Daily Archives: October 14, 2019

Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1991.

209 pp. $54 (hardcover).

In 1985, Australian philosopher David Stove held a contest to identify the worst argument in the worldthe one that was the most terrible, widely accepted, and sheltered from criticism. He declared himself the winner for the following:

We can know things only:

So, we cannot know things as they are in themselves.1

Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant used this argument when denying that humans are capable of genuine knowledge, and variants have been (and are being) deployed by relativists of all stripes. The cultural-relativist, for example, writes Stove, inveighs bitterly against our science-based, Europe-centered, white-male cultural perspective. . . . for no reason in the world except this one: that it is ours (167). Likewise, The Marxist insists that all our knowledge . . . is inescapably limited and distorted by our own economic-class situation because our knowledge is possible only under our specific economic conditions (16768).

In The Plato Cult and Other Philosophical Follies, Stove offers penetrating analyses of these and similarly bad arguments, and his barbed wit turns reading about philosophy into sidesplitting fun. The book (which takes its name from a Byzantine religion that deified Plato) consists of seven essays that target, among other things, religious belief, the scientific irrationalism inaugurated by Karl Popper, Robert Nozicks view of philosophical explanation, George Berkeleys idealism, and the arguments and cultural circumstances that have enabled such foolishness to flourish.

Exemplifying this last, Stove calls the period beginning after World War Iwhen the world turned upside downthe Jazz Age, explaining, it is the idea of reversal, rather than that of random change, which is the key to the Jazz Age. It is also the key to Poppers philosophy of science (3). Scientists since Francis Bacon made tremendous advances using an inductive method, reasoning from the observed to the unobserved. In the spirit of the Jazz Age, Popper argued that we cannot infer from the observed to the unobserved and that irrefutability is a weakness, not a strength, of any scientific theory.

Stove uncovers how several modern philosophers further developed Poppers views on the worthlessness of induction. There was, for instance, Paul Feyerabend, a self-proclaimed Dadaist (one who holds that the modern world is pointless and worthy only of ridicule) who mocked the very idea of knowledge, advancing epistemological anarchism in his 1975 book, Against Method. Similarly, Thomas Kuhn will not talk himself, or let you talk if he can help it, of truth in science, or . . . of falsity, writes Stove. [H]e claims he cannot understand this class of talk (You have to be very learned indeed to find things as hard to understand as Kuhn does) (10).

Particularly keen is Stoves observation that these philosophers succeeded in disguising their irrationalism largely by neutralizing success-words. Find, he explains, is a success-word: you cannot find something unsuccessfully, and can find only what exists. Again, prove is a success-word, while believe, for example, is not: you can prove only what is true, but you can believe what is not true (1213). As modern irrationalists couldnt avoid using success-words entirely, they often put them in scare quotes and, in general, used them to convey not F but believed (by so-and-so) to be F (17).

Those familiar with philosopher and novelist Ayn Rands identification of the fallacy of the stolen concept will notice a family resemblance between it and what Stove, in another essay, calls the Ishmael effect. This occurs whenever someones claim includes or relies on facts that contradict it, as when someone yells, I cant speak above a soft whisper. Stove holds that advocates of idealism, the theory that everything that exists is constituted of mental or spiritual stuff, contradict themselves in similar fashion: No human being could ask, even inwardly, whether an external world exists, unless at least one human being exists. And necessarily, if at least one human being exists then an external world exists (71).

With the wit of a Mark Twain and the jaundiced eye of a Richard Mitchell, Stove continues the expedition against idealism throughout much of the book. The theory, he argues, is an attempt to retain belief in a beneficent, or at least kindred, universe without the embarrassing absurdities of religion. Because idealism has a wish in its sail, its supporters scarcely have needed to offer arguments, and Stove traces the few they have offered back to one monumentally important but unbelievably weak argument offered by George Berkeley: You cannot think of trees outside the mind without having them in mind, so trees exist only in the mind. This argument has done so much damage to sanity, writes Stove, that, if syphilis had been introduced into Europe deliberately by one man, that man would have done less harm than Berkeley, who deliberately and almost single-handed introduced idealism into modern philosophy (109).

Because it unabashedly denied the existence of the external world, Berkeleys brand of idealism never did gain much traction. Nonetheless,

for professional philosophers the great desideratum, after Berkeley, was simply this: a version of idealism which was not, like his, a proper object of derision. It was precisely this which Kant appeared, at least, to supply, and the philosophical profession, almost as one man, and with inexpressible relief, closed with his offer. This was the unique service which Kant rendered to modern idealism: he seemed to prove, in his own person, that you could be an idealist without looking a complete fool. This is what entitles Kant to Nietzsches superb description of him, as this catastrophic spider. Berkeleys web caught no one; but Kants web, promising idealism-without-subjectivity, proved irresistibly attractive, and for the next 150 years almost no philosopher escaped it. This objective idealism was not reached by argument: argument had nothing to do with it. It was reached by the biggest, though also the simplest, bluff ever tried. Kant simply said, in effect Let us say that the physical universe is objective as well as ideal: that should satisfy all parties (or at least stagger them). (103)

Stove strips Kants argument of its owlish pomposity, shows its essential similarity to Berkeleys, reveals how similar aberrations of thought took hold in the English-speaking world, and shows how even after idealism expired, somewhere around 1940, [this type of] argument not only survived it, but was poised to enter upon the most brilliant phase of its career (165).

Stove is clear and stunningly entertaining, and he has a strange gift for spinning from an apparent tangent an on-point and lucid lesson. But, to the detriment of his arguments and his readers, he occasionally prioritizes polemic over precision. The most egregious example in this volume comes in his critique of Robert Nozicks Philosophical Explanations. Nozick made a sloppy attempt at distinguishing philosophical explanations from arguments by arguing that arguments are coercive and that philosophers ought to explain rather than argue. Instead of questioning Nozicks misuse of the term coercion, Stove goes along with it, coming to the abominable conclusion that No ideal could be more destructive of human life than the ideal of non-coerciveness. A new-born human is so helpless, . . . that it would never survive for one day if hands which are both coercive and loving did not guide it to the nipple. Such biological common sense, writes Stove, ought to have taught Nozick that in Homo sapiens, as in any species, close bonds between individuals are never formed except where the possibility of coercion is a known and standing element of the situation (58).

Of course, to equate caring for ones child and the like with coercion is to render the term meaningless and to sanction violent dictators in the process. What Stove said of Berkeleys argument mentioned abovealong with his implied jestis true of this one, too; it is so perverse a use of our common, innocent, and priceless gift of language, that it should never have been allowed to be published (109).

In keeping with the volumes focus on philosophical follies, Stove shares his admittedly pessimistic view that a nosology (a science of disease classification) for human thought is the highest achievement open to philosophersan outlook befitting this king of gadflies. Demolishing irrational ideas, not offering rational ones, was definitely Stoves forte.

That said, his earlier work was essentially positive in nature. Both his Probability and Humes Inductive Scepticism and The Rationality of Induction aimed at solving the problem of induction as formulated by David Hume. However, these depended on statistics (as did Stoves idiotic arguments on differences between sexes and races) and so were essentially futile.2 A man may have seen millions of brown squirrels and none of any other color, but this alone is not sufficient grounds to conclude that All squirrels are brown. Simple enumerationwithout an understanding of causationis not a valid basis for induction, statistics notwithstanding.3

Thus, Stove justly described himself as a purely negative thinker, and he undoubtedly wasmost comfortable when on the attack. He even retired early from the University of Sydney after his castigation of colleagues for supporting Marxism and feminism drew threats of disciplinary action from administrators. What now remains of General Philosophy [at the University of Sydney], he said, is not so much a philosophy department as a place of retreat, where the devotions prescribed by feminist or Marxist piety can be performed in peace, and under the direction, of qualified priests.4

As Ayn Rand wrote, To laugh at the contemptible, is a virtue, and its one that Stove practiced diligently.5 Perhaps he understood, as John Locke did, that tis ambition enough to be employed as an under-laborer in clearing ground a little, and removing some of the rubbish, that lies in the way to knowledge.6 That, Stove did wonderfully on many issues, as demonstrated in The Plato Cultand in so doing, he rendered a tremendous service to philosophy and clear thinking.

Continued here:

The Plato Cult and Other Philosophical Follies by David Stove - The Objective Standard

IMITATION is the sincerest form of flattery. Pavement ripped off The Fall, Elastica pinched from Wire and the Conservatives are copying Labours plans to raise workers wages.

Party conference saw Ayn Rand devotee Sajid Javid pledge something his heroine would, er, definitely approve of: state intervention to raise the living wage to 10.50 per hour in 2024 and eventually pay it to workers aged 21 and over.

This followed Labours announcement to raise the minimum wage for workers aged 18 and over to 10 per hour, the amount the living wage is expected to reachnext year.

Shadow chancellor John McDonnell says everyone over 16 will get more than 10.50 by 2024.

The Living Wage Foundation says the UK living wage is 9 and 10.55 in London.

There are 5,470 accredited living wage employers across the country, including Ikea, Burberry and Nationwide.

Labours proposal is part of a brilliant package of measures, including a 32-hour week within the next decade with no loss of pay, which will bring financial stability to working-class people.

It needs, however, to be bolder to give the wealth generators breathing space between themselves and debt.

Make no mistake, though, the wage proposal and policy programme are a massive improvement on what scourge of clarity Ed Miliband offered back in 2015.

Before the 2015 general election the former Labour leader vowed to raise the minimum wage to a whopping 8 and over by 2019, a move typical of his dont upset the think tanks or theyll cry approach.

Raising wages to 10 per hour matches exactly what is needed to live if forecasts are correct, but pay should not be kept to the bare minimum.

Labour must make the forces of capital cower and cannot succumb to the timidity of incrementalism.

Vampires of industry will always oppose any state intervention Labour proposes on wages.

The reaction to ex-chief butcher of the poor George Osbornes living wage of 8.21 for workers aged 25 and over provided a glimpse of what is to come.

Osborne did not let the fact it was not a living wage get in the way of his heroically mendacious marketing campaign, nor sceptics from catastrophising.

Kitty Usher, managing director of Tooley Street Research, warned the Financial Times in April 2016 that the policy was robbing Peter to pay Paul and could cause around 60,000 job losses before 2020.

On those terms, the capitalists fears have, unsurprisingly, not materialised. In February, the Low Pay Commission published its findings on the effects of the living wage on employment levels for 2018.

It concluded that raising the wages of the lowest paid had little adverse impact on employment retention overall and found no robust effect on general employment retention or hours worked.

Jeremy Corbyn and his team should strive for something ambitious: a 12 UK hourly rate and 15 in London, with a 35-hour working week, so families can meet the minimum income standard for a quality life.

The minimum income standard is a public consultation method used by organisations like the Joseph Rowntree Foundation to work out what is needed to secure a minimum level of good living.

Feedback creates a basket of goods, which uses the minimum income standard to work out daily living costs through public consensus.

The minimum income standard informs living wage rate calculations, which are done annually by the Resolution Foundation and overseen by the Living Wage Commission.

The minimum income standard is the springboard socialists use to call for braver measures.

Writing in April, Paula Mitchell of the Socialist Party urged Corbyn and his team to mirror the 15 Now campaign of fast-food workers in Seattle who sealed a $15 hourly wage in 2014.

What is achievable is decided by the struggle, Mitchell rightly says. Coupled with a 35-hour week, 15 an hour would be 27,000 annually after tax and national insurance. It is not a policy that screams avarice, and, as Mitchell says, would meet the minimum income standard.

The Tories boast about the British economy being the fifth-largest in the world but 2018 government figures show 14 million people, or more than one in five, trapped in poverty shameful in a society where members of Cambridge Universitys Conservative society guffaw while burning a 20 note in front of a homeless man.

This is not a case of wishing upon a dialectic and hoping for the best. Once upon a time the two main parties clashed over whether to have a minimum wage.

Now the Tories try to soothe workers with one hand while punching their loved ones with the other.

A 12 UK living wage and 15 London rate would not be panaceas, but will put money in workers coffers while kicking doorstep lenders and loan sharks in the pockets.

The Tories can play The 1975s Give Yourself a Try to Joy Divisions Disorder ie a tacky copy, as much as they like.

Their promises will never be implemented because they are wholly subservient to money. What is telling is they now use the rhetoric of the left for short-term approval and to woo the low-paid.

Javid outdid every Live at the Apollo performer in history by claiming the Tories are the workers party following the pay-rise promise.

This is despite the vicious Trade Union Act, reneging on putting workers on boards and just about every Tory policy that has been made law.

One of Corbyns triumphs has been to bring socialist, rather than socially democratic, economic ideas into mainstream political debate again.

The Tories are aping his ideas and he has knocked back accusations of Miliband-plus brown bread. To move the project onwards, he must strike at the heart of capital by fighting for a higher living wage.

More:

Why Labour must be braver on the living wage - Morning Star Online

The Issues People is a series of interviews with voters in northeastern Ontario who live election issues every day and how that influences how they will mark their ballots on Oct. 21.

Antti Saari hasn't always thought about the future of the planet when deciding who to vote for.

"When I was young and stupid I read Ayn Rand and I thought that was the greatest thing," says the 71-year-old retired engineer and teacher in Sudbury.

"But I've grown up since then."

He now drives an electric car, is partof a local solar power project and has been focused on what politicians are saying about climate change in this election.

"I think about it quite a bit," says Saari.

"I'm really wanting to leave a better world for my grandchildren."

He says he likes the vision of the Green Party, but feels the NDP has a more concrete plan for reducing emissions and turning the tide of global warming.

Still,Saari, who lives in the Nickel Belt riding, says he is likely going to end up voting strategically based on who is likely to have a chance at being his local MP.

"I don't want to throw my vote away," he says.

Skye Little thinks about the environment every day and has worked to make his home and his Whitefish-based business Hia Media as sustainable as possible.

"Ithink that we have to be aware of the problems at hand and I think that people are not taking enough time to consider what they're doing on a day-to-day basis," says the 42-year-old.

"It's always interesting to see where people lie. And will they follow through?" says Little, who will vote in the Sudbury riding.

"Sometimes we have to live with what we've got and hopefully they're listening."

Kaitlyn Hunter says at 21, she's too young to have seen the affects of climate change.

But the woman from the far north Cree community of Peawanuck says the elders tell her how the seasons are shifting, the animals are behaving differently and the permafrost underfoot is melting.

"It'sbeginning to take a toll on the land and on the people to live in the northern communities," says Hunter, who is currently studying at Nipissing University in North Bay.

"It's not as pure as it used to be."

Hunter will vote for the first time on Oct. 21 and doesn't know yet which party she'll support.

She says she's more hopeful about the future of the planet thanks to the election campaign by "justseeing the progress throughout the month and seeing the parties coming up with action plans and proposals."

Saaritoo is trying to be optimistic about the next government and the future of the planet.

"I am still afraid, but I'm hoping," he says.

Read the original here:

Northern Ontario voters focused on the politics of climate change - CBC.ca