Picking Up the Presidential Race Pace

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/01/us/politics/01hoops.html?ei=5065&en=4249d627aad4dae2&ex=1181275200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

Obama scores SPPs (Socratic Presidential Points) by the fact that he is a pick-up basketball aficionado. Pick-up basketball is like international relations: there is a general framework of rules on which the players purport to agree, but energy, daring, guile and rhetorical skill in justifying one's application of the rules are essential. In addtion, alliances often change (A, B and C may play D, E and F in a game of three on three, but the next game may be B, D and E against A, C and F). Keep an eye on the candidate's behavior in aspects of their lives in which the rules are fluid: it is one way to try to discern how they will act in the international arena (confession: for me, a US President's ability to negotiate the international relations thicket is THE most important qualification to lead the country; without the preservation of the United States as a big mixed ("mixed" in the sense of having aristocratic, oligarchic and democratic elements) republic in the world system, our differences about tax policy, business regulations, homosexual marriage and abortion will be irrelevant, it is better that we fight among ourselves about these issues under our system than have the decisions imposed on us by a tyrannical regime of whatever ideological stripe).

Rest in Peace, Mr. Hall

http://opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110010121

We would enrich our lives if we would master an activity removed from our regular roles in life. Whether it is becoming THE expert on the Lincoln assassination (as with Mr. Hall), raising guppies, tending a garden, becoming an expert marksman or mastering chess, we all have the time. We may or may not have the will. If we can develop that will, we will have built ourselves our own internal vacation home, a home that will refresh us when we become weary of being the butcher, baker, candlestick maker, student, family member, pillar of the community, or whatever roles we regularly play in our lives. And when we return to those regular roles, refreshed from our journey (which journey might be simply to our study or to our yard), we most likely will be a better butcher, baker or candlestick maker, more studious student, more loving family member, and stronger community pillar.

Socrates on the 2008 US Presidential Election

Imagine that the United States is a ship owned by the voters, that the President of the United States is the ship's pilot, that the presidential candidates are the sailors who in theory answer to the shipowner (the voters) and that the art of being President of the United States is akin to seamanship. The voters have the power to determine who will run the ship of state, but have a limited knowledge of seamanship. The sailors never really learned seamanship either, but they employ artful advisors to convince the owner that they are expert in piloting, beg for campaign funds to pay for the advisors and other expenses of their campaigns, and will do just about anything to convince the owner to turn the rudder over to them (that is, elect one of them President over the others). The charms used by the sailors include phony campaign promises (generated by the advisors who are skilled in advising their own sailor on convincing the owner that the sailor is the best at seamanship, but who are unskilled at educating the sailor on the art of seamanship). No sailor thinks it is possible to learn both how to convince the owner to appoint him or her pilot and to learn the true piloting art. So each sailor seeks out those artful at artifice but with no piloting knowledge. Anyone who devotes his or her life to acquiring knowledge about the true piloting art is considered useless by the sailors (and also by the owner).

Does this sound like a plausible description of the current campaign? Well, it was a description developed about 2,000 years ago in Plato's Republic 488a-489a, in which passage Socrates makes the same analogy in the context of who would be the finest ruler of a Greek city-state.

So, returning to 2008, given that Barack the O, Hill, Rudy G, Mitt Baby et al take us for the foolish shipowner and will devote the next several months to everything but a discussion of the art of ruling and who would be finest at that art, what should we the poor shipowner (the voters) do? Is it possible that we DESERVE being treated this way? Oh, yes, we're all too busy with our own lives to take the time to think through and study what the art of leading a large indirect democracy is all about. So why should the sailors treat us other than as clueless? Perhaps we the voters could view ourselves as detectives searching for all the clues as to who would be the best pilot, not simply couch potato consumers ingesting the pablum fed to us by the sailors. Any suggestions on how to bring the investigative art to the process of finding the best pilot for our ship of state?

I realize that devotees of Plato and Socrates may argue that the true ruler, the philosopher, would never run for political office. Perhaps that is the case; we nonetheless have the obligation to find the best of the lot. Let the investigation begin!

Evolution and Morality

What's the best way to revive a quiescent blog? Borrow from one of your commenters, of course! Jillian has the following to say about the evolutionary aspects of human gregariousness and morality:

"In 'Primates and Philosophers', de Waal defends the human species’ inherently social nature, Aristotle’s zoon politikon. Social contract theorists have explained morality as a veneer over our violent animal instincts; humans make a rational choice to suppress their bestial tendencies for the sake of civil society. De Waal refutes this philosophical tradition with evidence from primatology and human psychology. Findings suggest that we are an obligatorily gregarious species, social and cooperative by evolution. Veneer theory, though advocated by many respected evolutionists, contains a glaring paradox. It provides no mechanism for how we form moral systems in spite of our genetic wiring. De Waal invokes primate reciprocity as evidence against veneer theory. While mutualism explains moral actions that are immediately beneficial to the involved parties, reciprocity refers to good behavior for which there is a delayed reward. The ability of primates to behave well without instant gratification undermines veneer theory’s claim that only humans can overcome selfish tendencies. Furthermore, De Waal objects to veneer theory’s claim that our genes are selfish. For an act to be selfish, there must be self-serving intent. Our genes perpetuate themselves but lack intent. Thus, human beings cannot be described as selfish solely on account of their genes.While veneer theory has an all or nothing conception of morality, De Waal presents a Russian doll model that acknowledges degrees of empathy across species. His is a three-tiered system. The innermost shell is the 'emotional contagion'— how an animal’s behavior prompts an emotional affect in another. The second shell is empathy— sympathy or personal distress over the suffering of others. The outermost shell, altruism, is observed only in social animals. The Russia doll model is a bottom-up explanation that allows consistent development from obligatory mammalian parental care to human morality. Culture and language, higher order moral functions, can shape lower order expressions of empathy. But de Waal believes that fear of anthropomorphism has led scientists and philosophers to overlook the evolutionary continuity of empathetic behavior. De Waal argues that fear of anthropomorphism is also behind intellectuals’ unwillingness to recognize Theory of Mind in apes. Behavioral observations of apes show targeted helping and consolation behavior, which require a high degree of self-awareness. According, apes are the only creatures besides humans who pass mirror self-recognition tasks. Yet even other primates recognize reciprocity and fairness. Chimpanzees show gratitude, sharing food with those who have groomed them most. Capuchin monkeys will stop participating in experiments if other monkeys receive more food for equal effort.De Waal explains that morality first developed as an “in-group phenomena”, extending only to kin. Group solidarity, often in response to outsider threat, led to community concern. What separates human moral systems from primate morality is the extension of benevolent behavior to outsiders. Neuroscientists are now discovering that we make moral judgments on emotional instinct, and rationalize after the fact (and so our revulsion to 'trolley problems'). As other animals possess degrees of empathetic capacity, it makes sense to speak in terms of evolutionary morality. De Waal defends anthropomorphism as a heuristic tool. If we observe similar behavior between species, we should invoke the simplest explanation— evolutionary parsimony. "

What are your reactions to Jillian's description of de Waal's thoughts? Do all too many analysts of human behavior avoid anthropomorphism out of a fear of seeming unscientific but at the same time ignore the existing scientific knowledge in the quest for understanding of what is the essence of human behavior? What would Socrates make of neuroscientific explanations of humanity? In the name of the finest aspect of diversity, diversity of thought, let's bring all perspectives to these issues (whether grounded in natural science, humanism or religion, or any combination).

Blog Administration

The question has arisen as to whether I would object to commenters engaging in a dialogue in the comment section which dialogue is not directly related to the post in question. This is a fine tradition in the blogosphere, and I encourage it within reason (so arrange your wild outings with each other in a different forum, and remember that sensitive me will be hurt if y'all don't on occasion comment on the post in question).

A question has also arisen as to whether I know the commenters personally and how do I know them. My policy is to preserve the privacy of the commenters. If you want to give out any personal information about yourself, however, feel free to do so by posting a comment about yourself (once again, please use common sense; you really don't have to tell us about your twelve hour binge at the casino slots). You may if you wish let people in on how you know me (leaving out any information that would attract the attention of US Attorneys, of course).

Finally, I realize that there have been formatting malfunctions in some of the posts. As I undertake the quest for self-knowledge, I also undertake the perhaps more daunting task of becoming a blog formatting maven. Please be patient with me in both journeys.

The Nature of the Quest

In a review (see http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1210/article_detail.asp) of a book of essays by Eva Brann on Socrates' conversations and Plato's writings, Mark Blitz states that:

"Plato is less important than he was a hundred years ago. Democratic higher education, relativism, historicism, multiculturalism, laziness and love of novelty have all taken their toll. There are more significant things to consider than the irrelevant, antidemocratic, or foolishly dogmatic writings of dead Greeks.

Plato also is more important, however, because the few who do read him take him seriously philosophically, not just culturally, and seek his (and Aristotle's) moral and political guidance. He is not imbibed as part of a casual cocktail of teachings that support quasi-aristocratic habits, but instead, is examined for guidance in supporting what is worthwhile in liberalism."


The above quoted language from Blitz's review provides a caution to all of us who read, attend lectures and generally engage in what has been referred to as the life of the mind. There is (at least for me, and perhaps for others) a constant tension between study as a guidance in a quest for the truth and study to enable one to sound smart and emanate the appropriate trust cues to others at the next social gathering. One's position in life (butcher, baker, candlestick maker, bricklayer, lawyer, physician, distinguished professor of mathematical physics and Heideggerian philosophy at pseudo-elite U.) has no relation to one's ability to benefit from the Socratic dialogues if (i) one has had a reasonably good high school education in which one has developed decent information processing skills and (ii) one is willing to look relentlessly inward and outward without judgment (or fear or favor as to how one's quest will affect one's social position) in all of one's experiences. Without this relentless searching, academic study will not progress beyond providing "merely a vocabulary for communicating impressions one has deeply felt even before knowing that they were a shared and studied phenomenon" (see the comment by "Jillian" on the post The Problem of All Problems).

The Problem of All Problems

If we view self-knowledge as the problem of all problems, do we start from God's grace, the best political regime in which self-knowledge can be pursued, the scientific method, a lens of relativism, the individual as he or she experiences the world, or some other beginning point? In Leo Strauss, Max Weber, and the Scientific Study of Politics, Nasser Behnegar states that (see pages 33-34):

"The difficulties of a relativistic ethics did not lead to a critical reappraisal of relativism, because there were countervailing ethical and political reasons that inclined political theorists to relativism. To see these reasons, we must return to normative political theory's and existentialist historicism's common antagonist: positivism. The failure of positivistic social science to reflect on politically and morally important issues is the unintended consequence of the appropriation by modern man of what one of the fathers of modern mathematics and therefore of the scientific method called 'the problem of all problems, which is: to leave no problem unsolved' (Vieta, 1968, 353). The method by which all problems are to be solved, however, requires a seeming reversal of man's natural priorities. Whereas according to out natural judgment 'the slenderest knowledge that may be obtained of the highest things is more desirable than the most certain knowledge obtained of the lowest things,' the scientific method demands that 'we should attend only to those objects of which our minds seem capable of having certain and indubitable cognition (Descartes 1988, 'Rules for the Direction of Our Native Intelligence,' Rule 2; see also Aquinas 1945, Summa Theologica q1.a5.r1). but the original intention of this reorientation is not to ignore but to solve the great problems of metaphysics and ethics."

When do you remember first wondering about nature and your role in it, and how did you articulate that wonder? Do you remember letting go of something as a child to see what would happen? When you let something go, were you thinking about Newton's laws of gravity? I suspect not. When you flew a kite, did you consult your aerodynamics equations? When you and your friend both grabbed for the same pail in the sandbox, did you think about conflict resolution techniques and how the power relations between your ethnic and social status and your sandbox companion's ethnic and social status affected the grab for the pail, or whether your grabbing was consistent with morality? If not, do you think you know more about yourself today with your knowledge of Newtonian physics or aerodynamics or psychology or sociology or religious training? Perhaps you do. I have come to the conclusion that I don't, and that I must begin from as close to the beginning as I can, that is, how did I experience the world as a child. In effect, I must try to observe, without the filter of intervening years, the impressions, objects, other people and my own thoughts made on me. To even begin to address the problem of problems, for indeed self-knowldge in my view is that problem, I must return to the beginning. How about you?

Fiddling in Harmony on MLK Day

I was looking for an appropriate quotation for MLK Day. Eureka, I have found it in a comment on a prior post of mine. Here is the view of "fiddler" on the quest for self-knowledge:


"My plea is to lead a life of virtue, work hard, be curious about everything, be a good friend, keep a good humor, stand up for what you believe, and the knowledge of who you are at the core will come through."

"Fiddler" reminds us that a quest for self-knowledge is no excuse for not making efforts to live a life of virtue and hard work at this moment. To combine "fiddler" and Dr. King, let us measure, in ourselves and others, the content of these efforts and not skin color or social status. Perhaps "the core will come through" when we act to grow the seed of the core that is already in each of us.

The Best Regime

The commenters to the post titled "The Sensible Center" have brought us to the problem of developing and nurturing the best regime. Among the definitions of "regime" in The Free Dictionary are the following: (i) "[a] form of government" (for example, a fascist regime or a democratic regime), (ii) "[a] prevailing social system or pattern" and (iii) "[a] regulated system, as of diet and exercise; a regimen." Thus, a regime may refer to a governmental, social or personal system. Oh, what a wide ranging topic we have opened up in discussing developing and nurturing the best regime!

The commenter "forbearance" asserts that the "birthright of freedom comes by God's grace, not from the consent of any man or government." But what system of government on the human level of creation (the core meaning of "All men are created equal" in my view is that all humans exist on the same level of creation with, despite differences in certain physical and mental aspects, the same opportunity for development in virtue) best nurtures this birthright? Is even considering governmental systems as potentially nurturing a birthright given by God (or, for those not inclined to speak about God, a birthright on the basis of freedom's being an inherent aspect of humanity), by starting from the governmental system and not the individual, starting from the wrong place? My answer is that we must look at the struggle to use our freedom as the responsibility and birthright of each individual, but be open to the possibility that certain governmental and social systems profoundly affect the individual struggle.

In this regard, the commenter "greg" suggests that moderation may emerge as one of the goals in the process of achieving self-knowledge. Well, "greg," is moderation as an end defined by the parameters set by the governmental and social systems in which one happens to find oneself at a given moment in history, or is moderation (or virtue in general for that matter) a transcendental end? This seems to me to be another way of posing the problem of the relationship among the development and nurturing of the individual, social and political regimes.

On the level of regime clashes, "forbearance" cautions that, "The idea that we should expect the followers of Mohammed to try to fight the American war machine in a traditional manner is completely insane." My initial response to this caution is that, on this blog, let us begin our search for the best regime (whether individual, social or political) with no preset expectations: in other words, let us begin with no expectations other than a faith that seeking is its own reward. Let the students of Abraham, Christ, Mohammed, Buddha, Shankara and every other teacher of fine essence, along with those who reject the notion of a divine being or the idea that a human could be imbued with the spirit of a divine being, join together in a search for the best regime.

The Sensible Center

Hooray!! In the finest Socratic tradition, interlocutors have commented on my first post. "Greg" reminds us that recognition of our physical, mental and spiritual strengths and weaknesses is an ongoing process throughout our lives, and questions how we can know whether we are fulfilling our essence given the difficulties of grasping our physical, mental and spiritual complexities at a given moment. "Forbearance" asserts that (i) the approach I suggested in my initial post goes astray by attempting to "find yourselves outside of the larger purpose of the Preserver of the universe," (ii) "[o]ur purpose is to seek out righteousness" and (iii) eschewing all pursuits outside of seeking out righteousness by putting ourselves into the service of love and charity with our neighbors is the way to find ourselves.

To "Greg," I would suggest that looking within ourselves in a practical, non-judgmental way is the closest imperfect humans can come to achieving self-knowledge. Yes, this is a life long process fraught with uncertainty, and ultimately, neither religious nor secular authorities can provide a formula for achieving self-knowledge (or to put it in a more modest way, to approach that level of self-knowledge possible for humans given our level of creation). If we study religious and secular authorities humbly and with attention, we can be aided in our quest, but all will be in vain without relentless, practical and non-judgmental examination of ourselves.

To "forbearance," I say "Thank God" (so to speak) that in this therapeutic state era there are those who will speak up for righteousness. I would respond to your posted comment by suggesting that while our ultimate purpose may be putting ourselves into the service of love and charity with our neighbors, we do so from the houses of our beings, and that those houses will have been built upon shifting sand, not rock, without the base of self knowledge (I realize that many will argue with this interpretation of Matthew VII 24-27; at this point, I simply request that you be open to this line of interpretation).

Well, let us not forget that "Know thyself" was only the first inscription written at the entrance to the sacred temple of Delphi. The second was "Nothing too much." Does this suggest a "sensible center" approach to everything? Or need we make some prior measurement or have some fine purpose before we know what is "too much?" If the life of a loved one is threatened, is putting ourselves in harm's way to attempt to save the loved one "too much?" Is Seinfeldian irony a useful buffer against pursuing matters too seriously, or is it an opiate keeping us in a state of seeming lightness but actual darkness as to our measuring what is "too much," "too little" or "just enough?"

I hope that "Greg" and "forbearance" continue to weigh in with comments, and I hope that the rest of you also feel free to comment. If Socrates and the Bible didn't entice you, certainly Seinfeld should.

Initial Post-Setting Sail

May we journey together to a land of beautiful music. A land where we all speak from the heart. A land where our thoughts express our essences, and our essences delight in spirited conversation. A land where what our lesser aspects call disagreements our finer aspects recognize as differences in understanding. A land where we strive to learn from our differences in understanding, and express those differences without rancor or resentment. A land where we exult in our common humanity and in our equality as beings on the same plane of creation. A land where we take each other seriously and don't take ourselves seriously. A land where the flowering of beautiful thoughts from the buds of our musings is always in season. A land where our community of seekers provides a haven from the coarser aspects of our souls. A land where our conversation builds a hermetic seal around our souls so that our finer aspects can be nurtured from within and our lesser aspects are banished to a junkyard.

My primary purpose in starting this blog is to learn from my betters. Who are my betters? Anyone who leaves a comment, that's who. Although at times I might like to think of myself as a unified being, much of the time I function as a multiplicity of scattered aspects. I hope by this blog to enlist and receive your help in putting these aspects in a finer order than they are at present. What do I offer in return? I don't know that I have anything to offer. I hope that each of you who takes the time to read this blog finds something of use for your being, whether or not you choose to leave a comment.

A word on the title of this blog. Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, College Edition (The New World Publishing Company, 1957), defines "statecraft" as "the art of, or skill in, the managing of state affairs; statesmanship." With your indulgence, I plan, for purposes of this blog, to expand "statecraft" to include not only the art of ruling a state, but also the art of ruling oneself. This approach has support in Plato's Republic, in which Plato describes a conversation in which Socrates and some of his pals analogize the nature of justice within an ancient Greek city-state to the nature of justice within an individual soul. The "Socratic" part of this blog's title is most assuredly not intended as an assertion that by a series of Socratic questions I will lead blog readers to a higher state of being, but to suggest that the Socratic quest of exploring the essence and elements of the cosmos, the political bodies and the human souls is as fine an activity today as it was over 2,000 years ago, and at the same time as problematical (you might recall that Socrates was sentenced to death for this activity).

If on occasion a few days or a week elapse between posts, please don't take offense; the issues I hope we will discuss are eternal, so what's a few days between friends?

So, let me start by asking for help with a question that on occasion I ponder, namely, what does it mean to know myself? When I ponder this question, I invariably come back to the question of whether I can even start from the point of assuming that what I am calling "myself" is a unity. I stumble out of bed in the morning. If I am lucky I get through shaving, showering and dressing without cutting my face, slipping in the bathtub or putting on socks that clearly don't match. I negotiate brewing coffee, sip it, and feel pretty good. I am on top of the day. I am fully prepared for my conference call at 11 am. I am off to the train. As I wait for the train, I hear a couple of people discussing the football scores. My mind in quick succession flips through index cards of recalled impressions: a youth throwing around a footbal with his father in the back yard, finishing runner-up two years in a row in the local Punt, Pass and Kick competition, and playing intramural footbal in college, a nonentity envious of glamorous athletes and other celebrities.

Wait a minute. Throw away that index card. That's not me. I don't engage in mindless envy. Not me. That thought couldn't be me, or any part of me. Correct?

Now I am on the train. Someone I think I know doesn't acknowledge me. He must be stuck up. Wait another minute. Maybe he is thinking about an ill family member and is distracted. The conductor comes. I have forgotten to take my pass out. The conductor looks at me disapprovingly. I finally fish my pass out of my wallet and show it to the conductor. I take my book out, open the pages and escape to another world.Time to walk to the office. I am in my office. There is an emergency voice mail. Why does the rest of the world not organize their affairs so as not to create unnecessary emergencies? I deal with the emergency and call in to my 11 am conference call. The call goes well, but my brilliantly prepared analyses are met with an "of course, I knew that" attitude by some on the call. The call is over at 11:30 am.

All right, from the time I awoke to the end of the conference call, what is the "myself" that I am supposed to know? Barely coordinated, high on caffeine, suppressing resentment at lack of celebrity, taking umbrage at not being recognized, unorganized in the simple task of getting my train pass out of my wallet, contemptuous of the disorganized world (without remembering that on the train, I was disorganized), and annoyed that my analytical brilliance is unrecognized? Now remember, all in all, the day has gone pretty well. If this is my internal state on a good day, what happens on a bad day? Perhaps before I explore the wonderful unity that is myself, I would do well, in a nonjudgmental clinical way (or perhaps even in a lighthearted way), to observe in a clear manner my disunity. What do you think? Does anything I have said about myself resonate with you? Any comments for this scattered creature?