Capitalism and Metaphysics

Sometimes people justify inequity through an appeal to metaphysics. By “metaphysics” I don’t mean anything terribly fancy or well-thought out — any appeal to the basic nature of reality is metaphysical. So for example people might say “Why is it ok that successful hedgefund manager H has five houses while social worker S was just evicted along with her three children” by saying “H has a right to the money he made.” That is a metaphysical appeal — it assumes that human beings have rights to the money they make; that this a fact about human beings and the universe or reality.

Compare the following. Supposing we are members of a simple society of hunters and fishers. We make the rule “whoever catches an animal must share it with the rest of us, but whoever catches a fish can keep it for himself.” This rule works pretty well — people are incentivized to catch fish for their own household in their own free time but also to participate in the communal hunts for caribou and occasionally polar bear.

Now suppose one day a hunter named Richie brings down a whale. We are all a pre-scientific bunch of hunter gatherers so our word for fish includes whales. This whale though is a hundred times bigger than the largest animal. Richie keeps the whale. It’s so much that he is able to trade chunks of whale meat for nets and harpoons. Before long Richie has much, much more than anybody else and this leads to a feedback loop where his having more leads to him having even more. Our society becomes riven by hatred and despair. Why even work, the children wonder. We will never be as rich as Richie.

Now supposing somebody made the following argument against Richie: “Richie does not deserve all the power he has because WHALES ARE NOT FISH. He should have divided it up with everyone because whales are animals and you divide animals.”

This argument I think is okay, but it is unlikely to get Richie to surrender his wealth. Because Richie, or a philosopher whom he can hire wit his whale meat could say “How do you know whales are not fish? Sure they are warm blooded and halibut are cold-blooded, but so what? I say that the criterion of fishness is an ecological one — any animal adapted to swimming in the ocean — is a fish. I grant you that if you judge by DNA a whale is closer to a bear than it is to a salmon, but I do not grant you that that is the only way to judge. I judge instead by closeness of ecological niche. A whale is a fish. I am entitled to my riches. Thanks for playing.”

A better argument is “We only came up with the rules for dividing animals and keeping fish for ourselves because it made our lives better. There is no metaphysical basis for it other than — people should do well rather than poorly. Your choice to keep the whale for yourself was a bad one and led to bad consequences. THEREFORE whales will not be judged as fish.”

A similar argument I think could be advanced to those who say Hedgefund Managers have a right to limitless wealth while others live in fear of making the next rent payment. We only said people have a right to their wealth because it made the world a better place. If it leads to suffering we need to re-evaluate it.


How Do We Judge Philosophical Changes?

Eric Schwitzgebel has written recently that he doesn’t think anybody knows if panpsychism is true or false, and philosophers who claim to know, are, consciously or not, faking it. We need more evidence he argued, and we don’t have it yet — that’s why there is disagreement.

I tried to articulate why I think this is the wrong way to pose this issue.

Panpsychism as I understand it, maintains that a salt molecule is conscious. My conviction is that there couldn’t be any conceivable evidence that a salt molecule is or is not conscious, so we cannot be waiting for evidence. It seemed to me therefore that the sort of big philosophical change that comes from embracing panpsychism or rejecting it has to be part of a larger group of social, cultural, aesthetic, and psychological changes which cohere with the belief “a salt molecule is conscious” (or a salt molecule is not conscious).

Eric asked — well are those changes justified? In effect, are we just talking about mob psychology here? If we are, it seems like bleak news for philosophy. It seems, sadly that we must all be kidding ourselves, or faking it, as we come up for justifications for major shifts that unjustifiable.

I don’t want to embrace that. So I think I owe a justification for philosophical change.

Here goes:

A philosophical change is justified if it helps us make the world happier by fulfilling people’s desires..

That’s why I will never embrace the view that a salt molecule is conscious, if that entails meaning that a salt molecule has desires. Because how could we satisfy the desires of a salt molecule and weigh them against the competing desires of the sodium and chlorine ions contained within it?

So since no philosophy will make the world happier by maintaining salt molecules are conscious, they aren’t conscious, therefore panpsychism isn’t right.


Erotic Fiction

“His ass was inside her: moving, thrusting, tilting, whirling. First up and down, then back and forth, then clockwise, then counterclockwise, then slower again She moaned with pleasure. She became wet. Then dry. Then hot. Then cold. Then purple. He put his arms and legs inside her touched her breast lightly with his head. “Do you like that?” “I do. Show me a table” she whispered. Show me fruit on it.” “You’d like that wouldn’t you?” he said. I would –”

“Okay, I’m going to stop you right there.”


“This course is erotic fiction for humans.”


“Have you ever met or even seen a human.”

Brot drew herself up and swayed with embarrassment.

“No. But…”


“I find them incredibly sexy.”


Why is it So Hard To Talk to People Who are Just Like Me, So Easy to Talk to Those with Whom I have Nothing in Common?

Maybe the people who live in the room with me it is too close for comfort and talking we need to keep each other at a distance? The guy who keeps going into my bed when I’m at work. He knows I know. I know he knows that! So if we were to actually talk…what would happen? We might come to blows? While the Chinese sage who lives in New Jersey — he and I get on famously talking about the unity of action and knowledge in the works of Wang Yang-ming!

Or maybe once I try to talk with the lady who is always pouring out water on the front steps even though I’ve told her not to — once I try to talk to her the most minor differences between us — I wear New Balance sneakers and she wears either dress shoes for Church on Sunday or floppy slippers the other six days of the week — they loom large as archaic colossal statues blocking out the sun of our shared humanity. While when I speak with the Viennese flaneur who lives in a castle the small differences between us — castle vs. apartment building, leiderhosen versus jeans from Lucky — because they are so large it would make no sense to talk about them they in fact become insignificant and he and I — the Archduke I mean — talk of life and death, planting and harvesting, the nursing of infants and losing one’s self in an ancient text or a moment or a dream of the future.

But perhaps it is not easy or hard to talk ever because who I am is talking louder and more clearly than my words ever can. And everything that needs to be said — that could be said — want it or not — is being said loud and clear every moment.

To everybody!


The Normativity of Nature by Hannah Ginsborg


I need to figure out this whole objectivity thing.

As far as I got from reading the introduction she says Kant says whenever we judge that something looks red for example we also think it ought to look red to anybody who is observing it. I’m not sure if that’s true, and not sure what it means, so I need to read this book.

I wonder though if I love something I don’t think I am judging that everybody ought to love it. I just love it. Couldn’t red be like that — I just respond to my experience of redness without having a view about how others ought to behave?