John C. Wright's Blog, page 98
June 22, 2013
The Parable of the Unjust West Virginian
Question Eight: Regarding your statement ”it is wrong to punish the innocent.”–
“Wrong” in this case is shorthand for “not useful if you want a working civilization.” Governments that rise above a certain level of innocent-punishment fail. Or at least, I think they do. I would have to have data to be sure about that.
Suppose I am an officer stationed in West Virginia on the eve of the Civil War. Suppose I know beyond any reasonable doubt that the West Virginian counties are going to break away from the Virginian government, so that I know the government will fail no matter what I do or fail to do.
I see a Jewish peddler on the road, a man I know has neither friends nor family nor anyone to avenge any wrong done him. Swaggering up to him, I accuse him falsely of trespassing, and demand a fine, namely, any spare cash or other valuables he has on his person. He argues the point with me, so I beat him with a club as a punishment for resisting my authority. I then take a banknote worth fifty dollar I find hidden in his boot toe.
As an additional punishment for being a member of a despised race whom I blame for killing Christ, I kick him savagely in the stomach and groin before departing to the nearest tavern to spend part of my new found wealth.
Now, according to your formulation, it is an open question, an unknown, perhaps even a matter beyond human comprehension, whether or not I have wronged this man, because no one can know before it happens or not whether my act increased or decreased the tendency of the government to fail. (And in this hypothetical, the government will fail in any case, due to the coming Civil War, which will break the West Virginian counties away from the Virginian government.)
Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.
June 21, 2013
The Parable of the Flat Earther
Question Six: Although I do not believe in objective morality in the abstract, I certainly go through the day behaving as if there were moral and immoral actions, and I plan to impress my moral system onto my children. But then as a self-replicating communication-machine with no free will, I WOULD say that, wouldn’t I?
I do not get the joke. Your belief that objective morality does not exist in the abstract is contradicted by your behavior and your paternal duties to educate your children.
You are not acting like a man who, although knowing the world is round, still says ‘the sun rises’ even though both he and everyone who hears him knows the sun does not move from the center of the solar system. He is legitimately a man for whom the abstract knowledge of the shape of the world has no bearing on his daily life.
You are acting like a flat earther, a man too skeptical to believe the world is round, but if a flat earther were an airline pilot or an astronaut who crossed the International Dateline on a regular basis as part of his job. There is no logical way to avoid a contradiction between the knowledge of the International Dateline with the theory of a flat world.
So here. There is no logical way to avoid a contradiction between the knowledge of your paternal duty to raise your children with well-formed consciences with the theory that all the prompting of the conscience are meaningless.
If your moral system is correct, you have no duty, paternal or otherwise, and no reason to raise your children well, or even to raise them at all.
Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.
June 20, 2013
The Pythagorean Experiment
A reader whom I somewhat insulted wrote me a rather nice letter in return, and, more importantly, asked about the kind of philosophical questions which delight me more than wine. I would answer the questions, except that his questions provoke more questions in me than answers. So I will lay these queries out for him or anyone else who cares to comment to answer.
For the sake of simplicity, I will not put all his questions in one piece, lest some thread the discussion be lost.
Also, I mean not to answer the questions in the order asked, but will answer the one that interests me most first. Let’s start in the middle!
Question Seven: How is the Pythagorean Theorem non-empirical? I can test it with a ruler and a protractor. I assume it’s true and all my math works out and the bridges I build with it don’t fall down, so I can feel confident in it’s factuality.
Webster’s defines “Empirical” to mean capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment. However, among philosophers, the word is a term of art with a more exact meaning: An empirical truth is a truth the senses (or logical deductions from them) have some tendency to prove or disprove.
Hence, an empirical truth is dependent on sense information, which means, a truth which is true only when and where the senses (or logical deductions from them) confirm it, and which relies on no other basis but the senses (or logical deductions from them) for proof of their truth.
This is in contrast with a rational truth. A rational truth is a truth deduced by logic from first principles, and, if the first principles are true, and the reasoning valid, the conclusion must be true. Hence, a rational truth is dependent on the truth of the first principles on which it rests, and on nothing else. Since rational truth depends on nothing else, it is true under all times, places, and conditions, no matter what the senses says or seem to say.
That is the definition used by all philosophers since the dawn of the discipline of philosophy. We cannot substitute another definition without running the risk of deception or confusion.
A thumbnail way to distinguish the two is by the imagination. If one can imagine conditions under which the conclusion is not true, then the conclusion is a conditional.
It is an empirical truth apple trees do not talk. Much evidence confirms it. However, if flown to Oz on a tornado, we might well encounter trees that grew apples, talked, and tossed their fruit in anger at little girls. While the talking apple tree of Oz is impossible in the sense that it cannot fit into the world as we know it, it is not impossible in the logical sense, that is, it does not violate the law of identity.
On the other hand, if the talking apple tree throws two apples with one limb and two with the other, then he has thrown four apples, and that conclusion is as rigid and inescapable in Oz as in Kansas, and nothing can be done to escape it.
There is no “Fiveland” where twice two is five, and it cannot be imagined, nor can logical deductions spring from the conclusion that twice two is five without contradiction other deductions equally as valid springing from the same conclusion.
Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.
June 17, 2013
On Politics Part Six — Barbarism, Inequality, Tyranny
Here we venture into an area where the philosopher can no longer rely merely on observations of patently obvious natural truths. In discussing the different opinions about the directions and degrees of danger, we enter into judgments where reasonable men can differ, and a perfect rigor of logic is not possible. It is possible, without any self-contradiction, for example, to regard the danger to peace and good order created by sedition to be paramount above the danger from the sovereign infringing on the freedom of speech; and likewise, it is possible, without any self contradiction, to regard the danger to the public weal caused by manufacturers fraudulently introducing defective and dangerous goods into the stream of commerce to be paramount above the legal necessity of proving negligence before tortuous or criminal liability attaches. These are not questions mere logic can solve. These are judgment calls, which depend on a nicety of discrimination, sober prudence, and a sense of proportion rightly to decide.
The central paradox of politics is discovering how to win the maximum benefit from civilization while minimizing the discontents. Political theory concerning specific forms and policies of government will differ primarily over a difference in judgment about the discontents of civilization.
On a national level, difference of political theory will differ as different opinions read the character and history of a people differently or the character of the era in which they live. On a universal level, difference of political theory will differ as different opinions read the character of man differently.
At the current time, among the nation in which I live, there are three distinct political theories in competition for the minds and souls of the next generation.
Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.
June 16, 2013
On Politics Part Five — Civilization and its Discontents
As stated above, this essay attempts no novel scheme. If the reader notices the parallel between the statement that it is a self evident truth that governments are instituted among men to secure to themselves their natural right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, and statement that the primary passions and interests which incline men to civilization are love of life, of the good life, and of domestic life, the parallel is no coincidence.
To recapitulate: we know from the nature of reason that man is a rational animal possessed of free will. We know from even the most cursory examination of human nature that we live in a world of mortal danger and natural scarcity, and that we are political, bisexual and altracial creatures who naturally form families and tribes both to alleviate the scarcity of nature, and to prey on each other without mercy.
We know that in the absence of law and civilization, force and fraud will prevail, and the desire for life and liberty and domesticity impels men to create and uphold laws and customs to maintain civilization.
The primary purpose of law is to render men secure in their property and contracts, to secure their liberty, and to discourage the vice and unchastity which threatens marriage.
Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.
On Politics Part Four — The Paradox of Law
When all the men in a tribe or neighborhood or region combine in their efforts to drive off raids and pirates and interlopers, the natural confusion which would otherwise result requires that they follow a single sovereign power as leader, and the natural depravity of man predicts that the sovereign be tempted to exploit the loyalty of his followers for the advantage of himself, his clan, his favorites, his gods and his greeds.
This then is the central paradox of law and the central task of politics: to arrange the laws so that the sovereign is strong enough to protect the innocent from criminals and invaders, but at the same time to restrict or restrain the sovereign to protect the innocent from him.
Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.
June 15, 2013
On Politics Part Three — On Civilization
The word “civilization” originally meant life behind city walls. This definition is accurate enough for common parlance, because, due to the nature of human life on Earth, tilling and reaping the soil in fixed locations and retreating behind walled fortifications during times of raid and assault is a natural if not inevitable outgrowth of social cooperation on a scale larger than tribal operations. There are disadvantages to forsaking the life of wandering shepherds or nomadic horsemen, but the advantage of having a settled seat of power is that it naturally lends itself to the invention and diffusion of writing, calculation, astronomy, the erection of walls, towers, canals and monuments, and other civilized arts.
However for the purposes of this essay, “civilization” here shall mean the customary and habitual submission to the rule of law, whose purpose is to mitigate the ills which follow the natural anarchy to which the passions and self interest of men incline them. There is nothing innate in the nature of nomadic life or life in a band of hunter-gatherers which prevents the elder or patriarch from establishing clear albeit unwritten rules, to be chanted or recited and strictly obeyed by successive generations.
The primary civilized art, and the one which allows all others to exist, is the art of law, which is the reduction of the ineffable organic complexity of those customs and practices seeking justice, peace, and civil order to a few simple or stereotyped commandments, written or recited without redaction, enforced by recognized formalities of court.
Law, in other words, is the attempt to reduce the operation of justice to ritual. The purpose of this reduction is manyfold.
Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.
June 14, 2013
Doxacon!
Renowned science-fiction writer and Nebula Award finalist, John C.
Wright, and his wife, author L. Jagi Lamplighter-Wright, will be session presenters
at Doxacon! The Wright’s will speak as a couple at Session 1 on Saturday, July
20. Please see the schedule to your left for details. You may also click HERE
to see the complete listing of topics, synopsis and biographies of our speakers.
Session Topic: “You Got Your Christianity in My Science Fiction!”
Synopsis: A discussion of the joys and tribulations of combining Christianity and
speculative fiction: both from a social perspective–facing Christians who disapprove
of magic/fantasy and geeks who reject all things Christian–and from a technical
perspective–how combine these elements to tell the best story.
John C. Wright
is an American author of science fiction and fantasy novels. A Nebula award finalist
(for the fantasy novel “Orphans of Chaos”), he was called “this fledgling century’s
most important new SF talent” by Publishers Weekly (after publication of his debut
novel, “The Golden Age”).
L. Jagi Lamplighter
is the author of “Prospero Lost”, “Prospero In Hell”, “Prospero Regained” and “The
Unexpected Enlightenment of Rachel Griffin”. When not writing, she reverts to her
secret identity as an at-home mother in Centerville, Virginia, where she lives with
her husband, John C. Wright, and their four children, Orville, Ping-Ping, Roland
Wilbur, and Justinian Oberon.
Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.
On Politics Part Two — On the Human Condition
The axiomatic truths of reality can eliminate from consideration any political view not based on sound metaphysics.
So much any philosopher could deduce of the human condition in the privacy of his armchair, merely by observing the operations of his own mind and analyzing his unspoken assumptions behind his own thought processes. But if he flings open the door of his cell, or stares in wonder from the window, certain truths too obvious to deny will impress themselves deeply upon his awareness.
Three great natural truths should impress themselves on any man who opens his doors or opens his mind, and looks with unclouded eyes at his fellow man, at the pages of history, or at the looking glass.
Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.
June 13, 2013
On Politics Part One — The Metaphysics of Politics
I have been asked to explain in a rigorous way the political philosophy to which I adhere. I can promise the reader no startling revelations, nor do I propose any new system, but instead I seek to place on a clear and plain footing what in these darkened days has sadly become unclear to far too many men, and I seek to call men back to their first love, and remind them of that which civilization was erected to protect. Whether this effort is in vain in not for me to say; I leave that to the candid judgment of the reader. What I will say is that even a bad shot is honorable when he accepts a challenge to duel.
Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.
John C. Wright's Blog
- John C. Wright's profile
- 449 followers
