April 17th, 2023
I only got through the Prologue and Preface today. The preface was mostly acknowledgements, but gave a little detail on the concept of the book. The prologue seems to be from a later edition and discusses some of the critiques. After half an hour of reading, I still only have a vague idea of what this will be about. Moral philosophy, which, if I trust the name, is about morals, or right and wrong. I believe the author is rejecting modern moral philosophy, which I think means post-French Revolution, or possibly post-Industrial Revolution, and is promoting the old ideas of Aristotle and Aquinas. He seems to be opposed to modern philosophies like utilitarianism, but we shall see. So far he has been pretty adamantly against what he calls the “individualism” of liberalism, with liberalism in the older sense of the word, not the “left wing” sense in modern American rhetoric. I’m not sure what his issue with individualism is here, unless he is using it as a synonym for selfishness. The book shall tell.
April 18th, 2023
The first chapter paints a hypothetical picture in which there is a reaction against scientific knowledge, then an era of ignorance, then a third era where there is a scientific revival, but only pieces of the past are recaptured, yet nobody knows they only have an incomplete picture. The author says this is where we are with moral philosophy, yet no one knows because there was not one “extinction” event, but a slow progress over centuries. Then in the second chapter he tries to make the point of why moral arguments don’t work today. The gist so far is that there are multiple arguments over one topic (such as universal healthcare) and each argument has a logical and valid thesis. Those who argue for it favor equality, those who argue against it favor freedom of choice. We value both things, so which is right? People have their opinions pre-made and no arguments could change them. Thus discussions turn to emotional arguments. So far, so good. Let’s see where this line of thinking goes.
April 19th, 2023
This chapter is really painting a case against “emotivism”. What is emotivism? Don’t ask me; I don’t know. I guess it is the theory that behind all moral judgements is not reason, but feeling. The example I that saying “this is good” is equivalent to saying “I approve of this; you should too”. Therefore, moral judgements are only expressions of one’s preference. Thus, moral judgements cannot be proven true or false. There can be a factual statement underneath, like “arson is wrong” can evaluate to “arson is destruction of property, which is wrong” has the fact that arson destroys property, but there is still a preference. The author then goes on to say this is all horsewash. I don’t really see his point, because emotivism as described seems pretty legit. The point he made that makes sense is that this theory claims that all moral judgements, past and present, are just preference. The author says this is neither true, and if it were, would not apply to people of a culture who did not believe it. If they believed in the fact that their moral judgements had rational basis, then that is as good as it having said basis. I buy that. So as the book goes on, it will try to prove this “objective” past moral philosophy and explain where did it go. Why does the modern age not believe in the objective? The next chapter will begin this exploration.
April 24th, 2023
I read chapter 3 on Friday and today. It’s a doozy. How can I summarize it? Poorly. First note is that emotivism removes the distinction between manipulative and non-manipulative social relations. The difference between treating a social relation as an end or a means to an end. If emotivism is true, then the spoken word is the intent, where in reality a manipulative word hides the inent. Then the author talks about managers, rich men, and therapists. He calls these people “characters”, whose role is their personality. This is in contrast to someone who has a role does not necessarily line up with personality. The example is a priest who preaches but no longer believes himself. Then he talks about the “self”. Old school self is defined by social structure, e.g., nation, family, tribe, job, etc. The modern “self” is the “real me” individual stripped away from the traditional social relations. This seems silly but we’ll hear him out. The chapter was fairly confusing and I don’t know if I got the real point of it.
April 26th, 2023
I don’t know why I try to read philosophy books. They are always so unnecessarily verbose to muddle a shallow and simple statement. It’s usually some nonsense idea that has no relevance to people’s lives or society. Now I attempt to summarize chapter 4. It talks about the Enlightenment era, which the author claims was led by Protestant Northern Europenas. Then he goes on some nonsense about the word “moral”, who it lacks a Latin equivalent (sounds like bullshit) and then evolved to stand in for sexual promiscuity (also bullshit). The rest goes on about Enten-Eller by Kierkegaard and then about Kant. Kierkegaard wrote that one could not choose between an “ethical” or an “aesthetic” way of life. There is no “reason” to choose on over the other. If those reasons have weight, you have already chosen. Kant earlier tried to create a “rational test” to determine morality. He claims if morals are rational, they must be the same for all rational beings and if morality is binding, then the only relevant thing is ones willpower in carrying them out. But the tests fail, so the author says. He then claims that these Protestant secular nations, who have weakened the church and no longer use it as the source of all morals, need a source of morality. The philosophers tried to fill the void and failed. What are the consequences?
April 27th, 2023
Chapter 5 talks about why the Enlightenment attempts at justifying morality were doomed. All these philosophers discussed come from the same secular Christian background. They are heirs to the Christian philosophy of the middle ages, who inherited the classical philosophy. In Aristotle’s view of ethics, there is man as he is and man as he could be, after finding his purpose (telos). The ancients sought the telos. The Christians assumed the telos was God’s law and ordered by him. The seculars then lose this law, and reject past views that human reason cannot provide a purpose. There is no scientific basis for it. They were looking for the end after losing the means; doomed to fail. Then there’s some rambling about philosophical “logic”. Then the author says a good watch is what a watch ought to be and a bad watch does what is undesired. A good farmer does what a farmer is ought to do, and well. A good man does what a man ought to do, he lives well. This is the Aristotelian view. These are so-called factual statements. To say an action is just is to say a good man would do it. Thus, moral statements can be true or false. This only can occur if one believes in an end/telos. So the modern world may speak of moral judgments as true or false, the virtues behind them lack weight. The “Why should I?” lacks an answer, unless we as individuals create our own telos (my thought). This is the author’s view, of course.
April 28th, 2023
Read about half of the 6th chapter, which discusses the consequences of the failures of Enlightenment. The author attacks two later philosophies: utilitarianism and analytics, which led to emotivism. Utilitarianism we know from reading John Stuart Mill. This philosophy wants to maximize happiness for the most people, while minimizing unhappiness. The author then questions which “pleasures” should be pursued? It seems like he’s trying to pull some bullshit. You pursue the pleasures which you enjoy. Every individual has individual tastes. I’m sure the author will then attack individualism. If you’re not sure if you would enjoy something, then you ask yourself whether you are interested in finding out. If not, pursue something else. Happiness is not a made up concept; we can clearly experience it. It is a very simple concept to understand. Children understand pursuing things which make them happy. I strongly disagree with the author on his view of utilitarianism. I don’t think the author really makes clear what his problem with analytics is other than its clarity. He picks Reason and Morality by Gewirth to criticize. This turns into an attack on the concept of rights, which Gewirth uses which explaining what a right is or why it should exist. Here I agree with the author. The Enlightenment authors liked to discuss natural rights and self-evident truth, but this is make believe. Critical thought and an analysis of the real world shows there are no rights. There are only “rights” in the sense that we try to claim and to hold the ability to do certain things (or not have things done to us). Rights are a very nice fiction, but it all comes down to power. If we do not have the power to claim a right, we do not get it. The author claims utility is fiction as well, which I do not agree with. Feelings that exist in the mind are real. The last part I read was a good point by the author. It’s another example of how justifying a morality fails. Compare The concept of rights to the concept of utilitarianism. Which one triumphs? I have the right to have $1 million while others starve. Is this moral? Is this just? Should my money be taken without my consent to feed others? Some say yes, some say no, and there is no way to resolve the problem other than by forcing one reality to triumph. You could also consider this a combat between rights: the right to own versus the right to food/health. Which right is “more just”?
May 11th, 2023
It’s been awhile. I got sent on a business trip then got sick after I returned, so I haven’t had a chance to read. I re-read The Picture of Dorian Gray while I was traveling. Back to this. I guess I stopped in the middle of Chapter 6, which probably wasn’t a good place to stop for two weeks. As I see from the last entry, the author was railing against utilitarianism and rights. Now the author comes to a very interesting point, which he kind of already came to. The rights vs utility argument. People most go to the streets to protest because the argument between the two cannot be resolved with words. An argument cannot be won or lost because there is no rational basis for the argument. It stems from what an individual values and that is unlikely to change. The thread typically follows to “unmask” the unspoken motives of one’s opponents, while trying to keep one’s motives masked. People deceive themselves and others. The author says the aesthetic, if he acknowledges himself as one, is least likely to be deceived by this farce. The author’s “characters”, especially the therapist, thrives on the deception of reality. Then he goes off on the management bureaucracy, claiming it is propped up by a lie. Essentially he says that “effectiveness” as guided by the plans and decisions of management is an illusion, like a priest praying for rain before it storms. As stated before, management’s whole function is to manipulate workers into achieving their own goals. The “expertise” of a manager does not stand on actual facts. I guess this will be explored more later.
May 12th, 2023
Chapter 7 – ‘Fact”, Explanation, and Expertise. An 8 page slog in which I haven’t a clue as to what the author wants to say. I assume he is trying to prove a point, to justify claims made in a previous chapter. I would say it is not successful since none of what was said is clear. There was something about finding a scientific law, something akin to Newton’s physical laws, for human behavior. Of course, this is nonsense, which I think is the view of the author. This law to be true has to eliminate “intent” in determining human behavior. In classical philosophy, the way a human acts and the goal of the hum are inseparable. Boring.
May 16th, 2023
The 8th chapter seems to be just about the author trying to explain why social predictions don’t work. Again, they are not like natural laws. Given a set of knowns, you cannot guarantee an unknown. Look at all the failed economic predictions or surprises. Same in politics. That’s really all he goes on about. Monday morning quarterback stuff.
May 23rd, 2023
I’ve read another two chapters since I last wrote. I’m busy and this book is not the most interesting. In chapter 9 he opens with ideology and deception. Marx made some claims about this, illustrated with an example: the French Revolutionaries became a force for the bourgeoisie by pretending to be ancient republicans. Cromwell and the Puritans fought the monarchy under rhetoric from the Old Testament. He then compares modern moral philosophy to the “taboos” of the Pacific Islanders. Not only had the original context been forgotten, making them arbitrary, but the beliefs behind them are lost. So when the taboos were abolished, nothing happened. Compares this to the Catholics who don’t eat meat on Friday. No Catholic can tell you why this rule exists, but the belief in the system is still there, so the rule has strength. The author compares this taboo to our modern use of “good”, “right”, or “ought to”. This arbitrariness is where Nietzsche comes in with his theory on will being the source of morality. The author talks about Weber, who I have no idea who that is. He then segues into Aristotle and difference between honor in ancient society and modern society. Aristotle claims honor is secondary, because it is based on something else, someone’s deeds or worth. The author then claims that the ancient societies were constructed so differently that honor cannot be compared. In ancient society, an person had their place in a social order and a role known from birth. To be honorable is to perform one’s role. That last bit is pretty much the entire 10th chapter. Our societies are just not constructed the same.
May 25th, 2023
The 11th chapter is about Athens or Ancient Greece. It’s a safe assumption to make that the Heroic Era as told in the Homeric tales was fable, but that is irrelevant if the Greeks thought it was real history. These stories give “virtues” or ideals to follow, such as courage, loyalty, or intelligence. In the Classical era, some of these virtues became questionable and not so black and white. In the tragedies, the question is brought up of where should one’s loyalty lie when there is a contradiction? If helping the family hurts the city, or vice versa, what can you do? There being no answer, a deus ex machina resolves the story. The point is there are conflicting virtues and the Greeks did not know how to justify one over the other, and how could they? Both are right, and to choose one is to do wrong on one end and right on another. The author the goes on and on about what Greeks valued, though he is careful to point out that when we say “Greek”, we cannot speak for the whole region. Each city had a culture, and within every city there are different camps and modes of thought. Next we go from the Greek stories to the philosophy of Aristotle.
June 1st, 2023
The 12th chapter delves into the views espoused by Aristotle. It starts of interesting but gets boring. Or maybe it started boring and had a brief interesting stint. There was part that made me want to read some Aristotle, but I have a feeling it will have the same uninteresting rambling of most philosophical works. The modern philosophers had to get it from somewhere. Let’s go. Aristotle did not recognize himself as part of a tradition or a long line of thinking, though we will. The Nicomachean Ethics and Eudemian Ethics are the sources for his view on virtues. The views: every activity aims for some good, towards a telos. This good is the state of doing or being well. Having honor or money or happiness, though not necessarily pleasure or enjoyment. He’s kind of vague. To summarize a lot of pages, to act virtuously is to make an educated decision that results in the right action. The key is educated. A dummy can do what appears to be a virtuous act, but this is accidental because of their nature or circumstances, not because of choice. For example, a soldier seemingly acting courageously could be doing it out of fear of his officers. This is not virtuous, though it results in the same action as the choice to attack. Aristotle puts a lot of weight on the city-state and did not give slaves or barbarians any credit for their own ability to act virtuously. In his view, it was impossible. The good of the city-state is more important than the good of the individual. A man without a city-state was not a man at all. Back to choices, education and intelligence are required for good character. The trope of “dumb but good-hearted” did not exist. An interesting statement was that the virtue lies between two vices; for example, courage is between rashness and timidity. Then there’s a bit on friendship, which has a different color than our modern view, one which I don’t like or agree with. This Aristotelian friendship is not an emotional bond, but a common pursuit of a good. That’s just a colleague and a superficial bond. And what if that friend is not virtuous, but is pursuing that good for other reasons, or by chance? Aristotle and Plato thought conflict evil, and Aristotle thought it could be eliminated. He thought the Homeric hero found tragedy because of flaws, while the author argues, as before, the tragedy came from the choice between two conflicting goods. The latter is much more interesting. That’s enough.
June 5th, 2023
I’m not sure what the point of chapter 13 was, unless it is to round out the historical perspective. Now we’re going medieval. I think that after the fall of Rome, a lot of the ancient texts were lost to Europe. A lot of it was “rediscovered” in reconquered Spain. So I guess we can consider the Aristotelian tradition “lost” for 700 years or so. Unlike Henry Adams, the author says the medieval world is in multiplicity. If it was a unity, it was a very fragile one. Pagan elements still survived in the post-Heroic Germanic and Celtic societies. This was rinsed into Christian myths and knightly tales. Thus, the classic Homeric virtues survive in Christian Europe. What the ancient texts cannot provide the Christian world is interpretation of sin. Aristotle thought bad things happened from internal flaws, but a good man can sin and find redemption and forgiveness. This is a new view. The sinner can not only be saved, but it is the goal of society to save as many as possible. It is the focus of the non-secular powers. The concept of sin definitely adds a more human element to what Aristotle and later Stoics lack. Man is far from perfect or even consistent. There was some boring parts about searching to generate a state and what type of leader is necessary. Another Christian element that Aristotle lacked was charity, helping those who are worse off. This goes along with the sin aspect. The goal was to cleanse the soul; there was an end and a mean. As said earlier, in Aristotle’s view there is no end. The entire journey is the goal, to live correctly. True “evil” does not exist; it is just a failure to follow virtues. Christians definitely believe in true evil, not just a “failure to be good”. Then he goes on about Aquinas who seems to be the odd duck promoting Aristotelianism. This type of philosophy rejects that a bad man can have virtues, such as a bad man who is very brave. In his redemption, the “bad vices” should be unlearned, but the “good virtues” should remain. So if Aristotle is wrong, who has been right?
June 8th, 2023
After nearly 200 pages of background, we finally get to the theories of the author. Chapter 14 is about “the nature of the virtues”. He acknowledges at the beginning that the story so far has been that there is no inconsistent thought of what is virtuous. He compares Homer to Aristotle to the NT to the moderns Benjamin Franklin and Jane Austen. We already know that Homer praised ability at one’s role in society, while Aristotle praised the Athenian gentleman continuously improving the city-state. The New Testament praises the meek and lowly and values charity and humility, unknown to the warrior-king or Athenian lord. Jane Austen is saved for later, but she is a Christian who valued certain human qualities. Franklin had his list of 13 virtues which would lead one to be successful and happy in a Protestant society. From these very different theories, the similarities are few. In concept, the virtues enable someone to live a life good for man in his given society. They are a tool. I’m not sure if this is what the author is trying to say, but if so, I am so far in agreement. But what is good for man? Depends on who you ask. This is where the author will theorize.
First, he creates his own definition for the word “practice”. His definition is a paragraph. It’s some sort of cooperative activity which realizes “internal goods”. Essentially trying to do well at something in society brings positive internal feelings, in comparison to “external goods” like wealth or fame. Playing piano well would make me feel good regardless of whether I were a concert pianist or not. Playing a sport and cheating, however, may bring the external goods, but the internal goods are non-existent. It is in the process, not the end result. Thus there must be standard rules and practices, thus a need for institutions to enforce these. We need referees and judges, auditors et cetera. The pursuit of internal goods changes the whole community. Whoever invented the flying buttress transformed architecture forever. Now the author’s initial definition of a virtue: A virtue is an acquired human quality the possession and exercise of which tends to enable us to achieve those goods which are internal to practices and the lack of which effectively prevents us from achieving any such goods. Seems reasonable. It would allow Homer, Aristotle, Franklin, and God to be in agreement. It allows the practice and institutions to vary with society. The author considers his view Aristotelian without the metaphysics, and allows for the virtue conflict of Homerian style. It is Aristotelian since it requires conscience practice and something about evaluation. He then babbles about pleasures and utilitarianism. These virtue guys seem anti-fun. The rest is very boring.
June 9th, 2023
I think we start to get coherent in chapter 15. It’s a long one, though, but like most philosophical works, can likely be shortly summarized. There is plenty of nonsense. The author claims that the way we view human life as segments (e.g. childhood versus old age, work versus home) conflicts with the view of life as a whole, as a unity. I doubt that people truly view these as separate lives, and having differences in actions in each segment is a good thing. I would not call them segments but gradients, as they are shifting the individual’s personality in slightly different directions. The author is clear that a skill is not a virtue; being a good man of business does not say anything about the life as a whole. Then we cut to a person’s actions. “What is he doing?” in regards to a single act can have many answers based on what is literally being done, why it is being done, or the unintended consequence of the action. It can also have a different answer based on the time-span being envisioned, that is, what is one doing at this second versus how it will effect 20 years from now. Thus we also need to know intent. The same action could have two different intents from two different people. They also need to be intelligible. The author uses the example of breaking eggs, mixing flour, etc., in a kitchen versus in a lecture hall. The first one is intelligible, the second unintelligible, or what we’d call crazy. The author draws to the point that human life is a narrative and treating it as something else robs it of its character. We are all part of countless narratives and play different characters. I am my own main character, but in the story of America I am insignificant and forgettable. In my mother’s life I am a major character, in my boss’ a temporary side character.
Like a story, human life has a beginning, middle, and end. The question “What am I to do?” depends on the story we want to be a part of. When one cannot find an answer, they become depressed and possibly suicidal (life is “meaningless”). So how do I live a good life and how do the virtues help? Like before, the virtues enable us to achieve internal goods through “practices” and enable us to carry out the “quest” to seek the good. So the goal of life is to seek a good life. Nonsense. The author again attacks the idea of an individual in a bubble; he is part of a family, clan, city, nation, etc. Thus he is part of a story in media res. He brings up the interesting of the American who denies responsibility for slavery because he never owned slaves. Yet he is a continuation of the narrative and profits from the existence of slavery at that time. I find this individualism hypocritical, as you will often find this same person saying “we” when referring to a sports team he is not on or when referring to a war his nation won before he was born. Thus they try to claim the positive narratives while denying the negative. The author then discusses traditions for a short bit, saying it is a historical social idea that guides someone in their virtues (correctly or incorrectly). I’m not sure how the author is using the word tradition, because there are many traditions that should not be considered virtuous.
June 10th, 2023
Chapter 16, how did we get to the modern era? I don’t know. The author repeats some stuff about how the modern philosophy lacks his view of internal goods and narrative, and promotes individualism over community. He rightly blames capitalism for destruction of the community. Markets, factories, bureaucracies move work from the home and something that brings internal good to something inhuman and demoralizing. Sometime in the 1600s morality and altruism became synonymous as a counter to egoism. The author claims that egoism does not arise in Aristotle’s view, since the good for one man is the same for another. There is no push for selfishness to acquire all “good” for oneself. Hume believes that virtues are judgments of approval. Hume doesn’t seem like that great a guy. Just a mouthpiece and self-justification for the British aristocracy. The author spends several pages digging into Hume. Then he goes into Adam Smith’s Stoicism, whose view of virtue is more or less following the rules. Then he connects the Adam Smith types to Republicanism of the era, taking its history from Roman or Italian tradition rather than Greek. He also spends a long time praising Jane Austen. Very boring.
June 11th, 2023
I’m just trying to end this book. I read the last two chapters but am skipping the postscript where the author answers his critics. I just don’t care enough. Chapter 17 is about justice. Aristotle essentially said that a community without a common sense of justice is not a community at all. The author creates an example of two men, one who seems like a self-made middle-class man who does not believe that anyone has a right (or deserves) his money. He’s earned it, it’s his. The other, a white collar man or someone with inherited wealth, who believes those born poor don’t deserve such a fate and wealth should be distributed to help them. These two views are incompatible. The first man’s justice is based on entitlement, the second on equality. He then talks about two authors who do make these points, but makes it clear that they lack the idea of “desert”. The author claims that what is deserved is important for justice, at least from an Aristotelian perspective. Community is also not mentioned. It’s then mentioned that entitlement is a skewed idea because the origin of ownership usually is traced to violence or taking by force. That’s the gist. Chapter 18 sums it all up, I guess. It’s one final attack on modern philosophy as represented by Nietzsche. His individualist Ubermensch clearly is a rejection of community, in addition to his rejection of virtue. I was really just done with the book at this point. The end.