Ferguson: Save Your Town!

As the violence in the town of Ferguson, MO (about 19 miles north of St. Louis) begins for a second time, I'd just thought I ought to take a couple minutes to provide what I hope to be helpful feedback on the situation. I don't intend to make any comment on the case of Michael Brown itself, however; instead, I'd like to address the present circumstances.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees all U.S. citizens certain rights on the law. These rights are meant to safeguard our basic needs as human beings and prevent government or other entities from oppressing our freedoms. However, as with many of our rights, we all too frequently ask where the most extreme boundaries of our rights end and far too infrequently ask whether the current time, place, and circumstance is appropriate for us to exercise our rights. Too much time spent asking questions like if the exercise of a Black Mass is within our right to free speech, and not enough time realizing why refraining from reciting our political beliefs in a public library is actually a good idea.

Among other important points, the First Amendment grants citizens the right to assemble peacefully. Naturally, as U.S. citizens, the people of Ferguson and beyond have taken up their rights to freedom of speech and assembly by taking to the streets of their town in protest, most of them peacefully. However, some of the crowd has proven to be violent and in the days after the initial shooting in August, many of these acts of looting and violence were committed by people who weren't even from Ferguson. These people do not care for Michael Brown, nor do they care for the town of Ferguson, as they look to profit from her destruction. Though I have little doubt the case is the same today, time will tell if those responsible for the recent destruction are from out of town.

For the Ferguson police and others responsible for keeping law and order in the area, I have no doubt that each officer gearing up for each night prepares himself mentally for the violence that he may encounter. Knowing that violence in these volatile situations is imminent, they take no chances when it comes to weaponry, body armor, and other safeguards. Ferguson has become a war zone, and those officers have the difficult task of maintaining the rule of law, for everyone's sake. But for now, I'm sure each one of them just wants to make it through the night and back to their families.

This time, this place, and these circumstances makes the town of Ferguson the inappropriate site to exercise our freedom of assembly. And it is the duty of every single peaceful Ferguson citizen to realize that and stay off the streets and out of the way of police. It doesn't matter how peaceful you've made your protest. If it's in the streets of Ferguson, you're only getting in the way of those tasked to uphold law and order and as a result, become complicit with the destruction, burning, and looting of local businesses and the welfare of your next-door neighbors. The dinner bell has been rung, and the vultures who would use your peaceful protest as an excuse to create mayhem and carnage will bring destitution upon your town.

Does this mean that citizens upset by the decision should just accept it and move on with their lives? No. But there are certainly other, more creative and sensible ways to peacefully protest than to hinder the police from effectively saving your town.

We Really ARE Conscious!

To date, I haven't written anything reactionary; however, it's also important to accept that truth does not exist in a vacuum, hence the reason for this post. The subject of debate is the opinion article in the New York Times entitled, "Are We Really Conscious?" written by Princeton-educated Michael Graziano PhD (in neuroscience) and currently an associate professor at his alma mater. His psychology work is just one part of his CV, which also includes 3 literary novels, children's books, and symphonic works.

While I haven't delved into these works to discover their merit, I think his most recent work in the New York Times is ‘more of the same’ when it comes to the sophistry of the modern academic sciences. While I certainly cannot hope to refute his claims on grounds of neuroscience (his expertise), I must demonstrate a number of fallacious assumptions made on logical and philosophical grounds (my expertise).

To summarize the opinion, Dr. Graziano is presenting his "attention schema" theory of human consciousness. The theory begins by defining two terms:

attention: a physical phenomenon

awareness: our brain’s approximate, slightly incorrect model of our attention

The example he uses of the theory in practice is our perception of light. The wavelength of the light is the true attention of the light, or in his words, "a real, mechanistic phenomenon that can be programmed into a computer chip." The occurrence of the light, therefore, is something entirely quantitative, whereas our brain creates the "cartoonish reconstruction of attention" that we know as 'color', which is our awareness. While the quality of color has been assumed to be only a construct of the human mind since the Enlightenment philosophers, science has proven that white light is actually comprised of light with many different wavelengths, meaning that light is comprised of many (in fact, all) colors. Therefore, the attention is that data of many wavelengths/colors and the awareness is what we'd mistakenly call "white light".

What does this have to do with consciousness? Dr. Graziano equates our brains as informational storehouses, like computers, whose sole purpose is to retain and process information. The subject of consciousness arises when faced with the difficult question of why the brain would inefficiently waste energy on defining itself as something separate from its surroundings and be aware that its experiences are subjective. He then presents his attention schema theory to explain consciousness as a rude approximation of the information it processes, similar to how white light is only an erroneous estimation of all colors together.

However, a critical look at Dr. Graziano’s distrust for our intellect reveals a misplaced trust in the inventions created by our very own intellect. (I will, for the purposes of this post, roughly equate Dr. Graziano’s term ‘awareness’ to the term, ‘intellect’, because it is our intellect with which we interpret the information received from our senses) Our intellect was the creational source of the computer, the camera, and the spectrometer; these human inventions are as limited in their design as their poor human inventors. Returning to Dr. Graziano's example of the computer chip, it is our intellects that program that computer chip to recognize wavelengths. They do not function any different than how we designed them to function, and if they see phenomena that we don’t, it is only because we possessed the intellect to speculate that phenomena’s existence.

Even the scientific terminology used by Dr. Graziano is a creation of the human intellect of which we should be skeptical. Pre-modern science, we created the vocabulary of ‘green’ and ‘white’ light because those are the terms we used to describe the phenomenon of different kinds of light. With modern science, we created the vocabulary of ‘495 nm < λ < 570 nm’ and ‘390 < Σλ < 700 nm’ to describe the exact same phenomenon. Both vocabularies are constructs of our own intellects, intended to conform to an external reality and differentiated only by their specificity. And still, our scientific expression is limited by the understanding of our intellect. Just as Newton’s theory of gravitation was not the final word, so too many of our other constructs of intellect (i.e. the color of light, the wavelength of light, etc.) will be overturned again and again as our intellect struggles to grasp the natural cosmos. So in this sense, we cannot escape from our own intellect!

These were the words chosen by Dr. Graziano, but for the sake of argument, we can assume that Dr. Graziano oversimplified his definition of 'attention' for the benefit of the reader. An alternate understanding may be the true nature of the phenomenon itself that is unknown to us at the time. For example, before Newton, scientists did not yet realize that white light was comprised of all colors of the visible spectrum and they their combined wavelength creates white light. Now, let's suppose that this is the correct understanding of light as it really is (meaning, that this is what white light essentially is, and no further modification to our electromagnetic theory will be ever necessary). This makes the definition of attention to be independent of anything man-made.

But even with this understanding, Dr. Graziano still commits two debilitating errors: one logical and the other epistemological. The logical error, being the more rudimentary, we will examine first. Dr. Graziano uses man’s mistaken postulate that white light is purely a single color to cast doubt over the existence of man’s consciousness. He uses the erroneous attribution of quality of one thing to demonstrate the erroneous attribution of existence to another. As with the popular saying concerning "apples and oranges", this is not a logically coherent analogy. Basic logic instructs that attributes are predicates of the subject. For example, the statement, “White light is not a single color” has ‘white light’ as the subject, and “not a single color” as a negative predicate attributed to that subject. However, it would be absurd to say, “White light is NOT” or rather, “White light does not exist” because obviously the phenomena of unified light does exist or else we would not be theorizing about it. The equivalent would be to first claim, “Gravity is not a kinematic force,” (which is predicted by theory and has been supported by repeated experimentation) then to claim, “Gravity does not exist,” after which, to test this claim, one must simply jump off a 10-story building to realize his error. Dr. Graziano assumes that existence is an attribute that we associate with a thing, like the green color of grass (or photosynthesizing chlorophyll, if we want to be scientifically accurate). He then carries his error with him in the analogy to the existence of one’s consciousness, mistaking attribute for existence and proposing a comparison that fails under the scrutiny of logic.

At a deeper philosophical level, Dr. Graziano also mistakes the object apprehended by the intellect to be scientific fact. Rather, the immediate object of our intellect is ‘being’ per se and not the quality, quantity, or any attributes whatsoever. The intellect, guided by the light of Reason, apprehends the existence of phenomena with certainty. While it is historically true that our intellect mistakenly believed that white light was unique from green light (and not composed of all colors), our intellect remains certain of the existence of the phenomenon that we describe as ‘white light’.

Therefore, acceptance of Dr. Graziano’s theory serves only to submerge the reader beneath the quicksand of his initial premise: skepticism. Doubt in our own intellect undercuts the vast expanse of theories and hypotheses that comprise the natural sciences, not to mention our very rational existence. Any honest intellect that chooses to accept this initial premise must commit intellectual suicide, and make vegetables out of their own mind.

To the contrary, a disciplined intellect is the cause of truth in the mind, though truth is by no means easy to obtain. It is with great difficulty that we arrive at truth. Therefore, while misuse of one’s intellect results in error, well-reasoned and careful application of the intellect yields the fruit of certain truths.

Humble Servitude and the Good Master

In writing my previous post on Aristotle in the "Highest Human Science Series", I had the opportunity to review one of his more controversial philosophical views. I say "controversial", but only because our too-often arrogant modern perspective shuts us off from learning anything about the world unless it comes from a contemporary and up-to-date 'world-view'. Our tendency to ignore great thinkers and men of virtue from history just because they didn't have the Internet is a handicap that makes any attempt at intellectual honesty evaporate instantly. I think that's a topic for another time.

The Aristotelian doctrine that I am referring to is his commentary on the composition of the household. In Chapter 3 of Politics I, the Philosopher starts from the basic communities, these being man and woman or a master and a slave, and works his way up to the city-state. However, in Chapter 5, he makes the very startling claim, and I quote directly from C.D.C. Reeve's translation:

"... There are some people, some of whom are naturally free, others naturally slaves, for whom slavery is both just and beneficial." (Pol I.5 1225a 2-4)"

To the careless reader, this might be enough to stop reading and move on to a task which requires significantly less intellectual digestion. However, can this really be true? I do not hold individuals' opinions in high honor unless I have heard all of it and find all of it honorable. This pricks that nagging, hopelessly modern part of my conscience that is the mark of everyone born in this age of history. But it's so aggressively bold that given how high I have admired Aristotle's intellect up to this point, I am willing to give him a fair shot.

Aristotle's understanding of "slave" is not at all the same as that which we typically hold when reflecting on our nation's history. True, he is most likely referring to slaves taken in the conquest of one nation over another, but the imagery of Uncle Tom's Cabin is a modern intellectual prejudice exclusive to human thought in the last few centuries.

Aristotle uses the term "natural slaves" to denote that these men (or women) are made slaves by nature. So in this sense, he is not strictly referring to those slaves won as spoils of military conquest. Instead, these human beings had it in their nature to be slaves from birth. As a biologist by study, Aristotle gravitates towards assigning the distinction of "by nature" to his observances. However, he does have proof to back this up. He asserts that, "Nature tends... to make the bodies of slaves and free people different," specifically, a slaves body is physically superior to that of a free person's. (Pol I.6 1254b 26) Harkening back to his argument about function, it is plain to see that a strong body is best suited for tasks that are physically strenuous. 

Also, though I do not fully agree with the sweeping generalization of this next statement, he also points out that the natural slave "shares in reason to the extent of understanding it, but not have it himself." (Pol I.6 1254b 22-23) This statement makes it clear (and if it doesn't, he makes it more obvious later in the work) that according to Aristotle, natural slaves do not possess reason at all. However, to avoid getting into an entirely tangential argument on what Aristotle is actually saying, I think we can sufficiently agree that the people that tend to end up at the bottom of the pile are those less capable of intellectually robust activity than those above them. So I think it is fair to say that though Aristotle's statement above might not ring entirely true; there's enough to it that I can believe it to an extent.

This startling claim gathers more credence when you think about the vast majority of the people in the world that are not seriously capable of thinking for themselves. The phrase of "following the herd", an aimless hive-mind, describes this phenomenon perfectly. Following what everyone else is doing is the norm for these individuals. On a small scale, these individuals might have their checkbook balanced and their schedules planned, but if you survey their global quality of life, especially in terms of ethics, these people lack the intellectual robustness to comprehend their life's meaning on their own. 

At this point, my conclusion is that Aristotle was definitely on to something when he defines the natural slave. Though I might not agree with every characteristic that he associates with them, I do accept that there are persons capable of understanding human reason, though incapable of vigorously applying it themselves.

But to return to the initial claim, Aristotle's view that slavery could ever be both "just and beneficial" is still very difficult to swallow, despite the natural slave only being fit for physical labor (as shown above). Though without any guidance to his labors, he would be useless and unproductive. For it to be just, it would have to be in accordance with the virtue of justice and fittingness; and for it to be beneficial, it would need to be in the individual's best interest to be ruled by another man.

If a natural slave were to be ruled by another man, then who more beneficial to his interests than the virtuous, or eudaimon, man? Given the master's virtue, he would be of a superlative intellect, as contemplative wisdom, along with action-based practical wisdom, are the crowning achievement of the virtuous man and the most visible marks of his intellectual prowess.

Furthermore, without the capacity for agile rational activity, natural slaves are incapable of full human virtue, according to Aristotle; however, in the company of a virtuous master, the natural slave could share in his master's intellectual wisdom and share in living a virtuous life. Aristotle is very scrupulous when it comes to assigning the term, "virtuous". Both excellent acts and thoughts are require for the virtuous man, and on those grounds, the natural slave is disqualified from the title unfortunately. While I agree with this on the grounds that to achieve the highest status of any human being, you must perform your function the best, I believe there is a similar value and virtue associated with knowing your intellectual betters and modeling your conduct and contemplation after theirs.

And it is here that I think we have come across the most helpful and universally practical nugget in this lonely corner of Aristotle's political theory. Modern thinkers would never have discovered it because modern thinkers wouldn't have made it past the first paragraph. But we have. To some degree, we are all natural slaves; there is something deficient in our human understanding and it's something we can always work on. We need to make our understandings subservient to virtuous men; we must sit at the feet of the intellectual masters and allow ourselves to be guided by their practical and contemplative wisdom. In modern terms, it is comparable to discovering our role models and fashioning our thoughts and behavior from theirs.

To conclude, when considering Aristotle's political and ethical theory in its entirety, I believe he presents the most mature and responsible blueprint for a society that permits servitude. His biological (natural) perspective may overstep its bounds in some respects to a comprehensive understanding of the nature of all human beings, but in the end, he holds the masters of other men to high standards of conduct and responsibility in governing those under their charge. And in applying Aristotle's theory of natural slavery broadly with a little humility, we discover that we could all allow ourselves to cease our intellectual rebellions and naturally "enslave" our minds and hearts to men and women of high and admirable virtue.