Category: PHILOSOPHY

LIFE’S MEANING

Audio-book Review
  By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Big Questions of Philosophy

By: David Kyle Johnson, Professor

Narrated For THE GREAT COURSES

   By Professor Johnson

David Kyle Johnson (Lecturer, Associate Professor of Philosophy at King’s College in Pennsylvania)

David Johnson’s first thirty lectures revolve around proof of God, the definition of reason, knowledge, truth, and the existence of free will.  Those lectures, though logically consistent, are a slog and may cause listeners to stop listening.  However, the last six chapters of Johnson’s lectures are rewarding summaries of government philosophy and the meaning of life.   

Johnson questions several arguments about God’s existence by revealing their logic and evidentiary failings.  Johnson defines reason, truth, knowledge, and testimony as falsifiable evidence for God’s existence.  He challenges arguments about the existence of soul, and what it means to be free.  He explains the significance of mind and body, good and evil, and personal identity.  Along the way, he defines good and evil with various side trips showing how we “ought” rather than “how” we really live.  Johnson’s attacks many, if not all, substantive philosophical arguments for the existence of God.  His noted weaknesses of many philosophical beliefs about God, truth, and knowledge are mind numbing.   

The first two thirds of Johnson’s philosophical analysis conclude God’s existence is an unverifiable truth, solely dependent on the chimera of faith.

In contrast, Johnson’s summary of government philosophy and the meaning of life are both entertaining, and informative.

There is a good deal of bias in this review because of personal interest.  The first thirty chapters may be of more interest to some, but his analysis of the history of economic and political theory remind one of how great it is to be steeped in western culture.

Lecture 31 one asks—Should Government Exist?   Johnson suggests the alternative for government is anarchy.  He offers three categories of anarchy, i.e., theoretical, serious, and violent.  All three question governments’ moral authority.

From an American perspective, the only substantive concern is with the category of serious anarchy.  Serious anarchy is Johnson’s category of what is known as Libertarianism in the United States.  

Rand Paul, US Senator from Kentucky

The most famous American Libertarians are Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Thomas Sowell, the Koch brothers, Steve Forbes, and Peter Thiel.  Essentially, they believe government should be restricted to defense of the country with citizens responsible for their own actions.  The only law should be moral law because government-imposed law restricts personal autonomy.  There should be no government regulation that infringes on personal autonomy in social, or economic policy.

Lecture 32 asks—What Justifies a Government?  Johnson recalls luminaries like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

John Locke
Jean Jaques Rousseau

Hobbes viewed citizens as naturally power hungry and that government is necessary to protect citizens from being harmed by acquisitive neighbors.  Locke suggests citizens enter a social contract with a government when they choose to become members of a nation-state and by contract will not be allowed to infringe on a neighbor’s freedom of choce, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.  In the case of Locke, laws are passed to protect citizens by a government Republic that represents the will of the people who vote for them.  Rousseau agrees with Locke but insists on direct democracy to establish any laws meant to protect citizens.  Each of these men influence the founding fathers in writing an American constitution.

Lecture 33 asks—How Big Should Government Be?  Johnson summarizes the economic philosophies of Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and John Maynard Keynes who shape much of what American government has become. 

JOHN MAYNARD KEYNES (1883-1946)

The economy of America is largely based on Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations”.  Though many know of Adam Smith, few seem to have closely read “Wealth of Nations” to clearly understand what he said about economic growth.  There have been many interpretations of “the invisible hand” that range from an extreme that suggests self-interest is all that matters in an economy to price-controlling when competition is driving businesses into bankruptcy.  Neither extreme represents Smith’s belief in “the invisible hand”.  Neither self-interest nor competition is all that matters for an economy to grow.  Smith tempers self-interest by arguing it cannot be adhered to at the expense of the common good.  Smith endorses competition when it lowers prices for the public.  However, Smith notes monopolies created from aggressive acquisition of competitors restricts competition and infringes on the common good.

Karl Marx addresses the threat of capitalism making slaves of workers who are undercompensated for their labor that only benefits entrepreneurs who own businesses without fairly compensating their employees. 

History has shown the weakness of Marx’s argument.  Labor organizes to increase compensation for labor.  More than labor costs determine value.  There is the willing buyer and seller that determine the cost of any business’s survival.  Marx ignores too many other variables when valuing labor without addressing risk to entrepreneurs, the cost of doing business, and the inherent inventiveness of capitalist self-interest.

John Maynard Keynes is a preeminent economic theorist who recognizes the weaknesses of capitalism.  Capitalism engenders economic crashes, panics, recessions, and depressions.   

Johnson notes Keynesian economic theory ameliorates those threats by deficit spending when “the invisible hand” fails the common good.  Johnson suggests Keynes offers a middle ground between Smith and Marx.  The inevitable problem is knowing where the line is to be drawn between government overreach and an “invisible hand” which benefits the common good.

The next two lectures address the limits of liberty and societal fairness.  America is among the richest countries in the world, but homelessness seems to grow with each passing year.  Having traveled some, it appears America is doing a poorer job of dealing with poverty and homelessness than more autocratic countries like China.  One picks China as a contrast because it has a population of 1.4 billion versus 320 million in America.  The wealth of American citizens far outweighs the wealth of Chinese citizens.  U.S. per-capita income is estimated to be 5.78 times higher than China’s. 

One sees no homeless people sleeping in parks or on the sidewalks of major cities like Beijing, Hong Kong, or Guangzhou in China. America is not doing a very good job of drawing the line between government outreach and the impact of capitalist self-interest when it comes to homelessness.  This is not to argue limits to liberty in China are either better or worse than America’s ineptitude.  However, managing homelessness is a distinct societal unfairness in America.  This is a national problem that needs to be addressed by American government policy based on the welfare of its citizens.

At the end of Johnson’s lectures, one is reminded of Plato’s fictional writing about the Oracle of Delphi identifying Socrates as the wisest of Greeks. 

Socrates (Greek Philosopher, 470 BC to 399 BC.)

Plato writes that Socrates disbelieves the Oracle. He questions scholars of his time to find they know no more than him.  However, he concludes “xero katie pou den xero tipota” or “I know something that I know nothing”.   

The final chapter of Johnson’s lectures is “What is the Meaning of Life”. 

There is no definitive answer. Maybe, it is the number 42, the nonsensical conclusion of the Bible noting “The Duration of Suffering”. (It is also Douglas Adams ironic answer in “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”.)

WHAT THE DEVIL

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Living with the Devil ( A Meditation on Good and Evil)

By: Stephen Batchelor

Narrated by: Stephen Batchelor

Stephen Batchelor (Author, Scottish Buddhist, teacher.)

Stephen Batchelor offers a view of religion and reality in an attempt to move beyond the “let it be” implication of a meditative life.  Batchelor places Buddhism in the context of most religions’ beliefs.  He explains Buddhism personifies the devil as a master of seven dimensions of heaven. 

The devil assigns one of the seven heaven’ disciples to inspire sin in human life.  That disciple is Mara who is directed by the devil to seduce Siddhartha, the founder of Buddhism. Mara assumes the visage of a woman but fails to distract Siddhartha from “the way” and, like Christ in Christian belief, Siddhartha becomes a symbol and guide for humanity.

Image of Mara who takes the image of a woman to seduce Gautama Buddha, (Siddhartha).

Batchelor explains Buddhism is the door to “the way” which recognizes the devil as a part of life’s yin and yang.  Hardship and death are part of life.  Those seeking eternal life delude themselves.  It is not possible to have life without death.  It is not possible to have “the way”, a path without evil because evil defines good by being its opposite.  This leads to a “let it be” mentality of those who meditate on “the way”.  Batchelor is not condoning the evil of violence, destruction, or death but explains its role in defining “the way”. Therein lies a criticism by some.

Buddhist guidance is described as “the way”  by Batchelor. 

One presumes, it is the same “way” referred to in the adventures of Disney Studio’s “The Mandalorian”. 

Batchelor describes the path that most of humanity takes is deflected in the same way as a human walking with one leg shorter than another.  The path of humanity is circular which suggests why history seems to repeat itself. (To paraphrase Mark Twain–history may not repeat itself, but it certainly rhymes.)

One who is not a Buddhist is not comforted by Batchelor’s explanation of “the way” or his acknowledged acceptance of living with the devil.  Batchelor, like Buddha, Jesus Christ, and a Divinity, may be correct in their knowledge about human life but it does not give one comfort.  It proffers fear that violence and destruction is to be tolerated by humanity because it is a part of living life as a human being. 

Batchelor implies homelessness, despair, and human degradation are incurable and acceptable because the devil’s work helps define “the way”. 

Accepting Buddhism seems to encourage meditation at the expense of human effort to give succor to those in need.  All religions and societies should be focused on social and economic equality for all.  Accepting less is failure. “The devil made me do it” is a cop out. 

BUDDHISM

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Being Peace

By: Thich Nhat Hanh

Narrated by: Edoardo Ballerrini

Thích Nhất Hạnh (Author, Buddhist Monk, Zen Master, Political Activist.)

“Being Peace” is a layman’s introduction to Buddhist belief.  Thích Nhất Hạnh offers a “let it be” philosophy of life while being a political activist.  Hanh’s philosophy of peace comes through meditation. Hanh finds through meditation human life is found to be neither good nor bad. 

There is no evil in Hanh’s world.  In one sense that reminds one of Christian’s belief in “turning the other cheek”.  The difference is that Christian’s believe there is evil in the world, and it must be punished.

Hanh tells a story of a Sudanese pirate that rapes a girl-child and throws her into the sea to drown.  Hanh suggests he could have become a Sudanese sea pirate by having experienced Sudanese poverty and depredation.  Hanh’s view is that the circumstances of life and environment create miscreants, rapists, and murderers.

Contrary to belief in evil and punishment for moral transgression, Hanh finds empathy for those who pillage, torture, murder, and rape. 

Hanh’s solution is to accept Buddhist belief in peace through meditation.  In accepting life as it is, evil doers disappear.  This is certainly an oversimplification of Hanh’s teaching. 

Hanh notes world leaders squander world resources that could be used to create and sustain peace for all people in the world.  He decries wasted dollars for military defense.  His argument is predicated on abundance that is unevenly distributed.

Hanh lives through the French and American atrocities in Vietnam.  

Hanh undoubtedly observed the senseless murder of innocents by both western powers and communists.  

Ironically, until more recently, Hanh was banned from Vietnam because of the crowds he attracted to his teaching.  Fear of competition from someone independent of the government frightens communist bureaucrats.  Hahn is now allowed in Vietnam, but his forums are restricted to small groups of believers.

Money, power, and prestige seduce the poor, middle class, and rich, whether in a democracy or autocracy.  There are few exceptions–maybe only Buddhist meditators, and Socratic philosophers–not the general public.

Hanh’s book is insightful but inadequate when measured against the innate nature of humankind.  On a personal level, one can accept the value of meditation in seeing things as they are and how they should be.  However, on a global level, it is difficult to imagine broad acceptance of meditation.

WHERE R U FROM

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Committed

By Viet Thanh Nguyen

Narrated by : Francois Chau

Viet Thanh Nguyen (American author, 2016 winner of Pulitzer prize for fiction.)

“The Committed” carries forward the life of three Vietnamese blood brothers introduced in “The Sympathizer”, Viet Thanh Nguyen’s earlier novel.  Nguyen’s story begins during America’s Vietnam war. 

In the beginning of “The Committed”, the main character, Vo Danh, arrives in Paris with his blood brother Bon.  Their first night’s stay is with a  communist sympathizer who is Vo Dahn’s aunt.  Bon is incensed by the aunt’s support of communism. Bon’s job as a Vietnamese counterspy in America was to murder communist sympathizers.  Bon wishes to leave immediately, but Vo Danh calms him down and they stay the night. However, Vo Danh continues to visit his aunt and for a time lives with her. 

The main character of “The Committed” believes all social beliefs one commits oneself to are corrupted by human nature.  To Vo Danh, his aunt is just who she is committed to be, without being either good or bad.

Vo Danh and Bon leave the next morning to find jobs at a Vietnamese restaurant near the Eiffel tower.  The restaurant is owned by a mobster.  They are hired and choose to rent a room from the mobster.  Bon mostly leaves Nguyen’s story until the last chapters of the book.  He chooses to keep a low profile as a restaurant employee. 

Vo Dahn takes an entirely different path. Vo Dahn becomes a customer procurer and seller for the mobster’s drug business.

Vo Danh’s experience in a Vietnam re-education camp taught him to believe in nothing.  That teaching came from his third blood brother who is commandant of the camp during the Vietnam war. 

This third blood brother is a communist sympathizer in name only.  Before becoming  camp commandant, this third blood brother is badly disfigured by an American napalm attack. He realizes Democracy’s liberation of Vietnam from communism is a meaningless chimera.  In that realization, he re-educates Vo Danh to understand communism, authoritarianism, and democracy are fictions. 

Re-education camps are a euphemism for detention and torture.

Committed beliefs about government mean nothing.  One’s first thought is that the third brother is simply a nihilist.  Vo Dahn understands something different.  In sum, the commandant teaches Vo Dahn that commitment to any ideological belief is a trap.  Even in accepting his blood brother’s re-education, Vo Dahn recalls the love of his mother.  He believes the selfless love of his mother saves him from being a nihilist.

Vo Dahn does not consider himself a nihilist but agrees that believing in nothing liberates humanity. 

In Paris, Vo Danh chooses to become a mobster who sells drugs for a percentage of profits.  He lives life as he chooses.  He expresses no personal scruple about sale or personal use of drugs or alcohol.  He has no fear of the drug supplying restaurant owner, arrest as a legal consequence, or possible attack by competing mobsters.  Vo Danh lives an amoral life informed by the love of his deceased mother.  His life experience and studied philosophical beliefs lead him to believe in nothing as a way of living in an unprincipled world.  His actions in the world are formed by the mother who loved him and a father (who is a priest) that abandoned him.

What is troubling about Nguyen’s story is that love and care is often missing or mutually misunderstood between a mother and her children.  One might accept Nguyen’s story for those children who are truly loved and cared for by their mothers.  However, if mothers are to be on a pedestal, what about the affect of mothers who do not truly love or care for their children.  Are uncaring mothers responsible for children who become mass murderers, dictators, mobsters, and other societal miscreants?

Nguyen’s story has a strong point of view, but it diminishes the complexity of a child’s growth to adulthood.  Interaction between mothers, fathers, and their offspring are interpreted though the minds of their children. 

One is reminded of fictional and news worthy stories of children who are raised in perfect families who become serial killers.

A recurring truism in Nguyen’s story is that all humans are created equal.  When one is asked where they are from, the only correct answer is “I am from my mother”.  Nothing else matters. Color, national origin, religious belief, or sexual orientation do not determine the value of a human being. Nguyen is a great writer with a point of view worthy of many philosophers of this and past ages.

NIHILISM’S DEATH

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Fathers and Sons

By: Ivan Turgenev

Narrated by: David Horovitch

Ivan Turgenev (1818 to 1883–Russian novelist,poet, and playwright.)

Understanding the culture of other countries is aided by reading histories and literary classics.  Like Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, Ivan Turgenev paints a picture of Russian culture in the mid-1800s. 

Russia in 1850

In “Fathers and Sons” it is the age of Alexander II, the Russian Tsar who began his reign in 1855. He presided over emancipation of serfs in 1861. 

Tsar Alexander II (1818-1881)

The Tsar’s intention is to liberate serfs from aristocratic servitude.  In respect for the Tsar, some Russian farmers offer their farmland to serfs in return for rent or a percentage of profits from the sale of produce

There is great turmoil during this time in Russia. 

Tsar Alexander III (1845-1894)

It is eventually quelled by Alexander III (1881-1894) who represses and reverses Alexander II’s political and social liberalization.  Turgenev dies soon after Alexander III’s ascension.  In “Fathers and Sons” one can see the seeds for Alexander III’s reaction to Alexander II’s liberalization.   

The principal character in “Fathers and Sons” is Yevgeny Vassillievitch Bazarov.  He is a young doctor who sees the world through science. 

Bazarov does not believe in God and sees morality as a fiction induced by society.  He is a nihilist.  He purports to believe life is meaningless.

In this Russian era, serfdom created an uneducated underclass that feeds Bazarov’s beliefs.  Serfs had no place in society.  They were indentured to an aristocracy that used them as slaves to cultivate land holdings. 

Alexander II creates change which would allow serfs to own land, work for themselves, and break their cycle of poverty.  However, serfs as well as the aristocracy are unprepared.  Farmers who try to free their serfs find their farmland turns fallow.  The reasons for loss of productivity are complex but such a sudden change in opportunity is either not properly capitalized or resistance by aristocrats who scotch Alexander II’s liberation.

Bazarov sees serf liberation as evidence of the meaninglessness of life.  Bazarov and a fellow traveler, both sons of farmers, return to their family farms after finishing their education.  The fellow traveler is Arkady who idolizes Bazarov.  Arkady’s father’s farm is shown to be deteriorating when the two travelers visit.  Bazarov observes the indolence of former serfs who work the land.  At the same time Bazarov notes the entrenched aristocratic prejudices of Arkady’s uncle who has come to live at the farm. This uncle is an immaculately dressed and groomed middle aged man who is well known in aristocratic circles.

Bazarov’s suggests Alexander II’s reform only reinforces the meaninglessness of life.  To Bazarov, human nature is immutable, God does not exist, and art is an affectation.  He places this argument at the feet of Basarov’s uncle. Arkady agrees with Basarov and recognizes him as a mentor and superior intellect. Both the uncle and Arkady’s father are offended by Basarov’s comments. The uncle is appalled by Basarov’s nihilism.

Turgenev introduces a doppelganger of Basarov in a wealthy young widow named Anna Odinsova.  Odinsova is attracted to Bazarov’s views based on her life experience.  She sees life as equally meaningless.  The irony is that Basarov falls in love with Odinsova.  Loving someone contradicts meaninglessness in life.  Odinsova does not love Basarov but admires his intellect.  Basarov’s professed love betrays his nihilist beliefs.

Turgenev accelerates his argument against nihilism by having Arkady fall in love with the sister of Odinsova.  This sister has the moral strength of Odinsova but accepts Arkady’s love, and marries him. They settle on Arkady’s father’s farm.  Arkady, with the help of his new wife, make his father’s farm prosperous.  Arkady’s father changes his role at the farm and is eventually able to retire.  Nihilism has no place in Arkady’s life. Life has meaning to Arkady.

Turgenev leaves his audience with the belief that Odinsova will overcome her belief in nihilism. She marries a prosperous and dynamic Russian businessman.  Turgenev suggests she may grow to love this businessman and abandon her mistaken view of life.  This is a Turgenev’ finishing nail in nihilism’s coffin.

Turgenev’s warning to humanity is that God, morality, and love makes life worth living, while ignominious death is left to nihilists.

Basarov dies from Typhoid, never to realize the wasted life he has led.  His death leaves his mother and father to grieve over Basarov’s great potential and lost opportunity. 

WORLDS OF IMAGINATION

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Dawn of the New Everything (A Memoir)

By: Jaron Lanier  

Narrated by: Oliver Wyman

American computer philosopher, computer scientist, visual artist, and musician.

Both Da Vinci (as characterized by Walter Isaacson) and Jaron Lanier are self-effacing geniuses without formal education. Both manage to create worlds of imagination.

Lanier’s memoir illustrates how refinement of virtual reality is as groundbreaking as Da Vinci’s understanding of light.  History will not likely view Lanier as the Da Vinci of our era but there are interesting similarities. 

Not to carry the comparison too far, Lanier magnifies the value of imagination without limiting its potential for both human good and evil. 

Da Vinci designs weapons of war that purposely fed the ambitions of his era’s tyrants.

Lanier is one of the pioneers of facial recognition.  Facial recognition is a tool that can be used by humanities’ tyrants as well as benefactors.  In conjunction with digitizing the lives of everyone, facial recognition implies a “Brave New World” as eminently realizable. 

A visit to China reinforces potential loss of privacy and human volition with the advance of a digitized and monitored population.

One comes away from Lanier’s memoir with an appreciation for his candor about life and his unshaken belief in the value of technology.  He recognizes his personal imperfection while maintaining an optimistic view for the world’s rescue by AI as a tool rather than controller of human life.  There is some comfort in his opinion, but a listener reserves judgement based on the life Lanier has led.  He is undoubtedly a polymath but his memoir focuses more on pleasures than the reality of most people’s lives.

The principle of virtual reality lends itself to Lanier’s obsession with music and entertainment. 

Lanier is a musician, among many other talents.  He spends some of his time collecting and mastering abstruse musical instruments. 

One comes away from “Dawn of the New Everything” with the feeling that VR has greater potential for distraction than humanity’s betterment. There is respite from this perception with Lanier’s explanation of how VR is used for education and training. It is a virtual tool for medical and science education. 

On the other hand, VR is a tool for remote murder by a person guiding a drone.

B.F. Skinner, American psychologist, behaviorist, author, inventor, and social philosopher.

Lanier also notes that VR has the potential of making life conform to other’s interest.

The “Dawn of Everything” gives a clearer picture of what it was and is like to become a part of the Silicon Valley.  He candidly recounts his rise as a tech mogul, failure, and gadfly. 

Facebook and Twitter addiction are influencers with WMD potential.

Lanier’s memoir is at once enlightening and disheartening.  He offers a virtual picture of modern life that is influencing, but not yet controlling. Lanier is optimistic.  Many listeners will leave his memoir skeptical.

SUPERMAN-SUPERWOMAN

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Hiking with Nietzsche (A Memoir)

By: John Kaag  

Narrated by: Josh Bloomberg

John Kaag (Author, Professor and Chair of Philosophy at the University of Massachusetts Lowell)

Like Mary-Louise Parker’s memoir “Dear Mr. You”, “Hiking with Nietzsche” is nearly returned by this listener.  Both memoirs, as the word suggests, are personal. 

However, Parker’s memoir is burdened by Parker’s self-absorption. “Dear Mr. You” reminds this listener of an actress who chose not to appear at the stage-door in New York after a forgettable stage performance.  Parker is a good writer, but she needs a better subject.

“Hiking with Nietzsche” is not overly burdened by its writer’s self-absorption.  Kaag offers some clarity to Nietzschean philosophical belief.  However, clarity is only partially delivered.  Some details revealed by Kaag of Nietzsche’s life are helpful.

Freidrich Nietzsche (1844-1900, German philosopher, poet, composer, cultural critic, and classical philologist)

Nietzsche’s father was a Lutheran minister.  He died when Nietzsche was only five years old. 

Wilhelm Wagner (1813-1883, German composer and conductor.)

As a young man, Kaag explains Nietzsche idolizes Wagner.  Wagner becomes a father figure to Nietzsche.

However, Wagner treats Nietzsche as a servant, an underling, burdened by sexual identity and a modicum of insight to the nature of life.  Nietzsche eventually breaks with Wagner, partly in recognition of Wagner’s anti-Semite sentiment, but also as a break from surrogate parental control.  Like a child/parent relationship, Nietzsche continues to love Wagner but not as a great human being.

Where Kaag fails is–in inadequately correlating his family life with Nietzschean philosophy.  Kaag notes that Nietzsche spent a great deal of time in the mountains that Kaag and his family are visiting.  He retraces some of Nietzsche’s peripatetic life in Basel and its surroundings.

Kaag explains Nietzsche abandons belief in God and suggests humankind has killed the idea of a Supreme Being which leaves man in charge. 

Nietzsche suggests humankind is on its own. 

Kaag notes Nietzsche argues–We humans can become the ideal man, the master of his/her life.  In that recognition, humans become potential supermen.  Right conduct is determined by individuals overcoming themselves. 

This oneself recognizes morality is based on action that supports life, encourages self-assertion, and has no guilt.  Nietzsche suggests life should come from a “Let it Be” mentality that repeats itself.   Kaag does not make these ideas any clearer in using his family life and his personal actions as a husband and father as exemplars of Nietzschean philosophy.

“Hiking with Nietzsche” is a disappointment but not a waste of time. 

There is something to pursue in philosophy whether one agrees with Nietzsche or not. If “God is Dead” can man be moral?  It seems doubtful based on world history.  On the other hand, all species continue to evolve and adapt.  Earth’s environment is no longer taken for granted.  Are there supermen and women in our future?

LIVING LIFE

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Until the End of Time

By: Brian Greene  

Narrated by Brian Greene

Author, (American Theoretical Physicist)

There is a great deal to unpack in Brian Greene’s “Until the End of Time”.  As is true of many of Greene’s scientific observations, much of his self-effacing intelligence and science-based opinion is lost in the ignorance of his listeners, not to mention this listener.  However, where Greene’s beliefs intersect with one’s limited knowledge, his theory of the ending of time and life is immensely rewarding and enlightening.

Greene does not argue there is no God. However, he suggests modern science shows there is no reason for God to exist to create life. 

To Greene, there is more verifiable proof of life in science than verifiable proof of God in either science or religion.

In Greene’s thought, God and religion may have a great deal to do with sustaining human life, but in ways more sociological than religious.  Weather one is a believer, atheist, or agnostic makes no difference to Greene.  He carefully constructs an explanation of how science shows life may have come into existence, why stories of life may explain belief in God, and why humans are fundamentally different from other forms of life.  The fundamental point of “…the End of Time” has to do with human mortality.  Human mortality lies at the core of Greene’s view of time and life.

Greene suggests the laws of physics founded by luminaries like Newton, Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr, and Erwin Schrodinger offer evidence for the basis for life on earth, with or without God.  Greene explains the principle of thermodynamics, the fundamental science of energy that creates and sustains life. 

Greene explains–the physics of energy (thermodynamics) ensures eventual death.  All life is pre-determined by the fundamental law of entropy.  The fate of time and life began with a bang.  This singular event disbursed tightly organized atomistic particles into a continually less organized space.

Greene notes that all forms of life are subject to entropy, a gradual decline from order to disorder.  Greene argues that entropy acts at an atomistic level to determine the fate of all living things. Greene suggest laws of quantum mechanics determine the course of life for all “living” things.

To Greene, humankind is free to make choices.  However, he argues humankind does not have free will.  The physics of science show that all living things cannot choose to live forever.  Humans can choose how to live, what to think, who to love, who to hate but they cannot choose one Nano second longer than what is dictated by the fundamental law of entropy.

Greene notes the science of Darwinian evolution and genetic inheritance is a relevant reinforcement of his argument for the inevitable extinction of life.  The entropy accompanying human habitation is evident in pollution of the air we breath and the water we drink.    (Though Greene does not address advances in genetic inheritance through gene manipulation, genetic manipulation does not negate Greene’s overriding concept of entropy.)

Just as earth’s environment slowly degrades, genetic inheritance as a process will eventually lead to extinction.  Humans, just as dinosaur’s, sabre tooth tigers, and Dodo birds will disappear. All life adapts to change until the speed of environmental change becomes greater than the speed of evolutionary adaptation.

Greene agues humankind’s recognition of mortality shapes lives as consequentially as evolution. The significance of Greene’s argument is that religion is founded on acknowledgement of eventual death.  Knowing that one cannot live forever, creates the desire for something beyond death.  Greene elaborates by arguing that human lack of control over natural events compels creation of stories about a Supreme Being. *

The big picture in “Until the End of Time” is that the world and life is heading for an end.   Based on the science of physics, there is an “…End of Time” for humankind, based on the immutable and experimentally proven laws of thermodynamics.  Entropy is evident in the science of quantum mechanics (the physical properties of nature at the scale of atoms and subatomic particles), and the science of a continually expanding universe.

What does this mean to us?  Humans still make their own choices on how to live, love, and hate in their lifetimes.  The singer, Bobby McFerrin, suggests “Don’t Worry Be Happy”.  Others suggest the meaning of life is to live in the moment.  Brian Greene suggests it is up to you.  Our lives and death may be pre-determined, but we have freedom to choose how we live, love, and work.

In re-thinking Greene’s belief in the physics of entropy, one wonders about the concept of energy never being destroyed. Einstein’s formula of E=MC2 implies our corporal bodies may die but atoms transmogrify. What does that suggest about the entropy of human life?

* Greene acknowledges the slim possibility of Devine existence but considers it much less probable based on the discipline of science and the existence of entropy.  Greene does not discount the comfort religion offers humankind, including the rituals that help one cope with life and the passing of loved ones.

STOIC REDUX

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Practicing Stoic

By: Ward Farnsworth

Narrated by John Lescault

Ward Farnsworth (Author, Dean of the University of Texas School of Law)

No one is a stoic.  At best, Ward Farnsworth argues one can only be a “practicing” stoic.   

Who among us is a stoic?  Who is free from passion, and unmoved by joy or grief? Possibly a psychopath. Who can supersede natural laws? No one. To live as a sentient being entails passion, joy, grief, and experience of things beyond our control.

Only a computer can be passionless, relentlessly reasonable, and programmed to acknowledge things beyond its control. In theory, a computer may be programmed to be a stoic. Farnsworth explains–a human will only be able to “practice” stoicism. Farnsworth notes no human is preternaturally capable of being a stoic.

The question is why would anyone want to practice stoicism?  Farnsworth infers the practice of stoicism offers potential for living a good and fulfilling life.

Farnsworth explains one becomes a “practicing” stoic in the realization that death comes to all human beings.  

However in being a practicing stoic, Farnsworth notes–humans can only strive to be morally good. Why does a stoic strive to be morally good?  Farnsworth explains in being morally good, one gains peace of mind. Peace of mind offers happiness or what the classical Greeks called eudaimonia.  In a practicing stoic’s view of living, it matters not whether one is rich or poor. 

Here is where capitalists gag, the homeless scowl, and the poor spit. Having peace of mind is easier when one is rich.  As Farnsworth notes, one might agree but he notes many who are rich are not happy. 

One asks oneself, how happy can the homeless and abject poor be?  Farnsworth suggests the rich never think they are rich enough.  Fair enough, but the rain, cold, and desert sun have little affect on the rich.

Farnsworth explains the stoic argues “what we think” is key, whether rich or poor.  The practicing stoic believes wealth, poverty, and life are ephemeral.  Farnsworth implies knowledge of life’s temporality sets one free. Free to what? Reject the cold or heat of the sun when you are homeless? It is difficult to see how the homeless and poor can achieve peace of mind by changing “what they think” about the cold and heat or a hard bench in the park.

Farnsworth’s rejoinder might be that a practicing stoic would only be concerned about what they can control, not what they cannot.  

That seems disingenuous because weather is an example of a life circumstance that is out of one’s control.   Nature detrimentally affects the homeless and poor, regardless of how they think about it.

There is also the question of free will.  Humans choose a path when opportunity knocks.  Some choose to take opportunity; others pass.  The stoic answers yes, we choose but the result is either/or–happiness or trial (e.g. Soren Kierkegaard’s philosophy).

One either seeks happiness or trial based on their choice.  Farnsworth explains the stoic returns to the goal of happiness based on thinking and acting morally.  If all humans were practicing stoics, one might argue there would be no homelessness or poverty.  World history shows no culture exhibits that characteristic. It begs the question of “thinking differently” offering “peace of mind” when it is zero or one hundred ten degrees outside.

Does recognition of ephemerality achieve happiness?  Farnsworth says not in and of itself because recognizing ephemerality of life and circumstance requires moral thought and action.

Reality is that thought and action require a minimal level of human economic security. Economic security is talked about by governments but rarely implemented.

Farnsworth notes many contradictions in the history of stoicism.  He notes how a leading proponent of stoicism, Seneca the Younger, is incredibly rich when stoics abjure wealth. Seneca consulted Nero who was one of the most corrupt leaders of Rome. Seneca talked the talk of a classical practicing stoic, but did he live it?  How can Seneca be an exemplar of stoicism when he counseled a brutal dictator, owned slaves, and lived in luxury? 

Farnsworth suggests the history of Seneca is too unclear to offer an answer.  Seneca may have been a moderating influence on Nero.  He may have counseled Nero to act morally without success.  He may have used his wealth to benefit society.  This is not a very defensible argument, but it is consistent with a belief that one can, at best, only be a practicing Stoic.

Farnsworth offers a good understanding of the history of stoicism and the stoic philosophy in “The Practicing Stoic” but it seems more attuned to those who have than those who have-not.  Interestingly, Farnsworth teaches law which gives some understanding of how and why a lawyer should represent the guilty as well as the innocent. It is a matter of practicing stoicism.

The best one may gather from Farnworth’s history of the stoics is that those who-have may realize how important it is to be more helpful to those who have-not.  When homelessness and poverty are eliminated, a stoic philosophy offers great appeal.

BEST OF TIMES

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Meditations
By Marcus Aurelius

Narrated by Duncan Steen

MARCUS AURELIEUS (121 AD-180 AD, EMPEROR OF ROME FROM 161-180)

Marcus Aurelius has been called the last of the five good emperors of Rome.  Edward Gibbon, the historian, went so far as to suggest that this is one of the best times in history for people to live.  (Maybe, but Gibbon might be a little biased based on being male and white.)

PLATO, ATHENIAN PHILOSOPHER ( 428/427 or 424/423 – 348/347 BC)
Marcus Aurelius embodies the concept of the Philosopher King.  Philosopher Kings are first described by Plato as the only totalitarian leader capable of ruling society.  They would rule capably because of their wisdom and knowledge of the Good.  “Meditations” suggests that Aurelius was the real deal.

In the modern world, Aurelius provides a bible for the leisure-class. However, one is not sure what the leisure class is in this era of doing rather than being.

Aurelius recognizes the ephemeral nature of life’s pleasures and chooses to write about and use Plato’s ideal forms to guide his rule.  

The ideal forms are Plato’s essences of life, measures of the Good that in most people’s minds are only shadows in a cave.  

Aurelius benefited from wealth and leisure by being in the lap of luxury while denying its seductive pleasures, His private education allowed him to study and understand the source of Plato’s shadows in the cave. 

In the post industrial world the likelihood of a 21st century Philosopher King is inconceivable but “Meditations” does offer a guide to today’s leisure class.  With time, education, and inclination, a human being can adopt Aurelius’ rules to live a life of joy and contentment. 

A life of joy and contentment runs contrary human nature’s proclivities, the pursuit of money, power, and prestige, but the leisure class may have enough of each to stop climbing life’s ladder to despair.

Aurelius lives in the post Christian era (121-180 AD) and writes with some confusion about belief in gods or God but seems to believe in pre-ordination and humankind’s necessary acceptance of a lot in life. 

Aurelius forsakes despair and honors acceptance of doing the best one can do in a short human life.  Aurelius does not seek money, power, or prestige but accepts responsibility and lets actions define his life.  He believes every person has a social responsibility and that to remove oneself from social interaction is a betrayal of living a good life.

There is wisdom in Marcus Aurelius’s “Meditations”.  If a listener is at a position in his or her life that allows meditation, this is a good place to start.