Nick Bostrom (Swedish philosopher at University of Oxford, author.)
Nick Bostrom explains the difference between A.I. potential and human brain limitation. With addition of sentient reasoning, Bostrom explains the incomprehensible leap beyond human brain capability with the advent of artificial intelligence.
Bostrom argues A.I. is approaching an information collection and processing capability with potential for sentient reasoning.
That leap can be viewed with fear and trembling as inferred by Bostrom or it might be seen as a next step in human evolution.
Bostrom’s concern revolves around human brain limitation in setting standards for A.I.’ programming.
Science is at a threshold of brain emulation where A.I. may assume the role of human thought and action.
A machine’s ability to recall billions of facts and historical precedence cannot be matched by the human brain. However, the significance of A.I.’s achievement is delimited by how it may be programmed to have moral, ethical, and normative standards that benefit humanity. The difficulty of that programing is humanity’s continual redefinition and lack of agreement on normative standards.
One may ask oneself how good a job has human evolution done in setting standards for humanity? Have authoritarians like Vladimir Putin, and Donald Trump benefited the world?
Bostrom notes two fundamental scenarios for human evolution. Both seem more a return to the past than to the future. Bostrom suggests A.I. will become either an oracle or sovereign leader of humanity. As an oracle, one is reminded of Athenian fealty to the Oracle of Delphi. As sovereign, one is reminded of Augustus Caesar, Caligula, Franklin Roosevelt, and Adolph Hitler. Humanity has survived all–both false predictions of the Oracle and atrocities of sovereigns.
Recreated Oracle of DelphiAugustus von Prima Porta (20-17 v. Chr.), aus der Villa Livia in Prima Porta, 1863.Caligula as Rome burned.FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT (1882-1945, 32ND PRES. OF U.S.,1933-1945)Adolph Hiter
It is unfair to suggest Bostrom is not revealing the difficulties accompanying the introduction of A.I. to humankind. The reality of advancing intelligence through machine learning far outstrips the ability of any singular past or present scientist, philosopher, or politician. One is intimidated by the shear complexity of programing A.I. and its potential for benefit and harm to humanity.
To understand humanities place in the world, human beings cannot agree on what is moral, amoral, equitable, or unfair in society.
How will input from human beings to an oracle or sovereign A.I. escape the imperfect nature of humankind? Added to that difficulty is A.I.’ potential to ignore the best interest of humanity in the interest of its own self-preservation.
Bostrom’s book is interesting, but he beats the idea of A.I.’s ascendance to death by delving into game theory. Bostrom notes the world’s race to create artificial intelligence has the potential of ignoring safeguards for A.I.’s growth and potential for world domination.
Though abandoning safeguards is quite true as evidenced by the Crispr revolution that opened Pandora’s box of genetic manipulation, evolution of species is a fundamental law of the world’s existence.
A.I. is a step in the evolution of species. Its consequence is unknown and cannot be known because it follows the randomness of genetic selection. Humanity needs to get over it and get on with it. A.I. will either be humanity’s savior or its doom.
Irvin D. Yalom (Author, Doctor of Medicine, professor of psychiatry at Stanford University.)
“When Nietzsche Wept” was published in 1992. The author Irvin Yalom is now 91 which implies his book was written in his late 50s.
To those who have struggled with understanding Fredrich Nietzsche, Yalom offers brilliant insight to Nietzschean philosophy in a novel set in the formative years of Freudian psychology.
As a psychiatrist by training, Yalom offers insight to the psychology of the male psyche while telling the story of a friendship between Nietzsche and a physician named Josef Breuer.
Interest in philosophy is not essential for appreciating Yalom’s creative mind in “When Nietzsche Wept”. Yalom intersperses historical fact in an imaginative story. Dr. Joseph Breuer is friends with a younger Austrian neurologist named Sigmund Freud. Freud is just beginning to develop his theory of psychological therapy through dialog. Freud’s therapeutic idea is to reveal causes for psychiatric abnormality by talking through the physical and emotional circumstances that lead to psychological imbalance.
Freud’s therapeutic idea is to reveal causes for psychiatric abnormality by talking through the physical and emotional circumstances that lead to psychological imbalance. To Breuer, Freud carries his concept too far by implying a homunculus inside the brain.
What makes Yalom’s story compelling is the opinion given by the author of “talking theory’s” value in psychotherapy. At the same time, Yalom exposes male chauvinism and its harmful societal consequence.
Joseph Breuer (1842-1925, a noted physician in neurophysiology, used the -talking cure- with “Anna O” that laid the foundation of psychoanalysis developed by his protege, Sigmund Freud.)
Josef Breuer is 40 years old. He is married to a beautiful woman. They have children together while Breuer becomes a well-established and renown physician. However, Yalum suggests Breuer is experiencing a mid-life crisis. In his practice, Breuer becomes emotionally attached to a young, beautiful patient who comes to him for treatment of physical discomfort and pain from an unknown cause. When an attack occurs, the patient exhibits pain that is only relieved by physical contact from her attending physician. That physical contact becomes inordinately intimate.
Breuer finds the contact sexually stimulating while clearly understanding it is professionally unacceptable. With his association with Freud, Breuer experiments with talking therapy to ameliorate the patient’s symptoms. He finds the therapy helps but it distorts his objective understanding of patient-doctor relationship.
Breuer begins to believe the patient is becoming emotionally attached to him when she is simply acting out psychologically. In defense against his falsely based infatuation, he assigns the patient to another physician.
In an acting-out psychological way, similar to Breuer’s mistaken perception with his former patient, he is approached by a beautiful 21-year-old woman, a stranger. She asks him to take on a new patient named Fredrich Nietzsche. She explains Nietzsche may commit suicide based on her acquaintance and subsequent rejection of his proposal of marriage. In a sense, Breuer is seduced by his imagination of the beautiful young woman’s approach to him. In fact, the young woman is only acting in accordance with her own agenda.
A listener begins to realize this is a Nietzschean view of the world of human relationship. Every human being has their own agenda. People act in their own self-interest, not in other’s interests. Human self-absorption distorts truth. God is not only dead, but He also never lived. All there is, is one’s will. To Nietzsche, one either becomes a superman or nothing.
Breuer takes Nietzsche as a patient but only on terms acceptable to Nietzsche. Breuer concocts an idea of offering Nietzsche the opportunity to treat Breuer for his mid-life crises. In return, Breuer offers his ministration as a physician. The sessions are based on the undisclosed self-interests of both, rather than the truth of each’s acceptance. What happens is Breuer’s mid-life crises is cured and Nietzsche’s weeping self-realization becomes the story.
This is an over-simplification of a well-crafted novel that has much to say about male egoism, psychotherapy, and inequality of the sexes; not to mention the terrifying implication of Nietzschean philosophy. There is much to unpack in Yalom’s spectacular story.
The Constitution of Knowledge (A Defense of Truth)
By Jonathan Rauch
Narrated by: Traber Burns
Jonathan Rauch (American author, journalist, freelance writer for The Economist and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.)
The structure of knowledge is the subject of Jonathan Rauch’s “…Constitution of Knowledge”. What may come as a surprise to some is Rauch’s argument that knowledge is a social construct, not an inviolable fact or truth. Knowledge grows from tests of society.
As Karl Popper, a highly respected philosopher of science noted, knowledge can only be found through pursuit of its falsification.
The fear that accompanies Rauch’s argument about knowledge, and Popper’s belief about science’s truth means a lie can be as influential as truth. The two greatest twenty first century examples are Trump and Vladimir Putin.
U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin shake hands as they hold a joint news conference after their meeting in Helsinki, Finland, July 16, 2018. REUTERS/Leonhard Foeger
All human beings lie. The problem is those with preeminent power use the lie to lead others to believe what society’s tests show to be false. The problem is distinguishing a lie from societal truth. A lie is never as evident as it is with Pinocchio’s nose.
Truths should not be based on a singular view of reality. Lies of leadership in recent history have led to tragic interventions by America, France and most recently, Russia in sovereign countries like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and today’s Ukraine.
Rauch both personalizes damage that lies have on individuals and society with his experience as a gay person and combatant against cancel culture, violence, sexism, and racism. Though Rauch’s explanation notes many examples of what is wrong with society, he ends with a degree of optimism about how one can deal with leadership’ lies.
Words matter but if they don’t lead to violence, they can be logically addressed by society and rejected for their distortion of perceived truth. Rauch is careful to explain truth is a perception, not a fact or necessarily a truth. As is shown by science, the human brain does not record facts but recreates events that fit a human’s perception of reality.
What is true is tested in Popper’s theory of facts that are tested by search for falsifiability.
If a tree falls in the forest and a tape recorder records the sound, one is tempted to believe a fact has been found. If that experiment is repeated many times by different people, the falling tree makes noise, whether a human is there or not, is likely to be true. However, it is a sound that remains a perception. The difference is it has been tested many times by society with the same result.
Cancel culture is when there is a public boycott of people or organizations because of an interest group’s belief. If a group’s belief is challenged by perceptions and experience of a broader society, cancel culture can be, at least, ameliorated.
Rauch shows himself to be a free speech believer. One presumes he endorses all free speech if it does not induce or insight violence. This is not to suggest words spoken or written are not harmful, but they are not physically injuring another.
Attacking a person physically for words spoken is reprehensible but attacking an idea is societies’ way of revealing the truth and acquiring knowledge.
After listening to Rauch’s explanation of what knowledge is and how it is acquired, one wishes a signal could be sent when one is knowingly lying, e.g., something like Pinocchio’s nose.
John Kaag, (Author, Professor of Philosophy at UMass Lowell)
John Kaag’s view of romantic love seems slightly askew when taken in the context of his two books, published two years apart. “American Philosophy” is published in 2016 while “Hiking with Nietzsche” is published in 2018. Having listened to both, one finds “Hiking with Nietzsche” belies the conclusion of romantic love characterized in “American Philosophy”.
In “American Philosophy, Kaag professes understanding the harm done to romantic love by male self-absorption and then ignores that realization in “Hiking with Nietzsche”.
Kaag’s male self-absorption is flaunted in “Hiking with Nietzsche”. Kaag seems quite dismissive of his second wife in his “Hiking…” adventure.
Kaag seems mostly in love with himself and his pursuit of philosophy.
Kaag becomes an organizer of a library of first editions for the Hocking family. The descendants wish to donate the volumes to a library of their choosing but the contents must be organized for appraisal purposes.
Kaag ensconces himself in Hocking’s library of 10,000 books with many philosophical “first edition” writings.
The story of “American Philosophy” is about the life and times of William Ernest Hocking and his 400-acre estate in New Hampshire.
William Ernest Hocking (1873-1966, American idealist philosopher.).
400 Acre Hocking Estate in New Hampshire
Kaag accepts the task. The library becomes a refuge from his first marriage which ends in divorce. As Kaag reviews the philosophies of greater and lesser philosophers like Emerson, Royce, Kant, and Hocking, he reflects on his failed marriage. He concludes his failure is self-inflicted.
As Kaag begins cataloging the 10,000 volumes, he is joined by a fellow philosopher (who becomes his 2nd wife) from a university for which they teach.
Hocking library on the 400 Acre Estate.
What Kaag realizes is philosophy looks to the supernatural and, in its pursuit, romantic love suffers. Kaag exhibits eating, sleeping, and drinking disorders that reflect a self-absorption that damages romantic love. This is an ironic realization because it seems Kaag celebrates romantic love but cannot partake of it.
Society treats women as less equal than men. Oddly, Kaag shows understanding without behavioral modification. This seems societies’ tragic flaw.
Women are the equal of men, but society does not treat them equally. The consequence is the loss of romantic love and women’s rightful place in society. The resurrection of the Taliban in Afghanistan, Putin’s militancy, Middle Eastern, Eastern, and Western society show the likelihood of change seems remote, if not unlikely.
Some argue Kaag’s book is a celebration of romantic love, but it is not. Kaag’s story is about male societies’ inability to overcome the history of misogyny. The implication is when women are treated as equal, society will change. Reviewing Kaag’s two books suggests the world is not ready.
David Auerbach (Author, software engineer, writer for various publications.)
David Auerbach wishes not to be categorized. However, Auerbach is an author, ivy league graduate, computer geek, software coder, gamer, philosopher, and more. The point is categorization does not explain the real Auerbach. Auerbach offers a wide-ranging conception of what is real and not real in the world.
Auerbach criticizes categorization because it is fictive. His example is the wrong-headed categorization of sexuality. What social or cultural value can come from such categorization? Auerbach notes at one point Facebook insists users identify their sexual predilection from a list of hundreds of categories.
Auerbach pursues the concept of what is real in “Bitwise”. He fails to clearly define real but identifies what real is not. Real is not simply what the mind’s eye beholds and it is not the mathematics of reproducible experiment. There is a concreteness to real in Auerbach’s belief. However, real remains a mystery because it is to be revealed in a future not yet written.
To Auerbach, real lies somewhere within the triptych of human’ thought, mind, and language.
Auerbach’s philosophical argument for real is partly supported by the evolution of scientific understanding of the world. Newton discovered a partial truth about the physics of moving bodies. Einstein expanded Newton’s partial truth with a more comprehensive understanding of space and time. Einstein’s truth is changing with the discovery of quantum mechanics. All of these discoveries came from the interplay of human’ thought, mind, and language. This triptych gives concreteness to what is real.
SIR ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)ALBERT EINSTEIN (1879-1955)
Auerbach questions the advance of software algorithms as a method for finding truth about what is real. An algorithm is only a tool of human’ thought, mind, and language. Auerbach infers there may be a time when a computer becomes more human with the ability to define reality but not until they are more than algorithmic machines. That, of course, raises many more questions.
An algorithm is a set of calculations meant to define reality or conduct problem solving operations when in fact they neither define reality nor solve anything.
A revelation one has from Auerbach’s “Bitwise” is that gamers have become important to a younger generation because algorithms offer insight to the concreteness of existence. One can experiment with life’s outcomes without consequence in the real world.
Auerbach gives the example of a gamers use of a nuclear war game to show how world diplomacy decisions lead to world conflagration. Early versions are refined but remain blunt predictive instruments that only mimic human’ thought, mind, and language.
In his early career, Auerbach’s software experience comes from working with Microsoft. He suggests the stewardship of Balmer diminished Microsoft’s innovative history. Auerbach leaves Microsoft to join Google. He finds Google to be a more cutting-edge software developer by recognizing the value of data gathering and mining.
“Bitwise” is a clarion call to the public. Big Brother is here. It has the face of Google and the power of a nation-state.
The near future is dependent on software coding. The long future is dependent on human’ thought, mind, and language.
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 LockeJean 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”.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
REVIEWS AND VIEWS OF LIFE 