Pragmatism as a Principle

Disclosure: I'm operating here within the current political framework, not within the "anti-ideology" stance. Thus, any normative suggestions some may pick up in this article are not being subjected to "objective" (or at least "meta") scrutiny.
Also, I just spent some time perusing through the current proposed immigration bill - "interesting" stuff. And this is probably my shortest post in a while. Not as much time to write.

I just want to very briefly mention something regarding some events going on in politics. With the frequent partisan debate in Washington D.C., I'm finding it troubling that there are some that are being accused of not upholding their values for compromising and being pragmatic. Why can't pragmatism (lower case "p") be a value just like any other value? This particular value - like other values - must itself be reconciled with any scenario of perceived conflict  But the fact that pragmatism within one's value system may need to be reconciled is not a reason to ditch it. Freedom and Security have been be pinned as "values" within the same system that can at times come into perceived conflict. Yet we learn to reconcile the two.

Indeed, if people look at other value systems as "wrong", then compromise while upholding one's values would seem impossible. But if part of one's value system is recognizing the distinction between "different" and "wrong", then perhaps there is room to maneuver.

A how-to guide on reconciling different values within a system is a whole discussion; and one that needs more exploration. I'd wager that Isaiah Berlin and the notion of value pluralism would have much to contribute to the discussion.

Questions as to universal values in relation to political values (whether one would like to call them synonymous or not) is another question that needs to be explored.

In short, this is a very complicated topic. But I think for the good of the country it would be appropriate if we didn't imply or accuse people who just try to be "reasonable" (in a more Rawlsian sense) as violators of their own value systems. In the meantime, pundits and politicians should just argue on the actual actions; ad hominem suggestions are getting old.

Edit/Update from a day later. Just watched this youtube video that came across realclearpolitics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=lnW9Ah4ha4U
- It's Rubio discussing the immigration bill he's supporting. Look at the top comment so far, which is a response to a comment about compromise that you have to click on to "show" because "this comment has received too many negative votes"...See what I mean, folks? This is what really frustrates me. Oh, and a general lack of empathy is also a problem in my book.

Top Comments

• 
  Paula Marouk 5 hours ago

  This comment has received too many negative votes 

  There has to be some compromise people or nothing is accomplished.

   · 
•  
  stevemccollum2011 4 hours ago

  NO Compromise is needed, arrest all illegals, arrest anyone who hires illegals, seal the border and fire EVERY RINO/CINO who votes for this

   · 6  in reply to Paula Marouk

On the Tension between the Political Office and the Politician; and an Inquiry into "Luck"

Ok. So basically there have been these two things I've drafted a long time ago that I never put down on paper and fleshed out. I told myself that one of these days I would, but never got around to it. But I came across an interesting quote that put me over the edge. I just started reading Daniel Dennett's Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking at the start of the section "Making Mistakes" he quotes Feynman:

If you've made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the arguments look good. We must publish both kinds of results.

And while he isn't talking to someone like myself who is just shooting the breeze with these random ideas, the quote in context of Dennett's section made me think that seeing the raw thought process is interesting. At times the fleshed out argument is perhaps what is logical after the fact upon reflection. While in one's stream of consciousness getting from A to B might not have happened in a logical fashion, the process of rewriting and editing creates those logical steps which the initial brainstorm does not process through. (And the very words I write at this moment can be meta-analyzed...in an infinite regression...) My blog posts here are more so stream of thought than well-thought out, logically valid and sound ideas. But these two posts are definitely on the farthest end of not well thought out. And if I were to edit them now, I'd have a lot of more things to say and qualify. Not that I'm still saying anything profound (this stuff is, after all, more food for thought than anything else), but would probably make more (albeit initial) sense to a larger audience.

Anyway, so here are thoughts I had. The first one I wrote sometime in January of 2013, and revisited perhaps once or twice. Very basic stuff. It was largely in response to watching congressional hearings all kinds of political videos. I think I was frustrated by media portrayals (on both sides) of the candidates and figures in general.

The second one I wrote July 5th 2011. I wrote it and made the basic accompanying graphs while lying in bed one random summer night.

Different, to say the least.

Rock on,
Joe

-----Here's the first one I wrote down this past January-ish 2013 (note at the start I am not calling the respective candidates either adjective, but rather I am trying to illustrate a point...I am mouthing the words and sentiments of pundits on T.V. for much of it...IN NO WAY what I think is the appropriate position)-----

Obama Messiah, Romney devil…perception out of whack on two fronts:

A) not as crazy as it  sounds..sensational

B) latching onto Obama or the respective candidate as the source of the ideology…the millions of people backing an ideology and thus elect a candidate…and people will just attack the candidate. "Obama is wrecking the country"…it's not Obama himself...

We hold politicians to such a pedestal…they are regular people! Can you imagine?Actual, regular, people!

Yes - Obama represents more than just himself, and undeniably that's what people are perhaps meaning to attack…but then we shouldn't confuse ourselves by thinking you are attacking the person! It's unhealthy and the source of way too much angst in the country. If you understand what you are really against, you wouldn't be so angry, and a bit more understanding.

We give meaning and lots of stuff to things that inherently do not have any particular meaning. Like a date, for example - there's nothing inherent about the day. We happen to call it July 4th and we happen to associate certain things with it.

But in protesting american independence if someone were to say "I hate the date july fourth", without recognizing that it's not the date they hate but what is behind it….that's where the issue arises.

Note - I'm quite the patriot - this example was the craziest one that shows what I mean.

But in all fairness - presidents play into the trap…but its their job to represent more than themselves. Is it expecting too much for the people in turn to understand that it's not the person but the office?

There seems to be a tension here between the office, the person, and the American populous' perception.

-----And here is the second one I wrote down July 5th 2011 with the diagrams at the bottom-----

I've thought about this for some time... Finally putting down on paper. Running with ___ [name withheld] at 730am tomorrow instead of 7am, gives more time to work now :)

Anyway, so basically the idea is that we cannot deny the effect luck has on our lives. There are so many outside factors that are uncontrollable. Despite this, we maintain a sense of control. How? We are able to tip the scales into our favor. So if things go exactly 50% in our favor, any action, theoretically would tip the scales to our desired outcome. But no such thing would, I assume, occur, and we do not have any practical knowledge of the chances. But let's say it's 49% going our way, we can make the difference. Undoubtedly certain outside influences effect more than others - but if we were to quantify the sum luckiness and unluckiness, we could determine how a person's actions would affect an outcome. Also, what exactly is considered lucky or a positive outcome is very subjective. In some scenarios more is required (let's say, in 46%-54% unlucky to lucky) in some less (49% unlucky to 51% lucky) But then where is the percentage points for our actions? Where do they weight in on the scales? If one were to act as a robot, the chances would stay as they are.

I made Pie Charts A-D. In each one Outside-Favorable has 100 outcome weighted points, and Outside-Unfavorable has 90 points (optimistic). See "Outcome A", things still work out. However, the more control over our lives, the better shot of influencing them. "Our own" in the key of the pie chart has a "*" because it can go either way. Also, because even "our own" can be debated as outside influences affecting (some say even controlling) which would again, just contribute "outcome points" to either outside-favorable or outside-unfavorable.

In addition, as time goes on more and more things become less and less dependent on luck. For example, whether or not you hit or miss a particular baseball pitch is more dependent on luck the less times you have. After a while, an average kicks in. A lot of factors influence the there and now decision, and over time they tend to flesh out more averagely. And THAT is where we have most impact. It's paradoxical. On one hand chance is more "fair" 50-50 farther on we go in outcomes, but that is where we can make the most impact because our decisions can tip the scales. The paradox lies in the blurrly line between the chance of an outcome now, as a factor of luck and your decision, and the chances it happens given the fact that over the course of a lot of years things have balanced out and then inherently gave a kind of inertia to more even things.

Entropy tends towards chaos, and lucky vs unlucky tends in the bellcurve towards 50-50. But the things that will tip the scales are one's that have a long-lasting impact, however small. 

In a similar fashion our own personal choices have an inertial of their own, and making more of them enlarges their impact and thus over time as the unfavorable versus favorable tend to 50-50, your choices tend to a greater share of the pie (as seen from outcome A-D).

Just as thought as to why so many things seem random yet in the end our decisions can have a huge impact on the path of our lives.

No doubt, this is a theoretical model and there are various big time events that can throw things off. But just my thoughts as of now.

Anyway, I want to get some sleep now, so I can create that intertia and make a difference. A lot of ideas to iron out, especially this notion of outcomes over time, but nonetheless, it's a start.

Peace,

Joe

Ideology, Humility, and Paradigm Shifts

Introduction

I thought I'd give a little update since the previous post on ideology. Since then I've made some progress in The Idea of Justice, by Amartya Sen. About half way through. I have no particular points to address, but it was definitely comforting to see the various approaches that Sen presents.

Since writing the post, I have become even more sensitive to the rampant ideological fervor. I'm a big fan of reading the news on news.google.com and watching the videos on realclearpolitics.com. I've found that I can get all the different perspectives on the issues (though regrettably, knowing both sides of the story does not mean it adds up to the 'right' picture). Some of the perspectives, to put it quite bluntly, I think are in need a bit of a reality check. More specifically, they need some humility.

I've probably watched a few thousand videos on the web that involve some sort of argument when the respective parties seek to defend/attack a side. Presumably, when pundits are on the air arguing, let's say, about the issue of gun-control, they are not just debating for the sake of debating, they are trying to show the side that they think is 'correct'. Through all the arguing what does not come across is the chance that the particular person may actually be wrong. How can we all be so sure of ourselves?

Humility in Washington D.C.

For the republican/democratic issues in Congress, the respective sides do not just include those in Washington D.C. It includes academics who have spent their lives studying the issues, and arguably more importantly, millions of people across the country with a countless variety of experiences. I'm quite baffled at how a person can be so sure of his/herself in face of these numbers. Sure, that person equally has as much support behind him/her, but that in no way provides enough overwhelming support to ensure the "rightness" of any position.

We must have humility in the public political discourse.

The first step to achieving this humility is recognizing that there may not be a particular "right" course of action, but rather, the right action is the one that most affectively achieves the particular good. So it's whether a fiscally-conservative approach is the right choice over a more "Keynesian" approach, but which goods we seek to promote. As I wrote in that September senior year paper:

I came to the conclusion that the answer to whether Reaganomics is good or bad depends on what one sees as the goal of a country’s economic policy. Should a government’s goal be to enlarge the total wealth of its country, independent of whether or not the wealth is divided fairly (that would be Reaganomics – and what Adam Smith argues for, too); or should a government aim to split the wealth more evenly?

The debate still goes on, but it takes a different form. It's not "I'm right" and "you're wrong", but rather two different sides recognizing that each will achieve separate things, and the question should be which of those to strive for.

Even still, this first step is not enough. In arguing about the ends we seek to promote, we should understand that we are operating from a certain paradigm that might not be correct.

Paradigm Shifts and Science

We're all familiar with paradigm shifts. For a moment let us think specifically in regards to science. What are the chances that in 'n' number of years we have a paradigm shift that changes the way we see the world? Personally, I would say the chances are pretty high. There are still many questions about the world and the fact that science still strives for answers is further support. Imagine a person who looked out at the stars two thousand years ago. What did he/she think? Probably not the same thing that we think.

A counterpoint to the question posed is that if we are to say "n" number of years there will be a shift, does that mean that we'll have a shift "n" years after that? (Namely, a shift at time 2n). And does that not further lead to another shift "n" years later (to 3n…and to an infinite amount of paradigm shift)?

I think intuitively, however, we seem to be zeroing in on the truth. Or, for those calculus fans out there - that we are converging, and not diverging.

It's all fine to say that we are converging on the true paradigm, but we haven't gotten there yet. (Again, if we have, the we'd have all the answers). There is a possibility, however, that humans cannot possibly have the mental capacity to comprehend it all. Regardless, the point is that in this year 2013, and probably for the foreseeable future, we should realize that the way we see the world is likely due for some sort of shift. A thousand years ago people thought the world was flat, we now know that is not the case. In the hypothetical case that civilization in around in a million years from now - can we say for certain that none of our paradigms will be overturned?

Despite this, I am not advocating that we treat reality like an illusion. You could rightly call me a loony if I started proposing that the laws of physics as we know it are actually manifestations of the will of the World Demon. We should rather assume the current position, but just hold it with some humility; we may not be 100% correct. It's the attitude in the approach that matters.

The Church should have been more humble; doing so would have perhaps reduced the harsh treatment Galileo and many other scientific heros received. But such wrongs committed are not limited to the past millennia. And they surely aren't limited to religious institutions or political pundits as I discussed earlier. I'm going to quote a big chunk from a news article about the Chemistry Noble Prize Winner, Dan Shechtman (link - http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/jan/06/dan-shechtman-nobel-prize-chemistry-interview):

Shechtman's results were so out of the ordinary that, even after he had checked his findings several times, it took two years for his work to get published in a peer-reviewed journal. Once it appeared, he says, "all hell broke loose".
Many scientists thought that Shechtman had not been careful enough in his experiments and that he had simply made a mistake. "The bad reaction was the head of my laboratory, who came to my office one day and, smiling sheepishly, put a book on x-ray diffraction on my desk and said, 'Danny, please read this book and you will understand that what you are saying cannot be.' And I told him, you know, I don't need to read this book, I teach at the Technion, and I know this book, and I'm telling you my material is not in the book.
"He came back a couple of days later and said to me, 'Danny, you are a disgrace to my group. I cannot be with you in the same group.' So I left the group and found another group that adopted a scientific orphan."
He says that the experience was not as traumatic as it sounded. Scientists around the world had quickly replicated Shechtman's discovery and, in 1992, the International Union of Crystallography accepted that quasi-periodic materials must exist and altered its definition of what a crystal is from "a substance in which the constituent atoms, molecules or ions are packed in a regularly ordered, repeating three-dimensional pattern" to the broader "any solid having an essentially discrete diffraction diagram".
That should have been the end of the story were it not for Linus Pauling, a two-time Nobel laureate, once for chemistry and a second time for peace. Shechtman explains that at a science conference in front of an audience of hundreds Pauling claimed, "Danny Shechtman is talking nonsense, there are no quasi-crystals, just quasi-scientists."

Understandably, for every Shechtman, there are hundreds others without noble prizes. Nonetheless, we should treat all of them with the respect a person deserves in understanding that we, too, may be wrong, we don't have a monopoly on truth.

Political pundits should recognize the fragility of our paradigms (or at least that they are likely not [yet] 100% perfect).

There is no question that we should still have debates and arguments. Debating is great and healthy! Argumentation and debate is a foundational element of American democracy. But debating really becomes useful when it comes with humility and respect. Only then can we properly advocate for what we deem to be the 'best' (not 100% correct) view. Additionally, the humble standpoint will allow for further self-introspection for us to re-evaluate our own positions and to rid that 'ego' that sometimes can get in the way.

Bringing it Back to Ideology and Categories

So again, let us be humble. Do we really think that our 'square' ideological views of the world fit into this complicated world? Ideology allows us to simplify and we carefully use them - as a variety of particularized models driven from the bottom up -- as they can come in handy for certain purposes.

I'm a sucker for those popular behavioral economic type of books. They give me a fresh perspective, and overturn previous assumptions. But sometimes I feel they are a bit oversimplified. They often will cite study after study to support their position, but do so in the face of great complexity. I started a book called Thinking, Fast and Slow by the Nobel Prize winning economist Daniel Kahneman. He seems to be a very good dude, and he does make note that it's not like we have two distinct systems in the brain called "System 1" and "System 2". But still, to what extent could studies show that we think along certain lines? The answer may not be on a horizontal axis, nor likely on a vertical and horizontal plane, but perhaps along a third dimensional aspect. I'd still recommend the book (I admit: I put it down - though I intend to finish it - I had just a bit too much behavioral economic reading and needed a break. :-) ). The studies are very interesting and they shed much light onto how humans work, but I'd be surprised if the end result could be anything but rather complex. I could surely be wrong, and this is by no means in any way saying something negative about Kahenman.

Let me use an analogy to illustrate:
In life that there are marbles scattered in motion on a table. There are marbles of all different colors, shapes, and sizes. We all try to use a method to pick all them up. People first try taking a regular cup to encircle the marbles…but they miss a bunch of marbles. Others try engineering an advanced cup, but alas, some moving marbles are missed. Some people develop a complicated magnet that sucks up the marbles…but only the marbles with trace amounts of iron are collected. Another even more sophisticated magnet sucks up R,O,Y,G,B,V colors, but they miss the spectrum of colors in between (see my first post on categorical buckets - http://www.arelativereality.blogspot.com/2010/02/intro-to-politics.html)

Both systems of ideologies and categories are useful, but we should recognize that they are (likely) not perfect. The world is ever-changing. Old assumptions get uprooted and new one's take their place. Let us recognize this.

Yes, for me

So yes, of course even for me, I cannot be sure that this approach is 100% correct. There is always a degree of doubt - even the very words that I write at this moment. (Let us not get into any self-referential loop...and for those who have read Douglas Hofstadter's Metamagical Themas will especially appreciate that sentence :-) )

A major reason why I am comfortable to write and propose these ideas - whether on this blog or my fitness blog is because I present it under the understanding that there will always be room for disagreement. The link of this blog "arelativereality.blogspot.com" is in recognition of this, as is the subtitle "Random thoughts by someone living in a relative reality". Further, the flavor of my writing is rather "dialectic" (in a Kierkegaardian sense) in that I often show what it's "not", rather than what it actually "is". And yea, I admit - that's a lot easier to do, too :)

Let us engage in respectful discourse. Let us argue for ideas that we hold to be 'best'. But let us do it with humility and due respect.

On Ideology in Health, Governance, and Beyond

Introduction

A lot of ideas are on backorder (have some jotted down), but I didn't want to let this particular one slide away. I very briefly ran this basic idea by a professor today and he suggested I look into "The Idea of Justice" by Amartya Sen - I ordered the book and look forward to reading it. In the meantime, I figured to write up some of my thoughts. The ideas I hope to share are undoubtedly incomplete, but at the very least getting this on 'e-paper' will hopefully be an enjoyable experience (and perhaps for anyone reading it as well).

I've had a few questions fermenting the past couple of years regarding ideology and its effectiveness- specifically in the fitness and politics sphere.

There are very experienced and knowledgable people in the political/economic realm that espouse a certain ideology, and you have equally qualified people espousing the opposite side. Take the conservatives vs. liberals; we've seen the story play out throughout history. This isn't just limited to the political sphere. In fitness world you can have people who hold the vegan diet to be the healthiest and equally qualified professionals saying people should eat in accordance with the paleodiet.

My question has been two-fold: How and why does this happen? Can anything be done to get around this?

While I don't think I have the answer, I think that we should step back and try to look at ideology for what it is. And hopefully, in the end, create an open and respectful forum where we can put our common set of beliefs on the table and work towards implementing the appropriate steps in light of the common goals we seek to achieve. 

With Regard to Fitness

I first would like to quote a part of my fitness/health blog. I was discussing the question of the various diets out there and the conjecture in the fitness field:

http://blog.trainerjb.com/2012/08/new-data-on-cr-diet-no-one-size-fits-all.html

"Each diet does something different. There are thousands of metabolic processes going on at each moment, and each one of those processes is in turn affected by how we eat. As nutritional science progresses, what is "the best" diet might be more of a question of what exactly are you looking to gain, and what you are willing to sacrifice…I think this kind of approach could apply to a lot of different fields in life where there is a lot of contention (politics, for one) but I won't bore you with any of that for now."

(Now's the time to "bore you" :))

The same applies to various training ideologies within the fitness sphere. There are all kinds of different training regimens out there. Even if we were to be able to figure out exactly how a particular training regimen affects a particular person and to which varying degrees, the question of what the goals are remains. High intensity training will affect certain things to varying degrees in a different way than volume based training will. What are we really trying to promote? "Best" in that case is a question of what you are trying to attain (again, all assuming science gets us that far), and one based on overlapping effects (that in turn affect other things…).

And yes, this similarly can be seen in governance.

With Regard to Governance

A few observations I'd like to make regarding an ideology related to governance:

- Ideologies (at least the way they are commonly 'used') are applied to justify/guide various actions in all different kinds of scenarios. That's not to say "X" politician gets up and says "we should do this because of my ideology", but I think we'd be naive to think that there isn't an ideology behind X when X says "let's lower taxes" or "let's increase government expenditures". This, however, just prima fascia seems to be a bit of a brazen approach for politicians to have. Can we really expect a particular ideology to fit an ever-changing society in all different circumstances?

- Further, trying to isolate the variables to prove which particular ideology is "better" is extraordinarily difficult (assuming we can agree what "better" would even look like). Different forms of governance affects many different things in varying degrees (even more so than like in fitness). 

I wrote a research report in September of senior year on Reaganomics. In my concluding remarks I mentioned that in the end, judging the efficacy of a particular theory is difficult. In writing this post I dug it up from the archives. Talk about a blast from the past! "First, in the type of globalized economy that the United States is part of today, there are far too many outside factors that affect the growth of a particular nation (other nations’ growth, wars, etc.) – supposed economic indicators such as GDP growth are not too helpful, since it is nearly impossible to isolate factors and determine what the cause really was (i.e., the president’s policy, or another nation’s actions). Another problem arising when analyzing the outcomes of a policy and one that is especially pertinent to Reagan’s time period, is the question: “did it help the economy recover from the recession?” No one can give a verifiable answer. President Obama claims that he will save “millions of jobs”, the assertion, however, cannot be affirmed; at the end of the current recession, no matter how many jobs will be lost or gained, we can never know how many jobs would have been there without Obama’s particular policies."

Looking at Washington and A Possible Method

In regard to the actual situation in Washington D.C. - 

What we currently get in the U.S. government is no one particular pure ideology, but a mixture of primarily two and its resulting gridlock. Keeping an open mind about the imperfect nature of ideologies could perhaps lend a certain level of respectable discourse in the political realm. The debates right now revolve around which ideology is right. It instead should revolve around: what are the empirical facts as we currently understand? What kind of society do we wish to promote? How do we do we promote such a society based on the existing facts?  What conclusions make sense without coming from an ideological perspective?

So what should we do? Take the example of the post office. Instead of debating something like that with the backdrop of ideology (big vs. small government), let's look at the facts and see its current standing in consideration of the revolution of communication. Let's than look at how it fits in within our mutual understandings of the goods of society. We then can see whether it needs to be reformed or possibly even removed given the evidence of how to best achieve our mutual goals. 

A More Reasonable and Moderate Approach

Taking this case by case approach to governance can be quite difficult, and possibly impossible at times.

This notion is also prey to the fact that empirical research is undoubtedly incomplete; and perhaps we even still need ideology is some forms. But here we should distinguish between empirical research and just looking at the world through an empirical lens. The former is complicated and incomplete, and the latter is a holistic approach that will allow for more commonality in understanding. We should first look at the world empirically, evaluate our numerous beliefs, and outline the goals we would like to pursue.

From there we should abstract flexible ideologies to help us, acknowledging that there are different ideologies based on people's individual experiences in life, and that there (for all intents and purposes) is no perfect ideology found. We should respectfully engage in discourse based on the facts, and based on the goods we seek to promote. The result is not one particular clean ideology of how the governance fits with the world, but several different ideas of how particular things work (based on this flexible abstraction of ideals) in different circumstances. It's not about having one overarching idea of how the world works. So someone who thinks that in one particular case we should have a more involved role in government education in a particular public policy should feel just as comfortable in believing the government should have a more limited role in something like a policy on health care.

(By the way, I think we are starting to see this in some cases room for flexibility. Take the question of the multiplier effect for deficit reduction and spending. I was reading about how this tool is tweaked in different ways by economists to take into account GDP and other economic metrics. But even this is still crude. Cutting and spending on different things in the context of various global-political shifts can cause different results.)

Elections should be based, then, not on the party a voter fits into, but the particular goals a person seeks to achieve within the context of the person's particular value and belief system. No one person fits into a box, let alone a country a 300+ million people from all different backgrounds. Let us not treat our box-shaped ideologies as if they can actually fit.

A "Perfect" Ideology?

But even as science and economics gets better, we still get to the question: which of our goals are actually better for society? That, however, is a far better discussion than the current one that falls back on imperfect ideologies on how governance and policies work. I say "imperfect" as I'd be surprised if one of the two main political ideologies presented in modern political American discourse happened to be the best possible.

And here is the difference between health and governance ideologies. In fitness/health it is easier to study and isolate variables. Experimentation is easier, the empirical evidence more quantifiable, and the goals a bit clearer. With governance, however, we can't really risk experimenting with a government dealing with millions of lives, and the goals of governance are all but decided upon (you would think our founding documents would be enough!).

Are we then lost to find the perfect guiding ideology? 

"Perfect" is used not as in the one that solves all problems, but as in one that is best suited to promote the goods/goals decided upon. With that said, it may be the case that "there exists A ideology such that A is the best ideology through which to govern" - but if we are to arrive at A, it must first be through looking at the world empirically, evaluating the values and beliefs that we hold, build goals that we wish to achieve, and abstract a governing ideology that takes into account our ever-changing and complex world.

It's not that people won't disagree - after all, people hold different sets of values (even after evaluation). But at least we can see those values for what they are in the current discourse in recognition of our varied life experiences, without being tethered to particular ideology.  

Not Just Health/Fitness/Governance

I believe this applies to many of the polarizing ideologies out there in the world. Why? The world is so complex, almost infinitely so. Humans have occupied this earth for such a short period of time - who knows what discoveries and paradigm shifts we go through in the future. If we are to hold one ideology it is this - let us be humble and honest with ourselves and let us be respectful with others.

Being "Smart": The Toolbox Analogy and Franklin's Pragmatism

Preface: It's been a long time, and truthfully, I figured I'd take a few minutes to put out this quick thought. And  though I've held this idea for years, I thought it useful to put it down on 'paper',

The word 'smart' is thrown around quite a lot. Smart: Acute, adept, brainy, bright, brilliant, clever, genius, good, intelligent, keen, on the ball, sharp, shrewd, whiz, wise. What really does it mean?

An analogy will help elucidate where I'm coming from. Think of a person's degree of smartness as a tools as a function of how they solve/fix problems. The more tools you have in the toolbox, the better your chances that when you encounter life's many challenges, you will have the correct or best-fit solution. But, one must know how to use the tools. It's great if a person has a shed filled with thousands of high tech gadgets, but if a person does not know how to use them,  it contains little relevance to life. You might have a person with few tools, but know hows to use those tools really well that the particular person is more able to solve issues.

We often hear "street-smarts versus book-smarts". Street-smarts is knowing how to use the tools and book-smarts is the number of tools a person has.

Someone may know a lot of let us say, biology, but how is that person applying the knowledge to every day life? When a person has a problem, how effectively can s/he utilize there storehouse of knowledge?

Sadly, is learning often compartmentalized into classic institutional educational systems. That is to say that when a person learns a particular fact that goes into the 'need to know for school' bins in a person's mind, rather than 'important to know because either A) it may one day come in handy B) it develops new connections in the brain that leads to creativity and new ideas C) Any other particular reason the person may have at the moment. But if a person cannot come up with a reason except that which is for the strict purpose of a GPA or grad school, one must reevaluate their position in the institution.

Benjamin Franklin was a pioneer of pragmatism - knowledge was useful insofar as it produced practical gains in society. What tends to occur in modern day institutions is we don't see the relevance in the material for practical purposes and it gets stored away and we end up with a shed full of tools. These stowed-away tools is coupled with not only a lack of understanding of how to use the tools, but with no realization that it should be used.

Final point, and my most important: Smartness is acquired. Yes, some people may seem to be at a disadvantage, but what it comes down to is the acquiring of ideas with the experiences of an open-minded approach to life that teaches you how to use them. There is no one 'smart gene'. So though a particular person may not have a so called genetic-disposition to the acquiring of history facts, if the person has the allows his/herself to make connections, if the person dedicates his/herself to rigorous study (for a purpose!) then a seemingly genetic handicap can be overcome. Look no further than 5'3" basketball star Muggsy Bogues.

Once one truly works on those pathways in the brains, the remarkable plasticity in the brain will show that there's no real genetic disposition to being smart, and if there is, it's irrelevant. What's important is what you do with it in life.

Life is too short to let it go by without giving back to world. It is our duty as human beings on this earth to make the most of our brains, and through that the most of life, regardless of the particular code our DNA may have.

Morality, Ethics, and the Separation between Church and State

The idea of separation between church and state has always been a major issue in politics. Wikipedia: “According to recent surveys, 83 percent of Americans claim to belong to a religious denomination, 40 percent claim to attend services nearly every week or more, and 58 percent claim to pray at least weekly. A majority of Americans report that religion plays a "very important" role in their lives...”  What does that mean for the separation between church and state? The staunch opposition to abortion has in the past been substantiated by the notion that life begins at conception. But the question is: from where is that viewpoint being derived – from religion or from reason? And can the two be reconciled in the political arena?

The first defense of having religion in politics is this: Religion, as a belief system, is no different from any other belief system. Not many would argue a separation between Church and State when it comes to someone whose policies is formed around, let’s say, Aristotle.  Whether it is someone’s classification as being Aristotelian, Atheist, or Protestant, there is no difference. Just because some belief system is qualified as religious, it should not prohibit the particular religion from being expressed in politics. Ah, but this line of argument does not hold water for one important reason; religion in most cases includes some sort of authoritative figure. It is this which separates a set of beliefs from religion. I will come back to this idea of an authoritative figure later in the post.

The role of separation of church and state really only comes into effect regarding moral and ethical dilemmas, like the aforementioned question of abortion. But I think if we take a step back, we will realize that we don’t strictly derive our morals from religion. When it comes down to it, we play the part in imposing our interpretations on the Bible, Qur’an, etc. All people must interpret the text in some way, even the Sadducees who famously took the Bible literally, still have to interpret, for example “an eye for an eye”. What does that mean? Does it mean takes someone’s eye out who took out yours? Let’s say if you just injured the eye? Let’s say?...Translation by its very nature involves some sort of interpretation. Interpretation of what the text is trying to say is necessary. The question: “What is the text trying to tell us?” is in its nature a question of interpretation.

There is no religion without interpretation.

So if it is really our interpretation that counts, where are these moral and ethical answers to questions on topics like abortion/stem cell research derived? They can be derived from three things.

First, certain evolutionary biologists might argue that morality comes from a certain innate feeling built into human DNA (that gut reaction human beings have to cold-blooded murder) - why? In order that society can survive, natural selection would favor the genes of a race in which order can be maintained. An instinctive sense of what is right would most definitely help humans (or their precursors) evolve. It can also come into play when analyzing religious texts.  For example, if we were to look at the story in Exodus, when Moses kills the Egyptian hitting the Israelite, one might ask: was that the right course of action? Our innate sense of right and wrong can come into play when answering this question.

The second thing is the socio-political environment in which one finds oneself.  An example to this would be the question of polygamy. It is a question whose answer is largely derived from the environment in which one finds oneself. It is up to the individual to interpret the religious text in his/her sense of morality. A part of one’s sense of right and wrong is derived from society. And as a side note, this has proved to be convenient throughout history. Religion provides a justification for the moral values one already possesses. It reinforces the values and in certain circles can keep order. One can admonish the rebels in society by pointing to the text, thereby keeping status quo (whether for good or for bad).

The first two ways to derive morality from religious texts (evolution, society) does not actually involve the particular text, it is merely a reflection of the person and society; does that remove the authoritative element of religious texts? It depends. This brings me to the third place morality can be derived – tradition and its system of interpretation. If you hold by a tradition of interpretation, then there are three ways morals are derived, not just the former two ways. And being that nothing in life is black and white, but a spectrum, many people fall somewhere in between.

The Old Testament, for example, represented a revolutionary break from the past system of morality. The treatment called for slaves was very humane. This system of interpretation is what is passed down via tradition. Without this orthodox approach to religion, we are left to the first two ideas of where morality comes from, and consequently, with only two ways to interpret the religious texts. Whether orthodoxy or the more liberal sects of religion is better, is a question whose answer would fill up bookshelves. But just one point – a major factor that causes the condemnation of ultra-orthodox factions is their lack of acceptance of the social and political climate in which they live. They maintain just one side of the interpretive coin (that being tradition) and as a consequence live in a bubble. This is a shame. (Though the one good thing is that ensure that this one particular side of the coin never gets lost.)

So just to reiterate a really important point – there are three parts to interpretation of religious texts from which morality can derived. The first involves evolutionary biology, the second involves society, and the third involves traditions passed down, which at times can maintain a sense of objectivity. There is a saying among certain Orthodox teachers of the Bible: “The Bible was spoken in the language of man” – calling for the necessity of all three ways to interpret the Bible. Others disagree and maintain that the first two are only  necessary. Again, that particular discussion for another time.


What I am getting at is that it is more important who is interpreting the text than what is being interpreted. Many point to the Qur’an as the source of Islamic Fundamentalism. I think history has clearly shown that it has not always been that way and there are plenty of modern day Islamic worshipers who are opposed to fundamentalism. A little though experiment – have Protestants and fundamentalist Muslims switch religious texts for a while. The Protestants will simply reinterpret the Qur’an to make it fit their normal lifestyle and the Fundamentalist Muslims will take the Bible and justify Jihad anyhow.

Many religions have their sour moment in history. The Spanish Inquisition is not one of the kindest moments of Christian history, and not many would say that the sentiment felt by Christians in the 15th Century is felt today. It is not the Bible that has changed in the last 500+ years, but society. Society has evolved, and so has the interpretation of the text.  Also, the fact that not every Church-going Catholic will agree on a set of ethics means that it is not the text that is informing the decision, but the interpretation.

 So, if one’s morality is chiefly a reflection of oneself, one’s society, and one’s tradition, when does separation between church and state actually come to play? Tradition is not a factor regarding church and state, because when one includes tradition, it must necessarily include the other two ways of interpreting (or one ends up living in a bubble) – therefore, in totality, it maintains its individualistic interpretive quality due to its symbiotic relation with the other two modes of interpreting.

The answer lies in diction. It is separation between church and state, not ‘Bible’. What we want is not a separation between Bible/religious text and state (for that is fine, as it is simply a person’s relative interpretation), but between the religious institution and the state. The religious authorities and institutions are the ones who we need to have separated from politics. When America elects someone, they aren’t electing that person’s Pope/Rabbi/Caliph/etc.

In a historical context, this makes perfect sense. America’s founders were (by and large) religious men.  “In God we trust”, “One nation under God:”…but despite this we have a separation of Church and state (though to be fair, they might not have anticipated the growth of Atheism).  A Judeo-Christian Law system is fine, as long as it is not the religious authorities who are interpreting it. It is fine if the religious values are the reflection of the individual, but once one takes the position of an authority and brings that into the state, then problems arise. For then the Pope/Rabbi/Caliph is running the state, and not the elected representative. What would become of an American system of democracy if an elected president then turned to a religious authority for his/her interpretation? The state is on the road to a theocracy (and possibly like Hayek’s book title, Road to Serfdom). Look at Iran. Case and point.

Since our interpretive quality to the text is inevitable, separation between bible and state is fine. In fact, the major difference in the values derived from the Qur’an, Bible, and other religious texts is by those who interpret it. The fact that there are still many Muslims who live in modern society proves that it is not the text/religion, but the fundamentalist people that are waging war. For the fundamentalists, the religion acts as a justification for their hatred towards the west. Any other text could have been used.

Religion can be a great thing, it can be used for good, but it can be used for evil. It is up to our generation to make the best out of it in the political arena and in all aspects of life.

Dreams, Human Potential, and the Progress of Civilization

So about a week ago I had a fairly heated conversation with a few guys. The basic argument was about whether anyone can get into the NFL. I was of the opinion that yes, it is possible (though for some the window of opportunity may have passed due to age; some may have to start young). Everyone else claimed that no, some people just have the inherit ability, and some don’t.

Now, I’m not going to restate all the points I made; I’m not looking to talk about that now. But the reason why I’m mentioning this conversation is because after the argument transpired, I was pretty frustrated. No, it was not because of anything in particular that was said; but I was upset because of the opposing’s viewpoint from which the argument was made.

What I mean by that is this: the conversation wasn’t an argument about the NFL in particular, but about the potential of the human being.  It seemed to me that the opposing viewpoint was taking the easy way out by saying ‘No, it’s just not possible; I can’t’. Why in society should the default be “I can’t”?

I think the “I can’t” default of our society stems from two things which each complement each other.  The first is the underrated capabilities of the human being. The second is the repression of dreams in our culture.

It seems that many people throw away their dreams because they just don’t think it’s possible. Now, that would be valid except for the fact that I’m not talking about dreams that defy the laws of physics. I’m talking about the dreams to be the President of the U.S.A; to play in the NFL; to climb Mount Everest. Even something as simple as running a marathon – it’s amazing how many people that I’ve talked to think that they would never be able to run a marathon. It just took a little bit of common sense arguments to convince them that it is far easier than many think!

A person growing up out of the boundaries of society is free to dream without reproach; no one will tell him/her that the dream is impossible. But in Western Civilization, society at large under appreciates the human potential and in turn, represses the human spirit. How deplorable that part of maturity is seen to include the relinquishing of childhood dreams.

It’s great to dream, but how many of those who dream take the first step towards its realization, and despite shaky ground, resist the temptation to turn back? It is better to dream and fail than never dream at all. And I’d even go so far as to say that it’s better to have never dreamt at all than to have dreamed but never tried – ignorance, some say, is bliss.

Many people don’t attempt to attain their dreams because western society looks down upon (unintended) failure. But failure is how humans learn! At times people are afraid to dream; getting a glimpse at greatness that one is already convinced is impossible to attain will just cause anguish.

And even if one does give it his/her all, and despite that, ‘fails’, it is important to note that It is not about the destination, but the journey.  The most important thing is to go after one’s dream.  Life has so many twists and turns – but as long as we do our best to fulfill that dreams, we can live peacefully with no regrets.

What can be observed in society is this sort of caste system; someone is born into the lower class and never attempts to get out because society frowns upon the dreamer, frowns upon the one who dares to do ‘too much’. Then we have those who attempt but do not attain the goal, and society knits their brow as if to say “what a waste”. The only real waste is of human potential due to this attitude.

Now, there are those who dream, but never attempt to fulfill the dream because they recognize the sacrifice is too great. Ok, I can buy that argument. As long as the person recognizes the possibility.

No worries, I have not forgotten talk to about an idea so fundamental to American culture, that of The American Dream. Why does it seem to be that when we picture a story of the American Dream, we often think of the immigrant? I think the answer sheds some light onto our culture. Many of these immigrants came to America with this notion of the American Dream. They traveled on ships from all over the world, sometimes taking weeks or months, holding on to this light at the end of the tunnel. Thus, upon arrival in Ellis Island, they didn’t let the “I can’t” of society tell them different. And on a different note, the immigrant pool is self-selective. The ones who immigrated were the ones who were willing to make a major sacrifice in the name of a dream – the American Dream.

What we need is a rekindling of the American spirit, of the American Dream, of Horatio Alger's novels – the American pulling him/herself up by his/her bootstraps.

Every day neuroscience is making amazing discoveries onto how the brain functions and just how powerful it is. A book came out a while ago called “The Brain that Changes Itself” – showing the plasticity of the human mind. We need to understand our amazing potential; we need the default to be “I can”.

The same way entrepreneurial spirit is vital to capitalist society, the dreamer is vital to the advancement of society as a whole. The human race capable of so much progress. Imagine the advances that would be made in science, philosophy, physics, fitness, etc. – if only we tried to fulfill our potential.

I was talking to a friend and he brought up an interesting point – from an evolutionary standpoint, we were made to take the path of least resistance. A good example I like to use is that of water (got the idea from the bit I learned about Taoism in freshman year history class) – release water and it will follow the easiest, least complicated, more often traveled path; something Robert Frost in a Road Not Taken argues strictly against. I can understand the Taoist idea, for after all, natural selection in the wilderness would most likely favor the one who can take the easy way out. But as Frost says, we must fight this inclination, and take the road less taken.

Dreams are the seeds in which hard work and determination water the plant into a blossoming fruit tree (and I say specifically a fruit tree because the fruit continually gives back to the laborer). Society (and by society here I mean the institutions who contribute to the socialization of citizens) can either help by adding nutrients to the water, or hurt by poisoning the water; it seems to be the latter is winning out – causing many to give up nurturing the plant at all.

I’ll  close on a few main points:

-One of greatest crimes of humanity is to sell it short.

- If people put their mind to something, the possibilities are endless.

-As children, how much did we dream? How much did we give up as we ‘matured’ as proper citizens of western society – where dreams are just dreams and to pursue them is a waste? 

-Dreams aren’t just meant to be dreamt. Dreams are a means to the greater ends of pursuing them and fulfilling them.

-The only dreams that are realized are by those who dared to fulfill them.

Communitarianism vs. Rawlsian Liberalism - An attempt at reconciliation

Ok, so the argument I'm going to look at here I think is best exemplified by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/communitarianism/#DebOveSel):

"Communitarian thinkers in the 1980s such as Michael Sandel and Charles Taylor argued that Rawlsian liberalism rests on an overly individualistic conception of the self. Whereas Rawls argues that we have a supreme interest in shaping, pursuing, and revising our own life-plans, he neglects the fact that our selves tend to be defined or constituted by various communal attachments (e.g., ties to the family or to a religious tradition) so close to us that they can only be set aside at great cost, if at all. This insight led to the view that politics should not be concerned solely with securing the conditions for individuals to exercise their powers of autonomous choice, as we also need to sustain and promote the social attachments crucial to our sense of well-being and respect, many of which have been involuntarily picked up during the course of our upbringing."

I was reading a book called Justice, by Sandel, and I was torn between my gut instinct to say we are all individuals, not tied to anything with the communitarian idea that we are what we inherited. We love to inherit all the good things from our parents/ancestors (money, high status, connections, etc.) then how can we eschew the bad ones if one's ancestor, let's say, was a slave owner? Are we responsible for what our forefathers did in centuries ago? Are present day Germans responsible for what some of their grandparents may have done to Jews?

Now, I will begin to argue the merits of Rawlsian liberalism versus Communitarianism. Because quite frankly, all I know about these political philosophies comes from a few articles and a couple of books. Might point is to reconcile the two idea and show that they can coexist (in a way).

I could probably say it in a very convoluted matter (which is usually much easier than saying it simply), but in light of an article I read Lucidity, Simplicity, Euphony by Somerset Maugham, I will try to say it as simply as possible.

Communitarianism, that being the assumption of one's 'Personal Narrative' - that you inherit your history, your family and religious tradition, etc. - you are essentially "Storytelling beings" (as MacIntyre puts it) cannot be imposed on a person by some government or other party. The party, in the name of Rawlsian Liberalism, must respect a person's individuality in relation to other parties.

Meaning, when one interacts with another one, one must respect and treat one as an individual, not in a communitarian fashion. But, when that particular person chooses to act, the person must look at him/herself as a communitarian, that you really do inherit certain narratives.

In order to respect people's full rights, as Rawls' argues, people must look at other people as individuals. But when that person reflects upon themselves, they must understand that they are indeed storytelling beings.

Communitarian ideology pervades one's relation to his/herself. Rawls' liberal theory of individuality must govern how we treat each other - as independent and free people.