"So, all you've shown is that Free Markets are more prone to Depressions, but what about unemployment rates?"
So, this also hurts me to post, but here is a graph of unemployment rates from 1890 until 2010. I checked the information at the source, and it seems to check out. If you want to check out the information, you can refer to it's sources. Now, unfortunately, there is no technical term in Economics to refer to a period of high unemployment. So, I'm going to make up my own, just for this case. I'll say hue (get it?). So, here's the thing: this graph starts in 1890. I do not consider that enough to make a good comparison, and the Great Depression can significantly distort the image. So, I'm going to deal with the period from 1890 to 1913 and 1946 to 1969 and 1983 to 2006. 1946 was chosen because it's after the unemployment restabilized, and I added 23 years after (the amount of time between the start of my data and the creation of the Fed). 1983 to 2006 is another 23 years, this time at the end of the current generation. This is no where near a perfect way to compare this data, and I'd greatly appreciate someone sending me earlier data (which I doubt exists).
1890-1913:
High Points: 1894 and 1896, at about 13%.
Low Points: 1908, at about 4%
Average: 6.87%
Time Spent Above 5%: 16 years
Time Spent Above 7%: 10 years
1946 -1969:
High Points: 1958 at 6.8%
Low Points: 1953 at 2.9%
Average: 4.57%
Time Spent Above 5%: 9 years
Time Spent Above 7%: 0 years (however 2 years were close with 6.7 and 6.8%)
1983 to 2006:
High Points: 1983 at 9.6%
Low Points: 2000 at 4%
Average: 6.15%
Time Spent Above 5%: 17 years
Time Spent Above 7%: 5 years.
The numbers should speak for themselves.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Thursday, April 21, 2011
On Free Marketism
So, not in the general vein of what I wanted this blog to be about, but I'm getting tired of having to continually retype this on the forum I hang out on, so I'm just going to get it in nice detail here so I can just post a link instead.
One of the major claims of Free Marketist Economists (specifically Austrians) is that all depressions are caused by government intervention in the economy. Now, this should be fairly easy to find out by checking when the US has had the most depressions.
Here is a good source that has a complete list since the founding of the US. The first US Depression was in 1797, and from then until 1913 when the Fed was founded, we spent 57 out of 116 years in depression, meaning we had a growth:depression ratio of about 1:1. Since 1913 that numbers change quite a bit. 94 years later and we've spent 22 years in depression (I stopped at 2007). The new growth:depression ratio is now about 4:1. Also of note is that our longest period in depression was the Long Depression (at 23 years), and happened before the Fed, and that after the Fed was enacted we've had our longest period of growth (preceding the Recession of 1953 at 24 years)
Now, the argument could be made that a decrease in depression frequency should be to be excepted since as time goes on the technology and international trade increases stability. OK, well, let's divide the time into sections of 30 years (I'll be calling them 'generations'), and go back three of those generations before the fed, and three after (3 after brings us to now). So, here's how this breaks down:
1821-1851: 9 years
1852-1882: 18 years
1883-1913: 18 years
1914-1944: 13 years
1945-1975: 4 years
1976-2006*: 5 years
Now, that raw data shows a few things. First of all, the first to second generation literally doubled the amount of time in depression. What happened? I'll get there in a moment. Also notice that the time went from 18 to 18, to 13, to 4. What's with the major drop? Well, first of all, the 30% drop over the previous generation is most easily accountable to the implementation of the Fed. And then there's the drop from 13 to 4. That 60% drop is probably because of the major financial regulations that were put in place under FDR. And they were getting repealed in the 80s to the early 90s.
Now, the obvious reply would be to point out that the US has had several different periods of Central Banking over the years, and each of those could have accounted for our different depression. Unfortunately, it doesn't work out that way.
First Central Bank: 1791-1811. There was 7 years in depression out of 20. (approx 30%)
Non-Banking: 1812-1815. There was 2 year in depression out of 4. (approx 50%)
Central Bank: 1816-1836. There was 6 years in depression out of 20. (approx 30%)
"Free Banking Period"**: 1837-1863. There was 9 years in depression out of 26 (approx 30%)
Central Bank***: 1863-1913 There was 33 years in depression out of 50 (approx 66%)
The Fed: 1913-2006: There was 22 years of depression out of 93 (approx 23%)
So, what this means is that since our first depression we had one non-central banking period where we spent half of our time in a depression, and the only time we had a central bank with more than 30% of our time in depression was under the 1863 National Bank. And what was the reason for it? Likely the gold standard, actually. The banks were issuing paper money that was redeemable in gold, in theory. But, it is virtually impossible to actually run an economy off of gold without a fractional system, where the banks issue more paper currency than they can redeem in gold. The reason is that a certain amount of inflation is needed for an economy to grow, and the growth of gold is incredibly slow compared to what is economically desirable. So, banks used a fractional system, and eventually people realized that their bank couldn't redeem all of their currency, so it caused 'bank runs' where people would rush to their bank to trade in their paper currency for gold. Which their bank didn't have. And this would cause an otherwise healthy bank to go under from lack of funds, which would cause a chain reaction toppling the whole system.
So, why didn't this happen periodically prior to the 1863 National Bank? Simple, people didn't notice. We only really hit the Industrial Revolution in full swing in the 1860s. When we had a new central bank. So, what stopped Bank Runs during the Fed? Simple: they did. While the Central Bank existed and it's currency was the medium of trade, it was still based on the value of, and redeemable in gold. So, yes, Bank Runs did happen under the Fed. Infact, one happened immediately prior to the Great Depression. What's stopped Bank Runs from happening since? Well, we stopped backing our currency in gold, of course. A series of acts of Congress were implemented in 1933, collimating in the Gold Reserve Act, which outlawed private ownership of gold, making Bank Runs to get gold impossible, and that any gold in the US had to effectively be returned to the banking system (in exchange for cash, of course). Effectively forcing people to return money to their banks.
After WWII (and until the '71) we were using the BrettonWoods System, which had the reserve currency of the world tied to the US dollar, which was in theory based on the gold standard, but whose currency was not actually redeemable for gold. In effect, there has not been a gold standard since 1933.
Now, the next place a person could go to reply to this is by saying that the US is only one case. And that's fair enough. For the sake of time, I'm going to focus on three countries: Japan, the UK, and Chile.
Japan is a fun case in economics. They were out of the Great Depression in 1932 by significantly devaluing the Yen, and starting deficit spending (both only possible under a Central Banking system, and are remarkably similar to Keynesian Economics). Since post-WWII Reconstruction Japan has had two depressions. Two. The first lasted 13 years, and is the so-called Lost Decade of Japan from 1990 to 2003, with the second being caused primarily because of Japan's ties to the US economy during the 2007 Depression.
The UK is a somewhat similar story, having spent just 11 years in depression from 1919 to 2007. Also, the US entered the current Depression in December 2007, whereas the UK entered in November 2008. And the UK and the general Eurozone's banking regulations are tighter and more consistent than those of the US.
And finally Chile. Chile had the crap metaphorically kicked out of it during the Great Depression. It's economy focused heavily on the export of materials used for war, so when WWI ended, their economy tanked almost instantly. And during this time they restructured their economy with the government taking a more active role in the administration of the economy, specifically by a number of public works projects. This made is easy for them to experience a rocketing economy from 1945 to 2000, with only two depressions in that time. Both were under Pinochet, if you look. Pinochet's government significantly cut a number of the public works projects, which made it so that their economy destabilized. And in 1990 they had what have easily been labelled an economic miracle.
In summation, an unregulated Free Market is economically unstable. End of discussion. No matter how you look at it, Free Markettism is unstable. You cannot claim that government regulations are the cause of depressions, and you cannot claim that central banking, regulation, and market intervention destabilize the economy. Well, ok, you could, you would just have to ignore the last few hundred years of economic history.
* The ending of the Third Post-Fed Generation is why I stopped counting at 2006 in the first section.
** The Free Banking Period was when there was no central bank in the whole of the US, and instead individual states had their own central banks.
*** States still had their own central banks, but also competed against the federal central bank. By 1865 non-federal bank notes were taxed out of existence.
One of the major claims of Free Marketist Economists (specifically Austrians) is that all depressions are caused by government intervention in the economy. Now, this should be fairly easy to find out by checking when the US has had the most depressions.
Here is a good source that has a complete list since the founding of the US. The first US Depression was in 1797, and from then until 1913 when the Fed was founded, we spent 57 out of 116 years in depression, meaning we had a growth:depression ratio of about 1:1. Since 1913 that numbers change quite a bit. 94 years later and we've spent 22 years in depression (I stopped at 2007). The new growth:depression ratio is now about 4:1. Also of note is that our longest period in depression was the Long Depression (at 23 years), and happened before the Fed, and that after the Fed was enacted we've had our longest period of growth (preceding the Recession of 1953 at 24 years)
Now, the argument could be made that a decrease in depression frequency should be to be excepted since as time goes on the technology and international trade increases stability. OK, well, let's divide the time into sections of 30 years (I'll be calling them 'generations'), and go back three of those generations before the fed, and three after (3 after brings us to now). So, here's how this breaks down:
1821-1851: 9 years
1852-1882: 18 years
1883-1913: 18 years
1914-1944: 13 years
1945-1975: 4 years
1976-2006*: 5 years
Now, that raw data shows a few things. First of all, the first to second generation literally doubled the amount of time in depression. What happened? I'll get there in a moment. Also notice that the time went from 18 to 18, to 13, to 4. What's with the major drop? Well, first of all, the 30% drop over the previous generation is most easily accountable to the implementation of the Fed. And then there's the drop from 13 to 4. That 60% drop is probably because of the major financial regulations that were put in place under FDR. And they were getting repealed in the 80s to the early 90s.
Now, the obvious reply would be to point out that the US has had several different periods of Central Banking over the years, and each of those could have accounted for our different depression. Unfortunately, it doesn't work out that way.
First Central Bank: 1791-1811. There was 7 years in depression out of 20. (approx 30%)
Non-Banking: 1812-1815. There was 2 year in depression out of 4. (approx 50%)
Central Bank: 1816-1836. There was 6 years in depression out of 20. (approx 30%)
"Free Banking Period"**: 1837-1863. There was 9 years in depression out of 26 (approx 30%)
Central Bank***: 1863-1913 There was 33 years in depression out of 50 (approx 66%)
The Fed: 1913-2006: There was 22 years of depression out of 93 (approx 23%)
So, what this means is that since our first depression we had one non-central banking period where we spent half of our time in a depression, and the only time we had a central bank with more than 30% of our time in depression was under the 1863 National Bank. And what was the reason for it? Likely the gold standard, actually. The banks were issuing paper money that was redeemable in gold, in theory. But, it is virtually impossible to actually run an economy off of gold without a fractional system, where the banks issue more paper currency than they can redeem in gold. The reason is that a certain amount of inflation is needed for an economy to grow, and the growth of gold is incredibly slow compared to what is economically desirable. So, banks used a fractional system, and eventually people realized that their bank couldn't redeem all of their currency, so it caused 'bank runs' where people would rush to their bank to trade in their paper currency for gold. Which their bank didn't have. And this would cause an otherwise healthy bank to go under from lack of funds, which would cause a chain reaction toppling the whole system.
So, why didn't this happen periodically prior to the 1863 National Bank? Simple, people didn't notice. We only really hit the Industrial Revolution in full swing in the 1860s. When we had a new central bank. So, what stopped Bank Runs during the Fed? Simple: they did. While the Central Bank existed and it's currency was the medium of trade, it was still based on the value of, and redeemable in gold. So, yes, Bank Runs did happen under the Fed. Infact, one happened immediately prior to the Great Depression. What's stopped Bank Runs from happening since? Well, we stopped backing our currency in gold, of course. A series of acts of Congress were implemented in 1933, collimating in the Gold Reserve Act, which outlawed private ownership of gold, making Bank Runs to get gold impossible, and that any gold in the US had to effectively be returned to the banking system (in exchange for cash, of course). Effectively forcing people to return money to their banks.
After WWII (and until the '71) we were using the BrettonWoods System, which had the reserve currency of the world tied to the US dollar, which was in theory based on the gold standard, but whose currency was not actually redeemable for gold. In effect, there has not been a gold standard since 1933.
Now, the next place a person could go to reply to this is by saying that the US is only one case. And that's fair enough. For the sake of time, I'm going to focus on three countries: Japan, the UK, and Chile.
Japan is a fun case in economics. They were out of the Great Depression in 1932 by significantly devaluing the Yen, and starting deficit spending (both only possible under a Central Banking system, and are remarkably similar to Keynesian Economics). Since post-WWII Reconstruction Japan has had two depressions. Two. The first lasted 13 years, and is the so-called Lost Decade of Japan from 1990 to 2003, with the second being caused primarily because of Japan's ties to the US economy during the 2007 Depression.
The UK is a somewhat similar story, having spent just 11 years in depression from 1919 to 2007. Also, the US entered the current Depression in December 2007, whereas the UK entered in November 2008. And the UK and the general Eurozone's banking regulations are tighter and more consistent than those of the US.
And finally Chile. Chile had the crap metaphorically kicked out of it during the Great Depression. It's economy focused heavily on the export of materials used for war, so when WWI ended, their economy tanked almost instantly. And during this time they restructured their economy with the government taking a more active role in the administration of the economy, specifically by a number of public works projects. This made is easy for them to experience a rocketing economy from 1945 to 2000, with only two depressions in that time. Both were under Pinochet, if you look. Pinochet's government significantly cut a number of the public works projects, which made it so that their economy destabilized. And in 1990 they had what have easily been labelled an economic miracle.
In summation, an unregulated Free Market is economically unstable. End of discussion. No matter how you look at it, Free Markettism is unstable. You cannot claim that government regulations are the cause of depressions, and you cannot claim that central banking, regulation, and market intervention destabilize the economy. Well, ok, you could, you would just have to ignore the last few hundred years of economic history.
* The ending of the Third Post-Fed Generation is why I stopped counting at 2006 in the first section.
** The Free Banking Period was when there was no central bank in the whole of the US, and instead individual states had their own central banks.
*** States still had their own central banks, but also competed against the federal central bank. By 1865 non-federal bank notes were taxed out of existence.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Rules of Order
So, I posted this on a forum I frequent and it was met with relatively low reviews. Such is life, but it means I'm going to troll the hell out of them in revenge.
Anyways, the idea behind this is simple: if your views cannot stand up to scrutiny, they are in need of review. They may be outright wrong, you need to review you evidence, or you may need to amend your views to account for new information. Regardless, here they are:
1. Posting a pointless one-liner is not an option
A. For example, if you are debating with a poster and you make a long, well thought out post including foot notes, and citations, and it could be reworked and made into a masters thesis at the local college (although only God knows why you would bother to make a Master's Thesis on a forum), and this poster's response is to find a single line from the post and say something to the effect of 'well, this is worthless trash', he just lost. Now, why do you think you should be allowed to do that? Exactly.
i. However, if the one liner is a response to your thesis statement, and it does adequately respond to the post (such as a poster pointing out a historical example where your thesis was hilariously inaccurate), it would be considered acceptable. However, these cases are, from my experience, few and far between, and this should be approached with extreme caution
B. Pointing out spelling/grammar errors does not even begin to approach being a legitimate counter argument.
i. However, you do need to use basically good English.
C. Posting this (or anything like it) is a pointless one liner.
i. The same is true of this, or anything like it
D. Insulting the other poster (no matter how clever you make it sound) is a pointless one liner. Yes, this is still true if you make the post 5 paragraphs long.
i. This includes calling the other person(s) Nazis, Fascists or Communists when the poster isn't one, "Islamist", terrorist, terrorist sympathizer, Anti-Semite (when they aren't), or anything along these lines.
2. Nazis. There are none on the board. Shut the hell up about it.
A. Further, bringing up some debate which has nothing to do with the topic at hand is also something you need to shut the fuck up about.
i. This includes (but is not limited to) the Israel-Palestine debate, whether or not Obama is a Communist, whether or not America had anything to do with creating AIDS, Zionism, and so forth. Keep that crap where is belongs, which is (in case you didn't know it) not in a debate about which American politician could beat the other in a fist fight.
B. If a topic begins to approach a conspiracy theory, just stop posting about it before you even start.
3. Sources. Post them.
A. If something isn't common knowledge, you need to post a link to a source that says that that is correct. Otherwise, I'll just assume you're blowing smoke.
B. If your source is from wikipedia, go try again.
i. Yes, this is the genetic fallacy, no I don't care. If you got some bit of information from wikipedia, feel free to find the source of that claim, and post that. I probably will accept that.
C. If your source is so biased that it bends facts, go try again. Which means that yes, the history of the site will come into question, unless you have some sort of corroborative evidence.
D. If your source is a person (such as saying to 'go read Stephania Meyer'), try again. Try a specific book. And if you're debating something of minor importance which is rarely ever brought up (like Waco, for instance), try being a decent human being and posting an internet source.
i. In general, internet sources are preferable in internet debates because the person can go verify what you said without having to go buy a book, which could delay a response.
ii. If the topic is one of frequent discussion however, and you usually refer to one book source, then using that book as a source is a good idea. This is more of a matter of manners, instead of something that should just never happen.
E. If you're going to make a claim that is the exact opposite of history, you need to post some pretty well detailed economic models that says that history is wrong.
F. Your personal experience is not a source. Don't even bother to try to post it as a source. I will laugh at you.
G. If you site a source, and it checks out so far, but it turns out the source doesn't agree with your conclusion, expect to have that pointed out to you. Because there is probably a good reason for it.
4. Fallacies, do not use them.
A. Here. You have no excuses.
i. I am aware that I violated my own rule, but the only other source I am aware of that includes details of numerous fallacies is a book, and I'd rather like to avoid citing books as a source on the internet.
5. Trolls. Trolls must die.
A. I shouldn't have to say much else.
Anyways, the idea behind this is simple: if your views cannot stand up to scrutiny, they are in need of review. They may be outright wrong, you need to review you evidence, or you may need to amend your views to account for new information. Regardless, here they are:
1. Posting a pointless one-liner is not an option
A. For example, if you are debating with a poster and you make a long, well thought out post including foot notes, and citations, and it could be reworked and made into a masters thesis at the local college (although only God knows why you would bother to make a Master's Thesis on a forum), and this poster's response is to find a single line from the post and say something to the effect of 'well, this is worthless trash', he just lost. Now, why do you think you should be allowed to do that? Exactly.
i. However, if the one liner is a response to your thesis statement, and it does adequately respond to the post (such as a poster pointing out a historical example where your thesis was hilariously inaccurate), it would be considered acceptable. However, these cases are, from my experience, few and far between, and this should be approached with extreme caution
B. Pointing out spelling/grammar errors does not even begin to approach being a legitimate counter argument.
i. However, you do need to use basically good English.
C. Posting this (or anything like it) is a pointless one liner.
i. The same is true of this, or anything like it
D. Insulting the other poster (no matter how clever you make it sound) is a pointless one liner. Yes, this is still true if you make the post 5 paragraphs long.
i. This includes calling the other person(s) Nazis, Fascists or Communists when the poster isn't one, "Islamist", terrorist, terrorist sympathizer, Anti-Semite (when they aren't), or anything along these lines.
2. Nazis. There are none on the board. Shut the hell up about it.
A. Further, bringing up some debate which has nothing to do with the topic at hand is also something you need to shut the fuck up about.
i. This includes (but is not limited to) the Israel-Palestine debate, whether or not Obama is a Communist, whether or not America had anything to do with creating AIDS, Zionism, and so forth. Keep that crap where is belongs, which is (in case you didn't know it) not in a debate about which American politician could beat the other in a fist fight.
B. If a topic begins to approach a conspiracy theory, just stop posting about it before you even start.
3. Sources. Post them.
A. If something isn't common knowledge, you need to post a link to a source that says that that is correct. Otherwise, I'll just assume you're blowing smoke.
B. If your source is from wikipedia, go try again.
i. Yes, this is the genetic fallacy, no I don't care. If you got some bit of information from wikipedia, feel free to find the source of that claim, and post that. I probably will accept that.
C. If your source is so biased that it bends facts, go try again. Which means that yes, the history of the site will come into question, unless you have some sort of corroborative evidence.
D. If your source is a person (such as saying to 'go read Stephania Meyer'), try again. Try a specific book. And if you're debating something of minor importance which is rarely ever brought up (like Waco, for instance), try being a decent human being and posting an internet source.
i. In general, internet sources are preferable in internet debates because the person can go verify what you said without having to go buy a book, which could delay a response.
ii. If the topic is one of frequent discussion however, and you usually refer to one book source, then using that book as a source is a good idea. This is more of a matter of manners, instead of something that should just never happen.
E. If you're going to make a claim that is the exact opposite of history, you need to post some pretty well detailed economic models that says that history is wrong.
F. Your personal experience is not a source. Don't even bother to try to post it as a source. I will laugh at you.
G. If you site a source, and it checks out so far, but it turns out the source doesn't agree with your conclusion, expect to have that pointed out to you. Because there is probably a good reason for it.
4. Fallacies, do not use them.
A. Here. You have no excuses.
i. I am aware that I violated my own rule, but the only other source I am aware of that includes details of numerous fallacies is a book, and I'd rather like to avoid citing books as a source on the internet.
5. Trolls. Trolls must die.
A. I shouldn't have to say much else.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Three more down
So, I've knocked out three dialogs since my last post.
First being Hippias Minor, or Hippias the Lesser, or On Lying, whatever you want to call it. Either way, it's about lying. Not so much the morality of lying, but about how knowledgeable someone has to be to be a good liar. Structurally uninteresting though. Sad, but true.
Next is Lysis, which is about what exactly friendship is. Again, structurally uninteresting. Atleast since it's only uniqueness when compared to the rest of Plato's works I've already found in Phaedo (granted Phaedo was probably written after Lysis)
And finally, the Symposium. It's about the nature of love, and the origins of Eros, who is either a God or a Demi-Godish creature depending on who in the dialog you listen to. It get's creepy because they talk rather frequently about how much they want to have relations with Socrates -shudder-. Anyways, the dialog seems heavily to have been an exercise in rhetoric for Plato, since each of the interlocutors use a long speech instead of the normal short question and answer method that Plato liked so much.
So, I'm done, but here is something interesting. It seems that some folks have done studies on the structure of known dialogs of Plato. It seems he used musical structure in his dialogs. I thought this was kind of cool, and might help weed out the true dialogs from the spurious. And so could the use of software that finds patterns in word uses by an author. Just a thought.
Have fun
First being Hippias Minor, or Hippias the Lesser, or On Lying, whatever you want to call it. Either way, it's about lying. Not so much the morality of lying, but about how knowledgeable someone has to be to be a good liar. Structurally uninteresting though. Sad, but true.
Next is Lysis, which is about what exactly friendship is. Again, structurally uninteresting. Atleast since it's only uniqueness when compared to the rest of Plato's works I've already found in Phaedo (granted Phaedo was probably written after Lysis)
And finally, the Symposium. It's about the nature of love, and the origins of Eros, who is either a God or a Demi-Godish creature depending on who in the dialog you listen to. It get's creepy because they talk rather frequently about how much they want to have relations with Socrates -shudder-. Anyways, the dialog seems heavily to have been an exercise in rhetoric for Plato, since each of the interlocutors use a long speech instead of the normal short question and answer method that Plato liked so much.
So, I'm done, but here is something interesting. It seems that some folks have done studies on the structure of known dialogs of Plato. It seems he used musical structure in his dialogs. I thought this was kind of cool, and might help weed out the true dialogs from the spurious. And so could the use of software that finds patterns in word uses by an author. Just a thought.
Have fun
Monday, September 6, 2010
Gorgias
Wow, sorry for the long wait folks. It was one of those things where life just kind of happens, I'd rather not get into it. Hopefully it wont happen again, or atleast not for awhile, or as long of a wait (a month, holy crap, that is unacceptable).
This time, I'd like to talk to you about Plato's Gorgias. The dialog is long enough to merit it's own book (instead of a dialog like Crito, where it amounts to a few pages in Microsoft Word). My copy is the Penguin Classic version. Now, I'm not going to advise anyone to buy book you can get for free (and with Plato, you can), but if you decide to pay for a free product, I would say this is the way to go. Why? Well, it's kind of nice to have the book broken up into sections about 6-10 pages long with a notes about what you're about to/just read. I think I bought it off of the borders website.
Before I get into Gorgias, let me just put out a general suggestion of shop around. I realized it cost me alot of money to buy the complete works of Plato off of borders.com and not shopping around, or just getting it for free. I did however wise up by the time I got to buying Kant and Hegel. So, that's better.
Anyways, back to Plato. Gorgias is concerned with (by and large) morality in power. The first interlocutor is Gorgias himself. His part is short, and he acts a bit like a MacGuffin technique. He just kind of starts it off, and gets hardly mentioned after. He takes on the view of the majority of Athenians, which of course helps support the existence of the Athenian Democracy. Plato was very much of a social critic, and I'd argue that criticizing Athenian politics was the thing he did the best at. Which means that Socrates simply obliterated Gorgias in the dialog, with no hope what so ever of survival.
Next was Polus. He diverts from conventional morality, but still tries to justify Athenian Democracy. He says that Gorgias was too easy in agreeing with Socrates, even though that ends up happening to him anyways. Oh, irony.
Finally is the longest section, Callicles. He claims that conventional morality are all used to usurp Natural Law, in which the strong rule the weak by right of force. He is unable to find a definition of strong and weak that will actually work, and the dialog goes from a dialog to a lesson on the failings of a Platonic Dialog. Callicles starts out polite, and quickly becomes a jackass. He insult Socrates, denies that inadvertently agreed with Socrates, and eventually refuses to answer or speak his own mind. He (at a point) simply refuses to answer Socrates' questions, to speed the dialog along to get Socrates to shut up. And claims that, even though he jumped into the discussion, he is only doing this to satisfy Gorgias.
All of this serves as a lesson on the strengths and weaknesses of Plato's method. In the beginning, Socrates is able to use logic and Socratic Irony to weaken, and even destroy his opponent. This sometimes leads to his opponent agreeing with Socrates (as in the case of Crito), Socrates and the interlocutor coming to a different but agreed position (I know it happens, but Ion is the only one I can think of at the moment), or (in the case of Gorgias) the two simply tossing there hands up and going away from each other. This one included a bit of the first and last. With Gorgias and Polus, the first. Callicles is able to create the third, but simply not answering. It becomes the ultimate dodge to superior logic. So, for anyone looking for a little bit of a self criticism of Plato, Gorgias is not a bad place to start.
So, yah. Have fun folks.
This time, I'd like to talk to you about Plato's Gorgias. The dialog is long enough to merit it's own book (instead of a dialog like Crito, where it amounts to a few pages in Microsoft Word). My copy is the Penguin Classic version. Now, I'm not going to advise anyone to buy book you can get for free (and with Plato, you can), but if you decide to pay for a free product, I would say this is the way to go. Why? Well, it's kind of nice to have the book broken up into sections about 6-10 pages long with a notes about what you're about to/just read. I think I bought it off of the borders website.
Before I get into Gorgias, let me just put out a general suggestion of shop around. I realized it cost me alot of money to buy the complete works of Plato off of borders.com and not shopping around, or just getting it for free. I did however wise up by the time I got to buying Kant and Hegel. So, that's better.
Anyways, back to Plato. Gorgias is concerned with (by and large) morality in power. The first interlocutor is Gorgias himself. His part is short, and he acts a bit like a MacGuffin technique. He just kind of starts it off, and gets hardly mentioned after. He takes on the view of the majority of Athenians, which of course helps support the existence of the Athenian Democracy. Plato was very much of a social critic, and I'd argue that criticizing Athenian politics was the thing he did the best at. Which means that Socrates simply obliterated Gorgias in the dialog, with no hope what so ever of survival.
Next was Polus. He diverts from conventional morality, but still tries to justify Athenian Democracy. He says that Gorgias was too easy in agreeing with Socrates, even though that ends up happening to him anyways. Oh, irony.
Finally is the longest section, Callicles. He claims that conventional morality are all used to usurp Natural Law, in which the strong rule the weak by right of force. He is unable to find a definition of strong and weak that will actually work, and the dialog goes from a dialog to a lesson on the failings of a Platonic Dialog. Callicles starts out polite, and quickly becomes a jackass. He insult Socrates, denies that inadvertently agreed with Socrates, and eventually refuses to answer or speak his own mind. He (at a point) simply refuses to answer Socrates' questions, to speed the dialog along to get Socrates to shut up. And claims that, even though he jumped into the discussion, he is only doing this to satisfy Gorgias.
All of this serves as a lesson on the strengths and weaknesses of Plato's method. In the beginning, Socrates is able to use logic and Socratic Irony to weaken, and even destroy his opponent. This sometimes leads to his opponent agreeing with Socrates (as in the case of Crito), Socrates and the interlocutor coming to a different but agreed position (I know it happens, but Ion is the only one I can think of at the moment), or (in the case of Gorgias) the two simply tossing there hands up and going away from each other. This one included a bit of the first and last. With Gorgias and Polus, the first. Callicles is able to create the third, but simply not answering. It becomes the ultimate dodge to superior logic. So, for anyone looking for a little bit of a self criticism of Plato, Gorgias is not a bad place to start.
So, yah. Have fun folks.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Reviews of Books
OK, so I already read these books and articles, but felt I should give a review at this point. (these aren't in order, by the way)
First is The Philosophers Toolkit and Socrates Cafe. I highly recommend these books to anyone who is interested in Philosophy and needs a starting point. Both give alot of general information for someone to pursue further. I'd also recommend the Plato and Platypus series.
Next was Dialectical Inquiry. It wasn't quite what I thought it would be, but is still worth the read. The article is about using the Dialectal Method to conduct corporate research. In it, they took already existing data (in this case, opinions on why technology transfer was difficult for the company in question). They outlined the method as comprising 4 steps, though I think 6 is more accurate for the way they used it. The steps are:
1. Identify scripts and models.
2. Define models
3. Assumptions and Counter assumptions
4. Define Contradictions
(these are my additions)
5. Define Results
6. Check internal and external validity
Now, the scripts are what is actually said, with models being broader more inclusive sentiments. For instance 'you cannot transfer technology, only people' is a script, related to the model called 'people centered'. Easy enough? Good, it should be. In the identifying stage, you're simply trying to find out what the model is ('people centered'). In defining, you're actually writing down the specifics of what the model includes ('the people centered model is based around the view that only with the transfer of skilled users of a technology can the use of it be possible). In each model are certain assumptions, and certain counters to other model's assumptions.
Now, what are the 'contradictions'? Simply put, in any kind of philosophical or theoretical discussion, all views will hold a grain of truth. The parable of the blind men and the elephant comes to mind at this point. Basically, a group of blind men was gathered to examine an elephant, and say it was. Each man picked a different part, and identified what they thought it was based off of their experiences and what they were physically examining. The man who looked at the leg said a column. Another the body, who said a wall, and so on. The same is true here, each perspective contains some grain of truth, and should thus be respected, and examined for it's own truths, and failings. If the man who said an elephant is a column had looked at the body, he would likely not be able to say that an elephant is a column anymore, which would be the contradiction. This parable is actually the origin of my interest in Dialectics.
So, how do define the results? Basically, you look for where one model will solve the problems of a different model. This tends to create slightly more complex results, but that may be needed. And yes, it is possible to come to the conclusion that one of the models is infact correct, and no contradiction can be made. The internal consistency you are looking for is any contradictions within the new model, in which case you need to go back and do a review of your research and process. The external validity is the ability to apply the results. If it does not work in real application, preferably in multiple settings, you likely have a problem with the theory, or your process more generally.
Next, on to Plato! The Apology is a good read which seems to me to be the less about philosophy itself, and more about the role of a philosopher. Not even that really. To me, it seemed like Plato wanted us to know about the trial of Socrates, and he injected into it the role of a philosopher, which can summed up in Socrates referring to himself as a gadfly (think mosquito), constantly challenging Athens, making it examine itself over and over again.
Crito is, so far, my favorite Dialog. The discussion takes place in Socrates's jail cell while he waits to be executed. The discussion is initiated when friends of Socrates try to convince him to run away, since they can get him out and to safety in another city if he so desires. He refuses and lays the groundwork for what will later become the Social Contract. Although, structurally, this dialog is unexciting.
Charmides is an ok dialog. It is about what is temperance. I am ashamed to say that the dialog came to no conclusions, and was generally, not as interesting as I had hoped. That being said, it does arise a few interesting points about what is and what is not temperance.
Euthyphro is another dialog of little interest from a structural stand point, and moderate interest from a philosophical stand point. In it, Plato and Euthyphro are arguing about the definition of piety. A number of definitions are presented, and refuted. In the end no conclusion is met. It seems to me that the point is that we cannot know what is piety.
The above is true of Ion as well. In this one, they're basically discussing if rhapsodes have a legitimate skill, or are metaphysically possessed.
Laches is about courage. Sorry, not much to say about this one. Although the ending is similar in certain ways to that of Euthyphro.
Protagoras is an interesting dialog. While the structure is of this one remains mostly uninteresting, is of worth reading for it's philosophical and historical value. This one is about whether or not it is possible to teach virtue, and what in general can be taught. This seems to be one of the better dialogs for historical value, since it covers the nature of the Sophists as much as the philosophy.
Phaedo is the first structurally interesting dialog. This one is actually told by a narrator. Plato uses the character of Phaedo (who was at the actual discussion) to repeat what was said, and give his opinions of what he thinks both sides meant, and the emotions and actions of the speakers. He also converses with Echecrates, who occasionally asks questions about what he thinks the speakers mean. In essence, giving the Elenchus method used by Plato a meta-structure similar to the one used by Berniker in the article linked above. This dialog, by the way, is about the nature of the after life. I think the subject is interesting, don't get me wrong, but it's not something I'm interested in.
Finally (for now) is Meno. Like with Protagoras, this one is about the teachablity of virtue (though Socrates comes to conflicting answers), and is to me interesting mostly for it's philosophical value, not it's dialectical.
Have fun!
First is The Philosophers Toolkit and Socrates Cafe. I highly recommend these books to anyone who is interested in Philosophy and needs a starting point. Both give alot of general information for someone to pursue further. I'd also recommend the Plato and Platypus series.
Next was Dialectical Inquiry. It wasn't quite what I thought it would be, but is still worth the read. The article is about using the Dialectal Method to conduct corporate research. In it, they took already existing data (in this case, opinions on why technology transfer was difficult for the company in question). They outlined the method as comprising 4 steps, though I think 6 is more accurate for the way they used it. The steps are:
1. Identify scripts and models.
2. Define models
3. Assumptions and Counter assumptions
4. Define Contradictions
(these are my additions)
5. Define Results
6. Check internal and external validity
Now, the scripts are what is actually said, with models being broader more inclusive sentiments. For instance 'you cannot transfer technology, only people' is a script, related to the model called 'people centered'. Easy enough? Good, it should be. In the identifying stage, you're simply trying to find out what the model is ('people centered'). In defining, you're actually writing down the specifics of what the model includes ('the people centered model is based around the view that only with the transfer of skilled users of a technology can the use of it be possible). In each model are certain assumptions, and certain counters to other model's assumptions.
Now, what are the 'contradictions'? Simply put, in any kind of philosophical or theoretical discussion, all views will hold a grain of truth. The parable of the blind men and the elephant comes to mind at this point. Basically, a group of blind men was gathered to examine an elephant, and say it was. Each man picked a different part, and identified what they thought it was based off of their experiences and what they were physically examining. The man who looked at the leg said a column. Another the body, who said a wall, and so on. The same is true here, each perspective contains some grain of truth, and should thus be respected, and examined for it's own truths, and failings. If the man who said an elephant is a column had looked at the body, he would likely not be able to say that an elephant is a column anymore, which would be the contradiction. This parable is actually the origin of my interest in Dialectics.
So, how do define the results? Basically, you look for where one model will solve the problems of a different model. This tends to create slightly more complex results, but that may be needed. And yes, it is possible to come to the conclusion that one of the models is infact correct, and no contradiction can be made. The internal consistency you are looking for is any contradictions within the new model, in which case you need to go back and do a review of your research and process. The external validity is the ability to apply the results. If it does not work in real application, preferably in multiple settings, you likely have a problem with the theory, or your process more generally.
Next, on to Plato! The Apology is a good read which seems to me to be the less about philosophy itself, and more about the role of a philosopher. Not even that really. To me, it seemed like Plato wanted us to know about the trial of Socrates, and he injected into it the role of a philosopher, which can summed up in Socrates referring to himself as a gadfly (think mosquito), constantly challenging Athens, making it examine itself over and over again.
Crito is, so far, my favorite Dialog. The discussion takes place in Socrates's jail cell while he waits to be executed. The discussion is initiated when friends of Socrates try to convince him to run away, since they can get him out and to safety in another city if he so desires. He refuses and lays the groundwork for what will later become the Social Contract. Although, structurally, this dialog is unexciting.
Charmides is an ok dialog. It is about what is temperance. I am ashamed to say that the dialog came to no conclusions, and was generally, not as interesting as I had hoped. That being said, it does arise a few interesting points about what is and what is not temperance.
Euthyphro is another dialog of little interest from a structural stand point, and moderate interest from a philosophical stand point. In it, Plato and Euthyphro are arguing about the definition of piety. A number of definitions are presented, and refuted. In the end no conclusion is met. It seems to me that the point is that we cannot know what is piety.
The above is true of Ion as well. In this one, they're basically discussing if rhapsodes have a legitimate skill, or are metaphysically possessed.
Laches is about courage. Sorry, not much to say about this one. Although the ending is similar in certain ways to that of Euthyphro.
Protagoras is an interesting dialog. While the structure is of this one remains mostly uninteresting, is of worth reading for it's philosophical and historical value. This one is about whether or not it is possible to teach virtue, and what in general can be taught. This seems to be one of the better dialogs for historical value, since it covers the nature of the Sophists as much as the philosophy.
Phaedo is the first structurally interesting dialog. This one is actually told by a narrator. Plato uses the character of Phaedo (who was at the actual discussion) to repeat what was said, and give his opinions of what he thinks both sides meant, and the emotions and actions of the speakers. He also converses with Echecrates, who occasionally asks questions about what he thinks the speakers mean. In essence, giving the Elenchus method used by Plato a meta-structure similar to the one used by Berniker in the article linked above. This dialog, by the way, is about the nature of the after life. I think the subject is interesting, don't get me wrong, but it's not something I'm interested in.
Finally (for now) is Meno. Like with Protagoras, this one is about the teachablity of virtue (though Socrates comes to conflicting answers), and is to me interesting mostly for it's philosophical value, not it's dialectical.
Have fun!
Opening thoughts
So, what is Adaptism, and why is it making a journey? Well, to start, Adaptism is kind of two things. First, it is a method of research, based heavily off of Platonic/Kantian/Hegelian Dialectic Methods, and Pragmatism, with lesser influences from Radical Empricism, Instrumentalism, and Conceptualism. From these (which shall be explained a little further down the line) comes Philosophical Adaptism. This is simply a research method. The result of Philosophical Adaptism in the political arena (which is where I plan on going with it) is Ideological Adaptism, the second type of Adaptism. Now, because each person is going to come to different results when given the same information, it is virtually impossible to define different ideologies within the Adaptism grouping (for example, you can be a Left Libertarian, but it will be impossible to be a Left Adaptist).
So, what exactly am I going to do with this blog then, and how does it relate to a journey? Well, I've decided realistically very little about how Philosophical Adaptism will be designed, and nothing about my Ideological Adaptism (which I'll call Smith's Adaptism, even though my name is not Smith). This blog is going to be me doing additional research on the components of Philosophical Adaptism. For example, I'm going to be reading all of Plato's works. During this time I'm going to be writing down my thoughts on the structure of Plato's Dialogs, as well as my general thoughts on the dialogs themselves. When I am finished, I shall lay down what specifically I'm going to be looking at for my research into Smith's Ideological Adaptism, and of course, my thoughts on the sources I'm reading for this research, and then my final conclusions.
Well, have fun!
So, what exactly am I going to do with this blog then, and how does it relate to a journey? Well, I've decided realistically very little about how Philosophical Adaptism will be designed, and nothing about my Ideological Adaptism (which I'll call Smith's Adaptism, even though my name is not Smith). This blog is going to be me doing additional research on the components of Philosophical Adaptism. For example, I'm going to be reading all of Plato's works. During this time I'm going to be writing down my thoughts on the structure of Plato's Dialogs, as well as my general thoughts on the dialogs themselves. When I am finished, I shall lay down what specifically I'm going to be looking at for my research into Smith's Ideological Adaptism, and of course, my thoughts on the sources I'm reading for this research, and then my final conclusions.
Well, have fun!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)