moved to google groups

i have created a google group to supercede this blog. i think an email list is a better format to encourage discussion.

it is invite only, so if you're interested, just let me know.

to my loyal fans

this blog will not be abandoned. i'm busy with other things right now, but i have some ideas on how to rouse you from your lazy, unthinking, existentialist stupors.

Nietzsche?

It's not that Nietzsche is that hard to understand. It's that he is that hard to accept. Which is similiar. But those who "accept" Nietzsche are often just monsters. No balance, I guess.

But how can I even start with someone who has not read Nietzsche, or who has misunderstood him, or who has "understood" him?

catastrophe

If the present rate of technological advance continues, we can expect a major human induced epidemic within the next 50 years, directly killing, lets say, 30% of the world population. The indirect lethality rate---from a massive economic collapse accompanying the epidemic---would likely make things much worse.  This will probably happen sooner if reports are correct about the Soviet Union having weaponized a particularly lethal strain of small pox. Within 100 years, it is plausible nuclear technology will be so advanced that the destruction of cities by nuclear weapons will be a commonly occurring nuisance, and within 200 years, it will be fairly easy to manufacture weapons capable of destroying the entire planet.

Of course, any near term catastrophe will have a substantial effect on the pace of technology, so the rest of the story could take longer to pan out.  Also, on a positive note, the creation of technology capable of destroying the planet will most likely be accompanied by a technology that makes energy production basically free, making space colonization far easier to accomplish. 

living for the moment

Is this my biggest obstacle in getting across? As long as people are comfortable, they will fall back on the simple formula of "living for the moment." From that perspective, all this philosophical seriousness and morbid talk of the future must seem odd and bordering on irrelevant.

Of course, in a state of suffering, we see the matter much differently. And when suffering is common in life, living for the moment is, quite often, just living for suffering. Which forces us to abandon the silly notion.

But as things stand, people are comfortable. And once that changes it will change, of course, for a reason, i.e., war, recession, environmental catastrophe. People will then suffer, but they will also no longer have the luxury of preparing for the future. When things are pleasant, we do not think of the future. Once things are unpleasant, we can no longer afford to.

Is human life really so stupid as an Aesop's fable? And how do you go about solving this problem?

might vs spirit

Not by might, not by power, but by my spirit.

--Zechariah 4:6

This is one of the ideas promoted by the JCC I recently joined, primarily for the gym facilities, in fact.  It is one of those insights that is so sharp that it almost inclines me to convert to Judaism.  Of course, I could not actually do that because, for among other reasons, it would require me to recuse myself from the study of a large part of philosophy, especially moral philosophy.

We are all familiar with that dangerous expression, "might makes right."  It is a particularly dangerous expression because it is so close to the truth.  The truth, however, is that raw power -- might -- isn't what makes right, it is staying power -- spirit.  The problem is that might often looks like right, because it is able, by definition, to force people to act as if it is so.  But might is only temporary, while spirit lasts.

nothing but a dream

Science and industry, and their progress, might turn out to be the most enduring thing in the modern world.  Perhaps any speculation about their coming collapse of science and industry is, for the present and for a long time to come, nothing but a dream; perhaps science and industry, having cause infinite misery in the process, will unite the world  -- I mean condense it into a single unit, though one in which peace is the last thing that will find a home.

Because science and industry do decide wars, or so it seems.

-- Ludwig Wittgenstein , Culture and Value, 63

Wittgenstein hoped that science and industry would collapse, yet he feared his hope might be "nothing but a dream."  I think of Wittgenstein as trying to solve the problem of culture and science by clearing up linguistic/philosophical confusions, saving humanistic culture, hoping to stave off or limit humanity's dangerous fascination with science and technology.  He saw civilization as something that had been infected, sickened by science and scientific thinking, and wished to effect a cure.

I believe he is right about science having "infected" humanity, but I do not believe this infection can be reversed.  Rather than getting rid of science and technology, I believe the best hope is in adapting culture to science and technology.  That means that the cores of our value systems must be founded on a more rational, scientific basis.  Only by doing this will culture be given the strength it needs to survive in a world increasingly dominated by science and technology.  The alternative is the collapse, not of science and technology, but of culture and humanity.