Debating freedom of thought

I got a criticism of my thinking regarding freedom of thought in a post yesterday. I raised the idea of society or the law somehow disapproving of DFS (dark free speech) in politics. The criticisms and my responses shed light in one reasonable mental frame about how to think about these complicated things.

Criticisms 

You said:

Is it unconstitutional for government to tax Faux News more heavily than NPR because Faux relies heavily on DFS? I don't see why.

Well, there's this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

Taxing a private company because of its speech - dark or otherwise - is definitely an abridgment of freedom, and unconstitutional.

Style over substance? I don't get it. Lies are lies, not truths. Logic flaws are logic flaws, not sound logic. Deceit is deceit, not honesty. Those things look clear to me, even if the lines are not always sharp...

So what "lies" are you referring to? That the moon landing was a side project by Kubrick filmed in Hollywood, or that global warming reversed when we elected Obama, or that there were no WMD in Iraq? Here you focus on the most straightforward of the criteria you listed earlier, and yet here too you'll find the utility of limiting speech marginal at best.

And whatever utility you think there is, none of these rebuttals eliminates the role of agreement in determining the "correct" standard. Ultimately your demand for limiting "dark" speech is inherently a demand for others to take your view of things. They must agree with you, do things your way, or be punished in some way.

My responses

I am unsure if taxing a private company because of its DFS (not honest speech) is definitely unconstitutional. That is a legal hypothesis I would very much like to see tested. Consider defamation law, which is constitutional:

To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

Different states vary in their anti-defamation statutes. As such, courts in different states will interpret defamation laws differently, and defamation statutes will vary somewhat from state to state. In Davis v. Boeheim, 110 A.D.3d 1431 (N.Y. 2014), which is a New York state court case, the court held that in determining whether a defamation claim is sufficient, a court must look at whether the "contested statements are reasonably susceptible of a defamatory connotation.

Truth is widely accepted as a complete defense to all defamation claims. An absolute privilege is also a complete defense to a defamation claim. Among other examples, this includes statements made by witnesses during judicial proceedings.

In commerce, lying can amount to a criminal offense:

Businesspersons Beware: Lying is a Crime

The rules regarding lying in business in the U.S. are currently being vigorously enforced

In case after case, scandal after scandal, American federal law enforcement officials have clearly shown by their indictments and prosecutions that there is no confusion in their minds—lying is a crime. Businesspersons need to clearly understand those rules and what prosecutors define as lying.

In recent corporate scandals, some executives have learned the hard way that lying is still a crime in corporate America. Martha Stewart was accused of selling her ImClone stock allegedly after receiving insider information. However, she was not convicted of securities fraud. She was instead convicted for lying. In addition, Computer Associates executives were indicted and some have already pleaded guilty for lying to their own company’s attorney during an internal investigation when their lies were passed on by their attorney to the government.

To me the evidence is rock solid: It is sometimes or often possible to determine that a person has lied and that can trigger criminal guilt for the liar. That is a key point here.

So what "lies" are you referring to?

Excellent question. My main focus is on politics, which now clearly includes both commerce and religion. Therefore lies in politics are what I refer to, especially lies by people in government, commerce or religion who hold positions of power or public trust. Lies such as (i) the 2020 election was stolen, (ii) Joe Biden is an illegitimate president, (iii) Trump's 1/6 coup attempt was merely legitimate political discourse and/or something Trump bears no responsibility for, (iv) the over 30 thousand false or misleading statements DJT made while he was in office, (v) the lies that Faux News routinely asserts as truth in some or most of its broadcasts, and (vi) decades of corporate lies about climate change.

From what I (and some others) can tell, the entire GOP leadership now relies heavily on DFS because actual facts and truths are not on the side of kleptocratic authoritarianism.

No, fact checking is not a perfect science. Humans make mistakes, so honest mistakes will be made. But where does the greater danger lie? In my opinion, the greater danger is in letting people and interests who significantly rely on DFS to get away free and clear shifts the costs and harms from those responsible to the whole society. Screw that noise, I'm tired of people and the environment getting constantly shafted by the rich and powerful hiding behind a thick shield of constitutionally protected DFS.

Ultimately your demand for limiting "dark" speech is inherently a demand for others to take your view of things. They must agree with you, do things your way, or be punished in some way.

I vaguely recall this criticism from you before. Regardless, let's do it again.

My demand for limiting DFS is the opposite of a demand for others to take my view of things. Pragmatic rationalism is a demand for respect for facts, true truths and sound reasoning in a political context of democracy, civil liberties, the rule of law and service to the public interest. There is vast room for disagreements within those broad constraints, especially democracy, civil liberties, the rule of law and service to the public interest, all four of which I believe are essentially contested concepts. But notice, there is a lot less room for disagreements over facts and intermediate room for disagreements over true truths and sound reasoning.

So, on the one hand, my pragmatic rationalism is intended to at least partly (noticeably) purge some lies and irrationality from politics in defense of democracy and the public interest. Pragmatic rationalism frees minds, allowing freedom of thought and freedom of choice.

On the other hand, consider the mental framework and reality that purveyors of DFS use to win their arguments. They are usually corrupt authoritarians who deceive, distract, confuse, enrage, terrify, derationalize, polarize and bamboozle people to get what they want in defense of the elite's interests. DFS politics traps minds, infringing on freedom of thought and limiting choices.

What political framework do you prefer, pro-democracy pragmatic rationalism, anti-democracy DFS irrationalism, or something else? If something else, exactly what?

What DFS politics looks like

What pragmatic rationalism politics looks like

Chapter Review: The Cognitive Neuroscience of Moral Judgment and Decision-Making

The Cognitive Neuroscience of Moral Judgment and Decision-Making is chapter 88 of the 2020 book The Cognitive Neurosciences (sixth edition). This chapter was written by Joshua Greene and Liane Young. The book is academic, 1113 pages long and expensive ($233). It is not written for a general audience. It is a fairly detailed review of the state of cognitive neurosciences for academics and researchers.

Moral thinking is whole-brain thinking

Greene is the pioneer of one of the major models of the neuroscience of morality, the dual process model (mentioned in this book review):

Unconscious emotion-intuition and conscious reasoning lead to moral judgment (dual inputs): Reasoning + emotion → moral judgment

According to this hypothesis, both unconscious emotions and intuitions and conscious reason play a role in moral thinking and decision-making. The evidence to support that general thesis strikes me as overwhelming. What isn't known is the details of how the brain does what it does.

One concern about the neuroscience of morality that Greene and Young (G&Y) discuss is the possibility that morality as a separate scientific research field could be in danger of becoming meaningless. Accumulating evidence shows that morality appears to have few or no neural mechanisms that are unique to  moral thinking. In other words, moral thinking appears to rely mostly or completely on the same pathways and brain structures that mediate various kinds of non-moral thinking. G&Y comment: “It’s now clear, however, that the ‘moral brain’ is, more or less, the whole brain .... Understanding this is, itself, a kind of progress .... if this unified [whole brain] theory of morality is correct, it doesn't bode well for a unified theory for moral neuroscience.”

Apparently, there is no specific brain structure(s) that uniquely do the mental data processing involved in making moral judgments.

Morality and moral neuroscience defined; The specter of warring tribalism

If one wants to do research on something, it helps to have a definition or description of it. The description has troubling implications for long-term human survival and well-being. G&Y write:

“... we regard morality as a suite of cognitive mechanisms to enable otherwise selfish individuals to reap the benefits of cooperation. Humans have psychological features that are straightforwardly moral (such as empathy) and others that are not (such as in-group favoritism) because they enable us to achieve goals that we can’t achieve through pure selfishness. .... Morality evolved, not as a device for universal cooperation but as a competitive weapon -- as a system for turning Me into Us, which in turn enables Us to outcompete Them. It does not follow from this, however, that are are doomed to be warring tribalists. Drawing on our ingenuity and flexibility, it’s possible to put human values ahead of evolutionary imperatives, as we do when we use birth control.”

Morality and pragmatic rationalism

Based on my limited understanding of history, humans have always been warring tribalists and arguably still are today to some extent. Although it usually doesn’t seem that way, here is less warring between armies and nations going on in modern times than in past centuries.

Other than birth control, G&Y do not give evidence for their belief that ingenuity and flexibility can allow the species to put moral values ahead of evolutionary imperatives. The sentiment seems to be mostly aspirational, not empirical. In view of the major expansion of power that modern communications technologies give to demagogues, tyrants, liars and other bad people, one can argue that democratic, rule of law-driven societies are falling to evolutionary imperatives, including authoritarianism. The rapid rise of modern communications technology has blown right past slow human evolution. Societies have to evolve because biological evolution cannot keep up.

One core goal of pragmatic rationalism’s moral structure is to somehow form a gigantic Us in-group for the human species. As I learn more, e.g., by reading chapter 88 of this book, that seems increasingly unlikely. The next best thing seems to try to unite all people in a single country based on the four core moral values that pragmatic rationalism is based on. Inherent in the third moral value, service to the public interest, is an anti-war bias that is intended to reduce violence generally, including between nations.

The problem with the nation-size In group formation hypothesis is that, as we are witnessing in real time, demagogues, liars and other bad people who rely on dark free speech, can tear the people of a nation to pieces. It is odd because the conservative and GOP side is explicitly appealing to American nationalism, but it nonetheless is tearing us apart. A major reason the modern conservative appeal is tearing us apart appears to be that it is significantly grounded in irrational bigotry, racism, distrust, hate, misogyny and intolerance of Out groups. Dark free speech has created all of that poison in the minds of millions of people.

At present, circumstances and evolutionary imperatives do not bode well for the rise of pragmatic rationalism. In my opinion, that is unfortunate to say the least.

The Way A Conservative Strategist Thinks About Politics

Conservative Rick Wilson, author of the 2020 book, Running Against the Devil: A Plot to Save America from Trump--and Democrats from Themselves, argues that democrats don't know how to campaign. In an interview with Trevor Noah, Wilson asserts that he is strongly anti-Trump. He argues that the GOP no longer exists because it has been corrupted and lost its bearings as the party of small government, individual liberty and constitutional government.[1] Wilson is a co-founder of the Lincoln Project, an effort to defeat the president in 2020. He characterizes GOP members of congress who support the president as “liars and cowards” who are afraid of the president and have “given themselves over to a cult.”

Democrat's inability to campaign 

Wilson criticizes democratic candidates as incapable of running an intelligent, effective political campaign. He says that over a period of 30 years, he and other conservatives like him built “a very smart, very sophisticated system to wreck the hell out of democratic candidates, and we did it all over the country.” He asserts that over the 20 years before the president came to power, their system took about 2,000 seats from democrats in state legislatures and congress. That success was built on being better able to do ‘root politics’ and running very tough ads in support of GOP candidates who fit their locality. Those candidates were not all hard core Evangelical conservatives.[2]

Wilson argues that democrats require ideological homogeneity[2] and try to win arguments, while republicans try to win elections by not caring how the win happens, including coming right up to the edge of what is legal. Republican campaign tactics include (i) not saying what’s on a candidate’s mind when it is inconvenient, i.e., deceiving the public, and (ii) don’t make ideological promises based on detailed plans. Democrats say things that scare a lot of people, e.g., medicare for all, so they lose elections. When there's a long policy paper, Wilson hires people to go through it and find all the things that will scare people. Then he runs attack ads based on the scary things.

Wilson says it is far better to wear a hat that says build the wall than it is to put out a white paper describing how to build it. That rings true. Obama had his Hope and Change and millions of people read their own meanings into what it meant as needed.

Exactly what is Mr. Wilson saying?

Given his history as a master of conservative republican political attack ads riddled with dark free speech,[1] what Wilson seems to be saying is something about like this: “Holy crap! We've created Trump the monster and have lost control of it. We never thought conservative politics turn in this direction and corrupt the fundamental anti-government, anti-tax and regulation utopia we were building. We didn't mean for our lies, deceit and sleazy smears and lies to lead to this mess. We wanted our own kind of mess where we had control, not where the looney-toon Trump had full loose cannon power and subverted the whole radical libertarian right ideological shebang. WTF!!! . . . . Democrats help us regain power!”

I believe that is more or less just about what Wilson is saying. Of course he cannot say it that bluntly or honestly, but he made his tactics and complaints perfectly clear: Win at all costs, the ends justify the means including lying, deceit and illegality and those liars and cowards should belong to us, not to Trump.

In adroitly side stepping his own culpability for helping to create the monster, Wilson walks a very fine line with polished expertise. He isn't the only conservative to has expressed regrets at their role in the rise of the monster. Some others on the right who for years fomented disrespect, distrust and contempt for truth and logic have come to see the soil they worked so long and hard to work turned out to be the home for Trump brand incoherence and hate instead of the home for Wilson’s own radical extremist brand of disciplined ideology and hate.

What should democrats do, if anything?

If Wilson is right, democrats should stop talking about details of policy so that Trump minions have fewer scary policy statements to misconstrue and attack them with in 2020. Instead, they should limit their policy statements to what can fit on a baseball cap, e.g., Make America Great Again or Hope and Change. There's nothing scary in any of that. Stay the hell away from details and just say positive, uplifting things like, “No New Taxes”, “America First!”, “Gimme  More!” or “Impossible Burgers for All!” that will fit on a baseball cap.

Oops, we forgot the herbicide

Of course, it’s too late for that. Democratic policy statements are already out there. Even if they are retracted, they will still be used to win hearts and minds in endless attack, smear and scare ads in 2020. The beauty (ugly?) of the monster that Wilson and other conservatives created over the decades is that attack ads can be based on absolutely nothing real at all. Attack ads can be 100% fabrication and still be legal and effective. The political soil that conservatives worked so hard to till and fertilize is the perfect place for stink-cabbage like Trump to grow. They forgot to make some herbicide in case of a political emergency. Oops!

What about pragmatic rationalism?

More importantly than concern for democratic candidates, is the questions raised by what Wilson’s obvious intelligence and professional experience reveal about the human condition and politics vis-à-vis pragmatic rationalism. At this point, a refreshing quote from two political scientists seems appropriate:

“. . . . the typical citizen drops down to a lower level of mental performance as soon as he enters the political field. He argues and analyzes in a way which he would readily recognize as infantile within the sphere of his real interests. . . . cherished ideas and judgments we bring to politics are stereotypes and simplifications with little room for adjustment as the facts change. . . . . the real environment is altogether too big, too complex, and too fleeting for direct acquaintance. We are not equipped to deal with so much subtlety, so much variety, so many permutations and combinations. Although we have to act in that environment, we have to reconstruct it on a simpler model before we can manage it.” Christopher H. Achen and Larry M. Bartels, Democracy For Realists: Why Elections Do not Produce Responsive Governments, 2016

That’s sobering, to say the least. Evolution didn’t give us enough data processing bandwidth to deal with politics rationally, especially in the stink cabbage-friendly soil that Wilson and his colleagues created. That’s not a statement of stupid. It is a statement of biological and behavioral fact. Don't forget, Wilson’s soil is heavily and constantly fertilized with copious amounts of dark free speech (win at all costs, the ends justify immoral means). It is unfair and unreasonable to accuse people of being stupid, when they have very little help in wading through a pitch black cesspool full of dark free speech and alligators.

Also sobering are the tactics and political system that Wilson helped develop in the process of blowing about 2,000 democrats out of office over 20 years. Both Wilson and Achen and Bartels suggest that pragmatic rationalism cannot work, at least under the current political circumstances that Wilson helped create. Achen and Bartels correctly say that people have much mental baggage, i.e., cherished ideas and judgments that are fact- and logic-resistant. Wilson accepts this biological-social truth and deals with it by telling candidates to shut up and just put their policies on baseball hats. 2,000 dead democratic candidates backstops Wilson’s advice.

Things look bleak for team Dissident and its vaunted pragmatic rationalism. They are up against Wilson and colleagues and the constantly fibbing, constantly golf-playing president (86 out of 365 days at a golf club in 2019 🥴)they helped bring to power. It’s time for team Dissident to put on their rally hats with a suitable positive message, e.g., “Hey! I’m not lying”.

Questions

1. Do things look bad for team Dissident with its star player pragmatic rationalism?

2. Does this OP miss the mark in describing what Wilson’s politics are like, and instead he advocates something different and much more positive?

3. Is it too late for democratic presidential candidates to back off the wonkiness and go with the baseball hat strategy?


Footnotes:
1. Concepts such as small government, individual liberty and constitutional government are all essentially contested. That means they mean what is in the minds of individuals or groups of like-minded people and disagreements cannot be resolved by facts, truths or logic. Resolution usually comes about by compromise or coercion-force, but very rarely by minds changing to come into mutual agreement.

Wikipedia: Essentially contested concepts involve widespread agreement on a concept (e.g., "fairness" [also, small government, individual liberty, constitutional, etc.]), but not on the best realization thereof. They are "concepts the proper use of which inevitably involves endless disputes about their proper uses on the part of their users", and these disputes "cannot be settled by appeal to empirical evidence, linguistic usage, or the canons of logic alone".

2. Those assertions are confusing to me. The GOP has been herded into a little tent and ideologically cleansed by years of RINO hunts, while democrats are like cats meandering in their big tent in all sorts of directions.

3. Dark free speech: Constitutionally or legally protected (1) lies and deceit to distract, misinform, confuse, polarize and/or demoralize, (2) unwarranted opacity to hide inconvenient truths, facts and corruption (lies and deceit of omission), and (3) unwarranted emotional manipulation (i) to obscure the truth and blind the mind to lies and deceit, and (ii) to provoke irrational, reason-killing emotions and feelings, including fear, hate, anger, disgust, distrust, intolerance, cynicism, pessimism and all kinds of bigotry including racism. (my label, my definition)

Germaine's Quest update: Bluesky, pragmatic rationalism and the communication problem

I have a real problem. Today I saw an article that said that lots of Trump opponents are leaving X for Bluesky. I immediately researched and found that Bluesky, which is still puny compared to X and Facebook, allows anonymity. I see that as an opportunity. I signed up under the moniker Germaine2 because Germaine was taken. 

That's me on Bluesky, no posts yet

Not sure what to do next, but I'll figure it out

What I wanted to do was start a channel, or whatever it is called there, focused on rational politics based on pragmatic pragmatism. That led me to Perplexity and a long series of questions about how to do that, what to emphasize and whether pragmatic rationalism even makes a lick of sense. What I got back was a huge mess of complexity, but mostly encouraging.

To help me, the input data I fed to Perplexity was my incredibly long, August 2015 post on self-criticisms of pragmatic rationality and my responses thereto: Objective politics: Criticisms and responses - https://dispol.blogspot.com/2015/08/objective-politics-criticisms-and.html

The answer I got back from Perplexity was that in essence what I wanted to do to describe pragmatic rationalism is a fool's errand because (unless I misunderstand, which I might) Bluesky posts have a 300 word limit: https://www.perplexity.ai/search/how-can-a-new-person-on-bluesk-V8b9vMAsQYihRUMm5zBTDw

The Q&A following my initial Q to Perplexity is massive. Probably longer than my 2015 self-criticism and answer blog post. But, being a persistent cuss, I don't care that what I want to do will necessarily be imperfect. I want to do it in defense of secular democracy, civility, civil liberties, the rule of law and transparent, honest, competent government.

I'll re-engage with this problem tomorrow. Maybe I'm barking up the wrong side of the tree, but maybe not. 

Regardless, I am looking for new ways to defend America from impending tyranny and kleptocracy, Maybe this is one.

And there is your update for the day.

The Science of Morality & Human Well-Being

March 25, 2019


Nihilism: 1. the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless; 2. belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated

 In the last few months, some commentary here and elsewhere have raised the idea that many concepts related to politics, concepts relating to concepts such as good and evil, fact and non-fact, logic and illogic, and truth and lie are essentially meaningless. Meaninglessness arises from subjectivity that can be inherent in things one might think of as mostly objective. For example, some people believe it is a fact that there is a strong consensus among expert climate scientists that anthropogenic global warming is real. About 27% of Americans reject that as false and no amount of discussion and citing fact sources will change most (~ 98% ?) of those minds.

 Does that mean there is no way to discern facts or truth from lies or misinformation? When it comes to morality, is nihilism basically correct and contemplating morality from any point of view is too subjective to be meaningful in any way?

  In another example, the rule of law concept is seen by some analysts as an essentially contested concept, which is something subjective and not definable such that a large majority of people will agree on what the rule of law is and when it applies. If the rule of law cannot be defined, how can what is moral and what isn't be defined?

Pragmatic rationalism: The anti-bias ideology advocated here, “pragmatic rationalism”, is built on four core moral values, (1) respect for objective facts and truth, to the extent they can be ascertained, (2) application of less biased logic (conscious reasoning) to the facts and truths, (3) service to the public interest, which is conceived as a transparent competition of ideas constrained by facts and logic, and (4) reasonable compromise in view of political, social and other relevant factors. If nihilism is correct, the anti-bias ideology is nonsense.

Science and morality: In his 2010 book, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, neuroscientist Sam Harris argues there can be enough objectivity in matters of morals and human behavior and well-being that there is a great deal of objectivity in morality. In essence, Harris is arguing that science can find things that foster human well-being by tending to make people, e.g., happy, unhappy, and socially integrated or not. On morals, religion, secularism and the role of science in discovering morality, Harris writes:

On the first account, to speak of moral truth is, of necessity, to invoke God; on the second, it is merely to give voice to one’s apish urges, cultural biases and philosophical confusion. My purpose is to persuade you that both sides in this debate are wrong. The goal of this book is to begin a conversation about how moral truth can be understood in the context of science.

While the argument I make in this book is bound to be controversial, it rests on a very simple premise: human well-being entirely depends on events in the world and on states of the human brain. A more detailed understanding of these truths will force us to draw clear distinctions between different ways of living in society with one another, judging some to be better or worse, more or less true to the facts, and more or less ethical. I am not suggesting that we are guaranteed to resolve every moral controversy through science. Differences of opinion will remain—but opinions will be increasingly constrained by facts.

Does our inability to gather the relevant data oblige us to respect all opinions equally? Of course not. In the same way, the fact that we may not be able to resolve specific moral dilemmas does not suggest that all competing responses to them are equally valid. In my experience, mistaking no answers in practice for no answers in principle is a great source of moral confusion.

The the deeper point is that there simply must be answers to questions of this kind, whether we know them or not. And these are not areas where we can afford to respect the “traditions” of others and agree to disagree. . . . . I hope to show that when we are talking about values, we are actually talking about an interdependent world of facts.

There are facts to be understood about how thoughts and intentions arise in the human brain; there are further facts to be known about how these behaviors influence the world and the experience of other conscious beings. We will see that facts of this sort will exhaust what we can reasonably mean by terms like “good” and “evil”. They will increasingly fall within the purview of science and run far deeper than a person’s religious affiliation. Just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim algebra, we will see that there is no such thing as Christian or Muslim morality. Indeed, I will argue that morality should be considered an undeveloped branch of science. 

Having received tens of thousands of emails and letters from people at every point on the continuum between faith and doubt, I can say with some confidence that a shared belief in the limitations of reason lies at the bottom of these cultural divides. Both sides [Christian conservatives and secular liberals] believe that reason is powerless to answer the most important questions in human life.

The scientific community’s reluctance to take a stand on moral issues has come at a price. It has made science appear divorced, in principle, from the most important questions of human life.

It seems inevitable, however, that science will gradually encompass life’s deepest questions. How we respond to the resulting collision of worldviews will influence the the progress of science, of course, but may also determine whether we succeed in building global civilization based on shared values. . . . . Only a rational understanding of human well-being will allow billions of us to coexist peacefully, converging on the same social, political, economic and environmental goals. A science of human flourishing may seem a long way off, but to achieve it, we must first acknowledge that the intellectual terrain actually exists.

Harris is right, nihilism is wrong: If Harris is correct that intellectual moral terrain actually exists and is subject to scientific scrutiny, then pragmatic rationalism would seem to be a political counterpart of Harris’ vision of what can lead to human well-being for the long run. Maybe because of personal bias and/or the amazingly good fit between what Harris argues and the core moral values that pragmatic rationalism is built on, Harris is right. Science can shed light on an at least somewhat objective vision of right and wrong, good and evil. Nihilism is wrong and destructive of both self and civilization.

The Science of Morality & Human Well-Being

Saturday, April 6, 2019


Nihilism: 1. the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless; 2. belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated

In the last few months, some commentary here and elsewhere have raised the idea that many concepts related to politics, concepts relating to concepts such as good and evil, fact and non-fact, logic and illogic, and truth and lie are essentially meaningless. Meaninglessness arises from subjectivity that can be inherent in things one might think of as mostly objective. For example, some people believe it is a fact that there is a strong consensus among expert climate scientists that anthropogenic global warming is real. About 27% of Americans reject that as false and no amount of discussion and citing fact sources will change most (~ 98% ?) of those minds.

Does that mean there is no way to discern facts or truth from lies or misinformation? When it comes to morality, is nihilism basically correct and contemplating morality from any point of view is too subjective to be meaningful in any way?

In another example, the rule of law concept is seen by some analysts as an essentially contested concept, which is something subjective and not definable such that a large majority of people will agree on what the rule of law is and when it applies. If the rule of law cannot be defined, how can what is moral and what isn't be defined?

Pragmatic rationalism: The anti-bias ideology advocated here, “pragmatic rationalism”, is built on four core moral values, (1) respect for objective facts and truth, to the extent they can be ascertained, (2) application of less biased logic (conscious reasoning) to the facts and truths, (3) service to the public interest, which is conceived as a transparent competition of ideas constrained by facts and logic, and (4) reasonable compromise in view of political, social and other relevant factors. If nihilism is correct, the anti-bias ideology is nonsense.

Science and morality: In his 2010 book, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, neuroscientist Sam Harris argues there can be enough objectivity in matters of morals and human behavior and well-being that there is a great deal of objectivity in morality. In essence, Harris is arguing that science can find things that foster human well-being by tending to make people, e.g., happy, unhappy, and socially integrated or not. On morals, religion, secularism and the role of science in discovering morality, Harris writes:

"On the first account, to speak of moral truth is, of necessity, to invoke God; on the second, it is merely to give voice to one’s apish urges, cultural biases and philosophical confusion. My purpose is to persuade you that both sides in this debate are wrong. The goal of this book is to begin a conversation about how moral truth can be understood in the context of science.

While the argument I make in this book is bound to be controversial, it rests on a very simple premise: human well-being entirely depends on events in the world and on states of the human brain. A more detailed understanding of these truths will force us to draw clear distinctions between different ways of living in society with one another, judging some to be better or worse, more or less true to the facts, and more or less ethical.

I am not suggesting that we are guaranteed to resolve every moral controversy through science. Differences of opinion will remain -- but opinions will be increasingly constrained by facts.

Does our inability to gather the relevant data oblige us to respect all opinions equally? Of course not. In the same way, the fact that we may not be able to resolve specific moral dilemmas does not suggest that all competing responses to them are equally valid. In my experience, mistaking no answers in practice for no answers in principle is a great source of moral confusion.

The the deeper point is that there simply must be answers to questions of this kind, whether we know them or not. And these are not areas where we can afford to respect the “traditions” of others and agree to disagree. . . . . I hope to show that when we are talking about values, we are actually talking about an interdependent world of facts.

There are facts to be understood about how thoughts and intentions arise in the human brain; there are further facts to be known about how these behaviors influence the world and the experience of other conscious beings. We will see that facts of this sort will exhaust what we can reasonably mean by terms like “good” and “evil”. They will increasingly fall within the purview of science and run far deeper than a person’s religious affiliation. Just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim algebra, we will see that there is no such thing as Christian or Muslim morality. Indeed, I will argue that morality should be considered an undeveloped branch of science.

Having received tens of thousands of emails and letters from people at every point on the continuum between faith and doubt, I can say with some confidence that a shared belief in the limitations of reason lies at the bottom of these cultural divides. Both sides [Christian conservatives and secular liberals] believe that reason is powerless to answer the most important questions in human life.

The scientific community’s reluctance to take a stand on moral issues has come at a price. It has made science appear divorced, in principle, from the most important questions of human life."

It seems inevitable, however, that science will gradually encompass life’s deepest questions. How we respond to the resulting collision of worldviews will influence the the progress of science, of course, but may also determine whether we succeed in building global civilization based on shared values. . . . . Only a rational understanding of human well-being will allow billions of us to coexist peacefully, converging on the same social, political, economic and environmental goals. A science of human flourishing may seem a long way off, but to achieve it, we must first acknowledge that the intellectual terrain actually exists.

Harris is right, nihilism is wrong: If Harris is correct that intellectual moral terrain actually exists and is subject to scientific scrutiny, then pragmatic rationalism would seem to be a political counterpart of Harris’ vision of what can lead to human well-being for the long run. Maybe because of personal bias and/or the amazingly good fit between what Harris argues and the core moral values that pragmatic rationalism is built on, Harris is right. Science can shed light on an at least somewhat objective vision of right and wrong, good and evil. Nihilism is wrong and destructive of both self and civilization.

B&B orig: 3/25/19

Pragmatic Rationalism: An Anti-Biasing, Anti-Ideology Ideology

Cognitive and social science research shows that political and other ideologies often foster distortion of perceptions of reality and truths and conscious reasoning about what is perceived, true, false or ambiguous. That can and often does generate irrational politics and policy. The problem is generally more pronounced for hard core ideologues and authoritarians, neither of which can tolerate the cognitive dissonance between what unbiased reality, truth and reason lead to compared to what the ideology or authoritarian mind needs these things to be. For most of those people, fact, truth and reason fall to ideological beliefs and authoritarian goals when they are at odds.

Living in a society that is awash in lies, deceit and irrational emotional manipulation makes matters worse, but that cannot be avoided in a liberal democracy. That often makes what is false and irrational seem real and acceptable. That reflects the mental workings that evolution conferred on the human species. We can't help being what we are. The best that can be done is to acknowledge our 'flawed' biological traits and try to deal with them as rationally as our minds allow.

The other pragmatic rationalisms: At least two pragmatic rationalism (PR) ideologies appear to exist. One is posited as a general theory of the human world that is grounded in (i) physics; (ii) mathematics; (iii) philosophy; and (iv) the algorithmic part of human knowledge, which could be computerised, whatever that means. The author describes his all-encompassing theory of everything in abstract terms. It doesn't seem to have much to do with mass politics.

The other PR looks to be much more relevant to mass politics. That one is posited as an inquiry into understanding how scientific knowledge variably influences formulating and implementing political policies depending on the policy at issue. That PR is getting close to the PR this discussion is focused on.

This pragmatic rationalism: The PR political ideology posited here is intended to work as an anti-bias, anti-ideology ideology. It is built on is built on four, easy to understand, core or highest moral political values. The moral values are (1) fidelity to try to see relevant objective facts and truths, to the extent they can be ascertained (they are often not fully ascertainable) with less bias, (2) application of less biased conscious reasoning (roughly, logic) to the facts and truths, (3) applying the facts and reasoning in service to the public interest, and (4) willingness to engage in reasonable compromises in view of political, social and other relevant factors. Service to the public interest is envisioned to constitute a transparent competition of fact- and reason-based ideas.

This PR attempts to account for sources of bias and irrationality in politics by (i) forcing a larger role for more objective, less biased, less distorted fact, truth and logic in politics, (ii) ignoring standard ideologies, making them of secondary importance, (iii) induce some power and influence to flow from powerful special interests to the public interest, and (iv) forcing compromise onto the process as a bulwark against the rise of both single party rule and authoritarianism.

This variant of PR is thus an ideology that is more constrained by facts, truths and logic than all other ideologies, which tend to promote distortion of facts, truths and logic to fit the needs of the ideology. This amounts to an effort to build a mindset open to politics based more on objectivity, to the extent it can be ascertained, and less on subjective factors such as personal morals and identification with irrational tribalism.

Whether nations or whole societies can accept and/or adopt such a PR mindset is an open question. It asks a lot of people to set aside their prejudices and sacred beliefs when they are at odds with objective reality and reason. Maybe the human species cannot rise to a higher level of mental performance because the cognitive load is just too high. It is an experiment that needs to be tried to know if it would lead to more rational and efficient, but less conflict-prone politics and outcomes.

Pragmatic Rationalism: An Anti-Biasing, Anti-Ideology Ideology

Cognitive and social science research shows that political and other ideologies often foster distortion of perceptions of reality and truths and conscious reasoning about what is perceived, true, false or ambiguous. That can and often does generate irrational politics and policy. The problem is generally more pronounced for hard core ideologues and authoritarians, neither of which can tolerate the cognitive dissonance between what unbiased reality, truth and reason lead to compared to what the ideology or authoritarian mind needs these things to be. For most of those people, fact, truth and reason fall to ideological beliefs and authoritarian goals when they are at odds.

Living in a society that is awash in lies, deceit and irrational emotional manipulation makes matters worse, but that cannot be avoided in a liberal democracy. That often makes what is false and irrational seem real and acceptable. That reflects the mental workings that evolution conferred on the human species. We can't help being what we are. The best that can be done is to acknowledge our 'flawed' biological traits and try to deal with them as rationally as our minds allow.

The other pragmatic rationalisms: At least two pragmatic rationalism (PR) ideologies appear to exist. One is posited as a general theory of the human world that is grounded in (i) physics; (ii) mathematics; (iii) philosophy; and (iv) the algorithmic part of human knowledge, which could be computerised, whatever that means. The author describes his all-encompassing theory of everything in abstract terms. It doesn't seem to have much to do with mass politics.

The other PR looks to be much more relevant to mass politics. That one is posited as an inquiry into understanding how scientific knowledge variably influences formulating and implementing political policies depending on the policy at issue. That PR is getting close to the PR this discussion is focused on.

This pragmatic rationalism: The PR political ideology posited here is intended to work as an anti-bias, anti-ideology ideology. It is built on is built on four, easy to understand, core or highest moral political values. The moral values are (1) fidelity to try to see relevant objective facts and truths, to the extent they can be ascertained (they are often not fully ascertainable) with less bias, (2) application of less biased conscious reasoning (roughly, logic) to the facts and truths, (3) applying the facts and reasoning in service to the public interest, and (4) willingness to engage in reasonable compromises in view of political, social and other relevant factors. Service to the public interest is envisioned to constitute a transparent competition of fact- and reason-based ideas.

This PR attempts to account for sources of bias and irrationality in politics by (i) forcing a larger role for more objective, less biased, less distorted fact, truth and logic in politics, (ii) ignoring standard ideologies, making them of secondary importance, (iii) induce some power and influence to flow from powerful special interests to the public interest, and (iv) forcing compromise onto the process as a bulwark against the rise of both single party rule and authoritarianism.

This variant of PR is thus an ideology that is more constrained by facts, truths and logic than all other ideologies, which tend to promote distortion of facts, truths and logic to fit the needs of the ideology. This amounts to an effort to build a mindset open to politics based more on objectivity, to the extent it can be ascertained, and less on subjective factors such as personal morals and identification with irrational tribalism.

Whether nations or whole societies can accept and/or adopt such a PR mindset is an open question. It asks a lot of people to set aside their prejudices and sacred beliefs when they are at odds with objective reality and reason. Maybe the human species cannot rise to a higher level of mental performance because the cognitive load is just too high. It is an experiment that needs to be tried to know if it would lead to more rational and efficient, but less conflict-prone politics and outcomes.

B&B orig: 5/20/19

How pragmatic rationalism works in a nutshell

In response to a recent comment, a quick explanation of how my pragmatic rationalism ideology works was appropriate. For what its worth, here is a version of it for public consideration:

I don't usually start out contesting truth from anyone, especially someone I trust. That's the adversarial mindset. Some people deserve adversarial treatment because they earned it, e.g., by being demagogues, liars, crackpots, etc. Absent that, I'll just look into an issue or matter with as neutral and open a mind as I can muster. It helps to sense when a posited fact, truth or line of reasoning is unfamiliar but plausible, especially when it is inconvenient. Then I decide on the basis of facts, truths and my own human reasoning. Being a pragmatic rationalist means a three-step process. Facts and truths first, reasoning second, beliefs third.

If one starts with beliefs first, as most people seem to do most of the time, the influence of unconscious biases, ideologies and social pressure/situation, e.g., tribe loyalty, are more potent. Inconvenient facts and truths are more easily obscured, distorted and/or downplayed. Reasoning tends to get distorted to make beliefs more comforting and plausible. False/unjustifiable beliefs tend to remain intact.

Science has diagrammed the human foundation that gave rise to pragmatic rationalism. Inconvenient facts, truths, reasoning and beliefs are shown below in green, and the psychological-social discomfort they cause is shown in red. The human is highly motivated to make the discomfort at least appear to go away. 

Pragmatic Rationalism Explained Again

“One cannot fully grasp the political world unless one understands it as a confidence game, or the stratification system unless one sees it as a costume party. . . . . Finally, there is a peculiar human value in the sociologist’s responsibility for evaluating his findings, as far as he is psychologically able, without regard to his own prejudices likes or dislikes, hopes or fears. . . . . To be motivated by human needs rather than by grandiose political programs, to commit oneself selectively and economically rather than to consecrate oneself to a totalitarian faith, to be skeptical and compassionate at the same time, to seek to understand without bias, all these are existential possibilities of the sociological enterprise that can hardly be overrated in many situations in the contemporary world. In this way, sociology can attain to the dignity of political relevance, not because it has a particular political ideology to offer, but just because it has not.” -- Sociologist Peter Berger in his 1963 masterpiece, Invitation to Sociology, commenting on the poison that ideology typically is for most people most of the time, which modern cognitive and social science has now shown to be basically true

“Time as cyclical, especially when married to the idea of fate and destiny, is inherently conservative, protective of the established social order, established political authority, and dominant traditions. .... In addition, with time as cyclical, the debate between advocates of democracy, such as Aristotle, and those who advocated aristocratic rule, such as Plato, is stable. Nothing new will alter that debate as human nature is fixed and our natures either suit us for democracy, as some have it, or for aristocracy as others have it.” -- Psychologist George Marcus commenting in chapter 3 of his 2013 academic text book, Political Psychology: Neuroscience, Genetics and Politics, on the difficulty of mindset change and hinting at why pragmatic rationalism is such a difficult concept to explain

Context

Over the last 8-10 years I have tried multiple times to explain my political ideology, pragmatic rationalism (PR). PR is built around four core moral values and those four morals are grounded in knowledge from modern cognitive and social science. The morals are not based on any political, economic, religious or philosophical ideology or mindset that I am aware of. They are based on the science of human beings and their minds as they are understood today as individuals and as social creatures.

I revise PR ideology or concept as various criticisms and suggestions arise and as I learn more from relevant science as it progresses. The last major revision was adding core moral value 4, reasonable compromise as a bulwark against authoritarianism. I did that about a year ago. The PR concept has been mostly stable since then.

At first, I thought that the PR concept was brain dead simple and easy to explain and be understood. I figured that most people would easily get it. Now, I believe it is hyper-complex and almost impossibly hard to grasp because the concept is counter intuitive to most non-scientists and maybe even most scientists. I grossly underestimated how hard it is for the human mind to simply be open to and grasp what I now believe is a deeply counter intuitive concept related to politics. I sometimes refer to PR as an anti-biasing and/or an anti-ideology ideology. I naively thought that 'simple' labeling would clearly convey the essence of what I was talking about. It doesn't.

This OP flows from flack and distrust I got from an OP about a week ago about the Common Sense Party and my own clearly esoteric and largely inscrutable brand of politics. It is so inscrutable that apparently most leftists think its far right and most rightists seem to think its far left. In fact, it is far neither.

Pragmatic rationalism: Version ~ #6

PR is built on four core moral principles that (1) seem to be the most anti-biasing beliefs that most people can at least aspire to adhere to based on science, and (2) most people already believe they agree with at least in theory. Value #4 seems to be increasingly rejected by American conservatives and populists as tribalism, polarization and distrust ramps up on the right. That poison seems to be rising on the left, but isn't yet nearly as pronounced.

The morals are (i) fidelity to trying seeing fact and true truths with less partisan bias, (ii) fidelity to applying less biased or partisan conscious reason to the facts and truths, (iii) service to the public interest based on factors including the facts, truths and sound reason, and (iv) willingness to reasonably compromise according to political, economic and environmental circumstances point to.

Service to the public interest means governance based on identifying a rational, optimum balance between serving public, individual and commercial interests based on an objective, fact- and logic-based analysis of competing policy choices, while (1) being reasonably transparent and responsive to public opinion, (2) protecting and growing the American economy, (3) fostering individual economic and personal growth opportunity, (4) defending personal freedoms and the American standard of living, (5) protecting national security and the environment, (6) increasing transparency, competition and efficiency in commerce when possible, and (7) fostering global peace, stability and prosperity whenever reasonably possible, all of which is constrained by (i) honest, reality-based fiscal sustainability that limits the scope and size of government and regulation to no more than what is needed and (ii) genuine respect for the U.S. constitution and the rule of law with a particular concern for limiting unwarranted legal complexity and ambiguity to limit opportunities to subvert the constitution and the law.

Some comments

• Service to the public interest and many of the concepts it includes are essentially contested. There is thus no authoritative definition or agreement on definitions or when and how they may apply in various circumstances. That is an unavoidable aspect of politics and why reasonable compromise is necessary in a democracy. In a dictatorship, plutocracy or other non-democratic form of government, definitions and compromise are at the whim of the person or people in power. 

• The first enumerated factor in the mindset is reasonable transparency and responsiveness to public opinion. No other political, economic, religious or philosophical ideology I am aware of elevates either transparency or respect for public opinion to a place of central importance. 

• The goal, "a rational, optimum balance between serving public, individual and commercial interests based on an objective, fact- and logic-based analysis of competing policy choices", is my attempt to bake core moral values 1 (respect for facts and true truths) and 2 (respect for less biased conscious reasoning) right into the concept of service to the public interest. No other political, economic, religious or philosophical ideology I am aware of elevates facts and less biased reasoning to a place of central importance.

• PR is predicated on persuasion, not coercion or brute force. People can accept it reject it as they choose. People can envision all sorts of horrors from PR. But since we've had all sorts of horrors from everything else that I am aware of, there's no basis in reality to level an argument that PR is somehow worse. The core moral values are selected because based on science, they will tend be anti-authoritarian, anti-kelptocratic, anti-liar and anti-incompetent.

A couple of thoughts about atheism and pragmatic rationalism

NYT opinion columnist Ross Douthat opines (full opinion not paywalled off):

Where Does Religion Come From?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the ex-Muslim critic of Islamic fundamentalism and longtime champion of Enlightenment liberalism, has announced that she now calls herself a Christian — a conversion that she attributes to a twofold realization.

First, that atheist materialism is too weak a base upon which to ground Western liberalism in a world where it’s increasingly beset, and the biblical tradition from which the liberal West emerged offers a surer foundation for her values. Second, that despite the sense of liberation from punitive religion that atheism once offered her, in the longer run she found “life without any spiritual solace unendurable.”

Her essay, not surprisingly, attracted a lot of criticism. Some of it came from Christians disappointed in the ideological and instrumental way that Hirsi Ali framed her conversion, the absence of a clear statement that Christian claims are not merely useful or necessary but true. The rest came from atheists baffled that Hirsi Ali had failed to internalize all the supposedly brilliant atheistic rebuttals to her stated reasons for belief.

I have no criticisms to offer myself. Some sort of religious attitude is essentially demanded, in my view, by what we know about the universe and the human place within it, but every sincere searcher is likely to follow their own idiosyncratic path.

A lack of a spiritual component to both atheism and pragmatic rationalism struck me as a serious problem starting about 15 years ago. My study of human cognitive biology and social behavior led me to believe we are hard-wired for spirituality. Spirituality apparently has a powerful attraction for humans and formal, organized religion. As best I can tell, that still seems to be a reasonable belief today.  

So when Douthat opines that in view of human knowledge and behavior, some sort of religious attitude is demanded, that seems to be basically right. The human brain-mind really does demand some sort of religion or source of spiritual gratification. 

For the life of me, I cannot figure out a way to integrate spirituality into either atheism or pragmatic rationalism. That probably permanently relegates those mental frameworks to permanent small minority, low influence status. I can see serious pro-civilization and pro-sustainability value in both, but they are fatally flawed by evolution. I’ve hit a brick wall and can’t see a way past it. Bummer. 

Q: Is that true, false or mixed true & false?

A Nascent Evidence and Reason-Based Political Party

The Common Sense Party is working to become a registered party in California. The group needs about 67,000 registered voters to register with the CSP as their party to obtain official recognition by California. A group of voters decided to form the CSP last September out of frustration with the two major parties. I joined the group effort a few days later when I heard about it. The party intends try to to mostly set standard liberal and conservative ideology aside and instead look more to evidence, reason and public opinion as influences on policy formation and choice. The group has registered over 15,000 voters so far.

Not surprisingly, local commentators have pointed out the difficulty that third parties have in gaining traction with the public. Lack of ideological unity among independents and dropouts from the two main parties is cited as one reason for why third parties don't easily gain traction. Despite the problems, there is enough discontent to lead about a quarter of California voters to register as no party preference or NPP voters.

A possible unifying belief that might help to attract ideologically disparate voters is a belief in facts, truths and sound reason as important guides to inform both reality and policy choices.

My participation

Once the party is officially registered in California, the group plans to have party members vote on a platform. I communicate with the group's Interim Chairman, Bob Campbell, a former republican US congressman and currently a Professor of Economics and a Distinguished Professor of Law at Chapman University. At present, I am writing platform and position papers for the CSP to take up once the party is officially recognized. 

To the extent I am able to do so, I will take this unusual opportunity to introduce the anti-bias mindset and moral basis of pragmatic rationalism to the CSP. In part, doing that is my attempt to provide some basis for cohesion and CSP identity. Obviously, CSP members will accept or reject anti-bias and pragmatic rationalism in whole or in part as they see fit. Nonetheless, my position and platform papers will be informed and shaped by my anti-bias mindset and the moral principles that pragmatic rationalism is based on. 

The CSP's website is here.

For California residents interested in registering with the CSP, you can do that online by going to the Secretary of State's online registration form: https://covr.sos.ca.gov/ . When you get to the choice of party option, select OTHER and then type into the Other (specify) box that lights up when OTHER is selected. After you fill out the form and submit it, you will receive a card a week or two later indicating that you are registered with the CSP. Note, this is a legal affidavit and the registration form must be filled out honestly. 

Hannah Arendt: Some Thoughts on Loneliness and Its Usefulness to Dictators

I hope this isn't too wonky for folks.

Samantha Rose Hill, the assistant director of the Hannah Arendt Center for Politics and Humanities, wrote a fascinating essay on how Stalin and Hitler used loneliness to help build their totalitarian regimes. Although both regimes are gone, human loneliness remains a very useful tool that demagogues and dictators can still exploit to serve their immoral and evil ends. Loneliness can be fomented by propaganda or dark free speech. It tends to make people more susceptible to authoritarians and authoritarianism. The essay is posted online by aeon here. 

Hill writes:

“Writing on loneliness often falls into one of two camps: the overindulgent memoir, or the rational medicalisation that treats loneliness as something to be cured. Both approaches leave the reader a bit cold. One wallows in loneliness, while the other tries to do away with it altogether. .... Everybody experiences loneliness, but they experience it differently.

In the 19th century, amid modernity, loneliness lost its connection with religion and began to be associated with secular feelings of alienation. The use of the term began to increase sharply after 1800 with the arrival of the Industrial Revolution, and continued to climb until the 1990s until it levelled off, rising again during the first decades of the 21st century.

But in the middle of the 20th century, Arendt approached loneliness differently. For her, it was both something that could be done and something that was experienced. In the 1950s, as she was trying to write a book about Karl Marx at the height of McCarthyism, she came to think about loneliness in relationship to ideology and terror. Arendt thought the experience of loneliness itself had changed under conditions of totalitarianism: 

What prepares men for totalitarian domination in the non-totalitarian world is the fact that loneliness, once a borderline experience usually suffered in certain marginal social conditions like old age, has become an everyday experience of the ever-growing masses of our century. 

Totalitarianism in power found a way to crystallize the occasional experience of loneliness into a permanent state of being. Through the use of isolation and terror, totalitarian regimes created the conditions for loneliness, and then appealed to people’s loneliness with ideological propaganda.

Before Arendt left to teach at Berkeley, she’d published an essay on ‘Ideology and Terror’ (1953) dealing with isolation, loneliness and solitude in a Festschrift for Jaspers’s 70th birthday. This essay, alongside her book The Origins of Totalitarianism, became the foundation for her oversubscribed course at Berkeley, ‘Totalitarianism’. The class was divided into four parts: the decay of political institutions, the growth of the masses, imperialism, and the emergence of political parties as interest-group ideologies. In her opening lecture, she framed the course by reflecting on how the relationship between political theory and politics has become doubtful in the modern age. She argued that there was an increasing, general willingness to do away with theory in favor of mere opinions and ideologies. ‘Many,’ she said, ‘think they can dispense with theory altogether, which of course only means that they want their own theory, underlying their own statements, to be accepted as gospel truth.’

The initial conclusion, published in 1951, reflected on the fact that, even if totalitarian regimes disappeared from the world, the elements of totalitarianism would remain. ‘Totalitarian solutions,’ she wrote, ‘may well survive the fall of totalitarian regimes in the form of strong temptations which will come up whenever it seems impossible to alleviate political, social, or economic misery in a manner worthy of man.’ When Arendt added ‘Ideology and Terror’ to Origins in 1958, the tenor of the work changed. The elements of totalitarianism were numerous, but in loneliness she found the essence of totalitarian government, and the common ground of terror.

Why loneliness is not obvious. 

Arendt’s answer was: because loneliness radically cuts people off from human connection. She defined loneliness as a kind of wilderness where a person feels deserted by all worldliness and human companionship, even when surrounded by others. The word she used in her mother tongue for loneliness was Verlassenheit – a state of being abandoned, or abandon-ness. Loneliness, she argued, is ‘among the most radical and desperate experiences of man’, because in loneliness we are unable to realize our full capacity for action as human beings. When we experience loneliness, we lose the ability to experience anything else; and, in loneliness, we are unable to make new beginnings. 
But in order to make individuals susceptible to ideology, you must first ruin their relationship to themselves and others by making them sceptical and cynical, so that they can no longer rely upon their own judgment: 

Just as terror, even in its pre-total, merely tyrannical form ruins all relationships between men, so the self-compulsion of ideological thinking ruins all relationship with reality. The preparation has succeeded when people have lost contact with their fellow men as well as the reality around them; for together with these contacts, men lose the capacity of both experience and thought. The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (ie, the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (ie, the standards of thought) no longer exist.  

Organised loneliness, bred from ideology, leads to tyrannical thought, and destroys a person’s ability to distinguish between fact and fiction – to make judgments. In loneliness, one is unable to carry on a conversation with oneself, because one’s ability to think is compromised. ....” (emphasis added)

Regarding ideology

Hill describes how Arendt believed that political, economic or religious ideology can create and then play on loneliness: 

“Arendt spends the first part of ‘Ideology and Terror’ breaking down the ‘recipes of ideologies’ into their basic ingredients to show how this is done:

• ideologies are divorced from the world of lived experience, and foreclose the possibility of new experience;
• ideologies are concerned with controlling and predicting the tide of history;
• ideologies do not explain what is, they explain what becomes;
• ideologies rely on logical procedures in thinking that are divorced from reality;
• ideological thinking insists upon a ‘truer reality’, that is concealed behind the world of perceptible things.”

Her assessment of ideology and ideological motivated reasoning being divorced from experience and sound reasoning seem to be spot on. Her assessment that ideologies are concerned with controlling and predicting the tide of history is partly true. It omits the fact that ideologies also tend to rewrite history in ways that favor the ideological fake reality vision. Ideological and authoritarian detachment from reality and sound reason covers the past, present and future.

Regarding pragmatic rationalism

Her point about ideologies not explaining what is, but instead explaining what will happen strikes me as very important but complicated. She goes into this idea in detail in her Origins book. This concept is one to the points I have been turning over in my head for several years. Can it somehow be used to evoke a reasonably realistic future that is sufficiently appealing to constitute a glue that can hold people of differing, even opposing, ideologies together? That is of personal interest because my own ideology, pragmatic rationalism, lacks a glue or secular spiritual component that might keep conservatives, centrists and liberals on the same page at least in terms of core political moral values.[1] Simply laying claim to trying to be more evidence-based and rational about politics and less ideological is probably weak glue at best, and at worst no glue at all or even an anti-glue.

Footnote: 

1. For wonks, it may be interesting to note that pragmatic rationalism, unlike authoritarian ideologies, does try to explain the present based on modern science, unspun history and moral philosophy. By definition, pragmatic rationalism is designed to be at least these three things: (i) anti-biasing (pro-reality and reason), (ii) anti-ideological (not liberal, conservative, capitalist, socialist, fascist, Christian, etc.) and (iii) anti-authoritarian and rule of the tyrant-demagogue, and pro-democracy and rule of law. 

Book Review: Escape From Freedom

Erich Fromm - 1974

Context

Erich Fromm (1900-1980) was a German Jew who fled the Nazis and settled in the US. He was a co-founder of The William Alanson White Institute of Psychiatry, Psychoanalysis and Psychology in New York City and was associated with the Frankfurt School of critical theory. He wrote Escape From Freedom in 1941 in response to what he was as the sources of authoritarianism in the human condition and the grave threat to freedom this aspect of humans posed to democracy. 

This review is based on the original 1941 Foreword and a newer 1965 Foreword (9 pages). They lay out his vision of humanity and the source of threats to democracy that are inherent in modern civilization. I focus on the two Forewords because they describe Fromm's desire or goal for the human condition that is basically identical to what I came to believe about what might be possible and have tried to convey here as pragmatic rationalism. In essence, Fromm recognized and articulated the intellectual framework for pragmatic rationalism in 1941, about 70 years before I came to also see the same threat and to some extent, its human origins. 

What Fromm saw clearly that I did not fully understand, only sensed, was the social unease that leads some or many people to need to escape from freedom into the comforting arms of reassuring demagogues and authoritarians or dictators and their reassuring lies, deceit, emotional manipulation and motivated reasoning. This need for psychological comfort and tribe is apparently universal in all societies.

Review

Given the urgency of the situation in 1941, Fromm interrupted his much broader life long investigation of the human condition in modern civilization. In Escape From Freedom, Fromm focuses on the meaning of freedom for modern man. After Escape, he wrote The Sane Society which expanded on the themes he laid out in Escape. In The Heart of Man, Fromm focused on the origins of hate and destructiveness. 

In the 1941 Foreword, Fromm wrote: 

"Pointing out the significance of psychological considerations does not imply, in my opinion, an overestimation of psychology. .... It is the thesis of this book that modern man, freed from the bonds of pre-individualistic society, which simultaneously gave him security and limited him, has not gained freedom in the positive sense of the realization of his individual self; that is, the expression of his intellectual, emotional and sensuous potentialities. Freedom though it has brought him independence and rationality, has made him isolated, and thereby, anxious and isolated. This isolation is unbearable and the alternatives he is confronted with are either to escape from the burden of his freedom, or to advance to the full realization of positive freedom which is based upon the uniqueness and individuality of man. .... the understanding of the reasons for the flight from freedom is a premise for any action which aims at the victory over the totalitarian forces." 

In the 1965 Foreword, Fromm wrote: 

"Escape From Freedom is an analysis of the phenomenon of man's anxiety engendered by the breakdown of the Medieval World in which, in spite of many dangers, he felt himself secure and safe. .... modern man is still anxious and tempted to surrender his freedoms to dictators of all kinds, or to lose it by transforming himself into a small cog in the machine, well fed and well clothed, yet not a free man but an automaton. .... There can be no doubt that in this last quarter of a century the reasons for man's fear of freedom, for his anxiety and willingness to become an automaton, have not only continued but have greatly increased."

Fromm goes on to point to nuclear weapons, the nascent rise of fast thinking computers and fast acting giant corporations, and overpopulation are all factors that tend to undermine a comfortable Medieval-type sense of self and social place that some (most?) people need. 

He goes on to firmly reject the criticism that despite psychological insight and knowledge, that science cannot be translated into social progress and benefit:

"It becomes ever increasingly clear to many students of man and of the contemporary scene that the crucial difficulty with which we are confronted lies in the fact that the development of man's intellectual capacities has far outstripped the development of his emotions. Man's brain lives in the twentieth century; the heart of most men still live in the Stone Age. The majority of men have not yet acquired the the maturity to be independent, to be rational, to be objective. They need myths and idols to endure the fact that man is all by himself, that there is no authority which give meaning to life except man himself. .... How can mankind save itself from destroying itself by this discrepancy between intellectual-technical over-maturity and emotional backwardness?

As far as I can see there is only one answer: the increasing awareness of the most essential facts of our social existence, an awareness sufficient to prevent us from committing irreparable follies, and to raise to some small extent our capacity for objectivity and reason. We cannot hope to overcome most follies of the heart and their detrimental influence on our imagination and thought in one generation .... At this crucial moment, however, a modicum of increased insight -- objectivity-- can make the difference between life and death for the human race. .... Progress in social psychology is necessary to counteract the dangers which arise from the progress in physics and medicine."

 Does any of that sound familiar to people who are familiar with Dissident Politics? Most of that sounds very familiar to me. The social goals Fromm articulates, just a small increase in objectivity and reason, are identical to one key goal of pragmatic rationalism. The hope is the same: try to coax humanity away from self-annihilation and toward long-term sell being and survival. The tactic is the same: teach people self-awareness so they can better understand themselves and better defend themselves against the reassuring dark free speech[1] that demagogues and tyrants know is the path to power and wealth.

Dang, I feel vindicated once again. What a great book.

Footnote: 

1. Dark free speech: Constitutionally or legally protected (1) lies and deceit to distract, misinform, confuse, polarize and/or demoralize, (2) unwarranted opacity to hide inconvenient truths, facts and corruption (lies and deceit of omission), (3) unwarranted emotional manipulation (i) to obscure the truth and blind the mind to lies and deceit, and (ii) to provoke irrational, reason-killing emotions and feelings, including fear, hate, anger, disgust, distrust, intolerance, cynicism, pessimism and all kinds of bigotry including racism, and (4) ideologically-driven motivated reasoning and other ideologically-driven biases that unreasonably distort reality and reason. (my label, my definition)