Philosophy can be made to be quite entertaining

I came across the following blog whilst searching for something else.

'The Bro'

How can my straight-shooting run-of-the-mill logic compete with the pizzazz of that?

Enjoy!!

'Desperate Times' and all that

On my way to and from my place in Rondebosch, I must pass by a huge office complex that has been newly built. There are always a couple of black guys who are wearing foam arrows on their hands and wearing signs about the Open House that's happening to try to rent out office space. It reminds me of the high school dropouts in Canada who get jobs where they stand by the side of the road wearing signs advertising the $5 'Hot n' Ready' pepperoni pizza outside of Little Caesar's joints.

But what really got me was another pub experience at my usual watering hole. I swear that if there were more places like that around the world, everyone would feel so much better, because it seems no matter what youre looking for, everything happens there.

Anyway, I was doing my usual intermittent observing of the local fanfare and my eyes kept falling back on two quite attractive ladies who were decked out in flashy green habits (hooded cloaks) and apparently just standing at one end of the bar, sometimes talking to people, but mostly minding their own business.

My first impression was that maybe they were part of some religious cult and had just come from some service or were doing some sort of recruitment drive (believe me, its no so far-fetched given the amount of times I've got onto a train in Cape Town and some individual is going on in an apparently psychopathic fever about how Jesus saves). I didn't really want to get into a religious argument, especially with two beautiful women, but finally my curiosity got the better of me and I walked over to inquire. And I walked away absolutely astonished.

You see, these two individuals were actually there promoting Marlboro's new brand of cigarettes. They told me that advertising regulations made it so that they could not do 'forced advertising' of tobacco products, so they basically had to stand there and wait for people to come to them after they became curious enough (like me). The one of them asked if I smoked, and I said 'well, not tobacco', and after that point she said that she was bounded by the guidelines of her job that she could no longer talk to me because I wasn't interested in her product. When I protested and said that I wanted to know about it so that I could tell my friends, she calmly replied 'then tell your friends to come over here, i am not allowed to talk to you while im working'. And I walked away absolutely astonished that corporations could so badly objectify people, exploiting the fact that there is so much unemployment in South Africa that people will pretty much do anything. And the rest of the evening, I watched as her and her comrades (there were also two smartly dressed guys who I hadnt noticed before) moved about the crowd, sometimes posing for photos with people who wanted a pic of the girls, but ended up getting a pic of the girls with a giant green packet of Marlboros in the middle of the shot.

Wow.

The Ferris Wheel of Shit

I've been away for a few weeks trying to deal with the ruckus of everything that has fallen onto my plate and trying to repair my injured vanity after my blog went for 6 days without a single visit. SIX DAYS??? I thought various individuals read it every morning with their tea? ;)

Anyway, my philosophy masters is officially done, and I may have proved a big result in the sub-sub-discipline that I am involving myself in with regard to my MSc mathematics. Just waiting for my supervisor to comment. So that's nice.

During a recent exchange, I was reminded of an article that I had read a few years back during my summer in Halifax. I hadn't remembered the whole content, but I had remembered the line 'Here comes another commie rant'. I found it online, re-read it, and was thoroughly pleased with the outcome, especially after all the stuff I've done with regard to Marx recently. Quite brilliant, in my humble opinion. So here you go. Browse at your leisure.

"Lohan Common Denominator"

Philosophy in a Nutshell

Although philosophy has a long legacy, and is arguably responsible for all things academic (the natural sciences coming from Aristotle, psychology and sociology being 'applied philosophy' from the 1800s i.e. Freud on the one hand, and Comte and Durkheim on the other, mathematics coming from the Ancient Greeks).

Basically, philosophy was first summarized to me as an attempt to answer three questions:

1) Who are we?
2) What do we know?
3) What should we do?

The first question is usually dealt with in metaphysics, the second in epistemology, and the third in ethics and political/social philosophy. But of course there is a vast overlap between the two. 'Are we ethical beings?' might be a question put to the first, and this directly affects how the third should be answered, although in all fairness putting such a question to the first is already having 'loaded' it.

But more so, it is amazing that bashing away at these simple questions for millenia has basically made the world how we see it today. We apply (3) in every daily activity whether it be sports or academia. And to the second question, a sceptic might say 'nothing for certain' (or, like Socrates, say 'the only thing that I know is that I know nothing'), and so one could say that we haven't even gotten off the ground and never will.

So why do we worry about these questions? Well surely if we didn't we would still be in our caves.

Pascal's Can of Wagers

Last night I was thinking about Pascal's Wager and toying with making it the topic of today's post. Admittedly, a lot of the direction of the argument stems from various parts of the corresponding wikipedia article, but anyway...

Many know something of Blaise Pascal's famous wager with respect to the existence of God. I would wager (haha) that few have actually read the Pensées, and/or perhaps could not even recognize when it is alluded to, since most have simply seen it in the following simplified 'decision theory' form:

Wager:
(a) Believe in God
(b) Do not believe in God

Possibilities:
(i) God exists
(ii) God does not exist

Consequences:
(a) If (i) is true, then you get infinite bliss, if (ii) is true then you lose nothing.
(b) If (i) is true, you burn in Hell, if (ii) is true, you lose nothing.

One problem is that critics of his wager attack its simplified form. Walter Kaufmann, for example, argues that if God is truly omniscient, then surely he will frown upon (i.e. punish) someone trying to use a simple logical trick to get into Heaven, so surely such a method is bound to fail in the end. This criticism has been used to both satirize the Wager, and justify its false logic, for example:

"Suppose there is a god who is watching us and choosing which souls of the deceased to bring to heaven, and this god really does want only the morally good to populate heaven. He will probably select from only those who made a significant and responsible effort to discover the truth. For all others are untrustworthy, being cognitively or morally inferior, or both. They will also be less likely ever to discover and commit to true beliefs about right and wrong. That is, if they have a significant and trustworthy concern for doing right and avoiding wrong, it follows necessarily that they must have a significant and trustworthy concern for knowing right and wrong. Since this knowledge requires knowledge about many fundamental facts of the universe (such as whether there is a god), it follows necessarily that such people must have a significant and trustworthy concern for always seeking out, testing, and confirming that their beliefs about such things are probably correct. Therefore, only such people can be sufficiently moral and trustworthy to deserve a place in heaven — unless God wishes to fill heaven with the morally lazy, irresponsible, or untrustworthy." (Richard Carrier)

(I believe this sort of argument is sometimes referred to as 'Pascal's Demon', because it essentially tries to show that the Wager could actually be convincing people to take up a logical argument that is bound to fail in the face of God, thus recruiting minions to Hell).

However, in it's original form, Pascal's Wager is actually put forward as an impetus to faith, i.e.:

"Now, what harm will befall you in taking this side? You will be faithful, honest, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere friend, truthful. Certainly you will not have those poisonous pleasures, glory and luxury; but will you not have others? I will tell you that you will thereby gain in this life, and that, at each step you take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what you risk, that you will at last recognize that you have wagered for something certain and infinite, for which you have given nothing."

However, this does not deal with a host of other problems, one of the main being 'Ok, even if we accept Pascal's logic, what's to say whether we should believe in this God or that? Since there are so many possibilities, surely by choosing you are actually putting yourself at the risk of burning in the Hell of whatever God is up there, should it not be your own?'

But even if we put questions within religion to the side for a second, Pascal's Wager has opened up a proverbial can of worms ever since religion became such a controversial subject in the modern age due to many critics questioning, for example, its political motives (recall that during Pascal's time, religion was not often debated openly, and non-Christian religions were not as 'global' as they are now).

This new religious 'scrutiny', especially by those who see things like Pascal's Wager as a tool of 'flawed logic' to recruit people to religious sects, has opened up a proverbial can of worms in the sense that there are now many other versions of Pascal's Wager that attempt to satirize it and thus argue against its validity as a logical tool, as well to put forward alternatives to say that Pascal's 'logic' can be used to argue against believing in God; it all depends on how you put your argument forward. Religious critic Richard Dawkins, for example, puts forward the 'Anti-Pascal Wager' in The God Delusion by revaluing life as what's important (scored with infinite loss if you 'waste' it on kowtowing to God or infinite gain if you 'spend it wisely' on making a genuine effort to make a difference in the world itself) and afterlife as simply a meager 'bonus'. Another is the 'Atheist's Wager', which is akin to the 'Pascal's Demon' criticism above. It alleges that if you maintain scepticism then you may build a 'positive legacy' by doing good things in life, and this you gain, then if there does exist a God in the end, he will reward you for your good deeds as well as your staunch resistance to blind faith.

Whatever the outcome of the Wager or its many versions, Pascal's Wager was the beginning of modern decision theory/game theory (for example, the Prisoner's Dilemma), and thus, irrespective of the validity of its content, his suggestion/approach is definitely useful for philosophy. In true, demonic fashion, however, I must leave the last word to the critics:

"[Pascal's Wager is] indecent and childish... the interest I have to believe a thing is no proof that such a thing exists."

--Voltaire

"By arguing that we should first act and then gain faith Pascal is in fact subjecting us to physical domination through use of ideological power (i.e. we are being forced to physically kneel down, pray, etc.). For this reason Louis Althusser claims that Pascal brings 'like Christ, not peace but strife, and in addition something hardly Christian... scandal itself'."

--Wikipedia

'Living Labour' or 'Human Capital'?

As I was walking through Observatory last night on my way back from Rondebosch, I happened to look up at a sign I had seen numerous times before: it was an advertisement for the company that resided there, called 'CallStaff'. I had seen the name before and assumed it must be a temp agency, so I hadn't bothered too much with on the previous occasions that I had walked by. But last night I chanced to read (and process) the entire sign. At the bottom of the sign it said something to the effect of 'Temporary, Contract, and Permanent Labour Solutions', but right above that it said 'Human Capital Management'.

Human capital? I've heard of 'living labour' (as Marx termed it), but human capital? Isn't capital simply a broad term for financial assets, such as 'investment capital' is the amount of (surplus) financial assets that one has to re-invest? If that is the case, isn't it rather absurd to say that humans are 'owned'? (I mean, one could give the case that they are, at the very least, treated as such. But doesn't just coming out and saying it like that seem a bit brash?)

So I hired the help of dictionary.com, which provided me with the answer:

capital:

4. the wealth, whether in money or property owned or employed in business by an individual firm, corporation, etc.

5. an accumulated stock of such wealth.

6. any form of wealth employed or capable of being employed in the production of more wealth.

On the surface of it, it is perhaps a case of splitting hairs, when you hire someone to work for you, it seems a bit impertinent to say that you own them or that they are your property (at least, one would like to think this, though the reality of the situation is that one would likely not be surprised to see employees treated in such a way). But what is more interesting is definition #6. What is 'wealth'? Mostly we would think of wealth in terms of riches or abundance of something, or at least some sort of property, but Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations might lead us to be a bit suspicious of these general 'un-economic' ideas of wealth. So, dictionary.com again.

wealth:

3.a. all things that have a monetary or exchange value.
b. anything that has utility and is capable of being appropriated or exchanged

Ahhh! So now we have our answer. 'Human capital' is 'human wealth' (i.e. beings that can be utilized) capable of being employed in the production of more wealth.

Should we really be surprised, though? From my observations, the growing trend is that employees are facing greater and greater dehumanization for the sake of expanding the coffers of the rich elite. And yes, one may accuse me of being on a bit of a 'Marxist streak' after recent events in terms of completing my thesis. However, the main problem I have is when companies like 'CallStaff' are allowed to openly undermine human dignity by advertising themselves as a company that basically treats people like game pieces.

Or maybe that's not such a bad thing. Maybe it means that eventually people will be pushed to the limit and be forced to respond.

Any takers for the slogan 'Human Livestock Available! Rock Bottom Prices!'?

Probability, Philosophy, and Monty Hall

I'm not sure that it is possible to come up with something original every weekday, and today is one of those days where my mind is elsewhere. So here is something I've plagiarized word-for-word from a photocopy tacked to a wall in the mathematics department at UCT (the original author is Dr. J Ritchie, a senior lecturer on the Philosophy of Science here at UCT). I thought the ending fit nicely with some of the things I said yesterday with regard to consequentialism and finitism.

The Monty Hall Problem

Here's a puzzle you might have heard before. Imagine you are taking part in a game show. The host, Monty Hall, has three doors in front of him. Behind one there is a car and behind the other two a goat. At the end of the game you will have chosen one of the doors and you'll win whatever is inside. You want to win the car.

You start by choosing one door at random. Monty looks behind the other two doors and opens one of them to reveal a goat. He now offers you the chance to swap your door for the one he didn't open. What should you do?

Many people argue like this. There are only two possibilities: the car is either behind your door or Monty's, each is equally likely, so it doesn't matter which door you choose. But that's a mistake. There are three possibilities at the beginning of the game, all of which we assume are equally likely. Either you have chosen the door with the car or you've chosen the door with goat 1 or you've chosen the door with goat 2. If you swap in the first case, you'll win a goat. If you swap in the other two cases, then you'll win the car. Hence you're twice as likely to win if you swap, so you should swap.

That's a simple problem in probability theory but let's now think about it in a different way. Imagine instead of winning a car that Monty promises to shower you in riches, if you win. But if you lose, Monty will shoot you. Of course, you might not want to play that game. But tough, Monty has kidnapped all your family and threatened to kill them all and you unless you play. The game proceeds as before. You choose a door, Monty opens one of his doors to reveal a goat (which now represents your imminent death) and asks if you want to swap. What should you do?

We've ratcheted up the drama a bit, you might think, but the logic of the case remains the same. You are more likely to win if you swap. So you should swap. Let's say you swap and it turns out the door you are left with contains a goat; so Monty shoots you. In what sense, then, was it the right decision to swap?

The obvious response is that it is the right thing to do because, if you play the game a lot, you will win twice as often (on average) as you lose. Probabilities in other words tell us about long-run frequencies. But this kind of game you can't play a lot. Once you lose, you are in a very serious way out of the game for good. In fact since relative frequencies only converge on probabilities in the infinite long run and in the long-run we're all dead, is there any good reason ever to choose the more probable option? Now we've moved from a simple problem in probability theory to a hard problem in philosophy... But I've run out of space to offer you any solutions.

(By the way, you are invited to send possible solutions to jack.ritchie@uct.ac.za)