Liberal democracy

I was asked "How does companies like Monsanto, Bayer, big oil, etc. fit into the picture of liberal democracy?  There is nothing democratic about the reach of their power and their influence over our society. "

One thing that got me interested in human governance is the contradictions we live with, that we espouse democracy but yet we don't always practise it. Liberal democracy is a great example of a contradictory system. And what caught my attention is that the world is contradictory by nature and would not function  well without it. As the ancient Greek philosopher Hericlitus observed, you do away with contradiction you do away with reality. Hegel also understood this and followed with his dialectic.  What is significant to me is that liberal democracy captures and harnesses this contradiction so that it acts in a positive way, and be as mutually beneficial and inclusive as possible. But this contradiction invariable brings with it flaws and perversions.

Human nature is inherently flawed and perverse. The flawed part goes without saying but the perverse aspect is not so easily understood. By perverse I mean the irony of things, like we do the wrong thing for the right reason or most often learn by doing the wrong thing first and then doing the right thing after. In a sense we learn by doing the opposite or in a backwards fashion. It's the same thing with liberal democracy. But liberal democracy doesn't deny its existence or tries to abolish it like authoritarian regimes have tried (in attempts to create utopian societies) but tempers and contains it in order that it work for the betterment of the whole.  

Hegel talked about keeping things alive and awake, preventing them from atrophying. Liberal democracy is a governing system based on two philosophies, materialism and idealism ( authoritarianism is unipolar), liberal being the material part and democracy the ideal. They are two ideas about how people should be governed.  They clash. But they clash in a positive way. Together they constitute the DNA or the double helix of human governance. They challenge each other in order to stay alive and awake so that they don't atrophy. This does not make for a perfect system but for a working system  because of the networking and  feedback system it employs. This networking helps people keep in touch and communicating, thus enhancing the deliberative process of democracy. 

The corporate world is the liberal part of liberal /democracy. Liberal also stands for 'capitalism', which the corporate world is part of. In many respects it does not act democratically because of  its entrenched self-interests. But perversely and ironically it keeps the democracy aspect of liberal/democracy alive and awake, as does democracy in turn keep the liberal aspect from completely taking over. Each aspect keeps the other from going overboard and completely dominating the system or our lives. The corporate world also gives democracy something to work with. It introduces issues of democratic importance that would otherwise not be raised. But most import, it keeps things churning so that the system does not succumb to entropy and collapse like communism did. The relationship is all about renewal and rejuvenation, through the antagonism each directs at the other.

Democracy was never given to us on a silver platter. It has had to be fought for and won, mostly by material means. The  material, liberal aspect  has helped us gain and keep it. But it is like a tug-of-war. And it's always a balancing act to preserve the gains. The corporate, capitalist world acts in a selfish manner and does things that gets the ire of democrats. But without this irritant democracy would most like languish and atrophy. Corporatism also brings a discipline to the proceedings that democracy would not likely have on its own.

Ironically corporatism and big companies has helped entrench democracy. They have developed many of the communication tools that have expanded democracy, like newspapers, television, movies and computers. They have expanded work forces all over the world thus empowering people by helping them with material gains and thus giving them a voice in the community. (We can see this happening in China, as happened in South Korea and Taiwan) Corporations have expanded people's choices and therefore democratic rights. They have helped break down social barriers towards employing women, gays and minorities, which has translated into broader social changes. 

Corporations haven't done any of this out of the goodness of their hearts but for pragmatic reasons, that it's good for business and the bottom line. And this highlights the perverseness of the democratic process, that you need  selfish, undemocratic institutions in order to rightfully gain and entrench democratic principles. For instance, the end of segregation in America would not have occurred if African-Americans were not first employed by corporations. The material gains they received from corporations empower and embolden them to demand equal rights. From this legislation followed, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Democracy is always a work in progress and capitalism is one of the perverse mechanisms that keeps it proceeding and progressing.

Complacency

The Economist wrote an article about 2014 being the hundredth anniversary of the outbreak of WWI. Its main conclusion was that the war was a result of a complacency that festered in Europe, mainly the complacent attitude among politicians and business leaders that the commercial ties that existed between Britain and Germany were grounds enough to stave off war. Who would want to go to war and endanger all that money making? was the prevailing consensus. But this complacency blinded leaders to the many underlying issues that weren't being addressed and causing major riffs between nations and societies. Yet, European leaders continued to think to the end that the extensive business and commercial ties between Britain and Germany would prevent war, and if there was a war it would be a short one. How wrong they were.

Complacency is the scourge of Civilization. Nevertheless, it continues to occur. It naturally occurrence in societies that believe they have arrived and made it, thinking they have accomplished everything that can be accomplished and have triumphed over humankind’s major problems. Complacency takes things for granted. It is a form of arrogance and naivety. It engenders a false and dangerous optimism. It’s a corruptive force. A stagnation transpires as a result of it, which is why Civilization abhors it. It’s a death knell. It leads to unfortunate circumstances as the world saw in 1914.

The Economist sees signs of a parallel complacency in the world today, similar to the one that caused the first world war. It believes that world leaders are entertaining complacency in the same way, thinking that the geopolitical frictions that exist in the world today will never lead to a major conflict or a world war because of how interdepend and connected the world has become through business. 

But the world today is very different from the one that existed before WWI broke out. It is much more complex and sophisticated than it was back then. There is much more going on and far more agitating forces occurring, leaving far less chance for the type of complacency to develop that set of WWI. The atmosphere before WWI was more rigid, clubby and deferential, and the reins of power more tightly held, creating an atmosphere that was vastly more conducive and ripe for complacency than it is today. Today we have far more diversity and vested interests competing and grating against each other so that if any complacency does set in it is soon an issue. It’s a far more fluctuating, corrosive world today, thus making it very difficult for complacency to gel or last for long. Moreover, because of history, entities work harder to avoid complacency because they know from experience that it is a spoiler. 

Civilization abhors complacency. But even though complacency still rears it head Civilization has developed better means of keeping it at bay so that we don't find ourselves in a WWI situation. The atmosphere today is far different from what it was before the first world war. The tools to combat complacency back then were  weak or didn't even exist as they do today. Even though there was a globalization prior to WWI it wasn’t anything like the robust, competitive force it is today. It was a more stayed world back then and it wasn’t so easy to displace the complacency that set in among the nations and businesses of the world. Today the world is of such relenting change in its politics and economics that entertaining any idea of complacency is done at ones peril. The relentless stream of social and business forces that continue to batter away in this world leaves little room for complacency to settle in for long.   

Before WWI the world was a more unjust place than it is today. Even with all its faults, there is far more justice and recourse for injustices today than there ever was back then. The injustices that existed back then were like a complacency because they were mostly ignored by the centers of power. Back then there was very little talk of human rights and no global institutions like the UN to help enforce them. There was definitely more of a class system and discrimination around the world then as we’ve seen in the blockbuster television series "Downton Abby", where the class structure was par for the course. Downton Abby exuded complacency. But some of  the characters in the show understood that the complacency was not sustainable and that things had to change if they were to survive and continue.

One reason why Civilization abhors complacency is because it leads to stagnation and entropy. At the beginning of the twentieth century and prior to WWI that’s what happen to Britain and its Empire. Britain believed and took it for granted that the sun would never set on its Empire, that it could just sit back and live off its achievements. The same thing happened to the Soviet Union and communism. Communism as a governing system eventually collapse because it also believed itself absolute and didn’t make any effort to change or improve, while the world around it was moving on. What ended the glory of those two former powers was the complacent notion that they had reached an end point in human progress and represented the ultimate in human governance.

A similar complacency almost brought down capitalism with the financial crises of 2008 and during the Great Depression. Arguably, a factor that led to the 2008 crises was the complacency that set in after it triumphed over communism as the world’s dominant economic system. With that victory over communism capitalism felt invisible, believing it could do no wrong. As a result the practitioners of capitalism took risks and gambles that caused untold damage. But why it didn’t collapse as did its form rival, communism, is because there was something unique about. It’s capitalism’s paradoxical nature, which the economist Joseph Schumpeter defined as “creative destruction”, that kept it afloat. Though this contradiction is what almost did it in, as Marx thought it would, it is also what saved it. Capitalism’s paradoxical nature is not only destructive but it also develops the mechanisms and resources to rebuild. This is what makes capitalism the exception to the rule, that even though it falls into complacency it also has the wherewithal to jolt itself out of it,  to combat the inevitability of complacency and its destructive forces. In contrast, communism’s singular nature didn’t have the inner challenges or alternatives to rebuild itself. This is why capitalism survives, because of of its ability to overcome its own complacency and renew itself.

It is also past history  and the lessons we’ve learned that makes the world less complacent than it once was. Today we have deterrents to complacency, especially when it comes to world wars. As The Economist pointed out, the existence of a nuclear weapons - the ultimate weapon, may very well be the deterrent to world wars. The nations of the world  can no longer afford to be saber rattlers as they once were because of the threat that hangs over their heads - the likelihood that if the world was to go to war today of being completely annihilated by the nuclear weapons that are in the hands of many. 

And that is probably the best way to combat complacency, having things in the hands of many, through diversity and broad participation. In diversity there is a lot of activity and agitation, keeping things alive and awake, preventing things from atrophying  and falling into complacency.    

The end of peace.

Margaret MacMillan, author of the block buster book Paris 1919, came out with a new book, The War That Ended Peace. It Is about the first world war that ended the peace that had endured through most of the nineteenth century and into the beginning of the twentieth century. However, I'm wondering how peaceful were things if it ended in a world war? 

One of McMillan's arguments is that WWI was not necessarily inevitable, that it didn't have to happen. Well, I don't think it was a random event or an accident. It happened for a reason. The world, especially Europe, had reached a tipping point centered around issues that nations were incapable of addressing in a peaceful or political manner. As a result unresolved tensions had built up. The result was a violent confrontation between nations and societies, like that of tectonic plates crashing into each other, releasing tension, eventually causing a seismic event. 

Wars are made up of underlying currents like the weather, with a number of hidden factors converging into a major event. One of the main factors converging that initiated WWI was the old order in Europe that resisted change and wouldn't or couldn't reform, such as on issues of imperialism, patriarchal hierarchies, political nepotism, and economic disparities, some of the many stubborn intransigencies that wouldn't budge without force. The political will to change was not there. There was also an ingrained indifference and detachment among world leaders that needed upending. I believe there was a hidden tinderbox of factors that led to the war that haven't been properly examined. For instance, global politics was still in its infancy and poorly connected, perpetuating an order whose attitude and ability was not oriented to or keeping up with changing world events. In other words, because Europe and the rest of the world was still so politically immature, the inevitability was war.

I remember the same argument made about The Cold War, that it wasn't inevitable and could have been avoided. Again, I find that naive, for if it hadn't been a Cold War it certainly would have been a hot one, as some had tried to make it. Its political tension was a learning and discovery period for the world, a time of establishing a mutual world order on how it would eventually be governed. It was a cold war and not a hot one because of the lessons that had been learnt from the previous two world wars, that such wars are too catastrophic and untenable. Those wars not only helped forge the political skills of today but act as deterrents to future wars.

These stages in Civilization are development ones. The world has developed and progress through conflicts. Wars and conflicts are irrational but the world has rarely progressed through rational means. One of the rational exceptions was the creation of the United Nations and the world's participation in it. But that too was only after the fact of the world acting irrationally in two world wars.

When I think of war and politics I think of the idea that politics is war by other means. Politics is certainly preferable to wars. Politics can get mean and nasty but it doesn't take lives or draw blood like wars do. But wars occur because of an absence of meaningful political engagement. Such a void in meaningful and engaging politics, I argue, is what ushered in and  permitted the first world war to occur. If the political engagement that transpired during The Cold War had been practiced prior to the first world war I don't believe it would have occurred. Engaging in politics connects people while engaging in war divides them.

The world has not completely rid itself of wars. There are still regional wars like those we see in the Middle East and in particular Syria. A major reason for these conflicts is that the region has not yet sufficiently matured for the modern world or developed the political gravitas or networks to prevent wars, like has developed in many other parts of the world. 

MacMillan is right, the first world war wasn't inevitable, by todays standards. But the world then was less sophisticated and less aware of itself. Today the world tries harder to deter wars through political, diplomatic means such as occurred recently with Syria in ridding it of chemical weapons in a peaceful manner rather than bombing into submission like some hawks wanted. 

Recently I was reminded of something Winston Churchill said that is relevant here, “To jaw, jaw is always better than war, war”. He said that in 1954, addressing the growing adversarial relationship between the Soviet Union and the United States. I think his words were influential in getting the United States to engage the Soviet Union in politics and detente rather than go to war with it, which at the time was a great possibility.

"A picture is worth a thousand words."

I have given myself a challenge to write a thousand words  or more on the picture I displayed above. Nothing like a challenge to get one motivated. However, I am a bit apprehensive about coming up with a thousand words to describe a picture. 

The picture was taken early in the morning, Wednesday morning to be precise, November 6, 2013, about 6am. But it is hard to tell what time of day it is by the lighting, since it is artificial lighting. The lighting is from halogen bulbs. There are two such bulbs shining on this particular scene. At this time of year, when it is cooler, the heat generated by those bulbs is not felt as much as it is during the hot, humid summer months. I have also incorporated  some LED bulbs into the mix of lighting I have on the set.  But at times I find the light they give off too harsh and daylighty. LED bulbs, though, are quite cool to the touch in comparison to ordinary bulbs. They use far less electricity, up to 80% less. Some of the LED bulbs I have tried give off a very cool blue sort of light that can give a picture taken under them a very eerie, spooky look. 

Some of you must be wondering where this picture is and where it was taken. It is a picture of my train set, N scale, started by yours truly more than 35 years ago in the basement of the house where I live. It is located in the old coal room. The photograph was taken by a little black digital camera made by Canon. The photo was enhanced a bit on my computer. These small digital cameras have made such picture taking possible. They get right up close and personal, in your face, so to speak. The technology is amazing since one can be more inventive and less discriminating with what one takes with them because they cost so little to use. Years ago I used to think it would be great to have a tiny camera to follow the train around, as though I was walking around the set myself. Well, that day has come, where you can get right down and personal with your subject, without a lot of equipment or the expense of developing a lot of prints that you might not want. Because of what I have saved on picture taking I have more money to spend on other things, like more equipment for my train.

One of the things that is most noticeable in the picture is the railroad viaduct to the right hand side. It is one of the first things I built. For some reason I like viaducts. They are large and impressive. It probably has something to do with my interest in architecture. The side of the viaduct was built of tiny bricks cut from lengths of balsa wood, cut into tiny rectangles to resemble bricks. The bricks were glued onto a thin masonite surface with small gaps between them so that a mortar could be pored between them. The mortar I used was Polyfilla from a tube, a compound I just pushed between the cracks. The weathered and gray look you see on the side of the viaduct I accomplished with a blowtorch, just passing the flame lightly and quickly over the surface so as not to burn the balsa wood to much. The compound filler I used had an alcohol base that gave a nice burn to the surface, just like a brandy set alight on a Christmas pudding would do. The rocks you see behind the viaduct are pieces of a smashed-up concrete block. The little stones you also see in the background, in the middle and to the far right of the photo, is kitty litter, which my cat thought was for his used and thus proceeded to use it.

There appears to be an added layer on top of the viaduct. That is true. It happened like that because I raised the hight of the track. The added hight gave me more flexibility, to add an additional layer of track. There are three depths of tracks on my set. What you see in the photograph is about two and a half  layers. 

You may notice the color of the locomotive and the rolling stock behind it. They are orange with gray tops. That is the colors of the Union Pacific railroad, one of the largest American railroads. All my locomotives are of the Union Pacific order. I have wondered why. Why did I pick Union Pacific? I am thinking I liked the color orange.  By the way, I notice that orange has been a big color in haute couture and fashion this year, from orange handbags to sunglass frames to shoes, and dresses.

The picture doesn’t fully show it but my model train layout is ringed by mountains. I obviously like mountains. I was inspire by the landscape of Switzerland, which I visited the year before I started building my layout. I was really taken by the contrast between the railways and mountains in Switzerland, the contrast being much like that between civilization and nature.  My mountains are made from plaster applied on screening, the material that is used to make window screens. To form them I stapled the screen to contoured wood forms that I fastened to the super structure. I often bulked up the mountains by stuffing the inside of the screening with newspaper. Before the plaster was completely dry I would shape it a bit by denting it. And after it was try I would carve it with a chisel as though it was excavated by machinery. To color the mountains and give them a weathered look I used a combination of paints from water based ones to oil based ones. They say that oil and water don’t mix. Nevertheless, they produce and interesting visual effect when they are forced to mix. On my first train layout I construct the mountains out of paper mache. 

What else can I say about the picture? Well, it sure looks inviting.  I just want to jump into it and wonder around in it, because it looks so real.  

The vegetation on the layout is lichen. It gives quite a realistic effect of plant growth, don’t you think? (At this point I have reached just over a thousand words. It wasn’t as hard as I thought.) 

  

"A picture is worth a thousand words." 

I was thinking of putting that axiom to the test. Maybe someday.

    

In defence of the corporation.

I admire corporations. So I sometimes come to their defence when they are attacked by errant thinking. This is my latest effort in their defence, in response to another blog writer who finds them despicable and a corrupting influence:

Corporations are monsters. But they are a necessary evil. I think even Lincoln (referred to by the other blogger), who saw them as a troubling development, would appreciate that in this day and age. Why? Because they have had a role in ending segregation between the races and empowering women and minorities throughout the land, thus enhancing democracy, albeit in a perverse way. Corporations have given citizens the venue to engage each other on a mass scale so as create the social networks that moderate and sustain society. If Egypt and Syria had these social networks in place there would not exist the troubles that are there today.

The legislations that have passed in America to protect workers and minority right's were not founded or incubated in government. No! They were founded in the hurly burly of the corporate workplace and among the people corporations employ. In contrast, small family businesses would not have had the capacity to transcend and surmount the social intransigencies that corporations and big business have been able to do. For instance, if it wasn't for corporations the gay right's issues would surely not have come to the forefront or gained traction if gays hadn't been first employed by pragmatic corporations that value them as employees and for their work ethic.

Martin Luther King

January 18 is Martin Luther King Day in the US. I am sure it was this observance that prompted an admirer to write that Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968) is perhaps the greatest philosopher of our time.

I never thought of Martin Luther King as a philosopher but I guess he is, even those he is not listed in any philosophy dictionary as such. Nevertheless, his philosophy transformed America, and as a result, the world. His philosophy was aimed at ending segregation and racism in America, and improving human rights. To paraphrase Bertrand Russell, circumstances determined Kings philosophy and in turn his philosophy determined circumstances. He is what is known as an operational philosopher, an advocate who put his philosophy/beliefs to work, a philosopher who walked the talk, so to speak. Other operational philosophers who advocated and advanced the human condition are Freud (psychoanalysis) and Benjamin Spock (child rearing).

It was probably the Supreme Court’s 1954 decision to desegregate all schools in America that provoked King to do battle against segregation and racism. No matter how influential and unanimous (9-0) that Court ruling was, on its own it had little power to improve race relations in America. It was a start. But many jurisdictions, mostly in the south, ignored and fought that ruling. And there still existed a cultural stubbornness and a lack of will in the country that had to be addressed before the old folkways on race would change. As an abstraction the Court’s dictate was insufficient to change cultural attitudes and behavior. True social change would have to come from beneath, in a more tangible form, not through court rulings, but through peaceful activism and the process of appealing to people’s better instincts and sense of universal justice. It was the mechanism of King’s philosophical conviction and diligence about America doing right by its people, and not the law per se, that started to turn things around and began transforming America racial relations for the better.

But would his philosophy have resonated as well in another time as it did in the 1950-60s? Would people have listened to his message 20 years earlier, before WWII? My feeling is that earlier, America wouldn’t have been so receptive to his call for social and racial justice because they were preoccupied with other issues, like surviving and just making a living. But the era of the 1950-60s was different. His message was in tune with the time, which was more affluent, thinking about the future and wanted change. His philosophical outlook alined itself perfectly with the demographics and the sociopolitical sensibilities of the day.

What made his philosophy especially poignant and powerful was not just that he was a great orator but that the world was ready for it. Prior to King the world was engrossed in other issues, like economic recovery and wars. Furthermore, the technology to distribute his grievous message did not exist yet. It was television that created the mass audience that made the difference. Without television I don't thing enough people would have visualized or appreciated what King was talking about, that race relations in America were scandalous. The people who counted and could make a difference saw on television, for the first time, the injustices perpetrated in the southern US, of Americans attacking other Americans. People were horrified and motivated by what they saw on TV, scenes of racial injustice and brutality, and demanded reform. King's speeches on TV gave it all the more impact and urgency.

The world at the time of King was changing dramatically. Human rights had come to the forefront because of what happened during WWII and the Holocaust. People had become more aware of the ill treatment many people around the world were receiving, because of the growth of information and communications, such as from television. King was central to the issue and the point man in changing attitudes towards race in America, changes that would eventually resonate around the world.

Issue 75 of Philosophy Now was about existentialism, a philosophy that centers on the individual and the human condition. It came to prominence after WWII as a reaction to authoritarianism from despots like Hitler. Under Hitler many individuals were grossly maltreated. Jews and others were stripped of their personal dignity and put in concentration camps, either as slave labor or to be executed. The ideals and purpose of existentialism was to empower people, to build self-esteem and create an army of independent minded thinkers and activists that would challenge and fight authoritarianism in order that no government or ethnic group would ever strip others of human dignity. King emerged on this wave of existentialism that was sweeping the world. He helped put existential ideals about human dignity and civil rights into practice like no other individual before.


What gave King’s call for racial equality further traction was the generation he was speaking to. This generation was the so-called baby boom generation, whose mass numbers began emerging at the close of WWII, in the second half of the 1940s. After the war the birth rate shot up dramatically as soldiers returned from the front and as the world began to feel more optimistic. It was a generation like no other, in numbers and sensibilities. As Leonard Steinhorn wrote in his book, the Greater Generation: In Defense Of The Baby Boomer Legacy, it was a generation that was not blindly going to accept the status quo set by the previous generation, of social intolerance and unquestionable deference to authority. This generation of boomers was in sync and exceptionally empathetic with Martin Luther King’s fight for social justice. It was a generation determined to hold America to its founding ideals of equality for all under the law. Without this reforms-minded generation King’s philosophy may have fallen on deaf ears and not led to the social transformation America needed, if was going to be the exceptional nation it trumpeted itself to be.

King’s influence was also felt in the fact that he drew attention to America’s Achilles heel at a very critical time in its history. During the Cold War, America, touting its democratic values and superiority, was in competition with its rival communism for the hearts and minds of the world as to which was the more ideal form of governance. America had to show the world that it was truly the land of justice and opportunity for all, as advertised. But King, in drawing attention to its social inequality, embarrassed America in its propaganda war with communism. King's pursuit for racial justice and equality for all forced America to reexamine itself and work to end its segregationist policies against African-Americans if it hoped to win the propaganda war against communism.

For America King was a savior. At the time it was a country sitting on a tinderbox of race relations. This too points to him as being the man of the hour. A significant portion of America’s population felt alienated in their own country because of their color. What heighten tensions more is that many African-American’s had become more educated and conscious of the injustices perpetrated against them. They wanted the same rights that were accorded their white counterparts. Other African-Americans who had recently returned home from wars, defending America and democracy in WWII and Korea, expected equality and recognition for their contributions. These people wanted their due rights as citizens, especially if they were expected to help defend and build the nation. Although there were race riots during King’s tenure, his peaceful marches for equal justice for all Americans and the awareness he raised, helped defuse a situation that potentially could have gotten worse and ripped the country apart even further.

King's philosophical legacy empowered millions of people economically and politically. He also fought for workers rights. His fight for emancipation provoked legislation that gave the vote to millions of African-Americans, who, because of their race, had been deliberately denied that right. Because of his efforts the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was pasted, one of the greatest pieces of legislation in history. Perhaps King's greatest political legacy is the election of America's first black president, Barack Obama, which couldn’t have occurred if it wasn’t for the struggle he waged.

Machiavelli wrote: “The human tragedy is that circumstances change, but man does not.” We humans still don’t like change. But if Americans had not heeded King’s advocacy for social change in order to combat racial discrimination that would have been a real tragedy.

Egypt and Democracy

Egypt has no hope of becoming a democratic society without secularism, where people of all stripes and beliefs have a hope of being treated equally. The chances of secularism (which also includes the separation and sharing of power) taking hold there in the near future is remote. But in the far future it is possible. But a lot of social upheaval and violence is going to have to occur first, like happened in Europe over the centuries.

True and lasting democracy is impossible without secularism. If Egypt was a country of only one religion then secularism would not be a problem, because everybody would be of one mind and of one culture, wanting the same thing. In the West we have managed to develop a culture of inclusion and multiculturalism, where different ideas reconcile and coexist with each other. But Egypt and most of the Muslim/Arab world do not understand this culture. It is not in their blood, or DNA. They are still tribal. A major belief that continues to persist in this world, among tribes, is that either one rules or dies at the hands of another. Power sharing among tribes or political parties is not an option or a component, such as it is in the West.

If Morsi, the deposed president of Egypt, acted secular and shared power with his opponents he would still be president. His followers say he was democratically elected so he should still be in office and not have been removed by the military. But he certainly didn't acted democratically in office. He consolidate power within his own tribe and like minded supporters. Democracy doesn't work that way. One problem is that even though Morsi was elected democratically the institutions to backup and uphold the democracy people voted for didn't exist to insure or implement it.

Egypt is still a closed society, not open to the majority. Until it begins to open up to all Democracy is out of the question.

Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey once said that democracy is like a train you get off when you arrive at the station. In other words, he believes that the democratic process is just about being elected and once elected, in a democratic fashion, you forget about it until the next election. This is how Morsi and his followers in Egypt see democracy; it is just about being elected and nothing more. For these men (Putin of Russia is another one) democracy is just a means to and end - legitimately gaining the opportunity to consolidate power.

Erdogan is wrong. Democracy is an ongoing proposition. Democracy is also about being accountable and transparent with the people. But he ignores that part. When journalists try to keep his government accountable and transparent, and challenge his authority, they are arrested and thrown in jail. Turkey has more journalist in prison than any other country.

One of Erdogan's ministers said that those journalist in jail are not real journalist. I guess if people reporting in the media and the press disagree with you they are not true journalists, because they aren't towing the party line. While in office Morsi of Egypt tried to do the same thing.

Evolution/Economics

Going back to Evolution, perhaps we can learn from it why the income gap between rich and poor is getting wider. Perhaps we should look more closely at the difference between elephants and birds to get a better understand of why. 

Seriously, though, Evolution is changing how we will do economics in the future, due to climate change, rising sea levels and other geographic changes. But I don't think economics will ever have the same impact on Evolution. But who knows. Perhaps some day we will have the economic tools to role back the negative influences of human activity on nature and restore things to their rightful splendor.

There is one area where economists have not examine evolutionary nature closely enough to understand why a particular economic paradigm failed and another didn't. Why did communism collapse and capitalism triumph? The answer is in nature's laws, particularly the second law of thermodynamics, more commonly known as entropy.  Since communism ignored this law, in more ways than one, it stagnated and collapsed. It refused to change, which is the way to combat entropy. On the other hand, capitalism has ascended because it is constantly reforming in order to avoid entropy. Even the financial crises of 2008 was a means of reform, to change old and bad habits.

Evolution and Economics

"Evolution has changed all we know about how humans behave, compete and co-operate. When will economics catch up?"

I don't know, but the question seems to relate to things that are unrelated. However, the two subjects are related in the sense that they are both connected to humans. But evolution is a building mechanism whereas economics is a facilitator. Economics facilitates the evolutionary process in nature and human living. Evolution stays evolutionary. Economics is more difficult. It is always having to reinvent itself to keep up with the constant changes evolution introduces. That is why most times it is like "nailing jello to the wall". 

To me it is like evolution doesn't concern itself with the laws of nature. But economics does. Economics concerns itself most with entropy, an evolutionary force that economics is always trying to combat and keep ahead of. (Communism succumbed to entropy.) One thing that evolution and economics have it common is that they are both renewal forces. But economics 'packages' the evolutionary forces so they are related to humans. Economics takes out much of the sting and rawness of evolution, which is more 'red in the tooth'.

As for the crises of 2008, economic theory hit a wall. Economic theory became too hubristic and too big for it britches. Can one find such an instance in evolution?

“Philosophy is the discipline that is primarily concerned with conceptual crises.”

My conceptual crisis has been with the way of the world and human governance. I’ve been wondering why democracy and capitalism have become the dominant governing principles and the ones most sought after. What are the causes and mechanisms behind their ascendency? These are questions I sensed an answer to but didn’t have the wherewithal to answer. I didn’t find compelling enough the usual reasons given by scholars and historians. It is thus I turned philosophy as a possible means of discovery and explanation. Perhaps I was influenced by something Bertrand Russell wrote, that “that circumstances of men’s lives do much to determine their philosophy, but, conversely, their philosophy does much to determine their circumstances.” Could, then, philosophy be one of the factors behind why the world is as it is? One thing I do know is that philosophy has introduced me to concepts, powers of reasoning and lucidity of thought I would otherwise never have had. 

I guess there is a philosophy behind the hobby of model railroading like there is behind any human endeavour. Obviously one of philosophical aspects behind it is the love of trains and locomotion. Another is a need to recreate a reality, often an idealistic or past reality. For some it is a form of escapism from the real world, like going to the movies. Also there is a personal metaphysics and aesthetics involved.

I started my present train set after a trip to Switzerland. For me Switzerland represented a huge train set, with its many winding tracks, train viaducts and railway tunnels. It seemed so compact, like a train set. I wanted to recreate some of that in my basement. I loved the mountains and the valleys of Switzerland and how they contrasted with the train tracks and the rolling stock that ran on them. The contradiction between the raggedness of nature and the cultivated lines of the railroad tracks was gripping.

I once asked a psychologist for an explanation as to why I was drawn to the parallel lines of railway track. She explained that it meant I was a futurist, peering into the future along railway tracks that go off into the distance. It is also emblematic of of how I see the world developing, along parallel lines.

Union Pacific U50 locomotive, N scale

Rand, Jobs, Rachmaninoff, Strauss

The other day I watched a BBC documentary that featured Ayn Rand. All of a sudden I saw her in a different light. She was interviewed by Mike Wallace in 1959, who asked her about Objectivism, a philosophy she devised. Her ideas have gathered quite a following, especially among entrepreneurs and business people. Objectivism puts self-interest and profit first, which, as you can imagine, has drawn a lot of cynicism from the other side. But the philosophy is also about self-responsibility and achievement, which is hard to argue against. I also learned that Rand’s favorite building is New York City’s Empire State Building, which she lived near to.

I never thought I was an Ayn Randian. In fact I have often railed against her philosophy because of its selfish, self-centredness and the greed it promotes. But the interview convinced me that in some ways I am a Randian. If loving the Empire State Building makes you one, then I am one. But seriously, it was something she expounded on that made me believe I am one, that the world you see and experience is yours, that you are the centre of it. She didn’t believe that we are just a mere speck in the scheme of things, nor do I.

A few years ago I met a homosexual who said he was a Randian. That sounded contradictory to me because I couldn’t imagine Rand supporting homosexuality. After all, Rand was a conservative, at least that is what was attributed to her. But she was quite a liberal since she wasn’t a traditionalist like most conservatives tend to be. She believed that people had the inalienable right to pursue their own happiness. So this young man was doing just that, standing up for his rights and being proud of his sexual orientation.

Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism is basically a push-back philosophy, a push-back against the existing state of affairs. It’s a counterbalance to the status quo and the inevitable creeping intrusion of the state and government. It appeals to those who are anti-egalitarian. In many ways, though, it will not become the sum-total behaviour of society since its libertarianism is too harsh for all. Moreover, because of its ‘survival of the fittest‘ mentality it would be unrealistic in the broader social context. In total, its laissez-faire, extreme free market principles would be far too harsh and high octane for a society to endure in the long run. The most influence it will have is as a secondary philosophy but one still influential enough to have an impact as an irritant and agitator to the powers that be, which is good since that keeps a economic/political system churning and from atrophying. Its championing individualism and independent mindedness also serves to keep authoritarianism and dictatorships at bay. One redeeming quality it has is that it encourages personal responsibility and achievement, which has the effect of enhancement and pushing the limits of human endeavour.    

As I was writing part of this essay I was listing to Rachmaninoff’s Piano Concerto 3. Earlier I had adapted that concerto as background music for a slideshow I put together about New York City, a montage that features many pictures of the Empire State Building. So it came to me that perhaps this concerto was also a favourite of Rand since she too loved that magnificent skyscraper. Perhaps Rand bonded with Rachmaninoff since they both fled their motherland Russia for America in order to freely pursue their own interests. Rand also fancied herself a rationalist. Everything she did, she’d argue, was rational. The Empire State Building’s form exuded a rationality. Rachmaninoff’s concerto is full of rational sensibilities. To my ear this piano concerto embodies the romance and grandeur of that majestic building and the city that surrounds it, which Rand and I both fell in love with because of their dynamism and vitality.

The documentary that featured Ayn Rand also interviewed a couple of entrepreneurs who had a hand in developing ‘Silicon Valley‘ as the center of the hight-tech/intel  industry. Ayn Rand’s philosophy really appealed to them because of what it implied, that as driven individuals they were the forgers of not only their own destiny but were also forces for universal good. With their business savvy they were at the forefront and believed that in their hands was the future of humankind. In pursuing their dreams and own self-interests they were making the world a better place. To put it mildly, they were not only full of themselves but as singleminded as Ayn Rand was. But to their way of thinking that was not such a bad thing since their actions, they believed, were enhancing and elevating civilization to a higher plain. These individuals were really swept up and set alight by Rand’s philosophy, so much so that they even named their children after her.

The day before starting this essay I began reading Steve Jobs‘ biography by Walter Isaacson. As I read it I was reminded of Ayn Rand. As I read Isaacson’s description of him, Jobs was a Randian without even knowing it. With her philosophizing Rand had pinpointed an independent spirit that resides in many of us and a sense of wanting to strike out on our own while ignoring convention. Jobs wanted to be his own person and had little respect for conventional wisdom. He embarked on creating a new wisdom for himself and the world.

Shortly after watch the documentary with Ayn Rand I watched one that included Leo Strauss, who taught political philosophy at the University of Chicago. After viewing the two documentaries I realized that Rand and Strauss were diametrically opposed to each other, even though they were both embraced by conservatives. Even their mentors were at opposite ends, Rand’s was Aristotle and Strauss‘ was Plato.  Rand was suspicious of authority and didn’t view it as essential for achieving  social cohesion. Strauss, on the other hand, believed that some measure of authority and hierarchy was essential for a cohesive society. He viewed religion as a social cohesioner. Rand was an athiest and saw religion as irrelevant and dangerous.

There was no mention of Rand or Strauss in the biography about Steve Jobs. Nevertheless, I found both characters there, in the persons of Jobs and one of his teachers. One of Jobs teachers was John McCollum, an ex-military man who believed in discipline and respect for authority. Jobs didn’t believe much in discipline or authority. Jobs was 

independently minded like Ayn Rand. But Job’s teacher was more in line with the thinking of Leo Strauss and became quite angry when Jobs showed a lack of respect for authority and established procedures.

There was an intensity about Steve Jobs. This was both good and bad as Isaacson explains. Jobs’ intensity was a result of his pronounced bipolar, binary nature. By way of further making sense of this Isaacson quoted the great German mathematician Johannes Kepler, who declared that “nature loves simplicity and unity”. Isaacson added, “So did Steve Jobs”. In other words, Jobs intensity and binary way was like that of Nature’s, creative because of the embracing of diametrically oppose ideas like simplicity and unity(complexity). Though Jobs had a split personality that clashed and contradicted itself, it was the spark plug of creation in him.

The central theme here is binary. It is what Nature, Rand, Rachmaninoff, Jobs  Strauss all have in common. It is what enables computing, through the binary code of 0 and 1. It is critical to the function and development of organisms and systems. Its dual components engender the “invigorating tension” that gives life. Steve Jobs unique binary disposition made him the creative genius he was. Rachmaninoff was able to make music because of his and the binary combination of notes he used to make music. Societies are composed of and function on binary principles, such as the binary engagement of males and females, individuals and groups. Political systems also have their binary combinations such as the diametrically opposed ideas of liberal and conservative. They also have the opposing ideas of Rand and Strauss, one extolling the virtues of individualism and the other of groups.

Science & philosophy fiction

Philosophy loves science fiction. Or is the other way around, that science fiction loves philosophy? Whatever it is, both speculate and help present and explain hypotheticals. They conduct thought experiments about the future and other possible scenarios. The format of science fiction is a vehicle a writer can use to express a dubious scientific view that could not otherwise be presented or explained. And philosophy can help legitimize a science fiction story which otherwise might sound ridiculous and implausible. Both genres give heft to the other.

We have science fiction. But is there such a thing a philosophy fiction. Perhaps science fiction is really philosophy fiction. And that begs the question, whether science and philosophy are that separate from each other. The theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking thinks they are and believes that philosophy is no longer of use. However, he's bias. The philosopher V.W. Quine believed that the philosophy of science is philosophy enough. Perhaps the opposite is also true. 

What would the stories of Frankenstein by Mary Shelly or The Time Machine by H.G. Wells be like if they hadn't had the added touch of the writer's philosophical take on life? My sense is that they would sound foolish. To my mined that is what most science fiction is, foolish, without the added affect of philosophy. Philosophy gives the genre credence.

When science fiction becomes reality that's when philosophy comes into its own. Up to that point philosophy is mostly theory and speculative. Nevertheless, philosophy can be of service to science fiction on the road to becoming reality, if that is the case. It acts as the middleman between theory, which science fiction is, and practice. Philosophy is the discussion that takes place about the possibility of science fiction becoming a reality and operational. 

Robots have been science fiction for years. Driverless cars have been science fiction since the the 1950s. But no longer. They are becoming a reality. Google is developing and promoting driverless cars, which are close to being approved. But this technology raises new philosophical questions.

When robots were just science fiction the philosophical discussion was about if and whether they were possible and how they might change our lives. Today, now that they are reality, the philosophical discussion is different. Most robots are used in manufacturing and a lot of the talk is about the human cost and the jobs they have displaced. We are also hearing a lot about other robots, drones, which are used by the military to seek out and kill terrorist. The philosophical discussion there circles around whether it is morally right to use them and where the authority to use them should come from. Drones are also being used by police departments and the paparazzi industry, further invading people's privacy. Why, someday that metaphoric fly on the wall might well become reality. 

Philosophy Now magazine did a cover story on moral machines, as to whether they exist or should be made to exist. In a way the robotic, driverless car is a moral machine. It is designed and programmed to behave properly, to protect its passengers from accidents. It will be a great way for the elderly and disabled, who no longer have the capacity to drive, to still get around in an independent fashion. (That makes me think that there should be moral guns that instinctively don't shoot people they shouldn't. Is that science fiction?)

But the driverless car raises new philosophical questions for others. One concern, though it may sound ridiculous, is about losing ones freedom and independence if they have to depend on them to get around. Some might view the driverless car as conspiratorial, as another move by the powers that be to take control.

Now there's an example of philosophy fiction, conspiracy theories.