Tuesday, 10 December 2019

On The Amorality Of Libertarianism

Only those political outcomes that are achievable can be judged morally. A political outcome that is not achievable cannot be moral or immoral—it’s amoral. I see libertarianism as an amoral philosophy because the view of free society and free markets that the libertarians preach is too utopian and disingenuous to be achievable. The libertarians are mostly visionaries, they are aware of their own saintliness, and like all visionary saints, they are focused on the sublimity of their own vision—they have contempt for the opinions and concerns of the masses, and they don’t care about the political, social, and economic realities. They are obsessed with making free society and free markets the foundation of politics, but they have failed to make an impression in the last 100 years. Since the 1970s, libertarianism has been on the decline and it has now gone out of fashion.

On The Pitfalls of Freedom of Speech

Michael Oakeshott points out in his essay, “The Political Economy of Freedom,” that the concept of freedom of speech has been distorted to such an extent that it is now revealing itself to be a menace to freedom. Here’s the relevant passage from his essay:

"The major part of mankind has nothing to say; the lives of most men do not revolve round a felt necessity to speak. And it may be supposed that this extraordinary emphasis upon freedom of speech is the work of the small vocal section of our society and, in part, represents a legitimate self-interest. Nor is it an interest incapable of abuse; when it is extended to the indiscriminate right to take and publish photographs, to picket and enter private houses and cajole or blackmail defenseless people to display their emptiness in foolish utterances, and to publish innuendos in respect of those who refuse to speak, it begins to reveal itself as a menace to freedom. For most men, to be deprived of the right of voluntary association or of private property would be a far greater and more deeply felt loss of liberty than to be deprived of the right to speak freely… under the influence of misguided journalists and cunning tyrants, we are too ready to believe that so long as our freedom to speak is not impaired we have lost nothing of importance - which is not so. However secure may be a man's right to speak his thoughts, he may find what is to him a much more important freedom curtailed when his house is sold over his head by a public authority, or when he is deprived of the enjoyment of his leasehold because his landlord has sold out to a development company, or when his membership of a trade union is compulsory and debars him from an employment he would otherwise take."

I think Oakeshott has made a valid point. The powerful cabal of politicians, bureaucrats, journalists, and activists has been quite successful in weaponizing the concept of freedom of speech to go after their ideological and political enemies. Instead of making people safe, this draconian version of freedom of speech is making them unsafe.

Monday, 9 December 2019

Multiculturalism and the Abolishment of Nationhood

It’s not possible for a nation to include within itself every type of culture. This is because the cultural space in man’s mind is not unlimited—it is not possible for human beings to empathize with all the possible ways of life. A nation is essentially a closed society; it is founded on certain moral, political, and cultural principles; it encompasses a certain view of history and human progress. There are close to 200 nations on this planet for an important reason—the people in each nation want to exclude some ways of life that they think are uncongenial to their values, their notions of the past, and their aspirations from the future. The people in a nation, if they want stability, have to assimilate with the dominant culture. When the multiculturalists assert that they want people of diverse cultures to live with a sense of brotherhood, they are making a political case for a world without nations, a utopian world ruled by a single totalitarian regime.

Herder and the Enlightenment

In his essay, “Herder and the Enlightenment,” Isaiah Berlin hammers new nails in the Enlightenment’s coffin by suggesting that the Enlightenment was a conformist, elitist, idealistic, and monolithic project, which contained the seeds that would one day germinate into totalitarian movements, while the counter-Enlightenment of thinkers like Johann Gottfried Herder was essentially pluralistic and hence conducive for the rise of free societies. In section 9 of his essay, Berlin asks two questions: “What is the best life for men?” and “What is the most perfect society?” A few paragraphs later, Berlin makes the following comment: “If Herder’s notion of the equal validity of incommensurable cultures is accepted, the concepts of an ideal State of or an ideal man become incoherent. This is a far more radical denial of the foundations of traditional Western morality than any that Hume ever uttered.” I am convinced by Berlin’s view that the Counter-Enlightenment, and not the Enlightenment, was the epitome of the spirit of enlightenment.

Sunday, 8 December 2019

Peer Pressure and Academic Philosophy

Peer pressure, and not any consideration related to ideological, racial, political, ethical, economic, and historical issues, is the great influencer of academic philosophy. Most academic philosophers, it seems, are easily influenced by the members of their own peer group. This is the inference that you have when you read their essays and books; they seem to show an unnecessary amount of deference to the philosophers of their own peer group.

The mother of all philosophical peer groups is the club of leftist and liberal academic philosophers—they exercise such brute power over academic philosophy that they seem to dictate the philosophical agenda of much of the academic community. Even the libertarians and conservatives are coerced into toeing the line taken by the leftist and liberal club. There is much more diversity of opinion and wisdom in the masses than in the academic philosophers.

On Vaiśeṣika Ontology

Kanada is regarded as the founder of the Vaiśeṣika School (one of the six Hindu schools of philosophy). His exact dates are unknown, but it is believed that he composed the Vaiśeṣika Sutra around 3rd century BCE. His focus was on the nature of reality, which he understood as dharma. In the Vedic tradition, the word “dharma” stands for the cosmic order as a whole. In this sense, all that is there in the universe is part of dharma. When there is a breakdown of the cosmic order, then there is “adharma,” which is a negation of dharma.

The Vaiśeṣika Sutra opens with these lines:

We shall now consider the nature of dharma.
It is from dharma that the highest and supreme good is achieved.
The Veda has its authority because of its concern with dharma.

The system that Kanada elucidates in his Vaiśeṣika Sutra is pluralistic realism, which means a doctrine of multiplicity. He is concerned with the independent reality of things in the universe, outside and independent of the observer. He classifies the fundamental constituents of reality into seven categories: substance, quality, action, universality, particularity, a relation of inherence, and absence or negation.

“Substance” is the most important category as the other categories can get manifested only in relation to substance. Kanada divides the category “substance” into nine types of atoms: earth, water, fire, air, ether, space, time, self, and mind. The objects in the visible universe are composed of earth, water, fire, and air atoms in association with (as per the requirement) other atoms. Ether, space, time, and self are eternal and all-pervading. Mind is of an atomic size and it functions in conjunction with the self atoms which fuel the life of every human being. Every human being has one self atom and one mind atom.

Kanada talks about twenty-four kinds of qualities and five kinds of actions that inhere in substances. The occurrence of an object is an example of the universality of substance. The category of “absence” is an explanation for all kinds of negation or non-existence in the fabric of reality.

Saturday, 7 December 2019

Libertarianism is Anti-libertarian

Libertarianism is anti-libertarian. The libertarian call for a free society and global free markets is so disconnected from reality that it makes the masses think that libertarianism is a utopian ideal which will wreak havoc on their way of life. Most libertarians in the last 100 years have been motivated by good intentions; they have produced fine work on free society, free markets, and moral theory. But their overall impact on society is negative. Instead of attracting the people (non-libertarians) to their cause, the libertarian soteriology makes people suspicious of libertarianism and drives them towards statist political forces. Karl Marx had hoped for a proletarian rebellion against the capitalists and the contemporary libertarians are hoping for a bourgeoise rebellion against the government. But the libertarian rebellion is not going to happen.

Religion and Philosophy

The 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant was the original architect of the divide between religion and philosophy. He posited that certain knowledge can be achieved only through the use of reason, and that issues of faith are limited to god and religion. By questioning the legitimacy of mixing reason and faith for acquiring knowledge, he established the notion that religion and philosophy have different methods and aims. He was a theist and a believer in god, but he insisted that the issues of faith cannot be proved or disproved and had to be accepted as a belief, and for certain knowledge one must go to philosophy.

Before Kant, the distinction between religion and philosophy was not so clear cut—both were seen as the methods for acquiring knowledge of reality. For instance, from religion a man would learn that there is an entity called god and that god is the creator of everything in the universe. Three crucial ideas can be deduced from this theory: first, the universe consists of two kind of things, god and not-god; second, there cannot be a third type of thing in the universe because god is the creator of the universe; third, while god is a singular entity, non-god is a plural because it represents a multitude of kinds of matter and living creatures, including humans. A secular philosophy, on the other hand, might tell you that the universe consists of only one type of thing: not-god, or that everything in the universe, the material things and the living creatures, are not-god.

The religious idea that the universe consists of god and not-god, and the philosophical idea that not-god things are the sole constituents of the universe are two theories of metaphysics. It is beyond the scope of the human mind to prove or disprove either theory.

Friday, 6 December 2019

Atheism and Nihilism

An utter atheist always turns into an utter nihilist. Faith, like reason, is an attribute of man’s mind. If man does not have faith in something, then he will lose the capacity to believe in everything. To avoid nihilism, most atheists transfer their faith to any man that they idolize or to some earthly thing. An atheist communist may have faith in Hegel, Marx, and Lenin, or he may see the communist movement as a quasi-religious enterprise that will transport mankind to an earthly heaven. A liberal atheist may have faith in the welfare state. A libertarian atheist may have faith in the divine power of small government and global free markets. The followers of Ayn Rand might have faith in her divine mind which gave birth to, what they believe is, a perfect philosophy.

Thoughts on Wittgenstein’s Legacy

Wittgenstein is described by several scholars as a profound, brilliant, and the most influential philosopher of the 20th century. But what about philosophers like Edmund Husserl, Gottlob Frege, Bertrand Russell, G. E. Moore, Martin Heidegger, Jean-Paul Sartre? Is Wittgenstein’s contributions to philosophy greater than the work done by these philosophers? These philosophers were Wittgenstein’s contemporaries but none of them cared to use his theories in their own philosophy. Russell and Moore have praised Wittgenstein, but they never made use of his philosophy. In fact, they disagreed with Wittgenstein on almost everything.

It is puzzling that Wittgenstein’s name continues to be a major brand in philosophy. His claim that the problems of philosophy will vanish if we pay proper attention to language has been rejected by the analytic philosophers and the logical positivists. In fact, the views of Frege and Russell are far more popular today. The concerns regarding language are more than 2000 years old—Plato has talked about it, and so have Bacon and Berkeley. Wittgenstein overstated the problem when he made the sweeping claim that all our philosophical problems are related to our misunderstanding of language. His views on meaning, rule-following, cognitive relativism are unsound.

Not much scholarly work has been done on Wittgenstein. Far more work has been done on the ideas of Husserl, Frege, Russell, Heidegger, Sartre, and Moore.

Thursday, 5 December 2019

Conservatives, Liberals, Libertarians

The liberal political method is founded on political ideology and political skill—they ignore or denounce traditions and religion. The conservative political method is founded on traditions (past, present, and a projection of future), religion, and political skill—they are suspicious of political ideology. The libertarian political method is founded on political ideology—they ignore or denounce religion, traditions, and political skill.

The liberals and the conservatives are the successful political movements of the last 200 years; the libertarians are a failure. This is because the liberals and the conservatives possess one thing, which the libertarians lack—they possess political skill. Politics is primarily a skill. A political movement can afford to ignore religion, traditions, and ideology, but it cannot afford to ignore political skill.

Only those political movements succeed which possess political skill.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe: The Last Libertarian Standing

Hans-Hermann Hoppe is the ace libertarian gunslinger of our time. In his book Democracy: The God That Failed he comes out all guns blazing, but many of his shots are directed at the side to which he belongs—the libertarian side; by the time you have turned the book’s last page, you realize that this gunslinger has put down every libertarian theocrat in the town and that he is the last man standing. The libertarian political theories tends to get so predictable and utopian that most non-libertarian readers are disillusioned by it, but Hoppe ventures into areas in which you will never expect a libertarian scholar to go. In his book, you find a new kind of libertarianism, which is less idealistic and is focused on addressing the practical concerns of the masses.

They say, Hoppe is not a libertarian—that he is a paleolibertarian. But it is clear to me that paleolibertarianism is libertarianism’s future. Either the libertarians will imbibe the paleo-values of Hoppe and others, or their political theory will remain irrelevant, as it has been for the past 100 years. The question is how do you look at political ideology—most libertarians think of political ideology an end in itself, as something that has nothing to do with traditions and culture. They have a utopian view of how the society functions. But Hoppe’s approach in Democracy: The God That Failed is different. He explains his perspectives on the problems in modern democracies in context of human psychology and the traditions and culture that people are used to. Here’s an excerpt from his book (Chapter 10: “On Conservatism and Libertarianism”; Page 218):

"In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one's own tenant-property. One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal."

Hoppe’s views are controversial, but he has shown a way by which the gap between libertarianism and conservatism can be corrected.

Wednesday, 4 December 2019

The Orthodox Camp Versus The Radical Camp

When a major philosopher exits the world stage his students become split into two camps—the orthodox camp and the radical camp. We see this happening with almost all the major philosophers in the last 3000 years—from Ancient Greece to the Modern Age.

The orthodox camp comprises of those who want to blindly follow their teacher’s style and commandments. They revere their teacher as their infallible guide and they view his philosophical works theologically, as an end in itself. But the orthodox camp is mostly unable to attract or groom major thinkers, and within three of four decades of the philosopher’s death, they go into so steep a decline that their style of philosophy goes out of fashion.

The radical camp consists of thinkers with an independent and radical mind. Their approach is not reverent; it is critical—they appreciate the good points in their teacher’s philosophy, but they also examine the flaws in his thinking. It is generally the radical camp that gives rise to good thinkers who go on to develop the revolutionary implications of their teacher’s philosophy. The future of the philosophical school lies with the radicals.

Hegel’s God

It is not clear if Hegel was a theist, pantheist, or an atheist. Hegelian philosophy does not put god and religion on a pedestal; there are, however, several elements in Hegel’s thought which indicate that he had a religious bent of mind. But if Hegel believed in a god, then that god is not a perfect being like the god of any religion. His god is an entity that seeks perfection in the universe that he has himself created. This god is eternal, he is immutable, but he needs to manifest himself in the universe in order to perfect the world, for only by perfecting the world can the god perfect himself. History, therefore, is a project for god’s self-perfection. This is a powerful vision of god who is an active participant in history that we find in Hegel’s philosophy. Even though Hegel was a conservative, his view that the movement of history is linked to god’s quest for perfection has had an immense influence on revolutionary thinkers.

Tuesday, 3 December 2019

Multiculturalism is a Flawed Doctrine

The “melting pot” model which encourages the immigrants to merge and mix with the nation’s dominant culture is a much better system than the multiculturalist model which sermonizes about the value of diversity and encourages identity politics based on racial and religious differences. When people in a nation identify with a common culture (as in the melting pot system), then they will stay united on their own and the government will not need to interfere in their affairs. But if they are lacking in cultural bonds, then a severe discipline backed by political power will be needed to coerce them to stay together in peace. Over a period of time, most multiculturalist nations turn into police states.

Schumpeter’s Theory of Creative Destruction

In his 1942 book Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, Joseph Schumpeter presents the thesis that capitalism will not die due to its economic failures, as Karl Marx had predicted, but due to its economic success. The following sentence from his book can be seen as a good summary of his thesis: “Capitalism, while economically stable, and even gaining in stability, creates, by rationalizing the human mind, a mentality and a style of life incompatible with its own fundamental conditions, motives and social institutions.”

Schumpeter devotes six pages in his book to discussing the “perennial gale of creative destruction” that capitalism faces. He writes: “The opening up of new markets, foreign or domestic, and the organizational development from the craft shop to such concerns as U.S. Steel illustrate the same process of industrial mutation—if I may use that biological term—that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one. This process of Creative Destruction is the essential fact about capitalism.”

In a capitalist system, things are always in a flux, and society is never stable. As capitalism creates new products and services, and develops new ways of manufacturing and trading, it obliterates old ways of doing business—this leads to fundamental changes in peoples lives. Not everyone can keep pace with the high speed motion of the capitalist marketplace and many people get left behind, not just for a short period of time, but, in many cases, forever. Capitalism offers people several ways of succeeding in the marketplace, but it also creates as many ways of failing.

Monday, 2 December 2019

Western Civilization: A Myth or Reality?

The western civilization doesn’t exist in realty; it’s an abstract concept developed by some French philosophers during the Age of Enlightenment. These philosophers were of the view that human progress must have a single civilization as its goal—and to this civilization they gave the name “western civilization.” But their conception of the western civilization consisted of only the developed regions of the world—countries like France and England, and some parts of Germany, Italy, and America were included in it; rest of the world, they posited, was populated with barbarians who must be subdued in the name of human progress.

For much of last 2500 years, no one in Europe thought in terms of a western civilization, because there was no feeling of unity among the Europeans—they were continuously at war. Ancient Greece regarded Sparta as its enemy. The Roman Republic regarded Greece as its enemy. The history of the Roman Empire is the story of the wars that it fought with the barbarians in Northern Italy, Germany, Spain, England and other parts of Europe. Spain, for much of the Middle Ages, was an Islamic kingdom. By the time of the Renaissance most parts of Europe acquired a common religion, but there was no end to the European wars.

After the Enlightenment, the idea of western civilization remained locked inside philosophy and history books and made no impression on European politics. In the 20th century,  the Europeans fought two great wars—the First and the Second World Wars, in which they slaughtered millions of their own people and reduced large parts of Europe to rubble. During the bloodbath of the two wars, it would have been impossible for the European nations to conceive of themselves as a part of the same western civilization. The Second World War led to the division of Europe into two blocs — the free bloc and the Soviet bloc. The free bloc nations started identifying themselves and other nations that were opposed to the Soviet Union as the western civilization.

The fall of the Soviet Union in 1992 is seen as a victory for the western civilization, but the truth is that the Soviet Union was ruled from Moscow, an European city; it had a western ideology, communism; and it enjoyed the strong support of several European intellectuals—therefore, I think, it is logical to see the collapse of the Soviet Union as the failure of one faction of the western civilization. The geographical extent of the western civilization is a controversial subject because its political, linguistic, racial, and religious character is not clear.

Hegel On The Condemnation of Socrates

When Socrates took up the mantle of free enquiry, which is unencumbered by prevalent beliefs and prejudices, he was following the command that the Greeks attributed to their god Apollo: “Man, know thyself.” Socrates had dedicated his life to inculcating in his followers the virtue of critically reflecting on matters concerning morality and politics. But this kind of critical reflection makes reason, and not social custom, the ultimate judge.

In his the Philosophy of History, Hegel says that by teaching his followers to reflect on moral and political issues, Socrates was destabilizing the Athenian city-state—he was fomenting a revolution. Therefore, he notes, the Athenians were right in regarding him as an enemy of their way of life and condemning him to death. However, in ancient Athens, the principe of free thought was too firmly entrenched in culture to be banished by the execution of a single individual. The revolutionary idea remained alive in Athens after the death of Socrates; and in time it led to the condemnation of all the accusers of Socrates while Socrates himself was posthumously resurrected.

The posthumous resurrection of Socrates had a vitalizing impact on the principle of free thought and that contributed to the decline of the Ancient Greek civilization. Thus Socrates was responsible for the end of the world-historical role that the Ancient Greeks had been playing.

Sunday, 1 December 2019

On The Theology of Small Governments

The libertarians look at small governments theologically, as an end in itself. They seldom talk about the symbiotic relationship between the size of government and the capitalist economy. The truth is that there has never been a small government capitalist country. Capitalism is by nature a big government political system—just as communism is. In a stable capitalist country, the size of the government is always proportional to the size of the economy. The attempt to cut the size of the government in a capitalist country has a destabilizing impact on the economy—it leads to massive job losses in the private sector and all kinds of political and cultural problems. If you want a small government system, then you have to move away from capitalism towards a system that is regulated through self-governed guilds and local communities. You have to rely on your nation’s culture to throw up its own systems of manufacturing and trade.

Kant’s First Critique is Neither Right Nor Wrong

The philosophy that Immanuel Kant presents in his first CritiqueThe Critique of Pure Reason, cannot be proved or disproved. The arguments that he offers are his own rationalizations on the nature and scope of our mind and reason, but those who have discovered flaws in his thought, philosophers like Fichte, Hegel, and others, have also indulged in outrageous rationalizations.

Kant's aim in the first Critique is to investigate what our reason or intellect can or cannot achieve for formulating knowledge. He theorizes that the mind does not receive information passively through our eyes, ears, nose, and other senses. The mind plays an active role in acquiring knowledge, by organizing and systemizing the information that it receives through our senses. We experience the world within a framework of space, time, and substance; however, space, time, and substance are not part of the objective reality, they are not something that is independent of the mind. They are intrinsic to the mind; our reason or intuition creates the framework of space, time, and substance to enable us to comprehend the world. But if this is the case, then the question is: How does the world look like independent of the framework through which we experience it? According to Kant, this question can never be answered by human beings. The name he gives to the reality that is independent of mind is “thing-in-itself,” which, he asserts, is beyond the reach of our knowledge.

Kant does not offer conclusive philosophical evidence to back his claims, but, as I have already pointed out, those who reject his first Critique can be faulted on the same ground. The knowledge of how our mind interacts with the information that we receive through our senses is as impossible to us as the knowledge of the Kantian “thing-in-itself”. We can’t know if space, time, and substance exist out there, in the world, or inside the human mind. Therefore, Kant’s first Critique cannot be proved or disproved.