Aristotle on the Gun Debate

The Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


Aristotle: "Without discipline, infantry are useless" (Politics 4.VIII)

Question: Will we be safer if we have more guns or more discipline?

Aristotle's Politics on a Hot Day

Listening to Aristotle's Politics while running the canal roads I'm struck, not for the first time, with how often his ideas are condensed, simplified, turned into sound bites that make him sound naive, if not simplistic. I've been guilty of doing the same myself. In the past I have been known to say that Aristotle divided political systems into two types,* oligarchy and democracy, and that, like Plato, he was critical of democracy. By the time I got to Fourth Book of Politics (only halfway through) I discovered that I was the one being simplistic.

What he actually writes is that most people think there are only two forms of government because these are the two forms they see the most often. He insists that "There are so many different kinds of democracies and of oligarchies" (VI). He then subdivides each into so many categories that I couldn't follow him while running. (It was 92 degrees; felt like 96 with the humidity figured in; I have an excuse.)

After mentioning that "an ideal state which is an aspiration only," he writes that governments must adjust to the situation, (a subtle dig at Plato?). Then he writes about  a "polity or constitutional government" (IV) which he sees as the most effective government. This is a government that combines elements of an oligarchy and a democracy, trying, if incompletely so, to get the best of both. I won't go into details.  This chapter is worth reading by anyone interested in politics. And, if Aristotle is right, we are political animals.

Just one factoid to illustrate how different our ideas of democracy are from those in 4th Century BC: According to Aristotle, oligarchies elect officials by vote; democracies elect officials by lot. (Why? Election by lots keeps the rich from being able to buy elections. Are you listening Koch brothers?)



*He also dealt with dictatorship and monarchy, but felt those required less attention. An assessment I agree with.

Payback for all those words Plato put in Socrates's Mouth?

Dawn over the canal road at Santa Ana NWR

Hume's "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion"

I'm going to have to go back and listen to this again in six months or so. The arguments are quite complex, too complex to follow while running. Hume thoroughly explores all arguments that might be made about the existence or nature of God. Though Philo takes on the role of Devil's Advocate, which provides a nice twist in Part 12, overall, the dialogue lacks the  humor of Plato's dialogues.

At question in Hume’s treatise is whether we can come to a knowledge of God, or even the belief there is a God, by systematically observing nature. This method leads to a problem that tends to obfuscate the argument even today. Of course, Hume is writing at the cusp of the scientific revolution. So it makes sense that he should explore whether experience or reason, science or a prior arguments, are the best method for coming to a conclusion about God. The problem, as Hume recognized, is that any empirical discovery can be interpreted to prove either side of the argument. In the dialogues, Philo remarks that,    

“The discoveries by microscopes, as they open a new

universe in miniature, are arguments ·for theism· according

to me, whereas to you they are objections to it. The further

we push our researches of this kind, the more we are led to

infer that the universal cause of it all is vastly different from

mankind, and from anything of which we have empirical

knowledge” (Part 5)

The conclusion we have to come to, and that Pamphelus was so uncomfortable with, is that we believe what we believe, or often what we must believe, and filter the evidence through our belief. In this sense, all knowledge is a priori, though not necessarily rationally so. In fact, one could draw the inference that the more strongly we believe on either side of the hypothesis, the less rational we have become.  

Mesquite Ridge Trail in Pedernales Falls State Park

 The trail, which follows the Mesquite Ridge along the west side of the river, is mostly flat. Just enough switchbacks to make it interesting. Not as many views of the river valley as I'd expected.

Natural Religion

Listening to David Hume's Dialogues on Natural Religion. I'm fascinated by his description of cynicism in the first chapter. According to Hume, cynicism is based on a distrust of human understanding. Because humans have only incomplete knowledge, they shouldn't assume to actually know anything. They should, thus, be skeptical of any belief, particularly a belief in God. (It's not clear yet which participant in the dialogue is voicing Hume's perspective. Must keep listening to figure that out.)

The version of cynicism prevalent in Hume's time seems to be the opposite of modern cynicism. Modern cynics assumes the superiority of human knowledge, that science has, or eventually will, open all mysteries, understand all things. Thus, we should take a cynical stance toward anything that can not be explained by science, IE, God.

There is a paradox revealed by these two versions of cynicism; either our understanding is incomplete, therefore we should be cynical about the existence of God, or our understanding is complete, therefore we should be cynical about the existence of God. This circularity reveals less about the existence of God than it does about cynicism, which seems to have a preconceived notion of the existence of God, then looks around for a rationale for that disbelief.