Humanity

If humanity is inherently empathetic, how did we become so doomed?

It would be wonderful to have a form of medicine concerned not with prolonging life, but instead the ability of our species to survive. This doesn’t require new research, but instead, an intersection of the wisdom that siloed pockets of the existing system have had at their disposal since the dawn of knowledge.

Is the commodification of resiliency the key or the kryptonite?

The Meno in Tehran

When in The Meno Plato writes “for all enquiry and all learning is but recollection”, he suggests that the soul has knowledge of all things. This statement rejects the role of the teacher as putting knowledge into the brain of the student. The key message of this passage suggests that lightbulb moments, moments of learning or education are instances of pre-existing knowledge coming to the surface of consciousness and not something new being put in the brain.

At some point between the first time I read the Meno in June of 2019 and the writing of this sentence, I realized that the words for teaching and learning in Farsi translate into “giving memory” and “getting memory”. In Farsi, the word “yaad” means memory. “Yaadam Oomad” means re-member, to recall memory and translates directly to ‘my memory came’. “Yaadet bedam” means to teach you and translates directly to ‘I give you memory’. While I recognized the word “yaad” as ‘memory’ in context of “I remember”, I associated the words for teaching and learning in Farsi in a utilitarian manner as the ideas they represented - teaching and learning, and not what deeper meaning they could hold - the literal translation of giving and receiving memory- as recollection.

Thinking about the idea of recollection in the context of education, teaching and learning, I came to realize that the terminology I already knew in Farsi directly represent the concept of recollection. I already had the ingredients for this realization in place, knowing the meanings of the individual words associated with the phrases memory, teaching and learning. I had just never seen the deeper link to the concept of recollection. This moment of realization of information I already knew is a direct performance of what Plato is suggesting as recollection in the Meno. Layered on top of this is the relationship between the structure of the Farsi language and Plato’s concept of recollection and the linguistic meaning of the words. The significance of this first hand personal experience is that it allowed me to believe the theory of recollection beyond its existence as just a theory. While before it was just information, the realization of my own blindness to the deeper meanings of “teach'' and “learn” in Farsi was an experience of what recollection is first hand. The idea of recollection in the Meno now has a place and a name in my conscious experience beyond the theory as explained in the Meno or the classroom.

A critic might argue that any arbitrary moment of remembering facts or realizing definitions that reference theories can be used as an example of recollection. That my example of the link to the words in Farsi and my ‘definition blindness’ is not of significant relevance to Plato’s theory. That what I highlight as an exciting linguistic representation of recollection may exist in other languages too. To consciously experience a concept in practise solidifies its meaning and place in the memory. Fitting together the puzzle pieces around the idea of recollection and the linguistic characteristics of the words memory, teach and learn in farsi was the closest I’ve come to an intensive personal association with Plato’s Meno.

In the face of an accusation around what is arbitrary and what is not, I question where is the line? How do we determine what is common enough to be arbitrary and what is unique enough to hold importance? Maintaining basic respect for the agency of each individual experience, mine happens to be at the intersection of recollection and the Farsi language when it comes to associating with Plato’s Meno. Yes, linguistic association of similar caliber may exist in other languages as well, but it was not in those languages that I found myself having a conscious and memorable first hand experience of recollection.

Augustine wrote the Matrix

I may or may not be writing this essay from the inside of a vat.

In “The Teacher” Augustine writes “we can’t know the thoughts of the speakers, though we speak the same language and the words are Latin and are clearly heard”. This passage suggests that despite speaking the same language in clear words, we cannot know the actual thoughts of speakers. His message here highlights the “temple of the mind” as something we may be more familiar with while analysing the knowability of external words, signs and communication - the thoughts of other people. Augustine presents a reality where the only thoughts we can know are our own.

In my first year as an undergraduate I signed up for Philosophy 100 where we learned about skepticism via the “Brains in a Vat” theory. While my young mind may not have had the abstract capacity to really identify with Augustine's religious undercurrents or Descartes' dense philosophy, the contemporary Brain in a Vat idea really stuck. Having watched the movie ‘The Matrix’, the Brains in a Vat idea was very digestible and built capacity in my perspective to later engage with more complex philosophy. I still haven’t decided whether or not I might be a brain in a vat, but the idea definitely shaped the way I interact with other people by shedding light on something I do believe; there is no way for me to really know the thoughts of other people, or as Augustine would put it, speakers. The only thoughts I can really try to know are my own. If I might be a brain in a vat, so might everyone else. How exciting!

Between Augustine’s not knowing the “thoughts of speakers” and the Brains in a Vat theory, both ideas point to the independence of inner thought and our inability to verify external stimuli as true. The presentation of both texts relies on establishing a clear definition of what can be known of the external world. Augustine specifically focuses on language and the thoughts of others while Brains in a Vat zeroes in on whether we can validate anything about the external world. It is even possible that these two ideas are historically linked. As I write this paragraph, it dawns on me that the Brain Vat Theory might have actually been inspired by Agustine’s “The Teacher''. A few clicks of the mouse suggest that Brains in a Vat was inspired by Descartes’ “I think Therefore I Am” which in turn was rooted in Agustinian principles. This sweet engagement with “The Teacher” after this epiphany feels like meeting the grandparent of the Brains in a Vat Theory.

A critic might argue that a relation between two concepts above serves as an observation of history and not a meaningful association. A more technical critic might point out that these theories are too different from one another to allow any claim of influence between them. While both theories have to do with the knowing of thoughts, Augustine’s messaging is more focused on communication with God and not knowing the thoughts of others, while the Brains in a Vat theory is less about others and more centered on whether or not I can know if I am a brain in a vat and what’s going on with my self-thought.

This critic may have picked the red pill. My suggestion of the causal history that led us from Augustine’s message through Descartes to Brains in a Vat and later to the Matrix may in fact be a historical observation. What makes it a meaningful association is the way these philosophical theories paved the way for my understanding in reverse chronological order, connecting the more recent pop culture to the ancient. It is difficult to say that any thought that comes about is not in some way influenced directly or indirectly by theories that came before. This does not depend on the actual validity of what was written in ink by Descartes, the inventor of Brains in a Vat or the creators of the Matrix and if they intended to follow the good word of St.Augustine. On the distinction between knowing the thoughts of others or knowing the vat status of the self, I will point out that it may be argued that the two are linked but not mutually exclusive. What I find most exciting is that one medium (film) has the power to be of service to the understanding of skepticism even for a brain in a vat like me. If I cannot know whether or not I am a Brain in a Vat, how could I begin to fathom what the thoughts of others are?

Vanitas & The Daodejing

Beautiful ideas are powerful. In book IV of the Republic, Plato writes in the voice of Socrates “If anyone attacks the land in which they live, they must plan on its behalf and defend it as their mother and nurse and think of the other citizens as their earthborn brothers”. On its own, this text reads as a description of the deep connection between people and mother earth. In the context of the dialogue however, this pleasant and enticing text is positioned as a falsehood; an idea used as a political tool intended to deceive the auxiliaries and people of a just city into behaving the way they are meant to. The controversial nature of this falsehood is even highlighted in the hesitance of Socrates in expressing it in conversation. Here is a beautiful, poetic and pleasant idea used politically to bait and control the consciousness of its audience. Although in the text explicitly titles the idea a falsehood, it still invites shock and discomfort at the corruption of a beautiful notion of the earth as mother and people as brethren for the sake of control and power over society. Politics once again ruins the beauty of what might have been.

The sun was peeking through the clouds on a Tuesday afternoon as I sat in a Foundations of Chinese Thought class as an undergraduate student. The sight was beautiful, but deceiving, as the dark clouds meant heavy rain. Beautiful ideas are the most powerful of weapons when it comes to controlling society. In this class I had a moment of absolute shock, discomfort and fear at the realization that the beautiful and poetic idea of Taoist ‘Wuwei’ might in reality be a tool for political control. Initially I was questioning why out of all the texts that could have survived history, it was the Daodejing that transcended time and space, remaining on public school syllabi to this day. Pondering “who benefits from this stillness” encouraged by the idea of Wuwei sparked the grand conspiracy and shock that ensued in my thoughts. While at first glance the idea of Wuwei, or non-action poetically promotes stillness and inner peace, it doubles as a falsehood leading the masses away from political uprising and into conformity with the systems in power. My emotional reaction was at the idea of being deceived - regardless of the intention of the author.

Beautiful ideas are a simple way to draw in political prey. The poetic idea explicitly presented as a falsehood in Book IV of the Republic by Plato and the idea of Wuwei found in the Daodejing both promote utopian societal values that influence the conformity of their audiences. While each concept is situated differently in presentation and background, both appear as beautiful ideas that excite the heart and present the political opportunity control the minds of the masses. Plato’s idea of all people being born of the earth and having a duty to protect it as their mother and each other as brethren is presented as an explicit falsehood, and Wuwei is simply presented as a way of life. Both notions inspire poetically pleasant and utopian initial responses with room for shock upon realization at the subcurrent of deceitful political intent by the institutions that promote them.

Such a harsh analysis of the idea of Wuwei may be frowned upon by those who see it not as a falsehood meant to deceive, but instead a tool for the survival of people facing precarious situations. It may even be argued that Wuwei and the proposed falsehood in Book IV of the Republic are incomparable because Plato’s is explicitly labelled a falsehood within the text while Wuwei is presented as a “classic of the way and virtue” by an old master (Laozi).

Despite the difference in era, positionality and context, the poetic beauty and promotion of conformity in common between the falsehood in the Republic and the idea of Wuwei cannot be denied. Nor can one deny the soul wrenching gut reaction at the realization of the deceitful nature of these beautiful ideas regardless of the author's intention. At first impression, I found myself drawn into the blissful utopian possibilities described as Wuwei and the Falsehood in Book IV of the Republic. While the first took critical analysis to reveal it’s potential for political influence and the latter was forthcoming in it’s falsehood, both serve as tools for political control regardless of the intention of the author. The trouble with the power of these beautiful ideas is that they can be misused when that beauty and power is taken advantage of.

Experience, Education and Economy

In Experience and Education John Dewey writes “How does subject-matter function? Is there anything inherent in experience, which tends towards progressive organization of its contents? What results follow when the materials of experience are not progressively organized? A philosophy which proceeds on the basis of rejection, of sheer opposition, will neglect these questions. It will tend to suppose that because the old education was based on ready-made organization, therefore it succeeds to reject the principle of organization in toto, instead of striving to discover what it means and how it is to be attained on the basis of experience.”. Here Dewey asserts that merely rejecting the past and calling it ‘progress’ results in a reaction to what wasn’t working instead of a solution to what a situation calls for based on experience. This passage points to the questions and critical analysis that are missed out on when we move too hastily into rejection in the name of progress.

My first introduction to the world of economics brought shed light on the possible reality that life today is not that substantially different from feudalism when it comes to the concentration of wealth within an upper class based on land ownership. At the time, I became curious as to why and how we got to where we are and eventually assumed that capitalism is a rejection of feudalism, not a critically analysed consideration of societal needs. A few weeks ago, I was reminded of my curiosities around economics in conversation about the possibilities for economic reform after a pandemic. A very intelligent friend sent me the following passage: “Capital’s economic science fictions cannot simply be opposed; they need to be countered by economic science fictions that can exert pressure on capital’s current monopolization of possible realities” from the foreword of Economic Science Fictions by William Davies. What really stuck with me from this conversation was the idea that possible realities can be monopolized.

I associate Dewey’s sentiments with my recent interaction through the shared warning of what is at stake when we move hastily into ‘progress’ based on rejection instead of critical analysis because both use history to inspire critical analysis for future progress.

A critic might argue that instead of concern for future progress, what these two ideas have more specifically in common is a focus on critical analysis, because Dewey does not explicitly mention the future in the highlighted passage and my initial spark of association with the history of economics was the shift from past to present, not future.

Here I will ask, if not for the sake of a better informed future, what is the point in looking to history for what could have been done better or applying critical analysis to present activities? I’m not saying that the past and present only serve us for the future. The focus here is critical analysis and its application to progress, and I may be so bold as to assume that progress is considered inherently oriented towards the future.

Infinite Consumption

In Deschooling Society Ivan Illich writes “Man now defines himself as the furnace which burns up the values produced by his tools. And there is no limit to his capacity”. Here Illich paints a picture of a stark future in which man continues to consume the values produced by tools of society such as schooling, the medical system etc. into infinity. The idea of a furnace burning suggests a destructive nature to this consumption.

In January 2018 I came across a headline about how they had successfully cloned a monkey in China. This discovery was equal parts fascinating and frightening as I quickly realized that if monkeys can be cloned, human organs will soon follow, creating a possible reality in which human life could be medically extended beyond what we can even fathom today. The cause for fright here was the threat to the essence of humanity if science brought us to a place where we could take control of death and delay it into infinity, expanding capacity for the consumption of life itself into infinity.

I associate my moment of shock around the possible reality of hyper-extended human life as hyperbolized by Illich’s imagery of man as furnace because both share the common theme of the limitless capacity of man to consume. One could even apply the idea of the infinite capacity of man to consume as fed by infinite life as the ultimate consumption.

A critic may argue that while cloning of human organs is under development, there has been no actual scientific discovery that makes hyperextension of human life fully feasible, and therefore that my association is really just a useless thought experiment, limited in the value it may add to the idea presented by Illich. Further, that the purpose of Illich’s use of metaphor is to emphasize his message on the values produced by tools, and that my association fails to directly acknowledge this element of the passage.

Here, I will point out that the terms used by Illich sit in metaphor themselves - man is not actually a furnace, he seems to be actively promoting a creative critical analysis here which could actually be well met with hypothetical questioning of the ultimate consumption of infinite human life. Further, scientific progress affecting the duration of human life would be a product of the tool that is the modern day medical system and research via higher education institutions.

The Dialectic of Freedom and Being Seen

The Dialectic of Freedom and Being Seen In The Dialectic of Freedom Maxine Greene writes “Reading such a work, we cannot but find our own world somehow defamiliarized. Defamiliarized, it discloses aspects of experience ordinarily never seen. Critical awareness may be somehow enhanced, as new possibilities open for reflection.”. This passage refers to the power of poetry to present a new plane for critical awareness and conscious reflection. My understanding of this passage is focused on the message that art can present us with a connection that is more familiar than the world we usually occupy.

About a week ago I saw a short clip posted by the Metropolitan Museum of Art on Instagram. The clip was about a moment of feeling seen by artwork. In a few minutes, the short documentary style clip shared how a member of the museum administration from the IT department typically felt invisible in society. She shared how coming across the Prologue Series by Glen Ligon allowed her to feel understood. How seeing her own experience of feeling invisible reflected in the artwork of another person sparked a feeling of connection to the museum and to society. While artwork is usually considered something to be consumed, here was a moment where the gaze was reversed.

I associate Greene’s passage on defamiliarization of our world and enhanced critical awareness created by art with the experience shared by the met museum clip as related by example because both involve an idea of seeing, familiarization and shift in critical awareness. Greene sets the stage for our understanding of the power of art in its ability to incite connection through creative expression and this seems to be exemplified by the interaction between the met administration staff member and her interaction with the work of Glen Ligon. As though the Prologue Series quietly disclosed “aspects of experience ordinarily never seen” to a woman who felt seen by the artwork.

A critic may point out that Greene is using this passage and even chapter on art to further a greater agenda around the idea of freedom. That my very specific association has more to do with the meaningful consumption of art than it does the critical awareness that Greene may aim to inspire.

Here, I will question how this critic would expect an individual such as the met museum employee to develop or use critical awareness towards freedom from within the confines of feelings of invisibility? I will propose that the example of the power of art to create space for connection beyond the day to day is the first step towards the freedom that Greene aims to promote.