The Brothers Karamazov

A longer quote than usual to start with.  It is the first book I have given a 5 Star rating to so surely it deserves to be quoted (and indeed it often been quoted).

"Can you understand why a little creature, who can't even understand what's done to her, should beat her little aching heart with her tiny fist in the dark and the cold, and weep her meek unresentful tears to dear, kind God to protect her? Do you understand that, friend and brother, you pious and humble novice?Do you understand why this infamy must be and is permitted? Without it, I am told, man could not have existed on earth, for he could not have known good and evil. Why should he know that diabolical good and evil when it costs so much? Why, the whole world of knowledge is not worth that child's prayer to dear, kind God'! 
...
It's not worth the tears of that one tortured child who beat itself on the breast with its little fist and prayed in its stinking outhouse, with its unexpiated tears to 'dear, kind God'! It's not worth it, because those tears are unatoned for. They must be atoned for, or there can be no harmony. But how? How are you going to atone for them? Is it possible? By their being avenged? But what do I care for avenging them? What do I care for a hell for oppressors? What good can hell do, since those children have already been tortured? And what becomes of harmony, if there is hell? I want to forgive. I want to embrace. I don't want more suffering. And if the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest that the truth is not worth such a price. 
...
Besides, too high a price is asked for harmony; it's beyond our means to pay so much to enter on it. And so I hasten to give back my entrance ticket, and if I am an honest man I am bound to give it back as soon as possible. And that I am doing. It's not God that I don't accept, Alyosha, only I most respectfully return him the ticket."

An amazing book!  I hardly know where to start or what to say about it.  It is so dense, rich and engaging that my comments inevitably seem superficial.  There are so many thought provoking ideas crammed into this novel.  

The book is like a series of philosophical essays interspersed in a fantastic story full of fascinating characters.  Sometimes when authors try this you end up with a clunky, preachy, over-wrought mess.  But Dostoevsky manages to balance the plot and the philosophizing so perfectly that it never feels bogged down.  

The quote above is from Ivan, grappling with the problem of evil.  This passage affected me deeply when I first read it about 8 years ago.  I was still in the grips of religious fundamentalism at the time but the needless suffering in the world was steadily eating away at my faith.  I was shaken to find how strongly I could empathize with Ivan's declaration: "I most respectfully return him the ticket"

It is such a shame that Dostoevsky did not live long enough to write the sequel he had planned.  I would love to know how he would have unfolded the further adventures of the brothers, but also of Katya, Grushenka, Lise, Kolya and others.

So, which brother am I most like?  Which brother are you most like?  Is there some Karamazov in all of us?

On Liberty

Truth gains more even by the errors of one who, with due study and preparation, thinks for himself than by the true opinions of those who only hold them because they do not suffer themselves to think.

If the cultivation of the understanding consists in one thing more than in another, it is surely in learning the grounds of one's own opinions. 

I enjoyed reading this immensely.  (Like my very 19th century choice of word?)  It was the subject of my first politics essay for the unit I am currently studying The Liberal Democratic State.  The book is insightful, engaging and challenging.  I tagged, highlighted and scribbled in this book with gusto.  I even chuckled to myself many times.  

Despite Mill's dour expression, (unattractive fellow wasn't he?), he was a man capable of intense passion.  I enjoyed reading the in depth introduction with lots of biographical information in this Penguin edition.  Harriet was a very lucky lady!   I don't know of many other examples of a relationship as deep, enduring and productive as theirs.  Pity she was already married when they met.  Fortunately her first husband, being much older, conveniently died while Mill still had a lot of life left to live with her.  Perhaps their years of honorably being "just friends" was in some measure responsible for the depth of their intimacy.  Is there a better basis for enduring love than deep and abiding friendship?  At the bottom of this entry is Mill's dedication to Harriet in On Liberty.  A tear-jerker! 

So what is the book about?  Mill is advocating for liberty - that individuals are sovereign over themselves.  He argues that it is not legitimate for anyone, government or individuals, to interfere with another person, except to prevent harm to others.  This has become famously known as the Harm Principle:

That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.  

Mill sees the repressive Victorian culture as very damaging to individuality and originality.  He recognises that social pressures to conform lead to the suppression of truth and laziness of thinking.  He argues that liberty is essential in three domains: liberty of thought, liberty of tastes and pursuits and liberty of association.  He presents a compelling case for freedom of speech that has been the cornerstone for western societies commitment to this freedom.

John Stuart Mill had a brilliant mind and his political ideas were revolutionary.  It is a shame that their subsequent effect on the western political landscape has been so diluted and polluted by capitalistic greed.  Perhaps Hobbes was right after all, though I wistfully hope not.

To the beloved and deplored memory of her who was the inspirer, and in part the author, of all that is best in my writings- the friend and wife whose exalted sense of truth and right was my strongest incitement, and whose approbation was my chief reward—I dedicate this volume. Like all that I have written for many years, it belongs as much to her as to me; but the work as it stands has had, in a very insufficient degree, the inestimable advantage of her revision; some of the most important portions having been reserved for a more careful re-examination, which they are now never destined to receive. Were I but capable of interpreting to the world one half the great thoughts and noble feelings which are buried in her grave, I should be the medium of a greater benefit to it, than is ever likely to arise from anything that I can write, unprompted and unassisted by her all but unrivalled wisdom.

More than Matter: What Humans Really Are

The question of what it is to be a human person is the biggest intellectual question of our day.

I have enjoyed reading this book. I often paused, put the book down and thought. (Which seems like exactly what a good book should lead you to do.) Thought about things like the nature of reality, meaning in the universe and the value of human life. All with lots of question marks.

My one word response to the book is: unconvincing.
And yet I did enjoy it and I very glad I read it.

Ward presents an argument against a materialist view of humans (that we are purely matter) and advocates for a metaphysical view part-way between Idealism and Dualism, so called Dual-aspect Idealism. It is not easy going and would be pretty tough without a basic knowledge akin to "Philosophy 101". But it is still a very enjoyable read as Ward writes with a level of humour that had me chuckling out loud at times.

For me, the crunch of the book came in Chp 9: "In Defense of dualism". The book seemed to be building up to this point and, after reading his arguments against materialism/physicalism, and his "doesn't this sound nice" enthusiasm for idealism, I was looking forward to finally reading his arguments for dualism. However the chapter seems to be a tenuous pulling together of insubstantial strings of various pro-dualism ideas, none of which are convincing on their own, and together are no more convincing. So much for that!

In the final chapter "Can we still speak of the soul?" he alludes to his Christian views, though a lot of Christians would have trouble reconciling Ward's well thought out religious ideology with their own narrow view of the bible. He paints a beautiful picture of dual-aspect idealism which culminates, in distant space-time, in a kind of utopian future of super minds which "transfigure all the conflicts and suffering of our previous lives." (It sounds wonderful and reminds me very much of a Stephen Baxter Sci-fi trilogy that I thoroughly enjoyed!). Ward then goes on to say:

That is the dream of idealism. But is it true? It must be plainly said that there is no proof. Yet it is more than an ideal wish. It is rooted in the firm belief that mind is the ultimate nature of being, and that intelligent mind aims, as far as it can, at goodness, at what is worthwhile for its own sake. This dream is what mind would realize if it could, if it were at all possible. It does seem possible, since it contains no contradiction. Dare we then hope for it?

My response to this: Hmmmm, I think it probably is no more than an ideal wish, but yes, I do still feel that it is worth hoping for, especially if this leads people to living a more full and ethical life. I wholeheartedly agree with his beliefs in practice: that we should act as though mind matters, humans have special value and strive for goodness for goodness sake, (not just to avoid punishment or gain reward - as the lowest form of most religions boils down to).

After living most of my life believing that I had a "soul" that would continue to exist independently of my body after death, I now find it hard to see how any form of my personal consciousness can exist when my neurons stop firing. I still hope it is so, but I really see it as no more than wishful thinking. It seems to be contradicted by the increasing evidence from neurobiological sciences that our "thoughts" are accounted for by the function of our neurons. When neurons are interfered with, via trauma, drugs or direct electrical stimulation, it leads to completely different "thoughts", and thus personalities, beliefs, etc. The demise of my faith started long ago, Phineas Gage you did not help it. The questioning started something like: "But if someone believed in Jesus before an head injury and afterwards denied him, when they died did they go to heaven or not?". Thinking this through over the subsequent years (18 to be precise, now that makes me feel old), it now seems to me when neurons stop working we will stop "thinking", and therefore stop "being".

Descartes: I think therefore I am.
Me: When my neurons stop firing, I stop thinking, therefore I am not.???.
(Though Descartes would definitely not agree with me)

I do not warm to this conclusion, I don't want it to be true, but I can't seem to shake it. Professor Ward, I had hopes that you might be able to at least give it a little shake, but alas, you have not!

For more info on Keith Ward:
http://www.keithward.org.uk/about/