised by a single parent mother who worked to keep two sons with a roof over their head and food on the table. How women survive inequality is made of the same stuff as that which plagues minorities around the world. The difference is that women are not a minority.
She writes of being a 15-year-old girl who is physically and emotionally abused by two boys who are friends of an older male friend that takes her to a get together of young acquaintances. That event burns a memory into Fincher’s mind that sets her on a journey thru life. One reading/listening to “Betraying Big Brother” recognizes the truth of what the author writes is reinforced by her life experiences. Of course, that is true of all human beings, but anger diminishes the impact of what Fincher says and writes.
Leadership?
Whether living in a democracy or autocracy, sexual inequality is present. Gender discrimination is universal. America and China talk the talk but fail to walk the walk. Fincher writes of Mao’s saying that “women hold up half the sky” implying he believed in gender equality. Mao spoke of marriage reform and labor participation but patriarchal norms were adhered to with women workers not being paid the same as men nor offered similar positions of power.
Xi speaks of gender equality, but no women are on the 24-member Politburo.
Xi also speaks of gender equality, but no women are on the 24-member Politburo while pay and promotions lag behind men. Fincher writes of Big Brother censorship, surveillance, and detention of women in China. (One presumes that is also true of everyone in China.) Like Trump, Xi promotes women’s roles in domestic stability, and their childbearing responsibilities. America has yet to elect a woman as President. Equal pay for equal work is improving in America, but a gap still exists with lower starting salaries, performance evaluation biases, and fewer high-profile assignments or promotions.
“Betraying Big Brother” is not wrong about gender inequality but the author’s anger and personal choices cloud the author’s message. Gender inequality is real everywhere in the world. Education is a beginning, but practice is the end.
Though Mahbubani’s book is quite provocative, it is short and interesting. “How the West Lost It” is certainly worth reading/listening to, but few Presidents of the United States have reversed the admittedly slow improvement of “equality of opportunity” in America.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
How the West Lost It (A Provocation)
Author: Kishore Mahbubani
NarratedBy: Jonathan Keeble
Kishore Mahbubani (Author, Singaporean diplomat and geopolitical consultant, former Fellow at Harvard University’s Center for International Relations, formally served as the United Nations Security Council President.)
Mr. Mahbubani’s short book suggests the highly provocative belief that the West’s dominance of the world is giving way to Asia, particularly China and India. To mitigate the West’s decline, Mahbubani argues–the West needs to develop a more “coherent and competitive global strategy”. Paul Kennedy of Yale University praises Mahbubani’s assessment. The public commentator Fareed Zakaria endorses Mahbubani’s belief, and Hilton Root of “The Independent Review” acknowledges Mahbubani’s inference that “the West’s overperformance was a historical aberration and the East’s rise reflects a rebalancing of history”. Despite Root’s measured support of Mahbubani’s book, his analysis is nuanced. Root argues the decline of the West is oversimplified and that Mahbubani underestimates the resilience of Western economies.
Mahbubani argues Great Britain’s Brexit and Trump’s re-election are reactions to the West’s economic decline.
Edwad Luce argues Western liberalism needs to be reinvented by investment in a technological revolution for all Americans, not just those who have benefited from the industrial revolution. However, China seems to have read the future better than the West by building up their reserves of rare metals needed for advanced computer chips. In contrast, President Trump chooses to antagonize allies as well as competitors with a foolish trade war.
Root believes the innovative capacity and adaptability of the West will make adjustments to remain competitive, if not the dominant economic power of the world. Trump’s trade war suggests otherwise. Trump’s attitude is to ignore the years of built-up trust with Western allies and attack the world with destructive economic tariffs meant to right wrongs that are figments of real-politic’ imagination. However, some believe Mahbubani discounts political freedom and the drive of both the West and East to improve citizens’ living standards. That seems somewhat plausible, but Trump is attacking Americas most highly regarded universities with specious concerns with what he considers overactive recruitment of immigrants and minorities. The truth is American education for immigrants aids the strength and influence of Democracy in the world.
Yale University (American education for immigrants aids the strength and influence of Democracy in the world.)
The long cultural, educational, and technological influence of the West may be diminished by some of today’s political leaders but the trend over the last 200 years is unlikely to be reversed by Trump’s misguided authoritarianism. Trump’s significant risks are partially mitigated by publicly ingrained western democratic values. Though democracy is messy, it has demonstrated long-term stability and innovation that equals or exceeds the worst of what Trump’s authoritarianism is doing to the American economy and its institutions. Three more years of Trump’s presidency will not erase America’s legacy or destroy its future.
Though Mahbubani’s book is quite provocative, it is short, impactful, and interesting. “How the West Lost It” is certainly worth reading/listening to, but few Presidents of the United States have reversed the admittedly slow improvement of “equality of opportunity” in America. Mahbubani argues for a more diplomatic American policy with rising nations in the East because he believes China will ultimately replace America as the leading economy in the world.
The interpretation of the Constitution has changed over the last 200 years, but it stands for continuity for America’s present and future.
The direction of American society remains true to the fundamental beliefs of liberty, equality, sovereignty, rule of law, separation of powers, federalism, checks and balances, and individual rights. Trump is challenging some of those rights, but balance of power and term limits will ultimately rescue America from his misbegotten domestic and international blunders. These rights have been challenged at different times in America’s history but never permanently reversed.
It is ironic that Trump has suffered so much from America’s legal system and is unable to see NIMBY mentality and a return to the past will not “Make America Great”.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Breakneck (China’s Quest to Engineer the Future)
Author: Dan Wang
NarratedBy: Jonathan Yen
Feng Chen Wang aka Dan Wang (Author, Canadian technology analyst and writer, visiting scholar at Yale Law School.)
Dan Wang is a highly credible author of the 21st century economies of China and the United States. Mr. Wang’s mother and father were born in China when the one child policy was the law of the land. Mr. Wang was born in Canada in either 1991 or 1992. Though Mr. Wang may be an only child, his parents advised him that living in China was challenging because of its state control and family planning that restricted their human rights.
Dan Wang has lived in Canada, America, and China.
From 2017 to 2023 he worked as a technology analyst in Hong Kong, Beijing, and Shanghai. As a young man, Wang bicycled across China with young friends. Having been educated in Canada and the United States, growing up in Toronto and Ottawa and going to high school in Philadelphia, he has a broad understanding of the economies of all three nations. Of course, his specialty is technology which gives him a unique understanding of what is happening in America and China today. He graduated from the University of Rochester in 2014, studying philosophy and economics.
Trump’s apparent view of Xi.
After listening to Wang’s book, one begins to understand why President Trump’s perspective is that the world, with emphasis on China, has taken advantage of America’s economic wealth by eviscerating its industrial industries with less expensive product made in other countries. Wang presumes as a person who has an economics education that Adam Smith (the Father of Economics) and Donald Trump are right when they argue tariffs are justified in areas of national defense, or for retaliation. On the other hand, Adam Smith, noted “It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family, never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy.”
Adam Smith (Father of Economic Theory)
Smith argued if another nation can provide the same product for less cost, a prudent buyer should buy the cheaper product and use money saved to produce a different product. Wang and Trump disagree with Smith because the revenue producer that America turns to is the service industry rather than product development. What is missed by Wang and Trump is that America is the third largest agricultural producer in the world with China and India being the largest. Of course, the difference is that America has 1/3rd the population of China and India, respectively. Lower population and high agricultural production in the United States hugely benefits its economy. More significantly, food, like water, is an essential need of life. The point is that non-food product production is not necessary for living life.
Loss of industrial production to China.
Wang’s and Trump’s argument is that America’s loss of industrial production has made it too dependent on other countries. They either infer or say Americans are forgetting how to manufacture product. They argue American industries are closing because of America’s inability to compete with other nations because of labor and material cost differences. History shows America fails to expand its industries because production of things is provided by other nations at a lower cost. And as Adam Smith noted, “It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family, never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy.”
Wang decries America’s movement toward a service industry as the basis for economic growth.
America is the richest country in the world, but America has failed to eliminate poverty, house the homeless, feed the malnourished, and provide for the infrastructure needed to improve America lives. One may ask oneself-what is wrong with becoming a service industry nation? Why does America have to return to its past. As Adam Smith noted: “It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family, never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy.” The future is about being healthy, being housed, fed, and clothed. It should not be about being the richest and fattest minority in the world, particularly when there is an inordinate gap between the rich and poor.
Wang argues America’s economy is diminished, not by reduced industrialization, but by its growth of legalism that reinforces nimby (not in my backyard) litigation.
Delays in public improvements in America are restrained by lawsuits that protect the rich and victimize the poor. An example is the long delays in mass transportation improvements which become more costly with every year that passes before completion. The delays are caused by litigation. When China can build rapid transit in 3 years while it takes 15 or more years in America, one wonders why. The huge investments China has made in massive infrastructure improvements have vastly improved their economy. In contrast, America wastes investment resources litigating mass transportation improvements in California, Washington, and other states by increasing costs from delays caused by litigation. It is like throwing the baby out with the bath water because the number of people who benefit from infrastructure improvement are largely discounted or ignored. Equally appalling is homelessness in America because of NIMBY’ objection to low-cost multifamily housing that could get the homeless off the street. Cost benefit analysis should prevail, not litigation based on interest group objection. In Wang’s terms, American infrastructure decisions should be based on science and engineering like, what he argues, China bases their infrastructure decisions upon.
The fundamental point is that America has lost sight of the importance of a balance between benefit to the public and individual rights. Equality of opportunity is split between the rich and poor with the middle class being too complacent while the rich reap unconscionable reward. Where are the Eisenhower-like Presidents who promoted an Interstate Highway System that created a 421,000-mile interstate highway system?
Trump is no Eisenhower because he wishes to return America to a past rather than look to its future. It is ironic that Trump has suffered so much from America’s legal system and is unable to see NIMBY mentality and a return to the past will not “Make America Great”. Wang’s book explains how China has succeeded in improving their economy while America’s economy is failing.
Human nature is universal, but it is also particular. In that particularity, “Ikigai” may or may not work for you or me. That is not to say the philosophy of “Ikigai” cannot lead one to a better life but only you can decide.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Ikigai (Japan’s Secrets to a Long and Happy Life)
Author: Hector Garcia, Fransec Miralles
NarratedBy: Oscar López Avila
Hector Garcia (Spanish born author and philosopher, lives in Tokyo.)Fransec Miralles (Spanish Editor, world traveler.)
In planning a trip to Japan in September 2025, “Ikigai” is a recommended book by our Japanese guide. Surprisingly, the authors are born in Spain.
“Ikigai” is a Japanese philosophy about life and its value.
As understood by Garcia and Miralles, “Ikigai” is a guide to a meaningful and fulfilling life. As a philosophy, “Ikigai” is not about life’s destination. “Ikigai” is a compass to give one direction for a meaningful and fulfilling life. The principles of “Ikigai” revolve around a healthy diet, high quality health care, community ties that limit one’s isolation, physical routines, mindfulness, and stress reduction. Those who practice the philosophy of “Ikigai” in Garcia’s and Miralles’s opinion will live happier, healthier, and more fulfilling lives.
Life’s value.
Garcia and Miralles suggest the demographics of Japan are proof of the value of “Ikigai”. The highest number of citizens over 100 years of age live in Japan. The average life span of men and women in Japan is 85; for Americans, the average is 79.61. The authors suggest longer lives of Japanese is because of their practice of following the principles of “Ikigai”. Of course, the length of one’s life is not the point, but the quality of one’s life is everything.
Diet, healthcare, sociability, and daily routines reduce stress. These are guidelines for an “Ikigai” way of life.
There are no surprises in these guidelines. Diet is to consume fruits, vegetables, fish, limited red meat, with few sweets containing processed sugars like white, brown, powdered, or high-fructose corn syrups. Healthcare should be provided through universal coverage. Sociability is encouraged to avoid isolation. Daily walking, stretching, moving around, and being mindful of one’s activity should be a part of a person’s lifestyle. Find what reduces your stress and practice those activities. These are familiar guidelines but not often practiced because of the stresses of the culture in which people live. Many try to escape the stress of their cultures with bad eating habits, poor physical routines, and social isolation. Some fail to follow these guidelines because they are too poor to care.
Human frailties like hearing loss, vision loss, or physical deterioration.
There are a number of difficulties with the guidelines noted by Garcia and Miralles. Finding a way of life that fulfills the ideals of “Ikigai” discounts the nature of human beings. It is impossible to ignore the personal instincts, drives, physical maladies, and cognitive abilities of different human beings. One size does not fit all because of these differences. Human nature may be universal, but it is not the same because human history, physical limitation, culture, and individual experiences are different. If the cultures in which you live do not offer universal health care, one is on their own. A capitalist culture operates in a different way than a socialist culture. Poverty, levels of education, and government influence exist in every culture and by nature distort what use can be made of “Ikigai” guidelines.
Human nature is universal, but it is also particular. In that particularity, “Ikigai” may or may not work for you or me. That is not to say the philosophy of “Ikigai” cannot lead one to a better life but only you can decide.
Wittgenstein’s philosophical belief is that words matter. To Wittenstein, words are not just sounds and symbols–they are the scaffolding of humanity’s shared reality and continuing search for truth.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Wittgenstein
Author: Hans Sluga
NarratedBy: Ken Maxon
Hans Sluga (Author, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at U of C.)
Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951, considered by some as one of the greatest philosophers of the twentieth century)
This is a difficult introduction to the philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein. One is unsure of whether it is difficult because of the author’s explanation or the abstruse nature of Wittgenstein’s writing. Sluga notes there is an early Wittgenstein philosophy and a later Wittgenstein philosophy. There is the 1921 “Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus” published in 1921 and a later “Philosophical Investigations” published in 1953.
In both publications, Wittgenstein’s philosophy is about language and its use to explain reality. The 1921 publication argues what can be said clearly can be said by all and when it cannot be said clearly the speaker should be silent. In 1953, Wittgenstein argues reality only has meaning as language is used to describe it.
The difficulty of grasping Wittgenstein’s later philosophy is knowing whether what one says about reality is true or false.
Wittgenstein notes problems arise when language is pushed beyond its utility for understanding. Wittgenstein implies there are realities that cannot be meaningfully described by language. He is redefining philosophy as a matter of understanding how language works rather than understanding some objectively understood reality.
If language is the source of reality, how can one know what is true or false based on how one’s language explains it?
The argument is that Wittgenstein is saying there is no reality except that which one can identify through language. Reality and truth exist but it is defined by public, practical, and embedded use of one’s common language. Truth is based on precise language broadly accepted by those who use language to explain reality. The difficulty of that idea is in fundamental science that changes because of newly discovered knowledge.
This later philosophical belief of Wittgenstein’s means truth is no longer absolute but contextual based on words used to describe it through science, law, and ethics of the time in which it is explained.
Wittgenstein’s philosophy is troubling. What is to keep humans from one country creating language that suggests they are a superior species and can destroy cultures other than their own? Wittgenstein’s answer is that languages are not hierarchical so words of another culture or nation have equal weight. His meaning is that reality is based on all public languages, not a private nationalist language. He writes “Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language”. Further, he notes a singular culture cannot weaponize words because words are a universal medium for understanding reality.
Wittgenstein’s philosophical belief is that words matter. To Wittenstein, words are not just sounds and symbols–they are the scaffolding of humanity’s shared reality and continuing search for truth.
The inference of “Plato and the Tyrant” is that all forms of government are like the parable of the cave in “The Republic”, i.e., people only see shadows of life’s truth.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Plato and the Tyrant (The Fall of Greece’s Dynasty and the Making of a Philosophic Masterpiece)
Author: James Romm
Narrated By: Paul Woodson
James Romm (Author, Professor of Classics at Bard College, specializes in ancient Greek and Roman culture and civilization.)
James Romm reviews Plato’s personal correspondence that offers an interesting perspective on “The Republic” as a critique of Dionysius the Elder’s tyrannic rule of the island nation of Syracuse, Sicily, and southern Italy. (Syracuse is a Mediterranean island 620 miles off the coast of Greece.) Some believe there are 13 private letters written by Plato with the most famous and debated letter being number 7. Romm’s book is about these private letters and what they reveal about Plato’s character.
Excerpt of the 7th letter to Dionisius the Elder:
Holding these right views, Dion persuaded Dionysius to summon me; and he himself also sent a request that I should by all means come with all speed, before that [327e] any others13 should encounter Dionysius and turn him aside to some way of life other than the best. And these were the terms—long though they are to repeat—in which his request was couched: ” What opportunities (he asked) are we to wait for that could be better than those that have now been presented by a stroke of divine good fortune?” And he dwelt in detail on the extent of the empire [328a] in Italy and Sicily and his own power therein, and the youth of Dionysius, mentioning also how great a desire he had for philosophy and education, and he spoke of his own nephews14 and connections, and how they would be not only easily converted themselves to the doctrines and the life I always taught, but also most useful in helping to influence Dionysius; so that now, if ever (he concluded), all our hopes will be fulfilled of seeing the same persons at once philosophers and rulers of mighty States. [328b]
By these and a vast number of other like arguments Dion kept exhorting me; but as regards my own opinion, I was afraid how matters would turn out so far as the young people were concerned—for the desires of such as they change quickly, and frequently in a contrary direction; although, as regards Dion’s own character, I knew that it was stable by nature and already sufficiently mature. Wherefore as I pondered the matter and was in doubt whether I should make the journey and take his advice, or what, I ultimately inclined to the view that if we were ever to attempt to realize our theories [328c] concerning laws and government, now was the time to undertake it; for should I succeed in convincing one single person sufficiently I should have brought to pass all manner of good. Holding this view and in this spirit of adventure it was that I set out from home,—not in the spirit which some have supposed, but dreading self-reproach most of all, lest haply I should seem to myself to be utterly and absolutely nothing more than a mere voice and never to undertake willingly any action, and now to be in danger of proving false, in the first15 instance, to my friendship [328d] and association with Dion, when he is actually involved in no little danger. Suppose, then, that some evil fate should befall him, or that he should be banished by Dionysius and his other foes and then come to us as an exile and question us in these words—“O Plato, I come to you as an exile not to beg for foot-soldiers, nor because I lack horse-soldiers to ward off mine enemies, but to beg for arguments and persuasion, whereby you above all, as I know, are able to convert young men to what is good and just and thereby to bring them always into a state of mutual friendliness [328e] and comradeship. And it is because you have left me destitute of these that I have now quitted Syracuse and come hither. My condition, however, casts a lesser reproach on you; but as for Philosophy, which you are always belauding, and saying that she is treated with ignominy by the rest of mankind, surely, so far as it depends on you, she too is now betrayed [329a] as well as I. Now if we had happened to be living at Megara,16 you would no doubt have come to assist me in the cause for which I summoned you, on pain of deeming yourself of all men the most base; and now, forsooth, do you imagine that when you plead in excuse the length of the journey and the great strain of the voyage and of the labor involved you can possibly be acquitted of the charge of cowardice? Far from it, indeed.”
Dionysius the Elder ruled for 35 years and is succeeded by his son, Dionysius the Younger. Dionysius is characterized as a combative, brutal, and authoritarian leader. Plato visited Syracuse many times with the desire to ameliorate the Elder’s style of leadership. Plato’s effort results in the Elder’s selling him into slavery, presumably because of political differences and the Elder’s tyrannical power.
Plato (428/423 BC to 348/347 BC, died near 80 years of age.)
Soon after being sold into slavery by Dionysius the Elder, Plato is rescued by Anniceris who bought Plato out of slavery. Anniceris (aka Annikeris), a wealthy Greek philosopher, apparently recognized Plato’s brilliance. Plato goes on to create his famous academy in Athens. Though the Elder successfully controlled Syracuse and much of Italy during his tyrannic rule, his son, Dionysius II, used similar but less effective tyrannical rule and was eventually defeated. Plato tried to convince Dionysius II of his errors in leadership but fails and is compelled to flee house arrest to return to Athens. (Romm suggests Plato loved Dionysius II in more than a platonic way but was unable to change his tyrannical rule.)
Plato’s ideal republic envisioned a just society led by philosopher-kings. These rulers would rule based on collective good rather than personal gain.
This ideal republic would be built on wisdom, justice, and a strict class structure where there would be rulers, soldiers, and workers. Of course, the weakness in this ideal is human nature. Whether ancient or modern culture, as Lord Acton notes in 1887–power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. People do not naturally fall into specific classes. Human beings are individually and differently self-interested which ensures conflict. That is why both communism, capitalism, and its socialist leanings work inefficiently in ways that unjustly create haves and have-nots.
At the heart of all known forms of government is power.
There are good and bad leaders in history. The good are those who shaped nations, inspired movements, and changed the course of civilization for the better. The bad are the tyrants, the incompetents, and the cruel. Both the good and bad can be found in the histories of every form of government rule. One can argue Alexander the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte, Abraham Lincoln, and Queen Elizabeth I led forms of government that changed the course of civilization for the better. By the same token, one can argue Dionysius the Elder and Hitler changed the course of civilization in the opposite direction. The common denominator for constructive and destructive leadership is power. The type of government makes little difference. Every form of government has human leaders which may lead in ways contrary to the best interest of those they rule.
Plato’s Republic, Adam Smith’s “…Wealth of Nations”, and Adolph Hitlers’ “Mein Kamph” are ideas directed toward the exercise of power.
“Plato and the Tyrant” offers a perspective that makes one think about the history of Plato and government but does not offer anything new.
Romm’s evaluation of Plato’s “Republic” is a retelling of an ideal form of government that cannot exist because of the nature of human beings and the caves in which we live.
The private letters of Plato reveal little new about the consequences of rule by democracies, monarchies, oligarchies, dictatorships, theocracies, or anarchies. The inference of “Plato and the Tyrant” is that all forms of government are like the parable of the cave in “The Republic”, i.e., people only see shadows of life’s truth. Governance will only improve when people crawl out of the cave to see the truth of life.
History of the world has shown all forms of government are “equal opportunity” inhibitors, if not destroyers.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Secondhand Time (The Last of the Soviets)
By: Svetlana Alexievich
Narrated By: Amanda Carlin, Mark Bramhall, Cassandra Campbell & 8 more.
Svetlana Alexievich (Author, Belarusian investigative journalist, winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2015.)
Svetlana Alexievich’s “Secondhand Time” is a remarkable and informative explanation of why Putin believes he is right and why many citizens of Russia seem to continue in their support of his administration.
Map of the former U.S.S.R.
Alexievich conducts a series of interviews with Russian citizens of different generations about the U.S.S.R. and its return to the world stage as a Russian nation. The narrators of her book recite those interviews to give listener/readers a complex and enlightening picture of Russian culture. The clash of communist and capitalist ideals is at the foundation of the interviews and the narrators dramatically told stories.
The Russian Soviet Army is the first to arrive in the Battle of Berlin on April 16, 1945. Their flag was hoisted on May 1, 1945.
The citizens of Russia are justifiably proud of their role in WWII that turned the tide of Germany’s war of aggression. (Of course, that is putting aside Stalin’s Machiavellian decision to join Hitler at the beginning of the war.) Some Russian soldiers who fought in that war were disgusted with what they feel was a betrayal by Mikhail Gorbachev of communist ideals for which they lived and died for in the 20th century.
The rejection of communist ideals for capitalism is viewed by some Russians as a tyranny of greed that lays waste to the poor and creates a class of haves and have-nots.
Some Russian veterans of WWII see the seduction of capitalism destroying the ideal of a classless society. Some citizens see the ideal of a government is to demand the wealth of life be spread equally according to individual need. To these believers, enforcement of communist ideals would eliminate private property and greed that would create a classless society. Some believed Stalin exemplified leadership that would achieve that ideal. The hardship of life during Stalin’s rule is considered by some as justified means for the achievement of the Marxist ideal of communism.
Statue of the “Circle of Life” in Norway.
Cultures may be different, but all human life is the same.
The underlying point of these interviews is to show Russian culture is not monolithic, just as culture is not in any nation. All cultures are filled with diversity. There is no singular cultural mind but a range of interests among many factions that establish a nation’s culture. The evidence of that is the contrast of Gorbachev and Putin in Russia and FDR and Trump in America. All four leaders led their countries but represent completely different cultural beliefs.
Conservatives, New York Governor Al Smith, Southern Democrats, and isolationists like Charles Beard opposed FDR in America. Putin and Trump have their cultural supporters in today’s national governments, but they also have their critics. The difference is that in Putin’s world, being killed or put in prison for opposition is culturally acceptable. In America, one is reminded of Trump’s deportation and imprisonment of migrants without due process.
The author’s interviews are not suggesting that either Russia or the West have good or bad governments but that every culture tests their leaders.
Many Russians, undoubtedly blame American Democracy for the dismantling of the U.S.S.R. Alexievich interviews Russians who believe the hardship that countries within the U.S.S.R. experienced were not the fault of Stalinist policies but the failure of citizens to live up to the ideals of communism. To anyone who has traveled to the Baltics, that opinion is founded on ignorance of the hostility expressed by citizens of the Baltics who were starved, displaced, jailed, and murdered during their occupation by Russia.
The other part of the story is the rise of the oligarchs in Russia as a result of the greed associated with capitalism.
The gap between rich and poor is accelerated in Russia just as it has been in America. Democracy does not have clean hands when it comes to equality of opportunity. Like the Jewish pogroms in Russia, America’s enslavement, murder, and discrimination of Blacks is proven history.
Siberian Exile during Stalin’s reign in Russia.
Alexievich draws from all sides of Russian beliefs. Those interviewed note the terrible conditions of those exiled to Siberia. Many Russians became disillusioned by the redistribution of wealth and privilege after Gorbachev and Yeltsin showed themselves to not be up to the task of leadership change. In fairness, one wonders who could have been up to the task when Russia had a long history of monarchal and tyrannical leadership?
A few Russians became immensely wealthy while the majority were somewhat better off but some struggled with the loss of State benefits and fewer jobs. The rising gap between rich and poor soured communist idealists. Even those who had been sent to Siberia by Stalin who toiled and suffered the experience of isolation, slave labor, and frigid weather felt they were no better off because of the loss of a socialist future.
The immense downside of an unpredictive future is the many setbacks that will occur because of inept political leadership. Science is not an answer. It is only a tool for understanding.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Science in the 20th Century (A Social-Intellectual Survey)
By: The Great Courses
Narrated By:Steven L. Goldman
Professor Steven L. Goldman.
Goldman’s review of 2oth century science identifies the fundamental change that has occurred in today’s perception of reality. One wonders if Albert Einstein was wrong about the predictability of science. Even at the end of Einstein’s life, he believed quantum mechanics was just a step in scientific research and not a basis for the truth of reality. Einstein insisted there was an undiscovered law about the nature of reality that would return life to predictability. The details of Goldman’s “Science in the 20th Century” infers otherwise.
Unpredictability of life’s existence is reinforced by Professor Goldman’s summary of scientific discoveries.
What is true of physics in the world, seems true for all the sciences. Whether reviewing the physical, biological, algorithmic, social, or applied sciences, unpredictability exists. Every science seems as unpredictable for the same reason as noted in the science of the quantum world. One cannot identity both position and momentum of an atomic particle at the same time. By the same measure, popularly elected representatives or authoritarian dictatorships cannot be measured by their position and direction of action. One can see a leader’s position but not measure their direction until the direction is past. Who would have thought Hitler would be the instigator of WWII? World leaders today are just as unpredictable. Citizens cannot measure leader’s positions and direction in advance. Citizens can only see one or the other at a specific point in time–never both position and direction at the same time.
What Goldman’s history of science implies is that if we live in a world of quantum mechanics, all life is, always has been, and always will be, unpredictable.
The solace in this possible truth is that, though there is still immense societal conflict and inequality in the world, science has improved society.
Technology has improved communication, transportation and daily life.
Vaccines, antibiotics, and surgical operations have drastically improved helath and life expectancy.
The world population has become more literate and has greater access to education than ever before.
Equality and justice show some progress in human rights, gender equality and social inclusion.
Enviornmental awareness has improved to combat climate change which has led to renewal energy innovations and conservation initiatives.
The world has increased connectivity to improve cultural exchange, economic collaboration and shared global interests.
Science is not an answer. It is only a tool for understanding.
The immense downside of an unpredictive future is the many setbacks that will occur because of inept political leadership. From the perspective of quantum mechanics, one hopes leadership means do not justify humanity’s end.
Scientific discovery revealed the theory of evolution, the germ theory of disease, the laws of motion and universal gravitation, the theory of relativity, the discovery of DNA, drugs to cure disease, and quantum mechanics that imply future unpredictability. This is the daunting message of Goldman’s lectures.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Science in the 20th Century (A Social-Intellectual Survey)
By: The Great Courses
Narrated By:Steven L. Goldman
Professor Goldman received a B.S. Degree in Physics from Polytechnic University of New York and received a Master of Arts and PhD in Philosophy from Boston University.
Professor Goldman offers lectures on transformative scientific discoveries of the 20th century. He begins with great discoveries in physics by Newton, Einstein, Curie, Bohr, Planck, Heisenberg, Dirac and others who broaden a listener’s understanding of the universe, Earth, life, and humanity. He melds science into philosophy which gives a generalist an appreciation of genius and its limitations. From the limitations of microscopes, thermometers, spectroscopes, barometers, and galvanometers, Goldman draws lines between science’s experimentally reproducible facts and philosophy’s speculation.
Newton and Einstein had different understandings of the universe. Newton understood gravity as a force between two masses, subject to earth’s gravitation. Einstein redefined Newton’s gravity as a power exerted throughout the universe and between planets rather than one planet we call earth. Einstein proves the power of gravity is based on forces beyond earth though Newton’s interpretation is predictive of most physics’ phenomena on earth, it fails to predict the effects of time, space, and energy in the universe. Einstein’s discoveries lead to a theory of General Relativity where mass and energy are equal to each other and interchangeable. Newton viewed space and time as absolute while Einstein viewed them as relative. Newton’s physics were simpler to understand while Einstein’s required advanced mathematics that took into consideration the warping of space and time. To Newton, the speed of gravity was a constant while to Einstein, the only constant was the speed of light. To Newton two occurrences could occur simultaneously but Einstein recognized simultaneity is impossible. Any distance between the two occurrences will always be observed at the speed of light which means they cannot have happened at the same time because they cannot be in the same place. The speed of light controls the observation of action. Two occurrences cannot occupy the same space therefor they cannot happen simultaneously.
Professor Goldman explains the many utilitarian uses of great scientific discoveries from so many scientists that names become too numerous to be recalled.
However, without their discoveries, humanity would not have entered the age of Artificial Intelligence and the reality of information as an energy source in the world; not to mention the many scientific discoveries that have improved the lives of 8.2 billion people. (Another side of that story is the number of people killed by WMD, undiscovered cures for disease, and earth’s pollution by humanities use of known and yet to be known discoveries.)
Without fossil fuels, renewable energy, and nuclear power, humanity would still be living in caves, subject to nature’s choice. The importance of information is why we read books, listen to lectures, rely on remembrance of things past, and choose the course of our lives. As Shakespeare noted in The Tempest, “What’s past is prologue”.
Scientific discovery revealed the theory of evolution, the germ theory of disease, the laws of motion and universal gravitation, the theory of relativity, the discovery of DNA, drugs to cure disease, and quantum mechanics that imply future unpredictability. This is the daunting message of Goldman’s lectures.
Today is a time for Americans to look at their motivations to act in ways that diminish human flourishing and happiness. They need to decide whether they are choosing to be evil and act out of malice to do evil things.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Open Socrates (The Case for a Philosophical Life)
By: Agnes Callard
Narrated By: Agnes Callard
Agnes Callard (Author, American philosopher, associate professor of philosophy at the University of Chicago.)
“Open Socrates” is not an easy listen but offers insight to the philosophy of Socrates as perceived by a tenured Philosophy professor at the University of Chicago.One of Socrates famous sayings is “Οἶδα τι οὐδὲν οἶδα”, “I know something that I know nothing”. The daunting meaning of the phrase is explained by Callard as something that is found through conversational engagement with others. Socrates believed what truth there is in the world is revealed through public engagement which is difficult for introverts because we fear having our ignorance exposed.
Callard notes that Socrates is an interrogator who elicits others to understand the meaning of human life.
There is a human desire to have meaning in our lives, but we don’t know where to begin or what questions to ask. Callard notes how Tolstoy is contemplating suicide despite his great fame and success as a writer because he does not believe there is any meaning to his life. Callard argues Socrates would say Tolstoy fails to ask questions in conversation with others that would offer the answer he seeks. As a listener/reader one might understand Tolstoy’s reluctance to ask others for their opinion because it exposes his vulnerability. Collard argues one must be willing to admit their errors to get to meaningful conversations with others about what they are discussing. However, few have the strength of character to expose themselves in a way that will continue further conversation.
Collard is preparing listeners for an understanding of the Socratic method, a cooperative dialogue, i.e. asking and answering questions to make one think about underlying assumptions and ideas to uncover inconsistencies to try to discover truth.
One wonders in this exercise, if Socrates is pursuing understanding or building a case to undermine human understanding. The result of a dialog with Socrates seems at best a pursuit of knowledge without finding a definitive answer. At times it seems the Socratic method only reveals the truth of human ignorance.
Collard notes that sophists as reflected in the Platonic and Aristotelian writings about Socrates were often incensed by the Socratic method because Socrates’ interrogations often made them look ignorant and uninformed. However, Socrates offers some definitions of important human characteristics like virtue and knowledge that are as relevant today as they were in ancient times.
Socrates defines virtue as a form of knowledge of right and wrong and those that use that knowledge will act virtuously.
Collard notes Alcibiades who lived in the time of Socrates. He was relentlessly interrogated by Socrates in an effort to elicit a better understanding of himself as Alcibiades, a politician and leader. Alcibiades made many political enemies because of shifting allegiances and political actions. He betrayed Athens in their fight with Sparta. After the fall of Athens, he is considered a threat to its new rulers.
Alcibiades (450BC-404BC, died at age 45 or 46, Athenian statesman and general.)
Alcibiades is known for his ambition, desire for power, and hedonistic lifestyle. He came into conflict with Socrates over belief in the values of wisdom and virtue. Though Alcibiades is noted in Plato’s “Symposium” to have admired and respected, Socrates, Collard notes he fundamentally disagreed with much of what Socrates reveals to him as his lack of wisdom and virtue. Alcibiades lacked self-discipline and moral integrity.
Socrates defines good as that which brings about human flourishing and happiness for one to live a fulfilling life.
Socrates argues evil is based on ignorance that compels human beings to act out of malice to do evil things.
Today is a time for Americans to look at their motivations to act in ways that diminish human flourishing and happiness. They need to decide whether they are choosing to be evil and act out of malice to do evil things.
REVIEWS AND VIEWS OF LIFE 