Not Having a Horse in the Race - the Value of Abstraction

Afternoon - hopefully the referee will refrain from jumping in and breaking this post up if it threatens to get interesting.

I'm not sure whether or not I'm in a minority but it's absolutely true that while some of us enjoy the exploration a hypothetical situation or philosophical area, there are many (perhaps more) others who regard this as 'not real world', some sort of obsessing with minutae/dancing on the head of a pin type of activity or whatever. We are of course living in times where senses of grievance, grudge and disenfranchisement drive the reaction of otherwise sane and reasonable people to whatever we are all supposed to be talking about, be it Brexit, 'group rights' or any other emotive subject. It's perhaps unsurprising that abstraction from filling the car/paying the bills is seen as 'weird' in such a climate.

As a vegetarian (and no I'm not trying to convert anybody, make up your own minds on that score) I'm as familiar as anyone with the old dilemma around "eat this chicken or two more will die". Now at the centre of this question (as well as all good hypotheticals) is a philosophical argument between the merits of a rule-based/principled way of thinking and a more practical or consequentialist one. By refusing to eat the chicken I am of course sticking to my non-meat-eater code of conduct and taking a consistent ethical stance, but then you've just told me that one way or another, two sentient beings will die immediately upon my refusal...the right thing to do?

It essentially boils down to...what matters more, standing up for 'the right thing' and 'what you believe in' or the material consequences of your actions, both for yourself and others?

In this famous 'chicken paradox' I ultimately wouldn't eat the animal and I'll briefly explain why. My refusal to eat the chicken is no guarantee that somebody else will not consume it at a later date, but even if you could provide me with something in writing to the effect of "the two 'saved' chickens will live a happy life and be allowed to die naturally", we just know that the natural demand for meat will continue to exist. This isn't a zero-sum game and farmers will continue to breed all types of animals to meet the ongoing requirements of consumers for meat, dairy and eggs. However, that wasn't a straightforward or easy call to make and I respect any vegetarian or vegan who chooses differently.

Here's one that even the carnivores amongst us can engage with - suppose you have an island comprising of a thousand people who live in  poverty (relative in western terms as opposed to abject poverty, for the benefit of the question). Now an immensely wealthy individual wants to move to the island and bring his or her billions with them (again we'll clarify this is lawfully earned money as opposed to the proceeds of crime or anything like that). Someone on the island's Parliament proposes that we either a) take a percentage of that individual's wealth upon arrival, to be shared amongst the native population or b) do not allow them to enter the island at all. What's the 'right' answer here? 

Now the case for such a measure is that someone with such concentrated and disproportionate relative resources has it within his or her capacity to basically enslave the population of the island. The potential for the democratic process to be subverted and 'bought off' in exchange for special treatment and favours is very real, as is the risk of all that hard cash flooding into the local economy and potentially devaluing the currency (as well as the material assets of others). A one-off tax as a condition for entry would alleviate envy or resentment amongst the natives, while enabling badly-needed investment in the island's education system, defence and infrastructure.

Conversely, whether you agree with income tax as a principle or not, there's a sound argument that what is basically the theft of somebody's legally acquired wealth, assets or possessions to placate a baying mob is ethically and morally indefensible. You could reasonably point out that this money would end up with the island's politicians as opposed to its people, and might be used for the purposes of electoral bribery, which is itself a form of corruption (see the squandering of oil wealth in Venezuela for further details). It's also fair enough to suggest that 'the wealthy one' could be better encouraged into philanthropy or long-term sustainable economic investment than a simple 'cash grab'.

I'm naturally more inclined towards the second argument than the first, but if you come down on the other side or some sort of compromise between the two then that's fair enough as long as you know precisely why and can rationalise it. Hopefully I can catch up with a few of you in person at some point and go through the scenario at length, but the value of such discussions is twofold. Firstly, this battle between principles/rule-based systems and utilitarian/greatest good ones should get sensible and intelligent people thinking, at least for a while. Anybody giving a knee-jerk and/or absolutist answer to such a question has either not thought it through probably or has a dangerous mind.

I wouldn't steal half of a person's money in the scenario outlined, or refuse to let them in, but then it's equally unlikely I would do precisely nothing towards keeping the peace either. The moral of such tales is that while a mentality of "I believe what I believe and fuck the consequences for others" can be incredibly dangerous and counter-productive, the 'pragmatism on steroids' which serves as the reverse polarity of this is little more than believing in everything while simultaneously believing in nothing. If some contrived 'greater good' always, always wins out against the rules protecting the one against the tyranny of the 99, then no such rules exist in reality. A 'blend' of the two is needed.

Most importantly it's the surreal and vaguely ridiculous nature of the scenario that makes you come at the subject in a dispassionate and unemotional way. This is a fundamental aspect in which 'group thinkers' differ wildly from individualists, namely that one has a horse in the race while the other does not. This is why collectivists of both Toddler Left and Toddler Right persuasions struggle desparately with abstraction and the application of philosophical rigour. You are basically asking him or her to approach the question from a starting place they are not used to occupying, and the dismissal of such intellectual archaeology as 'not real world' or lacking 'common sense' is predictable enough.

Someone I respect recently suggested that philosophy should be a subject available for teenagers at school and I'm inclined to agree that is should at least be an option (if you're proposing that philosophy replaces sex education or 'citizenship' then I'll put my signature to whatever you want). While I'm not interested in directing the thought process of any individual in a particular direction, the arrival at whatever conclusion one might reach by a rational process rather than an emotive one is likely to lead to a more intelligible discourse and stem the flow of the willfully blind into 'groups' engaged in perpetual grievance with each other. I am of course aware that it may already be too late.

Anyway, that was surprisingly good fun to write - if you want to throw down your own hypothetical/philosophical scenarios or comment on those illuminated above then feel free.

In the meantime I'll leave you with some Lloyd Cole and see you next time - thanks for dropping by.

I Was Wrong about...the Apolitical

Evening - philosophy is an ongoing process in which some humility is not just desirable but necessary.

In the coming weeks I will (amongst other things) be going into several subjects on which I have changed my mind in either the very recent or not-so-recent past and offering a few reasons why I was wrong in the first instance (given the scale of the eureka moment I had in the Autumn, there are a surprising number which fall into the former category).

We'll be discussing such challenging topics as Conservatives, Libertarians, the BBC, Political Correctness and Societal Pressure.

But first up it's our apolitical friends - thanks very much to any non-partisan neutrons who've decided to drop by, I hope you're not disappointed.

Before we start let's get a definition of the word apolitical out there that at least most of us agree on. From where I'm stood, defining anyone who rarely or never votes in elections as apolitical strikes me as being far too broad brushstroke a way of approaching it, an over-simplification which fails to examine the possibility that at least some apolitical people do vote with a degree of regularity. A far more sturdy and reliable definition of an apolitical individual would be someone who does not identify themselves as being of a particular party, tribal, ideological or philosophical label (left/right, small state/big state, libertarian/populist etc) and generally does not vote.

This, I think, is what I'm gonna roll with.

Now at the heart of my previous misunderstanding of the apolitical was a mistaken belief that the failure to get to a point where you could identify some sort of consistent thread running through what you believed could only be attributed to either a) a basic lack of intelligence or b) a sort of intellectual laziness - in short, either an inability or lack of desire to think about a number of different subjects and then rationalise the angle from which you tend to approach at least most of them. Look, there's the collectivist angle, the individualist angle, conservative, liberal etc. Some monumentally thick people at least manage to establish a tribal affinity, so what's the problem?

The apolitical always struck me as being possessed of a particular brand of immaturity. These, I reasoned, were the zombies who sat there watching Strictly, then switching channels right on cue for another exciting episode of the X Factor, followed by an hour of the 'utterly hilarious' Ant and Dec (who, lest we forget, are actually about as funny as leukemia). How can this gerbil-like existence be satisfactory to anybody but the incredibly fucking stupid? Did they ever think about anything more meaningful than their favourite colour, or who they wanted evicted from the Big Brother house that week? Day 31, and Karen from Telford is still missing a chromosome...

Only...I should have known better at the time. My younger brother is and always has been apolitical - as far as I'm aware when he voted Remain in the EU referendum that was the first time he had voted in pretty much anything and I've never heard him apply a particular preference, label or name to describe 'what he believes' in layman's terms. Knowing that he is certainly not Strictly/X Factor/Big Brother fodder and could not be described as dumb in this lifetime or the next, I concluded that he was simply a bit of an oddball, a statistical outlier, someone who had fallen into being apolitical for reasons we could only ever file under 'miscellaneous' or 'other'.

This is probably as good a point to state the obvious - my brother is not an outlier at all, and quite inexcusably, I found that I was guilty of treating 'the apolitical' as if they were some homogenous block rather than unique individuals.

Eventually I realised that it was me who had been arrogant, intellectually lazy and just plain wrong.

Once I began to retreat away from party or tribal politics myself, one of these misplaced assumptions began to collapse around me immediately - just because someone is apolitical does not mean that they do not think about and/or discuss deep, serious topics that might fall under the umbrella of politics or philosophy. In fact, those of some intelligence who detach themselves from 'the process' of politics tend to be some of the most rational, objective and rewarding people to exchange ideas with. In many ways, the failure or refusal to pin a convenient label on what you believe should be considered a strength rather than a weakness.

If others 'don't get it' then that's their problem - and none of us are under any obligation to dumb ourselves down for the benefit of the genuinely dumb or intellectually lazy.

Labels are helpful most of all to those who refuse to acknowledge the presence of nuance or grey areas, and in that regard they are very much a mixed blessing.

I remember an ex-work colleague and the father of a childhood friend who both liked the game of football but didn't have a team that they particularly supported. As well as talking more sense about the sport than most, they had the benefit of not getting ridiculously stressed out or anxious in a way that many football fans do about their team's results. In the same way, the apolitical don't have 'a horse in the race' and are therefore more likely to remain clear-headed, not become 'politically angry' and start playing the man rather than the ball through the use of ad homs and personal insults. It usually augurs well in terms of the honesty and value of any discussion you might have.

Perhaps most importantly given the nature of so much of what we're been discussing on here, the apolitical by definition are not on the lookout for a messiah and have altogether more realistic expectations of politicians generally than those who have 'picked a side' in the team sport being played around them. The politically active and tribal have this dreadful tendency to put 'their side' on some sort of divine pedestal while regarding 'the other lot' as Lucifer's representatives on earth. This leads to all sorts of logical and moral inconsistencies which you just need to turn on your PC or television to be exposed to. Being apolitical is basically a bulletproof vest to this nonsense.

So from a position of sweeping and misplaced generalisation, I've come to regard the apolitical (and particularly the thoughtful apolitical) with a great deal of respect. Refusing to take part in 'the process' does not (as some stupidly claim) deny you a right to an opinion, in fact that non-participation is itself an expression of a wider view in many cases. Even if it's a straightforward case of "can't be arsed", well the examples we know of within the Toddler Left and Toddler Right should serve as compelling evidence that getting off your arse and doing something is not automatically a good thing (this is another ridiculous and oft-parroted claim by politicos which is easily rebutted).

Once we establish that this is true then some sort of reverse thesis also applies. The apolitical are, by definition, a threat to the life, liberty and property of precisely nobody solely by virtue of inaction. They are not chasing a messiah, demanding bribes or validation in exchange for their vote or identifying 'enemies' who will be 'punished' by their demagogue of choice in a rather unhinged act of passive-aggressiveness by proxy. Seeing as they never had false expectations of the government or politicians in the first place they're far more likely to take responsibility for their own lives and think with a greater degree of reason and logical consistency than their tribal counterparts.

In short I was wrong about the apolitical and must say on reflection I rather like at least most of them - sincere apologies for my previous stupidity.

I'll leave with some appropriate music and catch you all at the weekend - thanks once again for reading and take care.

Rejecting "Real World" and "Common Sense" Politics

Evening - hope you're all in fine form, especially anybody inclined to engage in a spot of plagarism of what they have read on here. Much obliged.

Apologies to Malpoet who I know has already heard this story. Before I left home it got to the point where I was refusing to discuss 'anything serious' with my parents. Part of this stemmed from their general hostility towards 1) logic 2) objective truth and 3) being disagreed with on anything, ever. Anyway, one night the biological mother comes up with her latest 'policy initiative', a suggestion that the children of all who currently receive tax credits (of whom she was one) should also receive free school meals. I listened to the rather flaky 'rationale' and 'moral case' behind this and patiently waited for my turn, rapidly compiling a list of Paxman-esque questions in my mind.

Now it's the easiest thing in the world to argue that you should be in receipt of even more 'free stuff' than you currently get with no regard to the cost or where the resources for it would come from. What I wanted to know was how this would be paid for, and (perhaps mischievously) what SHE was prepared to lose elsewhere in order to find that money. Of course, turkeys never argue in favour of Christmas and likewise the biological suggested something silly like "tax the rich" as a way of raising the required funds. I ended up calling out the obvious, namely that she thought it was a wonderful idea because she personally would gain from it. And for no other reason.

Predictably enough, this didn't go down too well.

I spent years working with a fella who I found myself in disagreement with about pretty much everything. Maybe I'm being unfair but his worldview seemed to be shaped by 1) regular chats with pub racists and bar-room bores 2) Jon Gaunt's radio show and 3) the editorial of the Daily Star. I remember us having quite a heated argument about the war in Libya (he and his mate were well up for it, I thought it was insane at the time) and he said something which became a constant during any instance of differing perspective "see Daz, you're not used to dealing with people who live in the real world are you?". It was a clear ad hom and I was taken aback by it.

I asked what he meant by "real world" (as opposed to the, er, surreal one?) and he told me "house, kids, filling the car, all that 'normal' stuff".  Well, not being the owner of a car or the father of any kids I know about it's unlikely that I could ever inhabit my friend's 'real world' but it's something that stuck out and I felt the need to reflect upon for some time. This fella liked to present his 'worldview' as if it was something coherent, logical and well thought out but it was really a set of prejudices rather than a belief system of any significance or meaning. Even the gentlest cross-examination found more holes than Swiss Cheese and 'real world' was his way out of dodge.

Another former sparring partner from social media used to use the term 'real people' to describe people who saw the world exactly the way that he did. Given that he was a rabid Nationalist with a soft spot for the English Defence League and Britain First, this left a lot of 'surreal people' out there having the temerity to, er, not agree with this fella about absolutely everything. One day I said some less than flattering things about his beloved EDL and he abruptly terminated our association with each other, leaving a series of 'invisible' (and, I'm going to guess, highly malicious) messages on my wall when I woke up the next morning and found myself blocked.

The tactics people use in these situations reveal a huge amount about their mentality.

I'm remembering all of this because the whole 'real world' and 'common sense' angle seems to be something that is surfacing as an alternative to thought, ideas and any type of philosophy. Both the Toddler Left and Toddler Right follow a type of politics that reflects their 'real world' and a 'common sense' solution to the problems that exist within it. Both reject the presence of an objective truth, the concept of 'ideas' or anything whatsoever to do with philosophy or values in favour of fixed lists of 'the oppressors' who must be punished and 'the oppressed' who are 'poor victims' deserving of some restitution, as well as 'forced respect' from the State.

In short, 'real world' or 'common sense' politics is retarded politics-by-numbers, designed specifically for people either too dumb or too lazy to think. During the Brexit campaign I was horrified when Michael Gove muttered the words "I think people are rather sick of experts".  Well, when my eye test is due I tend to visit an optician and in the event that I ever need open heart surgery then I think getting a qualified surgeon (y'know, one of those ghastly 'experts') to carry out this life and death procedure might be smarter than letting Karen from Telford do it. Of course she's entitled to a view about the state of my eyes or my ticker, but then I'm equally entitled to ignore her.

This misplaced sense of anger and grievance is what lies at the heart of the philosophical 'endarkenment' we see taking place before our eyes. Yes, a democracy means that anyone is entitled to hold a view about any topical subject that they wish, even one that others might construe as ill-conceived, insane and probably dangerous. However, who and what people decide to take seriously is a completely different matter, and every last one of us chooses to ignore opinions in our daily lives on the basis that they might be irrational, built on a false premise, motivated by greed, bigotry etc. We don't all have an inalienable right to be taken equally seriously.

I watched a few videos of the all new party of the future 'for Britain' recently, so that I could earn the right to speak about them from a position of knowledge. Quite apart from being a modern day Joan of Arc who probably dreams of being assassinated, their leader, the quite brilliant (in a way) Anne Marie Waters kept referring to her new party being first and foremost for 'common sense', which should serve as an immediate red flag to anybody who likes to keep their politics on the right side of the psychiatrist's door. The claims that she's some sort of 'actual Fascist or Nazi' are wide of the mark, but their manifesto is up online and, well, it's an interesting shade of authoritarian madness.

They will fail spectacularly for a very, very obvious reason that doesn't even go into the realistic prospect of 'for Britain' being infiltrated by arms of the State. Look, 'common sense' is NOT a philosophy, belief system or set of values that can bind thousands of people together when you're regularly losing your deposit in elections. You need a bit more than 'we hate the EU' or 'we hate Muslims' to remind people what they are campaigning for (rather than against) when all that effort really doesn't seem worth it. That means ideas, it means a clearly stated direction of travel, it means some values and, dare I say it, a philosophy. 'Common sense' is 'anti' all of this.

The notion of 'common sense' or 'real world' solutions to problems is a wholly subjective one which means entirely different things to different people. Your 'common sense' or 'real world' perspective might be my perception of madness and vice versa. Moreover, all of this is limited by the axes of x) conventional wisdom and y) a snapshot of the present. It was once 'common sense' to think that the plague was a punishment from God, that women did not deserve the vote, or that the world was flat. 'Common sense' is hostile to progress, challenge and that guy in the corner of the room with a 'leftfield' idea. It can only ever end in an authoritarian state, and quite possibly a totalitarian one.

Finally, back to my mother's argument:- 'common sense' or 'real world' politics is normally nothing more than crude and cynical self-interest dressed up as some sort of quasi-philosophy or belief system. This is probably necessary in a democracy as a means of re-packaging the appeals of "free stuff for me" as something more palatable, whether it's 'social justice', 'national identity' or whatever. Yes, 'paying our gas bill and keeping the lights on' is important but last time I checked it didn't have its equivalent of JS Mill or Adam Smith who'd written with some eloquence on the subject. That's the cue to think again by the way, as opposed to having a book bonfire.

I'll be back Sunday, perhaps with a case study of Fathers4Justice and quite possibly covering some other topical issue.

In the meantime, I'll leave you with Talk Talk and catch up with you all at the weekend. Thanks again for dropping by.