Friday, February 10, 2017

Spinoza's Influence



It may be difficult to overestimate Spinoza's influence on Western thought. In The Ethics, published in 1677, he wrote:


“a body in motion keeps in motion, until it is determined to a state of rest by some other body; and a body at rest remains so, until it is determined to a state of motion by some other body” (II. Axiom II. Lemma III. Corollary) A quite long explanation follows. It’s not quite Sir Isaac Newton’s three laws of motion (1686); but it’s close enough to speculate about influence.  


Rousseau’s The Social Contract was published in 1762. The rather long passage below resonates with those ideas.  

“Every man exists by sovereign natural right, and,
consequently, by sovereign natural right performs those actions
which follow from the necessity of his own nature; therefore by
sovereign natural right every man judges what is good and what is
bad, takes care of his own advantage according to his own
disposition (IV. xix. and IV. xx.), avenges the wrongs done to
him (III. xl. Coroll. ii.), and endeavours to preserve that which
he loves and to destroy that which he hates (III. xxviii.).  Now,
if men lived under the guidance of reason, everyone would remain
in possession of this his right, without any injury being done to
his neighbour (IV. xxxv. Coroll. i.).  But seeing that they are a
prey to their emotions, which far surpass human power or virtue
(IV. vi.), they are often drawn in different directions, and
being at variance one with another (IV. xxxiii. xxxiv.), stand in
need of mutual help (IV. xxxv. note).  Wherefore, in order that
men may live together in harmony, and may aid one another, it is
necessary that they should forego their natural right, and, for
the sake of security, refrain from all actions which can injure
their fellow--men.  The way in which this end can be obtained, so
that men who are necessarily a prey to their emotions (IV. iv.
Coroll.), inconstant, and diverse, should be able to render each
other mutually secure, and feel mutual trust, is evident from IV.
vii. and III. xxxix.  It is there shown, that an emotion can only
be restrained by an emotion stronger than, and contrary to
itself, and that men avoid inflicting injury through fear of
incurring a greater injury themselves.

“On this law society can be established, so long as it keeps
in its own hand the right, possessed by everyone, of avenging
injury, and pronouncing on good and evil; and provided it also
possesses the power to lay down a general rule of conduct, and to
pass laws sanctioned, not by reason, which is powerless in
restraining emotion, but by threats (IV. xvii. note).  Such a
society established with laws and the power of preserving itself
is called a State, while those who live under its protection are
called citizens” (IV. XXXVII. note II.)

Wednesday, February 8, 2017

"Of Human Bondage." Spinoza

I titled this post "Of Human Bondage" because I like the literary allusion. The short passage below starts Part IV of The Ethics. Spinoza has taken almost all of Part III to set up the idea, common in Plato and Paul (Romans 7:19) that without effort (rational for Plato, spiritual for Paul) we are in thrall to our emotions. Spinoza does come at the emotion/rational dichotomy a little differently that Plato does. Throughout Part III, he sets up a picture of the emotions as passive because they are in response to external stimuli, and thus enslave us.

"Human infirmity in moderating and checking the emotions I name bondage: for, when a man is a prey to his emotions, he is not his own master, but lies at the mercy of fortune: so much so, that he is often compelled, while seeing that which is better for him, to follow that which is worse."

Fake News



Fake news, and for that matter, real news, in the current environment has become what Chaim Perelman and Luci Olbrechts-Tyteca call “pseudo-logic.” Don’t be fooled by that term. Pseudo-logic doesn’t mean illogical. It means an argument that draws its persuasive strength from having a structure that resembles logic. How does that work with fake news? 

It works because fake news does not seek to persuade, but to “increase the adherence” (another Perlamand and Olbrechts-Tyteca term) to beliefs already held. In the case of fake news, the news item its comfortably within a world view already held so strongly that the audience believes that world view is realty, not simply an interpretation of reality. Thus, a syllogism (of sorts) is formed.

P1: My world view is reality
P2: This news confirms with reality
C: Therefore, this news is fact

Notice that in this construction, no evidence, data, proof is required. In fact, any data contrary to the major premise can be ignored because it violates the syllogism. 

Anyone who has taken Logic 101 can point out the fallacy in this syllogism. Structurally, it is a tautology. More importantly, P1 (in Spinoza the “axioms”; P2 are his propositions) needs to be internally provable. In this neo-syllogism, P1 one is actually a proposition because it requires external proof, in other words, it has the same problem natural religion has in Hume’s “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.”