Touchy Subjects

Chris Hedges and the Justification for Non-Violence

I have been concerned about how the police state  developing in this country may lead the masses of people who live here but don’t benefit from it’s wealth to resort to violence. If people get desperate, it would be natural to think that they would engage in acts of violence to protest, to vent frustrations, or to get a little pay-back.

I have been concerned about what Chris Hedges has said because I thought, from what he said, that people in this country would be understandable and not surprising if they resorted to violence in order to redress the country’s inequalities. It would be understandable and unsurprising because this is what the people of other countries have done in similar situations.

I thought that Hedges did not say out loud but implied covertly that Americans would be justified in resorting to violence because the crimes of the police state left them no choice.

I thought this was a terrible position for Hedges to have, and I thought he had such a position.  I thought it was a bad position not because I thought the police state was a good thing, or I thought that the powers-that-be are justified in stealing from and murdering people foreign and domestic. I thought that violence itself would be wrong, a mistake in how we deal with hoodlums and sociopaths, as well as destructive both to the masses of people who are the victims of the police state, who presumably would engage in violence, but the country itself.

After all, the government alone spends a trillion dollars a year in defense-military-intelligence endeavors just to prevent any kind of effective countermeasures by the population at large which it oversees.

We should expect the blowback to be painful in unexpected ways.

Therefore, I am very interested in the following discussion of Occupy tactics by Chris Hedges. He makes a special point that violence as a tactic must be avoided because it would justify a  brutal response from the police. It would also scare off would be converts and allies in the general population.

I was impressed.

http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/the_critic_and_his_critics

_hedges_vs_the_black_bloc_20120407/

The question I continue to have is whether Hedges has addressed the issues adequately. Is there something that the Black Block gets that Hedges misses?

Understanding Wittgenstein // What is a “philosophical theory” and are they of any use?

It seems to me that Wittgenstein was very much interested in the political goings on of his time. He was interested in the conflicts that had been causing great suffering in Europe and the world in general. I take it, his interest in Dostoevsky and his novel The Brothers Karamazov stoked this interest. The following example taken from an essay arguing that Wittgenstein was interested in the world, supports this claim.

from

Philosophy as a Service Industry, or, Reintroducing the Philosophical Life

by

ESA SAARINEN & T. P. USCHANOV, Department of Philosophy, University of Helsinki

…In the autumn of 1939, Wittgenstein and his friend Norman Malcolm were walking along the river Cam in Cambridge when they saw a newspaper vendor's sign announcing that the German government had accused the British government of instigating an attempt to assassinate Hitler. When Wittgenstein remarked that it wouldn't surprise him at all if it were true, Malcolm retorted that "the British were too civilized and decent to attempt anything so underhand, and . . . such an act was incompatible with the British 'national character'." Wittgenstein was furious, and the incident broke off his relations to Malcolm for some time (Malcolm, p. 30). Five years later, he wrote to Malcolm:

Whenever I thought of you I couldn't help thinking of a particular incident which seemed to me very important. . . . you made a remark about 'national character' that shocked me by its primitiveness. I then thought: what is the use of studying philosophy if all that it does for you is to enable you to talk with some plausibility about some abstruse questions of logic, etc., & if it does not improve your thinking about the important questions of everyday life, if it does not make you more conscientious than any . . . journalist in the use of the DANGEROUS phrases such people use for their own ends. (Malcolm, p. 93)

What is the use of studying philosophy if it doesn't improve your thinking about the important questions of everyday life? Contradicting the standard academic account of what Wittgenstein was up to, we believe that this is the pressing question he asked himself throughout his philosophical career. It was also a question Wittgenstein thought of as outweighing any specific philosophical theses or theories. But it is also exactly the question that has been forgotten and even laughed at by the mainstream of today's professional philosophy.

What is a “toxic idea” according to the powers that be?

 

A “toxic idea” is an idea  based on some kind of confusion or misunderstanding which when looked at superficially looks credible, but under closer examination turns out to be nonsense. It is “disguised nonsense.”

The claim that  some part of the United States government either knew about the plot to commit the 9-11 murders and did nothing effective to stop it, or itself planned and carried out that plot, is an example of such a “toxic idea.”

The official story of 9-11 is considered to be “fact-based” and rigorous in its reliance on the best rules of reasoning our civilization can provide.

Supposedly, the arguments offered by the official story, and it's critics, are as different as night and day.

This is why in polite and credible circles, people acknowledge the official story and never consider or mention the critic’s “conspiracy theories.”

Understanding Wittgenstein // The Baby and the Bathwater

I want to summarize my argument for what philosophy was about in the twentieth century.

All philosophy after Socrates has held that (1) our understanding of everything is based on the way we argue, and (2) we argue best when we argue logically.

There have been many challenges and amplifications to this view.  In the twentieth century, Frege argued that there exists a foundation or basis for argumentation, upon which all arguments are held. He just restated what has been thought to be the case since ancient times. Upon this ground there is the possibility of resolving conflicts.

We care about Frege because he spoke about this baby. He explained why it was precious.

Wittgenstein argued that there exists in our culture certain philosophical  theories which lie at the source of the world’s conflicts. These theories include the allegory of the cave, the allegory of the playground, and the allegory of the zombie. If we paid attention to Frege’s account of meaning, according to Wittgenstein, we should be able to eradicate these troublesome theories. They are creatures of philosophy, and philosophy should be able to evaluate and do with them what must be done. Wittgenstein showed that on any theory of meaning involving “correspondence” or “coherence” these philosophical  theories can be shown to be disguised nonsense. That is, even though it seem to everyone that these theories are about real and troubling things, there’s really nothing to them. Concern about them is as nonsensical as worrying about vampires,  werewolves,  or  the boogey man.

We care about Wittgenstein because he showed these philosophical theories are like the bathwater you need to get rid of.

This was why at certain points Wittgenstein thought his work was a service to people.

However, Wittgenstein also discovered that when you make it impossible to hold onto these philosophical theories you have at the same time made it impossible to answer the skeptic’s challenge to the claim that there is a logical foundation or basis in logic upon which one can carry on and resolve arguments. It turns out that these troublesome theories are excuses for the failings of the foundational idea that came to us from ancient times and discussed by Frege.

These philosophical theories that so troubled Wittgenstein were not just philosophical  mistakes or what happens when people become confused about  what’s going on. It turns out that they exist to explain why  a  foundation involving logic only seems to fail,  because  when the big picture is taken into consideration, the big picture as put forward by these philosophical theories, our logical way of arguing is the basis for our understanding everything.  So, if we find that we have to get rid of these theories, then, along with them, we have to get rid of the account of  the logical foundation of our understanding.

That is, if we have to get rid of the bathwater, and Wittgenstein showed that we do, we won’t be able to keep the baby from going along with it.

Philosophy and our culture since Wittgenstein  is all about dealing  with this dilemma.

Understanding Wittgenstein // How philosophy is not like science

It’s important to understand what Wittgenstein was trying to do in philosophy. Some people think that philosophy should be more like science, and because it’s confused, it doesn’t pay enough attention to the facts about reality,  it needs to be reformed. They think that Wittgenstein was such a reformer of philosophy. He wanted to clear up its confusions, have it be more empirical,  so it would be more useful like science.

Understanding Wittgenstein // Why Philosophers are Ignored

Some philosophers come to controversies and want to set the existing arguments on some strong foundation. They want to make explicit just what everyone is assuming, the grounds on which the argument takes place, …and no one pays any attention.

Descartes is one of these. He wanted to find a way to resolve disputes. He thought, well, if we can all agree to our starting point, maybe we can get somewhere. But, what he ended up saying was that, well, it was hard to say exactly what anyone could agree on. He wanted to say that he could say, without a doubt, that he existed. Then things got controversial. He wanted to solve problems out in his community. He ended up showing that it might be impossible to even begin those arguments. He was not helping. So, people thought he made interesting philosophy, but not very helpful advice.

Understanding Wittgenstein // His Attack on philosophically peculiar Theories

The following is a  summary of what I take to be Ludwig Wittgenstein’s place in the philosophical universe.

We must imagine what Socrates was telling the Athenians. He was teaching them a lesson. The lesson was his assessment of  how we understand reality. The lesson is really about his own foundationalism. That is, our understanding of everything is like a house. That house has to be built on a firm and steady foundation. For him, the foundation of our understanding is the way we argue. The way we argue, according to Socrates, is a matter of logical argument.

By logical argument, Socrates meant that such arguments were a matter of just a premise and a conclusion, where the premises were supposed to be evidence or arguments for the claim or conclusion of the argument. Socrates’ preference for this account of argument was in contrast to an alternative account of argument involving not just two, but three terms, including a controversy which arguments are about, a claim made about that controversy, and support given for the claim.

According to Socrates, it was very important that people accept his lesson that arguing logically was the basis or foundation for our understanding of anything.

Understanding Wittgenstein // Against Theories

I’m wanting to show that Wittgenstein was not concerned to exorcise his inner demons. An inner demon problem is like, “Is it a pimple? Will it spread? Am I gonna hurt?” He was not interested in philosophy made up of these kinds of problems.

What kinds of problems was he concerned about?

One would be the mind-body problem where the world was said to consist of mental stuff on one side and material stuff on the other. The problem we have in understanding reality was that it was very difficult to see how these two fundamental stuffs interacted. Another problem would be about society.  What are the basic ideas extant about society? I want to say one of them is the idea we are like kids on a playground run by bullies.

When Wittgenstein goes to see Frege, or then to study with Russell, he has in mind the idea that philosophy might provide some better response to the claims that life is accurately described by these ideas. And, I take it, Wittgenstein was motivated to find some better response to these ideas than the ones which he had come in contact.

Wittgenstein as Tragi-Comic Hero // About his Concerns about Strife

It seems people suppose Wittgenstein had no deep concerns about political, social, or religious strife. At least, they believe, once he got into philosophy his concerns about what was going on in the world were minimal. That is, he felt no urge to do anything about these kinds of conflict. He felt no desire to participate or to make some meaningful efforts in the world’s disputes, except for philosophical ones.

One piece of evidence that might be used to support this supposition was the fact that he didn’t seem to write anything about the wars that went on during his lifetime. He didn’t write much about what was happening in Europe with his own country, Austria, or the places he grew up in Vienna. 

Another piece of evidence would seem to be the fact that his family was rich, but instead of using his inherited wealth to “make a difference” in European politics, culture, art, or its religious life, he gave all his money away. Granted, he seems to have given it away to worthy causes, but he had here no thought that he could personally make a difference in resolving disputes.

Another piece of evidence that suggests he had no interest in strife was the fact that in philosophy, he didn’t have much interest in those areas of philosophy that traditionally involved one in public  disputes, such as moral or political philosophy. Instead, he focused on logic and language.  This kind of interest strikes many as “geeky” and makes it seem Wittgenstein was interested primarily in exorcising his “inner demons” and not concerned at all in what might make a difference in the tragic events of his lifetime.

I would not be surprised if  someone would find some box of letters or a diary shown to include Wittgenstein’s private thoughts about the political, social, or religious disputes of his time. He must have had thoughts about the issue of what was happening to European Jewry, about WW I and the fate of Austria, why  people think about suicide, the rise of Fascism in Germany and Austria, and so on.  I imagine people suppose that Wittgenstein focused on logic and language, not because he was uninterested in these issues, but because he felt his talents were best used in these fundamental issues in philosophy, and he chose not to distract himself from making progress in these areas by being a political, social, or religious dilettante.

I want to make the case for another interpretation of Wittgenstein. I think strife was very much on Wittgenstein’s mind. I think he wanted very much to make some difference in the disputes that he saw raging in his world. I suspect most everything he did  in going into philosophy and into the seemingly abstruse philosophical fields of logic and language was because he believed it was just in these fundamental issues in philosophy, in providing some clarity and resolution,  that he could make the most difference in those disputes.

I take Wittgenstein to have supposed that the primary influence of philosophy on our lives, and our lives in its politics, sociology, and its religions,  is to have persuaded people that our lives are described by the great metaphors. So, from Socrates we’ve learned that our lives are like the lives of his cave dwellers. Our lives are described by the Allegory of the cave. We learn from Hume and others that our lives are like those of Zombies driven by our insatiable hungers or the commands of our voodoo masters. Or from Marx, and others, that we are like kids on a playground run by a bully. It is the fact that we have adopted these metaphors as descriptions of our lives and the character of these metaphors that have, on Wittgenstein’s view,  brought is to such tragedy and suffering in the world. 

It was Wittgenstein’s project to somehow undermine the credibility these pictures  have in our understanding of the world.  It was his thought that though philosophy gave people these theories about the world, that philosophy could not give any good justification for them. It was his thought in the Tractatus that these pictures were only mysticisms or cleverly deceptive truisms. In the Investigations, these pictures or theories were examples where “language was on holiday.”  In On Certainty these philosophical ideas were generated when we were not paying enough attention to “assertability conditions.”  In all of his work, his goal was to show that the theories or pictures that stood as the basis of strife and disputes in the world were themselves unjustified and should not cause any such disputation.

Some philosophers talk about there being two distinct Wittgensteins. The first is found in the Tractatus. The second in the Investigations. In these two writings, supposedly, Wittgenstein develops two different accounts of logic and language. There is not much to connect these two Wittgensteins except that the later is about how one should reject the former.  I’m arguing that though he did reject the Tractatus when he wrote the Investigations, and was likely rejecting both as he was developing On Certainty, all these works shared the underlying  goal of undermining the credibility of philosophical theories as the basis of political, social, and religious strife.

Understanding Wittgenstein // The philosopher’s helpful hints

In his 2002 book Wittgenstein,  Avrum Stroll writes,

In November 1949, having returned to England from the United States, he was diagnosed with cancer of the prostate. The original diagnosis was optimistic. It was thought that with modern hormone therapy he could live in reasonably good health for another five or six years. But, as sometimes happens with this disease, he deteriorated rapidly and died on 29 April 1951. His sixty second birthday had fallen on the previous day. Before going into a coma he said to those attending him: “Tell them I’ve had a wonderful life.”

It has seemed odd to me that Wittgenstein would make this statement. I wondered if he might have thought about what others were thinking about him, Ludwig Wittgenstein. Maybe he supposed, “He gave up his riches. He lived alone. He seemingly denied his roots. He struck little defenseless boys. He must have had a miserable life.”  And to this he wanted to defend himself. He wanted them, these faceless critics, to know that no, he wasn’t miserable. He had a wonderful life…

Or, maybe he didn’t care to put up much of an argument about the worth of his life. He didn’t want to go into the evidence that, in fact, he had a worthwhile fulfilling life. He didn’t much care about the evidence. But, he wanted people to know that it was, in his opinion, a wonderful life. He did what he wanted, after all. He had no responsibilities. No one was going to tell him what to do. He was the captain of his own ship and he could sail it wherever he wanted.