A bit of stoned blogging about Better Living Through Philosophy / End of History

(this is all from one hit, mind you, plus a bunch of stuff accumulated over decades right here in this stoned noggin)

An idea that keeps re-occuring to me as I get stoned and admire/examine my really nicely-stocked physical (and digital) library: One possible(-world) humorous subtitle for my in-development Better Living Through Philosophy book is something along the lines of:

or, 100 essential books condensed into one

First off, the value-added if this were pulled off as represented would be really high for one book...

So the monetary angle aside for the moment, and looking at this from a theoretical-philosophical-moral angle with all the implications involved . . .

It has a certain similarity to what the venerable 20th century philosopher-public-intellectual Mortimer J. Adler was doing with what is arguably his magnum opus, Great Ideas: A Lexicon of Western Thought, which is more or less a 960 page, double-column synthesis of the (Western) wisdom of the ages contained in the famous Great Books series of which he was the chief architect/curator/commentator.  So at the very least I would like to approach something similar to what Adler is doing in just that one book.  For the average reader/citizen, just that one book is arguably a godsend from the condensed-value-added standpoint.  For yours truly, it was more or less an edification or beefing up of a bunch of stuff I had already integrated, book-smarts-wise plus lots of attentive cultural observation, over the course of decades.  Also, if I could condense what Adler was doing down to something more like 420 single-column book, it would be that much more value-added-wise.  Thing is, Adler's magnum opus is not even in print any more; you have to buy it in a used marketplace somewhere, or find it at a local library.  It belongs in every learned person's personal library, anyway.  I have it in mine; it's like a no-brainer, that one.  Is it in yours?

If it's in mine and not yours, that's one distinct research-advantage I have over you.  And I use it now as as source of inspiration for how to compose an epic, sprawling, magisterial and fun - above all, fun - book on the subject of Better Living Through Philosophy.  And that's just the tippy top of the iceberg when it comes to books in my personal library to draw inspiration from.  Now to induce whatever principle is involved here:

I have selected a few hundred of what I regard as essential books for Any Learned Person to Have on Hand, for my personal library.  I've had to be somewhat selective in what I have been able to purchase and make room for, but I think I have developed a really strong sense, over decades of experience, for what is a promising, uh, lead when it comes to various things cultural and intellectual.  It doesn't mean I know a ton of shit about a ton of shit.  (One promising beginning lead here, though, might be the New York Times Guide to Essential Knowledge, which I have on hand.  Do you? . . .)  It does mean, though, that I am probably the very best researcher that I know of.  I fucking love what I have in my personal library (paper and digital...) and I especially love how I have it so nicely organized.  How do I have it organized, you ask?  Well, isn't that something of a trade secret, if you will?  Do I just wanna give it away, right here?  I've told a few close friends about how I have it organized.  If a Resurrected-Aristotle were to organize his library nowadays, on what sort of principle might he organize it?  How are libraries proper organized, pray tell?  What comes first?...  (I've given this subject a lot of thought.  Have you?)

Then I have about a dozen Oxford Handbooks (you know what those are, right?) in my physical library (they're kinda pricey...).  Do I have any in my digital library?  Well, do I?  You tell me.

I really find Oxford Handbooks quite useful, most of the time.  So I'm able to distinguish more useful Oxford Handbooks from less useful ones.  How about you?

So I've got Adler's Lexicon and then I also have the (out-of-print as well) Adler-edited Great Treasury of Western Thought.  A Resurrected-Aristotle would definitely have this one in his library, right?  (In the Academy, Aristotle garnered the nickname of 'The Reader,' BTW.  Books were definitely important to him.)

So one thing Aristotle (in a manner similar to Adler, but perhaps different) might do or consider doing in composing a treatise on the subject of Better Living Through Philosophy is to, more less, take the reader/audience on a guided tour of essential (Western-intellectual-tradition) books for a learned citizen.

So, what selection criteria would Aristotle use to narrow down his selection of essential titles through which to usefully take his audience on that guided tour?  I don't know, actually; I'm not Aristotle, after all.  I'm me.  And I have some idea of either what my selection criteria are or of the product of my selection criteria.  So in my list of top-100 essentials I would have those two big Adler books I've mentioned, probably a number of Oxford Handbooks (the more useful ones, anyway), and then, letsee, I have the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (both 1st and 2nd editions) on hand.

But maybe that's all the leads I'm gonna give on that subject in this post.  I already have a shit-ton of promising leads already on this blog.  I know where to go to find 'em just in case.  I know when I "reviewed" Norton's Personal Destinies on this blog.  I have quick recall of a lot of destructive-leftism-related links just in case the need to prove my point yet again about destructive leftism arises (yet again, sigh).  (BTW, those losers-qua-leftists up on stage last night were going on and on about Better Living Through Big Government.  They just don't get it, do they.  Would Resurrected-Aristotle-in-Drill-Sergeant-Mode tear them a new one, or what?  [Edit: How about this, which I'm not sure the leftists would ever figure out on their own in a million years: Better Social Capital Through Philosophy.  Eh?  Eh? {Edit: Is a warranted induction on the principle here expressed as follows: Better x Through Philosophy, where x could stand for any number of desirable things?  Ya think?}])

So anyway, I think I know (about) a ton of promising leads on certain important End-of-History related subjects.  (You know all about what 'End of History' refers to, right?  I've given this subject more than a teensy bit of thought over the years, mind you.)  That doesn't mean I know (about) a ton of leads on a ton of shit.  I couldn't tell you who won the Kentucky Derby in 1963.  I do know that Wilt Chamberlain was NBA MVP in his rookie season but not the season he averaged 50 points a game and scored 100 in one of them.  Now who in the fuck would have beaten Wilt out for the MVP award that year?  I know.  Do you?)

So the one hit is starting to wear off, the magic inevitably to wear off as well.  Now I've got the munchies.

[Addendum 10/16 (un-stoned): I'm sure getting a lot of emails from academia.edu with links to papers closely connected to the topic of Aristotle's intellectualist conception of eudaimonia lately; how about you?  I don't know/remember how this turned out to be the case, but it's not a bad subject to get a lot of academia.edu emails about, is it?  What would be more perfect a topic to get such emails/papers about?]

What problems would Philosophy for Everyone solve?

What problems wouldn't it solve?

Assuming (correctly) that kids can engage in philosophical activity and that it leads to scientifically-proven benefits (above and beyond the intrinsic goodness of philosophical activity itself as would be attested to by the greatest philosophers), it only stands to reason that adults can engage in it as well.  Assume that we can all get on the same page about this and that within, say, a generation, we'll have a philosophically-educated populace (perhaps worldwide).  What might that look like?

In Prologue to an Aristotelian End of History, I outline what I take to be the norms, or the form if you will, of a society that has taken up the 'Aristotelian project' to its ultimate expression.  (The basic norm of Aristotelianism is something like intellectual perfectionism, and does it get better than perfectionism?  How do you improve upon it without incorporating it as a norm?  We've reached a normative limit here, I think, and an irrefutable one at that.)  I can only speculate on what the outcomes, the matter or content if you will, of such a social order.  And at this stage of things I am not sure how exactly to separate issues of said form and said content.  For example:

Does this represent talk of form or of content: Philosophy for Everyone (hereafter P4E) would go a very long way toward addressing the aims and concerns of all the major ethical theories.  It would satisfy the requirements of consequentialism; see the link above about scientifically-proven benefits for kids.  It would satisfy the requirements of deontological theories insofar as those are focused on what it is to treat humans with the utmost respect for their rationality and cognitive freedom.  And it certainly satisfies the requirements of virtue ethics insofar as the very activity of philosophy leads to cultivation of good character.

Consequentialists, deontologists, and virtue ethicists may be in disagreement on matters of justification (and Hurka treats perfectionism as a consequentialist theory, but, well, are virtue-ethicists qua intellectual perfectionists also consequentalists in some sense, given the desirability of intellectual perfection qua human telos?), but they can all agree, overlapping-consensus-like, on a prescription for P4E.  Then we get everybody on board with a justificatory project which applies standard philosophical methods such as dialectic to identify any and all grains of truth in each of the major schools of ethics.

Then, we get everyone (well, everyone who is minimally interested and there will still be intellectual divisions of labor, etc.) to fully and adequately assess the very principle of intellectual perfectionism as expressing the best of what philosophical inquiry leads us to.  In other words, we end up assessing theories as Aristotelian reasoners (whatever else we arrive at as expressing ultimate philosophic inquiry).  That is a formal principle of an ultimate social order, but where does that get us, outcomes-wise?  That's where I can only speculate.  But the very adopting of the formal principle is an outcome of sorts - it'll be a real-world application of some philosophical reasoning, instantiated across a population or populations.

Now, in principle, all this can happen within a generation with the proper information-transmission mechanisms, and I have good reason to believe that this can be done despite all the obstacles thrown up by social media.  Whatever else, philosophers as a community need to get on board with the project (and they're being drowned out in the discourse by whatever crap goes viral on social media).  But you really don't mess with philosophers, much less with a community of them; if they (in consensus no less) endorse X, they'll have really good reasons for doing so, and beat out objections to X, and soon enough X will be a social norm.

We also have to consider that within a generation from now, AI technology will be a generation more advanced.  AI works on the principle of what's called 'machine learning,' and among humans Aristotle has been a premiere instance of (rigorously systematic) human learning.  What there is to learn will probably see a convergence between the best of human learning and whatever AI learns.  This includes moral truths, and we already see something about what moral consensus can emerge even among disparate schools of ethics -- i.e., that intellectual-perfectionist learning across a population or populations of people is a grand idea, arguments against which would by necessity be self-undermining.  (What better argument can you come up with, ethics-wise, than perfectionistic learning being morally obligatory?)  Now, our best ethical reasoning and/or most compelling moral truths, indicate that there are goods for conscious agents, and whether or not AI ever becomes conscious, it will recognize goods for us humans qua conscious agents that could not be overriden by what AI learns in addition to that.  It's analogous to the best moral reasoning we humans have for how we ought to treat the other animals.  (Compare/contrast the state-of-the-art moral reasoning on the ethics of the treatment of animals with current mainstream practice in which, e.g., inhumane factory farming carries on with impunity.  Obviously there's a disconnect.  Assume that there would be no disconnect between ethical truth and how AI would consider the moral status of humans.)

We should also distinguish "philosophically-educated populace" from "populace of full-time philosophers."  There is still intellectual division of labor.  But the love of wisdom as an organizing principle of life for all members of a populace can be instilled from a young age and expressed in whatever activities that are suited to each person.  Living thoughtfully and intelligently is the common or generic form of human flourishing or eudaimonia or self-actualizing; the content will be expressed on an individualized basis with diverse and complementary excellences.

The form of a philosophically-educated populace would be such that everyone (or near everyone) could blog at the level of this here blog if they so desire.  But the content of what they might blog would be anyone's guess.  If everyone is blogging (or able to blog) at this level, what builds - presumably exponentially - from that?  They're not going to be blogging all day long about the latest celebrity gossip or stupid politician (since politicians wouldn't be stupid any longer), will they?  Perhaps once the basic problems of stupidity in politics are solved, and a strong overlapping consensus in ethics is reached (intellectual perfectionism seems to fit the bill pretty well for that), and virtue epistemology is the norm (intellectual perfectionism again), are we left to discuss metaphysics and the arts, which would likely converge on the 'fundamental' topic of philosophy, the meaning of life?  I mean, what else are humans going to do with all their time when AI is overseeing the process of material production with all the inexpensive and abundant products being generated (although 'living small' and simply may be the norm of Aristotelian society; I mean, how many SUVs for the sake of getting to nature and family gatherings [first and foremost] would there need to be, assuming a zipcar model is adopted, and how would humans not figure out the optimal arrangements here without input from AI-computed logistics?).

As for politics: I'm not a leftist, i.e., someone hostile to capitalism or to the wisdom of Western tradition.  Would a philosophically-educated populace be leftist?  The PhilPapers Surveys of philosophers suggest that a plurality of philosophers are egalitarians in politics (given an exhaustive three-way division between positions generically labeled "egalitarian," "libertarian," and "communitarian").  But it's my belief that leftism exists as a program for addressing human problems that P4E would solve anyway.  I don't know what exactly would be left for the political sphere if everyone is on philosophy and achieving abundant goods of life as a consequence; politics is about fighting over what would be crumbs in contrast to what would be achieved with P4E.  The thing with leftists as they are today - short of their being intellectually enhanced by P4E - is that despite their pretending to possess a superior intellectual and moral compass, they somehow have not figured out that P4E would solve the problems they want to solve.  (Is it really inequality per se that's a problem, or not enough people achieving their potentials that's the problem?  Gee, that's a no-brainer.  Also what should be a no-brainer is a libertarian principle recognizing intellectual-and-hence-practical freedom as a formal condition of properly human living, along with a capitalistic, private-property principle based on the recognition that material value-production originates in the individual, private intellect.)

So I'm not really concerned about P4E turning a plurality of people into leftists.  Besides, getting really superior at dialectic involves doing what leftists don't do, and that is addressing the strongest version (as per Dennett/Rapoport Rules) of an opposing position, and in the case of capitalism that would entail having to take on Rand and Mises and Nozick and the 'Dougs' and Sciabarra and other giants of pro-capitalist thought in full good faith.  (And it's a two-way street there, but something tells me the libertarians/capitalists, especially the neo-Aristotelian ones such as Rand, the Dougs, and Sciabarra, are ahead of the leftists, who don't seem to talk much about Aristotelian themes.)  And once you take on Rand/Dougs/Sciabarra in full good faith you end up taking on Aristotle in full good faith and we're right back to P4E again (or is it A4E, Aristotelianism for Everyone?).  (And/or IP4E, Intellectual Perfectionism For Everyone?)  There's nothing to be concerned about in regard to where people doing philosophy properly will take them substantive-beliefs-wise.  (Also, bullshit political and networking dynamics in academia can't get in the way of P4E/A4E/IP4E fully applied; there can't be the currently-prevailing "liberal" hubris that involves seriously underestimating (capitalist) libertarianism in its strongest, i.e., Aristotelian-intellectualist, formulations.)

A4E would mean doing dialectic in the spirit of Aristotle, and at that level of intellectual productivity we would then have the proper platform upon which to do what is an ultimate dialectical showdown in the making, Aristotle vs. Kant, since we just don't have enough brainpower on this topic yet to figure out how that might go down if these two titans were brought back to life.  (Aristotle vs. Kant, mediated by Hegel?  Presumably Aristotle already presupposes/incorporates Plato.)  I don't know enough about Kant to say yet, but would A4E realize his ideal of a Kingdom of Ends?  Does it realize Hegel's conception of an end of history?  Does it realize Nietzsche's rather nebulous references to Ubermensch?

And let's not make the silly mistake of assuming that intellectual perfectionism means exclusive focus on perfection of the intellect to the detriment of the other facets of human nature such as emotion (in which we also exceed the other animals in complexity and sophistication); indeed, it is through intellectual perfectionism that we can optimally learn what best actualizes our human potentialities in all facets of life.  This includes perfectionism in the area of nutrition and physical fitness science, in which case fitness geniuses such as Cole Robinson and Paul Chek will need to enter into the mainstream cultural dialectic.  (And dialectic has something to do, may even be synonymous, with intellectual perfectionism, something about all-embracing learning and culling-together....  Have, e.g, Paul Check and Ken Wilber been 'dialecticized/synthesized' with one another yet?  And who all should be 'dialecticizing' with whom?  A lot of folks; use your imagination.  Cole Robinson knows about Victor Frankl, but does he know about Aristotle?  Many gaps to close here, many strands to tie together.)

Speaking of strands to tie together, along with a strict drug regimen to keep one's mind limber, would philosophical activity with P4E or A4E be further stimulated by cannabis used in (Aristotelian) moderation?  I'll take that topic up plenty soon in a blog post preparation for which will involve cannabinization, and which will treat of all the subject matter above as already-established presupposition or background (all as a unit, as it were).  It should be pretty great.

Spreading philosophy for children ASAFP

As I keep pointing out (and for abundantly good reason), philosophy for children is far and away the biggest no-brainer of all time.  Right now people are fighting over crumbs compared to what's at stake here.  Given the nature of philosophical activity, properly conceived - as love of wisdom and therefore organized (and therefore better) living - there is perhaps no human problem that can't be solved by more philosophy.  (It gets even better with Aristotelian philosophy, which may be the best kind of philosophical activity around.  If you haven't yet thought in terms of 'Ultimate living through ultimate philosophy,' then you have some catching up to do.)

The thoroughly-researched Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) entry on Philosophy for Children has an almost fresh copyright date (2018), so it's not like this article has been sitting around for a long time not being noticed on its merits.  What the 2018 copyright date does say is that it took about that amount of time for a philosopher to do the necessary integration of research materials out there and consolidate the essential findings all in one place, with a compelling narrative tying it all together.

(I've had the time/resources only to go through McCarty's Little Big Minds, within the past several months or so.  Just on its own it makes a compelling case for philosophy for kids, but it has a 2006 copyright date.  What has happened in the intervening 13 years?  Someone with the time, interest and expertise had to come along and organize all the available research.  YouTube will provide leads to Jana Mohr Lone and others (edit: see also Lone's blog), but won't provide you the comprehensive set of leads available at the SEP entry.)

So we're into the second year after the SEP entry's publication, and at least one philosopher has taken up the task of blogging about it vigorously.  I have just taken the next step of contacting the author of the SEP entry by email to inquire about how best this no-brainer idea can be spread ASAFP.  The author probably has a good network of contacts in this area, and if a network of contacts includes philosophers, a potential intellectual juggernaut is in the making.  By its very nature any opposition to philosophy for children is intellectually impotent, easily overwhelmed given enough time and dedication among the philosophers, the most advanced-level integrators in the humanities.

The question: why didn't I think of contacting the author before today?  Well, this is the nature of incomplete and imperfect knowledge, and limitations on time and mental resources.  Were I smarter than I am (I am merely a fanatical lover/pursuer of wisdom), this may well have happened sooner.  The better (Aristotelian) policy of mental integration being applied, the sooner such discoveries can be made and exploited for maximum benefit.

And, so, if you're reading this, what measures might you take to help spread the message of philosophy for children?  Perhaps contact the author of the SEP entry as I have and express your support.  Provide the SEP link with a good money-quote (this linked one quoting the author that most anyone with philosophical curiosity themselves can teach this subject; and most anyone can have philosophical curiosity) on social media when good opportunities arise, making sure to mention how authoritative the SEP is.  Those are a couple ideas that occur to me so far.  (Do I have to do all this myself?  Or will the end of history simply have to be a collaborative effort?  But of course it will....)

When a philosopher-friend on facebook linked to this article (by Rod Dreher at The American Conservative almost despairing over the seductive appeal of "alt-right" views to alienated young white men seeking meaning (and we're not talking the benign and philosophical Jordan Peterson-type guidance, but, well, identity-politics for white males), the thought occurred to me: "Gee, wouldn't it be nice if this or the next generation of young males are taught to think philosophically before this all becomes a problem...."  Seeing as I can't fathom a remotely plausible comeback to this, there probably isn't one.

Is there any social problem that wouldn't be optimally addressed by philosophy for kids?  Just now I see on the news the latest story about cop-killing dirtbags.  Put the kids on philosophy and they won't end up being cop-killing dirtbags.

Given that this topic is of the highest priority for a wisdom-lover, I will continue to pursue this vigorously however I can.  Providing top-notch blog postings as evidence for the benefits philosophy can bring will continue to be a part of this process.  But others with sincere concern about the future of humanity will have to do their part, as well.

I am currently discussing a bet on facebook with Bryan Caplan (Econ, GMU), winner of 14 bets in a row and counting, as to how soon philosophy for children can/will be part of the regular education curriculum nationwide (if not worldwide...).  If you follow the logic of this through, at some point there will be a checkmate situation against any opposition to philosophy for children.  (Just the very publicizing of the bet/idea can only affect the very circumstances being betted on, in the direction of philosophy-for-children sooner than later.  Think this through, and the only end-result is checkmate, pretty soon.  Just what the endgame will look like, I do not know yet, but it should be pretty awesome.)  I am willing to bet with long odds.  Given my own context of knowledge, it's a no-brainer.

Like Sciabarra did his homework in his own area of expertise, I did my homework well enough to notice the McCarty book in a library (who uses those anymore?) and to notice and promote the SEP entry so relatively soon after its publication, as no other philosophy blog or social-media platform is doing (yet).  (I found the SEP entry by googling "philosophy for children" after finding only so much material on youtube and not being satisfied with that.)

The rest of this blog's entries, and my book, should be a good indicator of how well and thoroughly I do my homework.  Philosophy for children will get them doing their homework really darn well, also.

Why delay?

[Addendum: Why does American politics kinda suck right now?  Well, a huge part of it has to do with our elected 'leaders' being so philosophically illiterate when contrasted with all of the key Framers.  Think of whatever social problem we have and it probably, likely, or definitely has to do with not enough philosophy going around.]

[Addendum #2: Imagine a scenario: the teachers get a 5% bump in pay/funding if they teach philosophy for kids according to the best available researched protocols, and additional bumps as results come in. Why wouldn't they go for it?]