John G. Messerly's Blog, page 27
March 29, 2022
Klemke’s, “Living without Appeal”
E.D. Klemke (1926-2000) taught for more than twenty years at Iowa State University. He was a prolific editor and one of his best known collections is The Meaning of Life: A Reader, first published in 1981. The following summary is of his 1981 essay: “Living Without Appeal: An Affirmative Philosophy of Life.” I find it one of the most profound pieces in the literature.
Klemke begins by stating that the topics of interest to professional philosophers are abstruse and esoteric. This is in large part justified as we need to be careful and precise in our thinking if we are to make progress in solving problems; but there are times when a philosopher ought to “speak as a man among other men.” In short a philosopher must bring his analytical tools to a problem such as the meaning of life. Klemke argues that the essence of the problem for him was captured by Camus in the phrase: “Knowing whether or not one can live without appeal is all that interests me.”[ii]
Many writers in the late 20th century had a negative view of civilization characterized by the notion that society was in decay. While the problem has been expressed variously, the basic theme was that some ultimate, transcendent principle or reality was lacking. This transcendent ultimate (TU), whatever it may be, is what gives meaning to life. Those who reject this TU are left to accept meaninglessness or exalt natural reality; but either way this hope is futile because without this TU there is no meaning.
Klemke calls this view transcendentalism, and it is composed of three theses: 1) a TU exists and one can have a relationship with it; 2) without a TU (or faith in one) there is no meaning to life; and 3) without meaning human life is worthless. Klemke comments upon each in turn.
1. Regarding the first thesis, Klemke assumes that believers are making a cognitive claim when they say that a TU exists, that it exists in reality. But neither religious texts, unusual persons in history or the fact that large numbers of persons believe this provide evidence for a TU—and the traditional arguments are not thought convincing by most experts. Moreover, religious experience is not convincing since the source of the experience is always in doubt. In fact there is no evidence for the existence of a TU and those who think it a matter of faith agree; there is thus no reason to accept the claim that a TU exists. The believer could counter that one should employ faith to which Klemke responds: a) we normally think of faith as implying reasons and evidence; and b) even if faith is something different in this context Klemke claims he does not need it. To this the transcendentalist responds that such faith is needed for there to be a meaning of life which leads to the second thesis:
2. The transcendentalist claims that without faith in a TU there is no meaning, purpose, or integration.
a. Klemke firsts considers whether meaning may only exist if a TU exists. Here one might mean subjective or objective meaning. If we are referring to objective meaning Klemke replies that: i) there is nothing inconsistent about holding that objective meaning exists without a TU; and ii) there is no evidence that objective meaning exists. We find many things when we look at the universe, stars in motion for example, but meaning is not one of them. We do not discover values we create, invent, or impose them on the world. Thus there is no more reason to believe in the existence of objective meaning than there is to believe in the reality of a TU.
i. The transcendentalist might reply by agreeing that there is no objective meaning in the universe but argue that subjective meaning is not possible without a TU. Klemke replies: 1) this is false, there is subjective meaning; and 2) what the transcendentalists are talking about is not subjective meaning but rather objective meaning since it relies on a TU.
ii. The transcendentalist might reply instead that one cannot find meaning unless one has faith in a TU. Klemke replies: 1) this is false; and 2) even if it were true he would reject such faith because: “If I am to find any meaning in life, I must attempt to find it without the aid of crutches, illusory hopes, and incredulous beliefs and aspirations.” Klemke admits he may not find meaning, but he must try to find it on his own in something comprehensible to humans, not in some incomprehensible mystery. He simply cannot rationally accept meaning connected with things for which there is no evidence and, if this makes him less happy, then so be it. In this context he quotes George Bernard Shaw: “The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.”
b. Klemke next considers the claim that without the TU life is purposeless. He replies that objective purpose is not found in the universe anymore than objective meaning is and hence all of his previous criticisms regarding objective meaning apply to the notion of objective purpose.
c. Klemke now turns to the idea that there is no integration with a TU. He replies:
i. This is false; many persons are psychologically integrated or healthy without supernaturalism.
ii. Perhaps the believer means metaphysical rather than psychological integration—the idea is that humans are at home in the universe. He answers that he does not understand what this is or if anyone has achieved it, assuming it is real. Some may have claimed to be one with the universe, or something like that, but that is a subjective experience only and not evidence for any objective claim about reality. But even if there are such experiences only a few seem to have had them, hence the need for faith; so faith does not imply integration and integration does not need faith. Finally, even if faith does achieve integration for some, it does not work for Klemke since the TU is incomprehensible. So how then does Klemke live without appeal?
3. He now turns to the third thesis that without meaning (which one cannot have without the existence of or belief in a TU) life is worthless. It is true that life has no objective meaning—which can only be derived from the nature of the universe or some external agency—but that does not mean life is subjectively worthless. Klemke argues that even if there were an objective meaning “It would not be mine.” In fact he is glad there is not such a meaning since this allows him the freedom to create his own meaning. Some may find life worthless if they must create their own meaning, especially if they lack a rich interior life in which to find the meaning absent in the world. Klemke says that: “I have found subjective meaning through such things as knowledge, art, love, and work.” There is no objective meaning but this opens us the possibility of endowing meaning onto things through my consciousness of them—rocks become mountains to climb, strings make music, symbols make logic, wood makes treasures. “Thus there is a sense in which it is true … that everything begins with my consciousness, and nothing has any worth except through my consciousness.”
Klemke concludes by revisiting the story told by Tolstoy of the man hanging on to a plant in a pit, with dragon below and mice eating the roots of the plant, yet unable to enjoy the beauty and fragrance of a rose. Yes, we all hang by a thread over the abyss of death, but still we possess the ability to give meaning to our lives. Klemke says that if he cannot do this—find subjective meaning against the backdrop of objective meaninglessness—then he ought to curse life. But if he can give life subjective meaning to life despite the inevitability of death, if he can respond to roses, philosophical arguments, music, and human touch, “if I can so respond and can thereby transform an external and fatal event into a moment of conscious insight and significance, then I shall go down without hope or appeal yet passionately triumphant and with joy.”
Summary – The meaning of life is found in the unique way consciousness projects meaning onto an otherwise tragic reality.
_______________________________________________________________
E. D. Klemke, “Living Without Appeal: An Affirmative Philosophy of Life,” in The Meaning of Life, ed. E.D Klemke and Steven Cahn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 184-195.
Klemke, “Living Without Appeal: An Affirmative Philosophy of Life,” 185.
Klemke, “Living Without Appeal: An Affirmative Philosophy of Life,” 185.
Klemke, “Living Without Appeal: An Affirmative Philosophy of Life,” 192.
Klemke, “Living Without Appeal: An Affirmative Philosophy of Life,” 193.
Klemke, “Living Without Appeal: An Affirmative Philosophy of Life,” 193-4.
Klemke, “Living Without Appeal: An Affirmative Philosophy of Life,” 194.
Klemke, “Living Without Appeal: An Affirmative Philosophy of Life,” 194.
March 26, 2022
What Work is Meaningful?
[image error]
Viktor Frankl claimed that creative, productive work was one of the three main sources of meaning in human life. (The others are human relationships and bearing suffering nobly.) If the most meaningful lives entail meaningful work a number of questions arise. What kind of work is meaningful? Is meaningful work an objective or subjective notion? Can we find meaningful work in a capitalist economic system? Can we find meaningful work in any conditions?
Consider that you are a hunter-gatherer. You are walking along hunting and gathering. This is work, but is it meaningful? Ultimately this question relates to the question of whether life is meaningful. If life is meaningful, then we would have to infer that hunting and gathering the food that makes life possible is meaningful.
Now let’s consider that the agricultural revolution has taken place. There is now excess food so one can be an artist, philosopher, priest, engineer, merchant, or statesman. Are these occupations more meaningful than hunting and gathering? Here the answer is subjective. Some would prefer growing food; others prefer creating art or reading books or running governments. If you want to grow food and find that more meaningful than writing computer code or trading on Wall Street, then, by all means, do it.
Now let’s consider a complicated global economy. You could still write books or paint pictures, but you might make more money on Wall Street, practicing medicine, or writing computer code. Suppose you’re convinced that the former is much more meaningful (to you) than the latter? If you are equally capable of being a starving artist as you are of writing computer code then you must decide what’s more important—the money or the work. Would you rather make $20,000 a year selling art or teaching school or $300,000 a year practicing medicine or being a software engineer? The answer seems to depend on the individual. Most people would probably take the higher salary because of the security and freedom they gain from the extra income—an earlier retirement, less financial stress, more money for their children, etc. But some would choose differently. Perhaps the higher-paying jobs have more stress or are less fulfilling.
Now if you think this global economic system is corrupt, that participating in it violates your values, then you could choose the less corrupt occupation. Perhaps practicing medicine or writing computer code exploits more individuals than teaching school or being a social worker. Now if you are convinced that any work makes you complicit in an immoral system, then you could move “off the grid” or, if possible, you could move to a new planet and create a new Eden. (More than one Star Trek episode has explored such themes.)
But is it necessarily more meaningful to live outside the world’s economic system or on a different planet? I’m not sure. Rousseau argued that we become human to the extent we participate in civilization. He thought that being civilized was better than being a “noble savage.” I do think we have more opportunities for meaningful lives in our present time, with our present technology, than we have had at any other time in human history. In the past few people read books, practiced medicine, designed the internet or received the goods and services that many of us now do. Do these goods and services make our lives more meaningful? I think so—if meaning is emerging it is primarily because science and technology have created the conditions that make human flourishing possible. This doesn’t guarantee that everyone flourishes though, primarily because of flaws in human psychology, biology, and in the flawed political systems, humans create.
Still, this does not answer all our questions. Perhaps you would rather care for your child than advance your career; perhaps you would rather teach than write computer code. In the end, each person must make the best choice they can … and then hope for the best. The tragedy is that we live in a world where such choices must be made. I must work multiple low-paying jobs, sell my services as an athlete and damage my body for life, or do other work which isn’t meaningful.
Yet we should not curse this world; nor feel existential guilt in it merely by being alive, for there is meaningful work in the world. Maybe not perfectly or fully meaningful, but meaningful nonetheless. And with effort, we can find it. Good luck.
Man’s search for meaning is the primary motivation of his life. This meaning is unique and specific in that it must and can be fulfilled by him alone; only then does it achieve a significance which will satisfy his own will to meaning. ~ Viktor Frankl
March 23, 2022
Objects vs. Process in Various Domains
August 3rd, 2018
I now present a profound idea that lies at the heart of our failure to understand computers and interactivity: the dichotomy between objects and processes. It can be expressed in simple form:
Is reality a collection of objects or a system of processes?
At first glance, this might not look so profound; you may well answer that it’s a mix of both and that’s all there is to say about the matter. But in fact, this dichotomy is so fundamental to reality that it shows up over and over in different guise in a number of wildly different fields.
Linguistics
I begin with linguistics, because the difference here is striking.
There are two fundamental types of words that show up in every language: nouns and verbs. Nouns specify objects while verbs specify processes. Every sentence in every language requires at least one noun and one verb (although the noun can be implicit, as in “[You] Go!”). You can strip away adjectives, prepositions, adverbs, participles, and all the other accountrements of language and still say something that makes sense, but without nouns and verbs, you cannot say anything that means anything.
Language
Each individual language has two basic structural components: its vocabulary and its grammar. The vocabulary comprises the objects of the language: its words. The grammar consists of the rules that are used to assemble the words into coherent sentences.
Mathematics
Another simple example is mathematics. If you strip away all the high-falutin’ stuff like calculus and matrices and so forth, the absolute fundamental components of mathematics are numbers and operators like multiplication, addition, subtraction, and division. Numbers are the objects of mathematics; they are static. Operators are processes; they change things. You use mathematics by applying operators to numbers.
Economics
We see the same basic principle in economics. The two fundamental components of every economy are goods and services.
Goods are objects and services are processes. Every economy requires both goods and services to function.
Computers
The fundamental dichotomy shows up in computer science. Every program (except for a few weirdos) requires some form of data along with algorithms for processing the data.
Without data, there’s nothing for the algorithms to work on, and without algorithms, the data just sits there. In computers, data and algorithms together comprise programs.
Physics
Now we’re going to get a little abstract. Classical physics explains the universe in terms of two fundamental components: particles and waves. (I remind natterers that fields are properties of particles, and we’re talking classical physics.)
Obviously, particles are objects and waves are processes. But I have a surprise waiting for you a little further down.
Military Science
We can even see the dichotomy between objects and processes in military science.
Every West Point graduate will tell you that there are assets and operations. Assets are the objects of military science: guns, tanks, planes, soldiers, and so on. Operations are the processes of military science: the way that the general moves the assets around.
The Body
Once we know what we’re looking for, we can see the dichotomy between Object and Process everywhere. The most basic courses in the study of animals are anatomy and physiology. Anatomy is the study of all the different parts of the body—its objects. Physiology is the study of the many biochemical processes going on inside the body.
Space and Time
The dichotomy between Object and Process even shows up in our fundamental dimensions space and time. To measure is to know, and our measurements define our reality. We need objects to measure space, for without two objects to mark two locations in space, we cannot measure space. Similarly, we measure time with two events, which are the manifestations of processes. A universe with no objects would have no observable space, and a universe with no processes would have no observable time. An event is like a sentence: it combines a process with an object, as in “the second hand of the clock moved from :20 to :21”
Thus, we can see the dichotomy between Object and Process all around us. Reality is indeed the union of both Object and Process.
The Plot Twists
Having taken all this space convincing you of the dichotomy between Object and Process, I am now going to make a major revision: Object and Process and not opposites; they are two poles on a spectrum. The distinction between Object and Process is not black and white; it is gray.
This is most starkly demonstrated in physics, where quantum mechanics showed that all particles can be described as waves, and all waves can be described as particles. In the early twentieth century there were lots of experiments showing the two-faced nature of reality. Electrons, which are particles, behaved like waves in some circumstances. And light, which is a wave, behaved like particles in some circumstances. Physicists resisted the implications of these findings, but eventually gave in and accepted that the universe is composed of “wavicles” — things that act like particles sometimes and act like waves sometimes.
But we see the same kind of two-faced behavior in other areas. Let’s take linguistics. Sure, there are nouns and verbs, but what about gerunds? We have the verb “beat” but a “beating” is a noun. Or nouns that can become verbs, such as “ink”, as in “Executive inks contract”. And we have words that are simultaneously nouns and verbs, like “rain”.
It’s even easier to see in economics. Sure, there are goods and services, but what’s a good and what’s a service? If you buy a hamburger, are you purchasing two all-beef patties, sesame-seed bun, special sauce, lettuce, pickle, and onions? Or are you purchasing the service of serving you the hamburger, or assembling it, or cooking the meat, or transporting the meat to the restaurant, or raising the cattle? Is a hamburger a good or a service?
With computers, it is possible to carry out any calculation with a suitable algorithm (Process) or by using a huge data table (Object). The former saves memory, while the latter saves time. And a standard component of computer languages is the function, which is an algorithm (Process) that returns a number (Object). Inside the program, a function looks just like a number. So which is it: Object or Process?
In military science, it is a well-established that a highly mobile force that can zip all over the battle zone acts like a much larger force. In other words, lots of operations (Process) can have the same effect as lots of assets (Objects).
In linguistics, we find that nouns are often transformed into verbs, and vice versa:
Similarly, in the body, there’s a direct correspondence between the components of the body and their functions:
Object, Process, and Time
So what are Object and Process? How can they be understood if they mix together so freely? The answer has to do with how we measure the two in spacetime. An Object has definite spatial coordinates and indefinite temporal coordinates. In other words, we can specify the position an object in space quite precisely, but it can span huge expanses of time. The earth is nearly five billion years old, and will last for billions of years more. An Object persists until it is changed by a Process.
By contrast, Process has precise temporal coordinates but indefinite spatial coordinates. A Process has a definite beginning and ending, but it can take place almost anywhere. Processes are spatially indefinite. When a Process acts on an Object, we can specify the coordinates of the event both spatially and temporally, but the Process is not tied to the location of the event, while the Object is tied to that location.
Mount Vesuvius in Italy is at latitude 40°49’16.8”and longitude N 14°25’36.6”E; it is 4,200 feet high. That is how we specify an Object. It erupted on August 24th, 79 CE; that is how we specify a Process.
Our bias towards Object
Sadly, we humans think primarily in terms of Object, not Process. Consider your own appreciation of the various subjects presented above. When you think about economics, to what degree do you think in terms of goods (Object) and to what degree do you think of services (Process)? When you think about wars, don’t you think primarily in terms of soldiers, tanks, and airplanes, rather than operations? Isn’t astronomy to you more about stars and planets than about radiative transfer and gravitation? Is your appreciation of your body not about fingers and heart and brain instead of hormones and thermal regulation?
Indeed, in every field of human study, we learned about the Object before we learned about the Process. Economics started off worrying about goods; the role of services was recognized later. In physics, we started off by considering Objects: planets, pendula, balls rolling down planes, cannonballs flying through the air, and so forth. The study of waves did not start until several centuries later. In medical studies the Greek doctor Galen began by listing and describing the parts of the body — anatomy. Only 1400 years later did we begin studying how these parts actually worked — physiology.
We think in terms of Object because that’s what we see. Vision is our primary sense, and you can’t see Process; you can see only Object. For example, how do you perceive a tree:
You perceive it in terms of what you can see — the Objects. You do not see it in terms of the Processes underway in the tree. In other words, you see a tree as a collection of Objects rather than a system of Processes. After all, that’s what your eyes tell you.
So what?
This all might seem like a great deal of intellectual gymnastics over an abstruse but ultimately meaningless point. Yet the difference between Object and Process lies at the heart of our failure to master the computer. Here’s my definition of interactivity:
Interaction is a cyclic process in which two agents alternately listen, think, and speak to each other.
858
Notice that magic word: process. The essence of interaction lies in Process, yet our thinking is preponderantly based on Object, not Process. The heart of the computer is the CPU: the Central PROCESSING Unit, yet we think of it in terms of the data, the hard drive, the screen, the mouse and keyboard, and hardly give a thought to the CPU. That’s why we have done such a poor job utilizing the computer as a medium of expression: we’re seeing the wrong things when we look at the computer. We must change, at a fundamental level, the way we think.
March 21, 2022
Summary of Process Philosophy
[image error]
Alfred North Whitehead (1861 – 1947)
© Darrell Arnold Ph.D.– (Reprinted with Permission)
There is a strong tendency to overlook process and to think we simply live in a world full of separate things. We use nouns, which indicate some kind of stable entities — what in the philosophical tradition have been called “substances.” It’s quite normal to think of the world as a thing, filled with other things — rivers, mountains, lions, mosquitos, people, all sorts of things. It’s also quite normal to think of these individual things as distinct from other things, which they are not. The fish is not the river. It is in the river. The river is not the river valley. It flows through the valley. The valley is not the region. But it is a part of a region. Objects are parts of bigger objects still. Wholes are parts of other wholes.
It is indeed very natural for us to think in terms of such objects. Yet some philosophers have tried to orient us away from focusing so much on things and to guide us to think of processes as primary. The fish then is seen as a form of life only sustained through the eating of other fish and plant life, the absorption of minerals, whose habit is the healthy river, and whose well-being and even survival is dependent on the health of the river. The river is water in flow, but a healthy river needs water blockages in places, such as rocks and logs that create dams from which water overflows further into the river. These overflows add oxygen to the water, creating a healthier habitat for fish. Overflow into the flood plain is necessary for healthy rivers. There bacteria forms, which filter nitrates from the to nitrogen gas, which then is returned to the atmosphere. Without this filtering process, the nitrate levels of the river water also can become too high and fish in a lake into which a river feeds may become unhealthy and die. This process of overflow also creates ponds and puddles, which serve as habitat for various animals in the river valley.
Now, where does the river stop and the river valley begin? The ponds and puddles were once a part of the river, but later a part of the river valley. How are these separable in any definitive sense? Ecosystems have fuzzy boundaries. The region, for its part, is also not just an area of some square miles or hectors (though we can draw one up that way for political purposes). But for the purposes of biology, a bioregion likewise has a fuzzy boundary. In modern society, a region is characterized not only by the flora, fauna and geographical formations but by industry, flows of traffic, people who have moved to the region, and other things, all which influence the biodiversity of the area, the health of the river, and so on. Processes are involved at every step being described here. We cannot understand the things mentioned without understanding the processes in which they are involved. Process philosophers tend to emphasize these processes that interlink these various things, and they emphasize that the things themselves have fuzzy boundaries and are also characterized by their processes.
The focus on processes is rarer than the focus on stable things. But especially in light of our environmental concerns today, and the fundamental importance of understanding the intersection of biological and human processes in order to address those concerns, a focus on processes is vital.
In referring to process philosophy in this context, I am leaning on some ideas developed by Nicholas Rescher in Process Philosophy: A Survey of Basic Issues[image error] (Univ. of Pittsburg Press, 2000.) But I am focusing on different figures than he does.
First of all, I want to underline the importance of adding various Eastern philosophers to the list of process thinkers, including Laozi and Buddha. Among Western philosophers, I will also emphasize some different thinkers than Rescher does. In addition to thinkers that Rescher mentions — of course, Alfred Whitehead, the 20th-century American philosophers most clearly identified with the label of process philosophy, as well as Heraclitus, Henri Bergson, Charles Sanders Pierce, and William James — I think it important to add Hegel and Marx, certain systems thinkers, as well as Giles Deleuze and Felix Guatarri, two important 20th-century French philosophers. These thinkers too underline the importance of systemic interactions, of process, of change.
All of these thinkers share at least the first four characteristics that Rescher views as basic tendencies of process thinkers. In Rescher’s words:
Time and change are among the principal categories of metaphysical understanding.Process is a principle category of ontological description.Processes are more fundamental, or at any rate, not less fundamental than things for the purposes of ontological theory.Several, if not all, of the major elements of the ontological repertoire (God, nature as a whole, persons, material substances) are best understood in process terms.Contingency, emergence, novelty, and creativity are among the fundamental categories of metaphysical understanding. (5-6)The final criterion is the one that some of the thinkers on my list are considered by some not to meet. Hegel and Marx are often read as not allowing contingency. Nonetheless, these thinkers, like Heraclitus and Laozi, and the others mentioned, focus on process as fundamental to understanding history, self, and much else. So there is good reason to include them.
_________________________________________________________________________
Sources.
Rescher, Nicholas. Process Philosophy: A Survey of Basic Issues[image error]. (Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press. 2000)
Schlesinger, Bill. June 7, 2016.“What Makes a Healthy Stream?” Translational Ecology. Citizen Scientist. Web. Access February 8, 2018.
March 17, 2022
The Transhumanist Wager
[image error]Julian Huxley popularised the term transhumanism in an influential 1957 essay.
Transhumanism is:
The intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition through applied reason, especially by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities … transhumanism is a way of thinking about the future that is based on the premise that the human species in its current form does not represent the end of our development but rather a comparatively early phase.1
The transhumanist wager can be understood as follows.2 If you love and value your life, then you will want the option to live as long and as well as possible. How do you do this? Suppose you bet on one of the following:
Alternative #1 – don’t use science and technology to try to defeat death and hope there’s an afterlife. But, since you don’t know an afterlife exists, doing nothing doesn’t help your odds.
Alternative #2 – use science and technology to try to defeat death. By doing something you are increasing your odds of being immortal.
The choice is between bettering your odds or not; good gamblers say the former is the better choice. At least that’s what the supporters of the argument say.
Now there are two basic obstacles that prevent individuals from taking the wager seriously. First, most people don’t think immortality is technologically possible or, if they do, they believe such technologies won’t be around for centuries or millennia. Most are unaware that research on life-extending and death-eliminating technologies is progressing. Some researchers think we are only decades from extending life significantly, if not defeating death altogether.
Second, even if convinced that we can overcome death, many feel we shouldn’t. I am always amazed at how many people—confronted for the first time with the idea that technology may give them the option of living longer, happier, and healthier lives—claim to prefer death. There are many reasons for this, but for most, the paradigm shift required is too great, guided as they are by ancient religion, distorted views of what’s natural, or a love of stasis and disdain for change—even if this means condemning their consciousness to oblivion.
In order to better clarify the transhumanist wager let’s compare it to two other wagers—Pascal’s Wager and the Cryonics Wager.
Pascal’s Wager
Pascal’s Wager advances a pragmatic argument for the existence of the Christian God. It’s simple. Bet that God exists, believe in God, and you either win big (heaven) or lose nothing (except perhaps a little time and money in church). Bet that God doesn’t exist, don’t believe in God, and you either lose big (hell) or win nothing (except perhaps saving a bit of time and money in church.) The expected outcome of betting that God exists is infinitely greater than betting the reverse. Thus the smart money bets that God exists.
The main reason this argument fails is that it assumes there is a certain kind of God who rewards and punishes in a specific way. But we don’t know reality is like this. You might bet on the existence of the Christian God but in the afterlife find that Allah or Zeus condemns you for your false beliefs. Or even if the Christian God exists, you can’t be sure that your version of Christianity is correct. Perhaps only one of the thousands of sects of Christianity is true; the version you believe is incorrect (which is likely); and you will be condemned for your false beliefs.
Or consider another scenario. You believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, go to church, do good deeds, and the Christian God resurrects your body at the last judgment. You’re feeling pretty good until you hear a voice say: “I made you in my image by giving you reason. Yet you turned your back on this divine gift, believing in supernatural miracles and other affronts to reason. You believed in me without good reason or evidence. Be gone then! Only scientists and rationalists, those who used the precious gift of reason that I bestowed upon them, can enter my kingdom.”
I don’t think this scenario is true but it is as plausible—if not more so—as typical religious explanations of what earns reward and punishment. The point is that Pascal’s wager doesn’t work because we don’t know that there is a single god who rewards or punishes us based on whether we believe in him/her. We don’t know reality is like that. Why would reality be like that?
The Cryonics Wager
Now consider the cryonics wager.3 What happens if you buy a cryonics policy? The continuum of possibilities looks like this:
I——————————————————l———————————————I
awake in a heaven never wake up awake in a hell
You might be awakened by post-human descendants as an immortal being in a heavenly world. You might be awakened by beings who torture you hellishly for all eternity. Or you might never wake up. Should you make this wager? Should you get a cryonics policy? I don’t know. If you don’t preserve yourself cryonically, then you might die and go to heaven, hell, or experience nothingness. These outcomes parallel those of Pascal’s wager.
So all you can do is assess the probabilities. Does having a cryonics policy, as opposed to dying and taking your chances, increase or decrease your chances of being revived in a good reality? I don’t know. But if the policy increases that chance, if you desire blissful immortality, and if you can afford a policy, then you should get one.
Personally, I believe that having a cryonics policy slightly increases your chance of being revived in a better reality than dying and taking your chances. I place more faith in my post-human descendants than in unseen supernatural beings. Still, I understand why others believe differently and I respect their right to die and hope for the best.
The Transhumanist Wager
Now recall the transhumanist wager:
1 – Do nothing (scientifically) about death -> the odds for immortality are unaffected.
2 – Do something (scientifically) about death -> the odds for immortality improve.
Thus, doing something is better than doing nothing.
The problem is with alternative #2. You don’t know that doing something to eliminate death increases your odds of being immortal. On the one hand, it seems like doing something is better than doing nothing. On the other hand, maybe the gods think that trying to defeat death displays hubris so they’ll punish you for your efforts. Of course, the gods might favor those who try to defeat death. We just don’t know.
Again the problem, as was the case with the other wagers, is that we just don’t know the nature of ultimate reality. No matter what we do, or don’t do, we may reap infinite reward, its opposite, or fade into oblivion. We just don’t know what the future has in store for us. We don’t know with certainty how we should wager.
Conclusion: Make The Transhumanist Wager
Still, not knowing for certain where to place our bet doesn’t mean that all bets are equal. Consider again the three wagers:
Pascal’s wager – do nothing -> except have faith
Cryonics wager – do something -> use cryonics technology
Transhumanist wager – do something -> use any life-extending technology
The choice comes down to doing nothing—except hoping that you have the right religious beliefs to gain blissful immortality—or doing something—buying a cryonics policy and/or supporting scientific research to defeat death. (Cryonics is a particular use of science and technology.) So what should you do?
To answer this question consider a choice human beings faced in the past (and which some still face today.) What should we do about disease? Should we pray to the gods and hope for a cure or put our faith in science and technology? In hindsight, the answer is clear. Praying to the gods made no difference, whereas modern medicine has limited death and disease, and nearly doubled the average human lifespan in the last few hundred years. When medieval Europeans contracted the plague they prayed hard … and then died miserably. Today we cure the bubonic plague with antibiotics. Thank science.
Other examples easily come to mind. What is the best way to predict the weather, harness energy, capture sound, achieve flight, communicate over great distances, or fly to far-off planets? In none of these cases is praying and hoping a good strategy. The achievements above resulted from scientific research and its technological applications.
These examples highlight another advantage of placing our faith in science—the incremental benefits that accrue from living longer and better lives. Such benefits provide assurance that we are on the right path, increasing our confidence that we are making the correct wager.4 In fact, the benefits already bestowed upon us by science and technology confirm that it is the best path toward a better future. As these benefits accrue, our existence will be more fulfilling thereby removing the need to hope for a hypothetical afterlife. Let us be bold then; wagering on ourselves, not on invisible beings.
____________
1Humanity+ website’s FAQ section.
2Zoltan Istvan introduced the idea of the transhumanist wager.
3Cryonics preserves organisms at very low temperatures in glass-like states
4I would like to thank Joshua Shrode for this suggestion.
March 14, 2022
A Request
[image error]
If any of my readers would like to occasionally upload one of my posts to Reddit that would really help me. Here’s all you would need to do.
Reddit is the best source for driving traffic to my site, and that helps me sell a few books thus defraying the costs of hosting the site. Feel free to email and let me know you did this.
thanks, John
March 12, 2022
Drink The Sand
A regular reader asked me to comment on the above dialogue from the movie, The American President. Here is the transcript:
Lewis: People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they’ll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They’re so thirsty for it they’ll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there’s no water, they’ll drink the sand.
President: Lewis, we’ve had presidents who were beloved, who couldn’t find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don’t drink the sand because they’re thirsty. They drink the sand because they don’t know the difference.
With the caveat that these are “off the top of my head” thoughts, I’d briefly say this. I think Lewis is right and the President is partially right.
Lewis is correct when he says that almost everyone wants leadership and guidance and most of us tend to follow others who appear authoritative. And, if after following we don’t end up where we want, we’ll either drink something else the authority offers or find another authority. I’d only add that usually people never discover they were misled. But I agree with Lewis’ main point—people are starving for someone to lead them, to give them truth and meaning no matter how ridiculous or harmful is the sand they’re given. For particularly terrible examples think Scientology or Jonestown.
I agree with the President that we’ve had illiterate (and clinically psychotic) presidents who many people worship, and I think he’s also right that many people don’t know the difference between competent, virtuous leadership and the opposite. But I think he’s wrong when he says they don’t drink the sand because they are thirsty. We’re all thirsty for truth and meaning.
So I think we often accept horrific leadership both because we’re thirsty and because we can’t differentiate good leadership from bad, truth from falsity. To reiterate, I’ve only thought about this for a few minutes.
March 10, 2022
Drink The Sand
A regular reader asked me to comment on the above dialogue from the movie, The American President. Here is the transcript:
Lewis: People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they’ll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They’re so thirsty for it they’ll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there’s no water, they’ll drink the sand.
President: Lewis, we’ve had presidents who were beloved, who couldn’t find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don’t drink the sand because they’re thirsty. They drink the sand because they don’t know the difference.
With the caveat that these are “off the top of my head” thoughts, I’d briefly say this. I think Lewis is right and the President is partially right.
I think Lewis is correct when he says that almost everyone wants leadership and guidance and most of us easily follow others who appear to be authorities. And, if after following we don’t end up where we want, we’ll either drink something else the authority offers or find another authority. I’d only add that usually people never discover they were misled. But I agree with Lewis’ main point—people are starving for someone to lead them, to give them truth and meaning no matter how ridiculous or harmful is the sand they’re given. For particularly terrible examples think Scientology or Jonestown.
I agree with the President that we’ve had illiterate (and clinically psychotic presidents) who many people worship, and I think he’s also right that many people don’t know the difference between competent, virtuous leadership and the opposite. But I think he’s wrong when he says they don’t drink the sand because they are thirsty. We’re all thirsty for truth and meaning.
So I think we often accept horrific leadership both because we’re thirsty and because we can’t differentiate good leadership from bad, truth from falsity. To reiterate, I’ve only thought about this for a few minutes.
March 6, 2022
New Book Published
Short Essays On Life, Death, Meaning, And The Far Future has now been published. I’ve spent the last year writing and rewriting the book’s essays. If interested you can view the reviewer’s comments below.
Praise for Short Essays On Life, Death, Meaning and the Far Future
“I never thought I would find myself saying a book of philosophical essays is “great fun,” but Short Essays by John Messerly showed me wrong. This is a lively collection of pieces that is ostensibly directed to his grandchildren but truly it is directed to everybody. Serious discussion about serious topics in a thoroughly non-pompous style. Highly recommended.”
– Michael Ruse, Lucyle T. Werkmeister Professor and Director of HPS Program, Florida State University, Gifford Lecturer, Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada and The American Association for the Advancement of Science, author of A Meaning To Life
“Reading John’s essay “Cosmic Evolution and the Meaning of Life” was a happy and transformative moment in my own search for meaning. So much so that I have a framed copy on my office wall.”
– Caspar Addyman, University of London, author of The Laughing Baby
“One of the ways to experience life to its fullest–to be most fully human–is to learn and wonder about the meaning of our lives and our place in the universe. And there can be no better tour guide on this quest than John Messerly. In this collection of essays culled from a lifetime of wide learning and original thought, Messerly hits the sweet spot of clarity and accessibility for everyone from the professional philosopher to the person who doesn’t usually give these issues much thought. From teaching what great minds from the past have contributed, to stimulating thought on the interplay of how hope, despair, technology, and cosmology all play a fundamental role in your experience of personal meaning now and for the future, Messerly’s lifetime of work is not to be missed.”
– Larry Rifkin, MD
“The originality of John Messerly’s beautifully written Short Essays lies in the way in which they illuminate the thoughts of past thinkers through the lens of John’s own intellectual history and intimate quest. They form a very inspiring collection of courageous and lucid reflections on hope, despair, courage, optimism and, as it promises, the meaning of life.
– Louis de Saussure, Professor of Linguistics, University of Neuchatel, (Switzerland)
“John has spent a lifetime researching philosophical questions and he has developed a coherent and inspiring worldview that tells us why our lives matter. He’s also managed to distill this message into a compact, engaging, and profound collection. I had the good fortune to read this during the week I turned 50 when I was already reviewing my life and considering what else lay in store for it. John’s essays helped immensely and I now plan to reread them every year or so since I’m sure I will always get something new from them. I only wish I’d found these sooner.”
– Ed Gibney, Author and Evolutionary Philosopher
“John Messerly seems like a philosopher from an earlier age, before academic hyperspecialization. His writing is clear and direct, and the philosophical topics he addresses are comprehensive and relevant to the lay reader. I have learned much from his essays over the years.”
– James J. Hughes, Executive Director, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, Associate Provost for Institutional Research, Assessment and Planning, and Senior Research Fellow Center for Applied Ethics, University of Massachusetts Boston
“These brief essays on the meaning of life touch the heart and inspire the soul with hope. They range from reflections on the magnitude of the universe to the poetry of Walt Whitman. They will remain with you.”
– Robert J. Richards, Morris Fishbein Distinguished Service Professor of the History of Science and Medicine, University of Chicago
“Sincere, thoughtful, and digestible reflections on great thinkers and big ideas, including themes such as wisdom, meaning, religion, life extension, transhumanism, death and hope. John has thought deeply about the meaning of life for many years and these short essays summarize his thinking.”
– Thaddeus Metz, Professor of Philosophy, University of Pretoria, South Africa, author of Meaning in Life: An Analytic Study (Oxford); God, Soul, and the Meaning of Life (Cambridge)
“What is the meaning of life, evolution, immortality or religion? In this series of essays written in pristine prose, John Messerly shares with passion his life-long quest for a big-picture meaning and offers unique insights. A must read!”
– Clément Vidal, Researcher, Center Leo Apostel (CLEA) for transdisciplinary research Vrije Universiteit Brussel, author of The Beginning and the End: The Meaning of Life in a Cosmological Perspective
“This is a wonderful collection of essays about Messerly’s intellectual development as well as his reflections on a number of big questions. They will especially be of interest to thinking people who share his broadly naturalistic outlook and deep concern for the future.”
– Cory Juhl, Professor and Associate Chair, Department of Philosophy, The University of Texas at Austin
“Those familiar with John’s The Meaning of Life will recognize that nobody knows the philosophical literature on this topic better than he does. His Short Essays draws on years of intensive study and relates his substantial knowledge of the topic in an approachable style, with existential honesty and analytic acumen.”
– Darrell Arnold, Honors Faculty Miami Dade College, Former President of The Humanities and Technological Association
“Short Essays” is an absorbing book. John Messerly clearly introduces and assesses a variety of topics, focusing on those which have broad appeal, brilliantly illustrating their philosophical significance.”
– Laurence Houlgate, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
“Through a masterful combination of autobiography and philosophical speculation, Messerly deals with issues important to everyone. His clear explanation of some of the most difficult philosophers’ commentaries on the central questions of human existence provides an insightful guide to those seeking to understand how to live well and accept life’s limitations and opportunities.”
– Laurence W. Mazzeno, President Emeritus, Alvernia University
March 2, 2022
Writing in Wicked World
[image error]“Hegel and Napoleon in Jena” (illustration from Harper’s Magazine, 1895)
Writing about abstract philosophical issues often feels irrelevant in a world of poverty, homelessness, and war. And I know that being able to write depends on social stability; I wouldn’t be writing were I fleeing violence or if I were impoverished or homeless. Let me try to better explain.
Lately, I have felt conflicted as I start to write a post. Should I write about timeless topics like the meaning of life and death, cosmic evolution, truth, beauty, goodness, justice, love, etc. or should I pen a short essay about current events, especially political ones?
The appeal of timeless topics to a philosopher is obvious. They drew me to philosophy many years ago and, long after whatever is happening now is over and likely forgotten, the timeless topics endure. They are substantive and largely permanent. Yet thinking about such topics can seem superfluous given the anxiety and suffering that abound. To think and write about them brings the phrase “ivory tower” readily to mind.
On the other hand, current political events seem so urgent, especially when the social fabric, the social stability on which we all depend is fracturing. Such concerns seem paramount. Yet isn’t the role of the philosopher is precisely to go beyond the questions of the moment, to see things in a larger and hopefully a more meaningful context?
Notice though that philosophy, like all of high culture, depends largely on political stability. That is why Aristotle thought that politics was the master science; it is indispensable to having a good society. As he says in the very first sentences of his Politics (Oxford World’s Classics)[image error],
Every state is a community of some kind, and every community is established with a view to some good; for mankind always act in order to obtain that which they think good. But, if all communities aim at some good, the state or political community, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good.
So perhaps my concerns with immediate political concerns aren’t misplaced, as long as one tries to bring to them the analysis and reflection of a philosopher. But we can also drown in the fever of the moment, blinding us to the larger movement of deep time, a perspective from which our concerns appear trivial. (I don’t think this was ever captured more profoundly than in Carl Sagan’s brief video “The Pale Blue Dot.”)
So, for the most part, I’ll continue to closely study both the timely and the timeless. I’ll also remember philosophers who wrote great works amidst troubling times. After all, Hegel was putting the finishing touches to it, The Phenomenology of Spirit, as Napoleon engaged Prussian troops on 14 October 1806 in the Battle of Jena on a plateau outside the city.
