Story of Philosophy by Will Durant: Plato

 

Introduction to the series

I have had a passing interest in philosophy for a while and with age and career progression the benefits of knowing the thought process of the great thinkers on Justice became apparent. How do you answer questions like, ‘how do I give my recommendation as a senior to one junior over another for a promotion or what really is at stake in such a decision?’ or ‘what is my moral responsibility if I find myself working with someone who doesn’t have as much autonomy as I have as a senior?’

Since I don't have intentions of pursuing philosophy as a vocation, It doesn’t make much sense for me to study all the prominent schools of thought in philosophy by studying the body of work of the great philosophers who wore those thoughts best throughout history. So for the time being I have decided to pursue self study of the subject relying on the generalized and in most cases summarized opinions of the great philosophers and their contributions as presented by established academics. It is this intention that lead me to pick up Will Durent’s the Story of Philosophy.

What I have learnt from the first chapter 

The first chapter gives the socio-cultural context in which we find Socrates and plato. It made me realize that there were others (sophists) throughout pre-socratic history that questioned the order of things like Socrates, but they had enough wisdom in them not to find themselves in the bad books of the socio-economic system like Socrates did which left him with the end which he chose for himself. 

Plato must be thought of in the context of Socrates' final decision. Some of the claims he makes in his psychological solution seemed to have been influenced by his master’s death. Will Durent captures Plato’s philosophical contributions to ethics, politics and epistemology in the 3 problems and the 3 solutions.

The ethical problem

Ethics, the right conduct according to Plato is a relationship among individuals and so it is the harmony of the whole. It is easier to observe it and correct it at the level of the community than at the individual. Though he hints it ultimately about ethics at the individual level. The ethical problem therefore is the unethical behavior of the individual.

The political problem

Plato paints a picture of an eden-like utopia, where inhabitants live simply but in a state of just. But he claims such a simple utopia can’t come to past because of greed and luxury. (I suspect the ignorant fear of scarcity may have also been in his mind but he may have not stated it outright as it would have not been wise of him). Therefore, the political problem is the inability to control citizens' greed and luxury to a state where it is not detrimental to the whole).

The psychological problem

According to Plato man’s actions are governed by the intrinsic elements. ‘Desire’, ‘Emotion’ and ‘Knowledge’. He claims the more you are driven by either desire or emotion the more you are used by the world. And it is when you develop the element which he identify as ‘Knowledge’ that you can become the master of one’s own soul and stand unused by the world. His saying ‘know your soul’ which has penetrated the popular imagination today is a testament to the claim that this is what is meant. He goes on to say that in all of us lie desires and emotions that are harmful to the whole, but when knowledge is given front seat in one's soul one may substitute harmful desires and emotions to less harmful and live out a better life.

The psychological problem and the root cause for all other problems therefore is the individual's lack of autonomy. And the evils and the offenses that may come to light through the individual due to the lack of ownership of their own lives.  

The psychological solution  

Plato proposes creating better archetypes he calls ‘the guardians’ who will be used to mold the youth until those who are among them who are capable may break free from the archetype to become ‘guardians’ themselves. 

He proposes a mostly self-governing social order and a program that would chisel out the ‘guardians’ and other roles such as ’auxiliaries’ and citizens. Who are as a whole cured from the greed, luxury and other ills that he may have not mentioned. 

The the program consists of harvesting and producing the healthiest children, who for the first 10 years are given a physical foundation that can better stand the forces that wish to drive them through ‘Desire’ and ‘Emotion’. Then they are given an education in music to make their minds receptive to the spirits. He then speaks of the need for a religion to keep the would-be citizens in order that would give the moral requirement one has to another divine authority. He gives a description of the religion.

The growing children face two trails one harder than the other. Based on where they fail, they would become ‘Citizens’ or ‘Auxiliaries’. The moral requirements of the two classes are enforced through the newly established religion and the ‘myth of the metals’. 

Those who pass the second trial, are given an education of philosophy at the age of 30. Plato’s theory of forms is discussed here.Then they are put out into the world to fend for themselves. Those who become self-sufficient at the age of 50 become the ‘guardians’ and the de facto rulers of the state.        

The political solution

Plato claims once the psychology of the classes of the citizens is raised up to a standard that resolves the problem. The political problem can be solved through aristocracy. A description of the ‘guardians’ lifestyle is given. The importance of avoiding war with other groups over population and trade is given. The least cured of the classes plato claims would abandon monopoly of administration as the better cured of the classes abandon monopoly of luxury. 

The ethical solution

Justice to Plato is doing and having one’s own. Justice is what binds society together in harmony. Similarly justice binds the different elements of an individual together in harmony so that the individual may flourish. Plato claims members of a state are members of one another and so morality is the harmony of the whole. 

Personal criticism and final thoughts of Plato’s theories

The proposed solutions seem too generic(based on Will Durent’s writing and not the actual works of Plato). Given the advent of globalization some of his arguments are still potent at the level of the species. The examples of implementation of his theories given in the book prove that over time self-governing social systems become less efficient to the point they become ineffective and fall apart. Would be Implementatiors must take into account the progress made by the human race since then and the aspects that Plato may not call progress that that the ‘brones’ class would require and so should be accommodated to be corrected in cycles.  

My personal stand on LGBTQ+

WARNING!!! This post may contain opinions or ideas that could be perceived as offensive to some individuals. The intention is not to cause harm or discomfort. If you feel that you may be offended or uncomfortable with differing opinions, I kindly advise you to refrain from reading further.

I was born male, I am heterosexual, I identify as a male and I express myself as a male.
...

A couple of days ago I learnt that the percentage of people identifying as LGBTQ+ in the US is around 7% and that the global percentage may be as high as 10%. Though you don’t meet as many LGBTQ+ people in Sri Lanka or experience them in the local media as much, it’s important to be aware and to respect their decisions in life and treat them with dignity regardless of our thoughts on the subject.

Gender identity is how you identify yourself with regards to your gender and gender expression is how you choose to express your gender to society. Mastering these two aspects of life takes time and maturity. Ideally, society must wait until individuals are mature enough to make decisions on their own. But sadly, some of our children never reach this level of maturity, and some parts of societies are built in such a way that ignorance and ambiguity in these areas may be used for harm or be used for profit (in most cases to profit a third party).

Gender expression in essence is how we expect society to treat us. So when a person who is mature enough to know themselves but is insincere in their intentional expression of their gender, (e.g. a heterosexuals' man pretending to be gay for profit or promotion through clothing choices and act[1]) that person is trying to deceive society. It is my personal opinion that cases like this should be placed in the right cultural and situational context and be judged as letting such cases pass without consequence sets a bad precedent and takes away someone else's opportunity. But we must not be too harsh with the consequences and leave room for correction.

When it comes to society's end of the agreement made by our expression, we must be patient and empathetic, not because their mistreatment based on your gender is justified, but because of factors such as culture and education. In some cultures (due to lack of education), being seen as LGBTQ+ sympathetic can have real world consequences. But the silver lining is it does look like the world is becoming more welcoming of all humankind.

I have chosen not to cover the legal rights LGBTQ+ people should be given as I am citizen I am not in a position to make such decision. You can find the Kantian justification for this choice here [2]. 

 

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp99wqxLatc 

[2] - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ke9RMXlu6T7gG-Ym41GCz0usKEbqp7s-osUUZxqtOA0/edit?usp=sharing 

My personal stand on using AI tools like ChatGPT and GitHub Copilot

I have been dabbling with GitHub Copilot and ChatGPT for a couple of months now and have been blown away by how easy it makes both my professional and personal life. Using Copilot, I was able to make great progress on learning a new test automation tool in a language I had little experience in. With ChatGPT, I have made improvements to many areas of my daily existence. But after some time, like most of us who have come across the latest generation of AI tools, you stop and ask yourself how ethical it is to keep using them?

A front-end engineer in the 90s worked with HTML and maybe CSS but if you only knew those technologies now you wouldn’t be able to find work. Most testers in the early 90’s or the early 00 could have gone on without knowing how to automate test cases, but that’s not the case now. So it’s not out of the ordinary for us engineers to see job descriptions change, but the magnitude of the social change the latest generation of AI tools can bring about is so great that it can radically reshape society for the worse, because in my opinion the technologies and the governance of these technologies are not yet in place.

According to the 5 criteria outlined in this[1] IBM’s short video on the topic a user should check to see if an AI’s responses represent,

1. Fairness in representing all groups in societies around the world.
2. Its explainability in how it arrived at a given response.
3. Its robustness in ensuring fairness.
4. Its data privacy

Taking ChatGPT as an example, my main concern is how an average user can be sure of point 1 and point 3! The training data set of ChatGPT is proprietary, and although there may be papers published on this topic, they are not accessible for the average person. Plus it is my personal opinion that there is far too much bias and noise in some of the likely sources (like internet articles and even research papers) so going by the seemingly overnight adoption, if there’re biases and noise in its training data, they get magnified 100 fold in society faster than we all ran out and bought ourselves mobile phones.

Apart from any damage to society AI poses because of any unfairness of its responses, It seems like there isn’t a clerical job AI can’t do better than the majority of us can (if a few of us are really hellbent on getting the AI through the hurdles like switching between tasks and processes).

Personally, I am of the opinion that until governments and experts come up with regulation and means to control any global societal damage, we the users must exercise restraint and become responsible. How I tackled this problem is by thinking through Kantian ethics and coming up with some conclusions (which I am planning to stick to for the foreseeable future). 

That I should,

• Not use code augmentation tools like GitHub Copilot when I am working with technology I am comfortable with at work and other means of information retrieval is available.
• Use code augmentation tools when I am learning something completely new (like a new programming language). But the fine print being it shouldn’t be unfair on someone else’s potential to earn.
• Use AI like ChatGPT for information retrieval when other means of getting the same information is not practical. But try to compensate by being smarter with my distribution of wealth to others being affected (like how some of us support small businesses).

If you’re interested in the fine print. Find notes on the quick Kantian analysis I did here[2].

[1] - https://youtu.be/aGwYtUzMQUk 

[2] - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z1DR4tV1JWvAd9ME1Xflr5yLIJRQLGet75AVWZsT03M/edit?usp=sharing 

What you can learn about toxic positivity from the song 'Life's a Happy Song'

A few people in my village have accused me of toxic positivity. A person’s idea of optimism and pessimism can vary greatly depending on their religious beliefs, culture and their circle of friends. Sometimes a person may even be framed to be positive to the point it’s toxic to gain support for some ulterior motive.

In my case, I went from being a pessimist to being an optimist because I understood I was measuring life wrong. The more objective my measurements became the more optimistic I became because I could still see progress in my measurements. But what happens when you’re so optimistic that you become a burden for others?

In the song ‘Life’s a happy song’ the entire village dances with the couple and sends them off from the village, but as soon as they’re done shipping them off they collapse from the pretense saying ‘Okay they are gone!’. But what if you find yourself in such a positivity bubble and you don't know if the villages are for real? My advice is you need to gently push the villages to the point where they stop dancing so that you know without doubt what is real.

An Alternative History of Euowewin

Last year was a good year to me in many ways, but it was also a year the world tried its hardest to force action out of me, as it sometimes does out of misguided good intentions. There were some closed doors, in a fairer world where there should have been ones that were wide open. And it seemed like everywhere I looked people were trying to shush me. 

Making art I’ve come to realize is a good way to release some of this kind of stress in a healthy manner. So, out of this intention, over a couple of days of putting other work on hold was born my latest short story ‘An alternative history of Euowewin’. Thank you very much to all of you who consumed it.

What’s wrong with this month's Harvard Business Review magazine's cover? Hint, Jimny Cricket.

I’ve been following HBR for sometime now because in my opinion they have been pushing out meaningful, and valuable content. Naturally, as the magazine is affiliated to one of the best universities in the world we should expect as much. But when I saw this month's cover art it made me stop and wonder how many of these writers and editors really stopped to think about the symbolic meaning of their creative choices.

    

Well, the cover[1] title implies the issue is about managing talent but what’s that puppet doing there in the corner? Are they implying that the relationship between employer and employee is similar to the relationship between a puppet and its master? Or maybe they’re implying you should give the puppet more string? Throw universal declaration of human rights out the window everyone, HBR seems to be pushing us back to slavery in between their lines.

Now, I’m not saying capitalism is not the best vehicle to change the world for the good. Capitalism works, and money is something all of us agree on. To participate in Capitalism we have to allow others to use us to an extent and in an idealistic world the world would treat us as ends and dignify us with fair compensation. Win, win.

As a seasoned tech worker, through experience and observation I can write that this translates to at times allowing some of your liberties and rights to be encroached upon by your employer in a manner that is fair to the employer. The employee gives up these liberties because he is satisfied with the compensation that he or she gets in return. But the problem, especially in the developing world is that there’s less to go around and this assessment of what’s fair compensation is one increasingly made by corporations and private entities and normalized by media. Jimny Cricket of Harvard Business Reviews Pinocchio. What most people may not have noticed when they watched 1940's Pinocchio is that Jimny Cricket was a bum with torn socks and raggedy cloths before he got the job to be Pinocchios conscience, A metaphor 82 years old and some of us get for its implication.

So how can we skew the needle of fairness to be well, fare. In my humble opinion, by educating corporate decision makers in ethics, demanding fare compensation, and stop normalizing abuse of individuals in the capitalistic system. This is where influential entities like the Harvard Business Review need to send out the right message.

[1] HBR Cover Jan-Feb 2023.

[2] Before Jimny got the job.

[3] After Jimny got the job. Is that a mansion in the background?