Nice ideas from How the World Thinks
Taken the week off so spent time catching up with the family and chilling out. Other than a couple of big runs, I'm feeling pretty chilled out.
Review of the Week
I've just finished quite a nice book How the World Thinks by Julian Baggini about different global philosophical traditions. In this review I'm going to discuss some of the the nice ideas bought out in the book, which were either new to me or that presented things in a new light.
The big idea of the book is that by reflecting on other philosophies, we can expand upon our existing beliefs by borrowing concepts or framing things in a new way. I'd say he was successful in this goal, and the book is quite accessible, so if you're interested in this kind of thing then I'd recommend the purchase!
Ineffability
Ineffability isn't a term that I've come across before. The book describes ineffability as where:
"...the purest knowledge of reality comes from direct experience and so the most fundamental truths cannot be captured in language."
In other words knowledge comes from doing, not being told what to do. This contrasts with more concrete doctrines of Western religion (for example the ten commandments are held up as hard rules) as well as secular Western philosophy (for example Kant's categorical imperative).
This theory of knowledge is one of the central aspects of the Daoist Chinese philosophy, but elements of it can be found in other Eastern philosophies. Daoism is chiefly concerned with how to live ones life, with the literal translation of the dao as the way. The first line of the Daodejing, the seminal work of Daoism, shows the importance of ineffability to this philosophy: “The dao that can be told is not the eternal Dao" - the way to live your life that can be explained is not the true way to live your life.
I like the concept as it speaks to my experience that hard rules have too many exceptions to be useful. I also find that concepts often form in my mind which I struggle to put into words. One of the reasons I've started writing more is to try and get better using language to explain concepts. Maybe if Daoism is correct then the deepest ideas are those that cannot be spoken of!
Apories
An aporetic approach to philosophy is defined in the book as where we "bring out contradictions in our common-sense ways of thinking and replace them with new distinctions that preserve logical consistency." An example is the statements:
- It is important to treat humans as equal,
- It is important to put our families first.
These two statements are contradictory, but many would agree with the sentiments described in both. Only by studying them further can we come up with improved rules which apply in all situations.
What I like about it is the way that Baggini uses it to demonstrate the difference in thinking between Western and Eastern philosophies. The aporetic approach is common in Western thought, while Eastern thought often suggests putting things into easily defined boxes often leads to failure. Instead we can seek to approach each situation on its merits.
Reductionism
Reductionism is the belief that the best way to understand a complex system or concept is to break it down into its constituent parts. These individual elements in the system are then simpler to understand. The hope is that by figuring out what's going on at these scales, we gain insight about the larger system.
This works for many physical systems. For example when looking at how a bike functions, we study the wheels, the braking system, the pedalling system and the steering system individually. Once we understand the parts, we bring them together to explain how the whole bike works.
However, this often doesn't work so well outside the physical sciences. If every person in a society tries to optimise for their own personal wealth and nothing else (individualism), then it is unlikely that this would result in a flourishing society. Similarly, much of economics is misguided when it applies insights from simplified model systems to the real world, which is significantly messier.
Reductionism is mostly a Western approach to philosophy; in the Eastern tradition more weight is put on treating the system as a single unified entity.
The Relational Self
Ideas of reductionism can be extended to how we consider the self. The atomised self considers the self to be an individual node in isolation to other individuals. Alternatively, the relational self is an alternative conception of the self which considers how we relate to others as being crucial to how to understand the self. Although most schools borrow ideas from both theories of the self, the general trend is that Western thought is chiefly concerned with ideas of the atomised self while Eastern thought emphasises the relational self.
Autonomy vs. Belonging
The differences between the relational and the atomised self can also be framed in a battle between ideas of autonomy and belonging. The book sees this as a source of political strife in the modern West:
"More of one inevitably leaves us with less of the other, and in the West the autonomy culture has become so dominant it has squeezed out belonging"
The argument put forwards by the book is loosely as follows. Autonomy is the driving force behind consumer culture where what the individual wants is always best. However these ideas come at the expense of belonging, where we should concern ourselves with the good of the community. In turn, we suffer from "the collapse of traditional industry and the fragmentation of the class system." We end up in a place where patriotism is looked down upon and not moving from where you grew up shows a lack of ambition.
The problem with the emphasis on autonomy from those in power is that this contrasts with how most people in the West actually live and see the world. This argument sees the rise of populism as an expression of a desire for emphasis on belonging.
The emphasis of political forces towards autonomy in the West is contrasted to countries like China and Japan which hold theories of the relational self closer.
Harmony
Harmony is another important concept in traditional Chinese thought. The idea is related to Western notions of conservatism (harmony with the past) as well as the relational self (harmony with others). Baggini quotes a classical text for how we should imagine harmony: "a single sound is not musical, a single colour does not constitute a beautiful pattern, a single flavour does not make a delicious dish, and a single thing does not make harmony". This not just applicable to cultural concepts; it extends to human interactions and nature too.
In human interactions, we each have our individual roles to play, for example in the family unit (as a child or as husband/wife), or in institutional settings like work/school. Taken to extremes, instead of just being conservative it can end up being an inertial philosophy, where roles are set in stone and progress like equal rights for women and minorities become impossible. However, a middle ground can exist, where instead of defining ourselves as fully autonomous individuals, we can situate ourselves into the roles that each of us play towards the harmony of the groups we find ourselves in, while acknowledging that these roles are not static and are open to improvement.
Training Thoughts
Took last week light as I'd been on the verge of over-cooking it for a while and maybe tipped over the edge on the Sunday. Fortunately this put me in a good place for a brutal trial session with a new training group on Tuesday (18x600m off 74s laps). The philosophy seemed to be sit out laps if you're struggling (I managed 14/18, the others missed 18/18). I feel faster already, even if I also feel shattered from the effort.
Coding Projects
Qualification round of Google CodeJam was last Saturday and I felt pretty rusty. Managed to solve first 4 problems in the end & timed out on question 5. Ridley had a nice answer for it, but don't think I was too close. Keeping a repo here though haven't spent any time making it pretty. Having taken the week off I was tempted to spend some time coding but have just been chilling out and reading in the sun instead so far.
Top Twitter Follows
Tom McTague is a writer for The Atlantic, and generally posts reasoned takes about foreign affairs and retweets interesting articles from others. An interesting source for the kind of "what's actually going on here" journalism that's often lacking in the newspapers.
Other Thoughts
- Read a really nice article on conceptual overreach here. It looks at how we often try to take well-established concepts (like Human Rights or Democracy) and extend them beyond their established remit, which in turn weakens them. Others would probably try and write a book on this, here are 4100 concise words. Would recommend.
- Another article which was a really nice read was a book review for Just Deserts, which I ordered partly from the review. I thought the review was a really good read and forms the structure that I'm aiming for here - it gave a quick opinion on the book but then introduced and explored the ideas in the book in a really engaging way.