High Mountains Come From Deep Seas (Nietzsche)

Whence come the highest mountains? So did I once ask. Then did I learn that they come out of the sea. That testimony is inscribed on their stones, and on the walls of their summits. Out of the deepest must the highest come to its height.

~Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

It has been said that there can be no creativity without suffering. 

If humans weren't somewhat dissatisfied with their conditions, then they would have no motivation for envisioning something grander and working toward building it. 

The neuropsychologist Stephen Karpman created a model for interpersonal and psychological conflict called the Karpman drama triangle. He said that in most human interactions, the participants assume one of three roles. There is the victim, the persecutor, and the rescuer.

These archetypes are apparently so ingrained in our minds that you can see them played out on a grand scale in movies. This would be the hero (the rescuer), the villian (persecutor), and a damsel in distress. 

 Most of us don't ever think of ourselves as a persecutor, but in the eyes of another, that's what we may be. Rather, we usually think of ourselves as a victim, and look for a rescuer to save us from our plight. 

That which is persecuting us doesn't always have to be a person, and neither does that which rescues us. Anything that we blame for our own troubles is our persecutor, and anything that we turn to for relief is our rescuer. 

Alcohol or drugs, for example, is what many people turn to as an escape from their own personal "persecution". The government, or a natural disaster may be the things we choose to name as our persecutor. 

David Emerald Womeldorff elaborated on this model by proposing that we should never see ourselves as victims. Rather, we should view ourselves as creators. If we don't like our current circumstances, then we need to figure out how to create better circumstances. What we previously viewed as persecutions we should view as challenges that help us learn and grow. And rather than seeking rescuers, we should seek out coaches.

This is what Nietzsche means that the highest mountains must come out of the depths of the seas. Unless we are challenged, we have no motivation to create. 

Lately in our society we love to blame our genes for our troubles. Everyone apparently has a mental disorder which is the cause for all their troubles, and they seek out medication to become "cured". Unfortunately, this is no different from what the alcoholic or habitual pot-smoker is doing.

The vast majority of these people do not have disorders. "Mental disorder" is a misnomer. It presumes that the mind is not ordered correctly. The only disorder that these people have is the human condition. Bipolar, depression, anxiety: these have been sculpted and perfected by natural selection for millions of years and all serve distinct purposes. 

I don't deny that people with these "symptoms" (actually, in evolutionary psychology terms - "social strategies") feel a great deal of discomfort. That is, of course, the human condition. But I think we do a great deal of disservice to them by labeling them as disordered. This merely solidifies their self-image as a victim of their alleged disease, and leads them to seek out things to rescue themselves from their affliction.

But these "diseases" are the drivers of greatness. It is no coincidence that some of the greatest artistic and scientific geniuses were either bipolar or depressed. These geniuses accepted the challenge and created something great. 

What would have happened if Van Gogh had been placed on mood stabilizers? No one would even know who he is. 

About 50% of our genes make up our brains. The other 50% make up the rest of our bodies. Look around at the number of people who truly have deformed bodies. I would estimate that that is about the same percentage of people who truly have mental disorders. 

It would truly be funny to say that any deviation from the average in our physical appearance is a disorder. Anyone shorter than 5'10" presumably has a height disorder. 

By taking prescription medications we rob ourselves of our humanity. The human condition needs to be overcome, not medicated. 

What Next?
More ideas from Nietzsche
More ideas from Thus Spoke Zarathustra
Read Thus Spoke Zarathustra online for free
Learn more about Thus Spoke Zarathustra at Amazon

What Do You Know? (Thoreau)

The following idea is from Walking, by Henry David Thoreau, published in 1862. It is quite an interesting book extolling the benefits of nature and walking. Read my mini-review and overall impressions.


Which is the best man to deal with—he who knows nothing about a subject, and, what is extremely rare, knows that he knows nothing, or he who really knows something about it, but thinks that he knows all?

~Henry David Thoreau, Walking

It is hard to fill a cup which is already full. It is amazing how sure every man is that he has figured out this world. I have resigned myself to know that I will forever be perpetually ignorant. 

Yet is is amazing how, presented with an opinion that is contrary to his own point of view, a man will become disgusted at the very prospect. 

If we are honest with ourselves, we will see that there is always more to learn. I remember at age 22 how astonished I was at my own ignorance when I was 17. And yet when I was 17, I was pretty self-assured in my own knowledge. 

Now at 27, I am astonished at my own ignorance when I was 22. I am beginning to notice a pattern here, and it is highly likely that 5 years hence I will marvel at how ignorant I am now.

Because who knows what I will learn between now and then. It is impossible to say or even to predict. I will learn things which I had no clue that I didn't know.

It is so easy to find flaws in the opinions of others and call those opinions immature. We might say "yes, I can understand why you think that way, because I too thought that way back when I was uninformed". But we have no idea what pieces of the puzzle we are now missing. 

I suppose this is why Socrates thought that it was best to always take the position of extreme humility and to always assume that he was ignorant of everything. 

Or as Shakespeare said: "The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool"

Perhaps we could all try to live a little wiser by admitting how foolish we really are.

What Next?
See more ideas from Henry David Thoreau
See more ideas from Walking
Read Walking Online for Free
Learn more about Walking at Amazon
 

What is Most Probable? (Descartes)

When it is not in our power to determine what is true, we ought to act according to what is most probable; and even although we should not remark a greater probability in one opinion than in another, we ought notwithstanding to choose one or another.

~Rene Descartes,
Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting One's Reason and of Seeking Truth in the Sciences

 So Descartes tells us that if we are unable to ascertain the truth one way or another, we ought to at least act in accordance with what is most likely. That doesn't seem very far fetched to me.

What is more provacative is his second statement. If we are unable to form an opinion as to whether one side is true or another, we ought to just go ahead and choose one of those sides. 

Well, maybe it isn't so provocative at all. We always have to make a myriad of decisions in life, aren't we already doing this? Why did I even think this was a good idea?

Perhaps the difference between men is how they go about arriving at those probabilities. Before discussing something as complex as life, perhaps we could take a look at a much simpler game which involves probabilities: fantasy sports.

In fantasy sports, a group of people compete against one another to see who is best at predicting the productivity of professional sports players. No one knows the "truth" about their future productivity, so everyone acts in accordance with what they think is most probable. 

So everyone is already following Descartes advice. So far, so good. And yet, there seems to be a divide between some players who are better at arriving at the probabilities, and others who are worse. What is the difference? 

The difference must lie in the methodology. Some people think about it differently than others. They are pursuing the same goal, but they have a different way of working out those probabilities. 

And yet, I have never heard a losing fantasy player remark that he needs to improve his prediction ability. Rather, he always says that his opponent was "lucky".

And so it is in life. No one can ever admit that perhaps they aren't approaching life in the best manner possible; rather, they blame all their ills on circumstance. And if they see another man succeeding, he is "lucky". 

What Next?
More ideas from Rene Descartes
More ideas from Discourse on the Method
Read Discourse on the Method Online for Free
Learn more about Discourse on the Method at Amazon

Dialectic is Greater than Science (Plato)

This idea is from The Republic, by Plato, written in about 360 BC. The Republic is probably the most famous book in all of philosophy. Read my mini-review and overall impressions of Plato's The Republic.

Dialectic, then, as you will agree, is the coping-stone of the sciences, and is set over them; no other science can be placed higher – the nature of knowledge can no further go?

~Plato, The Republic (Book VII)

 Plato here suggests that dialectic is the coping-stone of the sciences.

The dialectical process has been occurring since the beginning of time. It is possible to interpret physical and chemical processes through the lens of dialectic. It is possible to interpret biological evolution through this framework. Some have argued that societal evolution throughout history is a dialectical process.

So what is dialectic? The dialectical process of change is comprised of three parts: the thesis, the antithesis, and the synthesis. In an earlier post, Advocates for One Side can't See the Whole, I talked about something I called "collaborative" debate. Collaborative debate should follow a dialectic process.

Person A makes a statement (the thesis). Person B looks for all the flaws in that argument and takes an opposing position (antithesis). This allows Person A to see previous inconsistencies and flaws in his reasoning. He then incorporates this new information from Person B with his own (synthesis). This new synthesis becomes the new thesis, and the process continues.

Every creative process occurs in this way. There is the initial free flow of creative ideas (thesis). This is then subjected to critical analysis (antithesis). The artist makes some changes, and art is produced (systhesis).

In this manner, the evolutionary process is a dialectic. First there is random variation (thesis). The random variants produced by mutation are then subjected to the struggle for survival (antithesis). What didn't work is discarded (synthesis). This new synthesis is the starting point for the next iteration.

Science, as Plato notes, is also a dialectic. A theory is proposed (thesis). Scientists conduct experiments in an attempt to falsify the theory (antithesis). The theory is then modified (synthesis).

Science is simply a subset of the dialectic process. The real innovation and defining feature of science is to use experimental data as the antithesis. When someone says that something is "unscientific", they usually mean that a thesis cannot be tested experimentally. That is why morality, for instance, will probably never fall within the realm of science. Experimental data can also be misinterpreted by scientists, as I previously lamented.

But science isn't our only tool for knowledge discovery. The dialectical method always has been the best tool for rational truth-seeking since at least the time of the Greeks. In other schools of thought, "revelation" is the path to knowledge discovery.

Hmm.

Revelation = thesis. Dialectic = antithesis....

Religion = thesis. Science = antithesis....

Methinks it's time for a synthesis of the two greatest sources of human knowledge and wisdom!

What Next?
See more ideas from The Republic
See more ideas from Plato
Read The Republic for free Online
Learn more, read reviews at Amazon

Our Minds are Our Gardens (Shakespeare)

Virtue! A fig! ‘tis in ourselves that we are thus
or thus. Our bodies are our gardens, to the which
our wills are gardeners: so that if we will plant
nettles, or sow lettuce, set hyssop and weed up
thyme, supply it with one gender of herbs, or
distract it with many, either to have it sterile
with idleness, or manured with industry, why, the
power and corrigible authority of this lies in our
wills. If the balance of our lives had not one
scale of reason to poise another of sensuality, the
blood and baseness of our natures would conduct us
to most preposterous conclusions: but we have
reason to cool our raging emotions, our carnal
stings, our unbitted lusts, whereof I take this that
you call love to be a sect or scion.

~William Shakespeare, Othello

This is such a great idea: to use a garden as a metaphor for our mind. This is highly reminiscent of a beautiful passage from James Allen in his book As A Man Thinketh. This book from Allen is one of my favorite books of all time, and I have literally read it at least a dozen times (it's pretty short and takes about an hour to read).

Here's what Allen says:

A man's mind may be likened to a garden, which may be intelligently cultivated or allowed to run wild; but whether cultivated or neglected, it must, and will, bring forth. If no useful seeds are put into it, then an abundance of useless weed seeds will fall therein, and will continue to produce their kind.

Just as a gardener cultivates his plot, keeping it free from weeds, and growing the flowers and fruits which he requires, so may a man tend the garden of his mind, weeding out all the wrong, useless, and impure thoughts, and cultivating toward perfection the flowers and fruits of right, useful, and pure thoughts, By pursuing this process, a man sooner or later discovers that he is the master gardener of his soul, the director of his life. He also reveals, within himself, the laws of thought, and understands with ever-increasing accuracy, how the thought forces and mind elements operate in the shaping of his character, circumstances, and destiny.  

I don't think I have much to add to these today. These are powerful passages. Modern evolutionary theory and biology can help us to understand why our minds are thus or thus. Religious and spiritual practices have been tapping into the ability suggested by Shakespeare and Allen for millennia. These traditions can plant seeds in our minds, "untrue" though they may be, and those seeds can grow to produce a mind that's literally non-human.

I have begun to write an article where I compare our mind to a lake and our thoughts to fish. Look for it soon. 

What Next?

More ideas from Othello

More ideas from Shakespeare

Read Othello online for free

Learn more about Othello at Amazon 

Conscientiousness is the Propensity to Follow our Conscience (Kant)

Unconscientiousness is not want of conscience, but the propensity not to heed its judgment.

~Immanuel Kant, The Metaphysical Elements of Ethics 

Kant says that every man is equally endowed with a conscience. Where we differ is that some men are better at following it than others. 

As humans, we are full of conflict. We have a vision in our head of how we ought to act, but often we find that we yield to our more base desires. 

It sounds an awful lot like Freud's super ego and id. Or in cartoons when the devil and the angel appear on a character's shoulders. That technique works because that's what it's really like. Kant would say that we all have that angel, but how often do we follow its advice rather than the devil's?

In modern psychology, Conscientiousness is one of the "Big 5" personality traits. Everyone is born with a natural propensity to be more or less conscientious. Conscientious individuals place a higher value on performing their duty, are usually hard working, and they discount present pleasures in favor of long-term considerations. Unconscientious individuals live in the moment, are more adventurous, and are more spontaneous. 

Of course, neither side of the spectrum has much respect for the other. Unconscientious people call the other side boring and stiff, and conscientious individuals call the other side lazy. 

I think that both sides have their strengths, and that whichever propensity you happen to be born with, you have to work hard to develop the positive traits of the other that you don't possess. 

Conscientious people must know that they can be boring, so they should take it upon themselves as their duty to correct this. 

So I think that the psychology concept of "conscientiousness" must be different than the way Kant is using it. Surely it is no virtue to have simply been born conscientious, as the psychologists would have it. I am increasingly dismayed by the assertion of modern psychologists that our traits are inborn and fixed throughout life. Of course when you crunch the data on a large scale you see that most people have the same personality and propensities throughout life. This is because very few men sincerely devote themselves to this process. Just as few men will become great at anything. 

I recently had a debate about this on a psychologist's blog, which he ended by stating "science is science". Thanks for reminding me, Dr. Psychologist. But there is also improperly done and immaturely thought out science - science that only captures one piece of the puzzle. 

I recently posted a video on another blog where David Blaine explained how he set a world record by holding his breath for 17 minutes. He was told by every scientist and medical professional that if he held his breath for longer than 5 minutes he would suffer irreversible brain damage, he would die, he would have a stroke, etc. 

Now, if we went with the "science is science" theory, we would say that he shouldn't have been able to achieve this. 

David Blaine is a modern hero. He is a modern day Prometheus. He is the man who steals fire from the gods and brings it back to humanity to show them what is possible. Good science must incorporate in these "super-human" feats. We must understand them.

Blaine says his philosophy has always been that if something can be done by one person, it can be done by others. Increasingly, I believe this too. 

I'm not even sure I believe in the concept of "intelligence" anymore, which is such a staple of modern day science and psychology. I think it has more to do with belief in oneself. If you believe you are smart, then you are. Our society, parents, and teachers instill into us a myriad amount of beliefs, most of them limiting, and those beliefs literally become the limits of reality. I'm tired of hearing people tell each other to "be realistic". 

The dreamers are the saviors of the world. (not a "scientific" statement...or is it?)

This post has been a bit more rambling and off topic than normal. So it was. I've apparently got some major issues with science. I think it's possibly the greatest tool humanity has, but it is limited by the men who utilize it. I'll tackle the question in more detail probably on my primary blog. 

What Next?
More ideas from Nietzsche
More ideas from Thus Spoke Zarathustra
Read Thus Spoke Zarathustra online for free
Learn more about Thus Spoke Zarathustra at Amazon

Men Are Easily Deceived (Machiavelli)

This idea is from The Prince, by Niccolò Machiavelli, published in 1532. This was a highly influential book that continues to shape political and social thought to this day. Read my mini-review and overall impressions of The Prince.

Men are so simple, and so subject to present necessities, that he who seeks to deceive will always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived.

~Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince 

Not a very positive sentiment expressed by Machiavelli, but it may very well be true. 

As humans, we are often too preoccupied by our current sensory perceptions that we rarely step back to consider their accuracy. We are often mistaken about what is really true about external reality. We are almost always mistaken about the true nature of our own thoughts and motivations. 

If we are so easily deceived about the world and ourselves, think of how often we must be deceived by others who are deliberately trying to deceive us. 

On the one hand this may be the result of a good thing. It is probably not wise to be skeptical of every word that every person utters, though in quiet moments of reflection we may come to that conclusion. Who would ever wish to hang around someone who assumed that everything you said was in some way mistaken or deceitful? 

On the other hand we must realize that there are people out there who deliberately attempt to take advantage of us and deceive us. We must not be gullible.

As a child my father made me play a game whereby I would have to read all the junk mail in order to find the "catch". If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is. 

Looking back on that, and remembering all the junk mail we get through the mail, and especially now online, I wonder why our government doesn't do more to curb these deceitful offers. Everywhere you go on the internet, there are people claiming that they can make you money, work from home, lose weight quickly and healthily, increase your sexual prowess, etc. Pretty much all of them are an attempt to extract money from you by offering a fraudulent product. 

Machiavelli wouldn't be surprised. This stuff wouldn't continue to proliferate if it wasn't profitable. These fraudulent marketers wish to deceive people, and they find people willing to be deceived. 

It seems to me that we should do something about this problem. The people getting deceived are at no fault except that they are human. The people doing the deceiving are vampires who should be driven out with a stake. 

What Next?

More ideas from The Prince

More ideas from Machiavelli

Read The Prince for free Online

Learn more about The Prince at Amazon