Lately I have been working on a crew that installs above ground pools. It’s a great summer job for college kids! The other day as we were driving between job sites, a thought occurred to me. There are a great many jobs that exist that are not things anyone would aspire to be.
Think about kids dreaming of what they want to be when they grow up: either something glamorous, like an astronaut or a movie star, or something "noble," like a doctor or a teacher. We can think of lots of other vocations that fit under those categories, and as we get older, we often expand our definitions of these categories and add new ones of "aspired-to" vocations.
Yet there are a number of careers that we would never aspire to. We might end up working in such a career, but never because we set out to do that. We simply fell into it and never got out. Careers like working on an assembly line or as a greeter at Walmart. But why do we consider these to be careers that are undesirable, things we would never set out to do? What makes other careers more honorable, things we would aspire to?
This may be one of the great ironies of capitalism from a philosophical viewpoint. Capitalism begins with the idea of ownership- if we own our own means of production, we are going to work in "creative" ways to promote our livelihood. The idea is that we have a vested interest in our own success, and so we are willing to put forth effort to achieve that success, especially when driven by competition. The theory of capitalism is that individuals driven to succeed will develop new ideas, new means of production, and the most efficient use of resources and thus create the most robust economy. But this theory developed in a day when markets where much smaller and more localized, when the internet and mega-corporations were not even on the horizon. I think in a twist of irony, the progression of capitalist economics, built on the idea of ownership, has in effect destroyed that idea.
Lets say I own a local shoe store. Or that I work for a locally owned shoe store, either will work. I have a vested interest in the success of that store, I have "ownership" by which I mean a stake in its success. So I work to make the store succeed (per capitalist philosophy). But lets paint a different scenario. I work in the shoe department at Walmart. I find it hard to argue that I actually have any stake in the success of this store. The store is simply too big for me to make an impact anymore. If I do poorly, I loose my job and the store moves on, not even feeling a bump in its progress from my failure. Even if the particular store I work for does fail and close, the corporation is so large it will hardly notice. Likewise, if it does well I cannot claim any sort of responsibility for that really. My contribution is simply insignificant. So the concept of ownership is completely meaningless in this scenario. I don't have a stake here, I am just a meaningless "tool" in the eyes of the corporation.
In both scenarios, we might argue that I have a concern for my own personal success, but I think in each case this means something completely different. In the first, my personal success and the success of my business go hand in hand. So things like efficiency and competitiveness and ingenuity will mark both. In the second scenario, however, my personal success is something completely different from the success of the company I work for. My personal success becomes a matter of mere survival- do I still have a means of sustenance?
This is not meant to be a rant against Walmart, by the way. I will admit I am not particularly fond of the place, but I'm not a Walmart-hater.
Here is what I am really getting at- the reason the concept of ownership is so important to capitalist economics is philosophical. Capitalism developed out of enlightenment philosophy, which is particularly humanist. Self-determination is at the heart of the capitalist system. We are more likely to take the initiative in our own lives if we feel we have self-determination, and for capitalism this is derived from the concept of ownership. If we own (or in the case of the worker in the local shop who doesn't actually own it, have a significant stake in) the means of our own success, we will work to bring that success about.
So the loss of the concept of ownership in the wake of corporations too big for the individuals who are part of them to matter is ironic on two levels. First, on a purely economic level it undermines the very foundation of the system that brought these corporations about. But secondly, on a philosophical level, it attacks the self-determinism and humanism of the very philosophy that brought that system about. It in essence erodes the role of individuals as real "humans" in the sense of having control of the shape of their own lives. They are instead merely pawns swept along in the wake of a much larger creature.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Monday, May 11, 2009
Economic Irony?
Let me say at the outset of this that I am not a communist. Keep that in mind, it will be important in a minute.
I spent a good amount of time studying economics before I moved to Birmingham to study theology. I was a pretty strong advocate of the modified classical/monetarist economics employed by the Federal Reserve under Chairman Greenspan and now Bernake. However, the more I have seen about the current economic crisis the more I am questioning the traditional models and ways of viewing economics.
In the classical system, the economy manages itself by money-flow. This is supply and demand at work- if more people demand a good, then more money flows to that market and the supply increases to match the demand. So the greatest way to encourage economic growth is to expand the amount of spending that is going on. This has to be carefully monitored though- we can't just dump money into the system, all that will do is create inflation with little or no growth. To keep this balance, the Fed plays a back and forth game with the money supply by buying and selling bonds to the major banks, thus controlling how much money they have on hand to loan out.
And there lies where the irony begins. Our managing of the economy has been based very largely on the credit industry. We depend on banks to give out loans that stimulate growth. If inflation is getting out of hand, we try and cut back on the amount of loans banks make. If the economy is slowing down, we try to encourage them to make more loans. So our growth is sustained by credit!
What we seem to be realizing now is that this pattern isn't sustainable in the long-run. What has happened in our economy is that we have had a huge "credit bubble" that has collapsed. The bubble was sustained not just by lots of housing loans, but by loans from bank to bank and credit agency to credit agency. Then, to make things really complicated, we turned those loans into "securities" and sold them to other agencies, who bought them using more loans. Now the bubble bursts. My company fails because others can't pay back their loans, which means I can't pay back my loans, which means another company can't pay back theirs, and the cycle goes on. Since all this growth was based on money that no one actually had, the current collapse creates a massive domino effect in the order of a few hundred billion dollars!
So why is this ironic? The very thing that we have been relying on to sustain our economic growth is now the very thing that is causing a massive economic fall-out.
Now, in a sense, that's how a bubble usually works. An industry booms for a while, and then something goes awry and that industry collapses. What makes this especially interesting, though, is that its not a single industry. Its our whole economic system that is being shaken.
Now is where what I said at the beginning is going to be important again. I see basically two options on the "capitalist" system: The first is the classical option- do nothing and let the economy fix itself. The Great Depression is the main counter-example to this method. And, if we did opt for this method, my prediction is the economic collapse would become very wide-spread (remember, this started in the finance sector, which is what the rest of the economy depends on. If it goes, it will take down every other major industry with it), with the end result being a revolution that will probably transform the west into a communist society. In other words, if we do nothing, we will see exactly what Marx predicted come about.
The second option is to try and salvage the economy through a "bail-out" (what we have been doing)- following the New Deal model, in other words. The problem is, in the long run this just perpetuates the problem. This problem exists because our economy is built on credit, which means it can't absorb the shock of a market failure. Dumping more money into the system to try and stimulate more growth is only adding to that problem. So in the long-run, we haven't gotten anywhere. We may temporarily avoid catastrophe, but then we still have the same root problem- an economy built on credit with no shock-absorbers and no way to sustain growth without more credit.
I'm not sure if this second option eventually leads us back into the first. I think that is the worst case-scenario: we get to the point where we literally cannot do anymore, so we have to do nothing. I don't foresee that happening in the major Western powers anytime soon, but there are concerns it might happen (or already be happening) in developing nations that are taking a hit from all of this.
The ultimate solution is going to require some sort of radical change to the underlying economic structure of our system, I think. I'm not sure how we get there (at least without it being a very painful transition). But we have to move away from a dependence on credit and adapt to a more long-term sustainable system. I am not saying we do away with all credit. Credit is important in a lot of ways. People generally buy a house or a car via credit. I (along with most other students I know) am at least partially financing my education through credit. However, what this economic crisis is showing is that we cannot depend on credit, so we have to adapt our system in some way to not be dependent on it (which may mean a fundamental change in the way we manage the economy). What that probably looks like is a much smaller economy on a whole and maybe much more simple life-styles. And for a lot of industries that simply cannot be sustained without credit (for instance, in a lot of ways, the medical industry), there may be a need for socialization.
I spent a good amount of time studying economics before I moved to Birmingham to study theology. I was a pretty strong advocate of the modified classical/monetarist economics employed by the Federal Reserve under Chairman Greenspan and now Bernake. However, the more I have seen about the current economic crisis the more I am questioning the traditional models and ways of viewing economics.
In the classical system, the economy manages itself by money-flow. This is supply and demand at work- if more people demand a good, then more money flows to that market and the supply increases to match the demand. So the greatest way to encourage economic growth is to expand the amount of spending that is going on. This has to be carefully monitored though- we can't just dump money into the system, all that will do is create inflation with little or no growth. To keep this balance, the Fed plays a back and forth game with the money supply by buying and selling bonds to the major banks, thus controlling how much money they have on hand to loan out.
And there lies where the irony begins. Our managing of the economy has been based very largely on the credit industry. We depend on banks to give out loans that stimulate growth. If inflation is getting out of hand, we try and cut back on the amount of loans banks make. If the economy is slowing down, we try to encourage them to make more loans. So our growth is sustained by credit!
What we seem to be realizing now is that this pattern isn't sustainable in the long-run. What has happened in our economy is that we have had a huge "credit bubble" that has collapsed. The bubble was sustained not just by lots of housing loans, but by loans from bank to bank and credit agency to credit agency. Then, to make things really complicated, we turned those loans into "securities" and sold them to other agencies, who bought them using more loans. Now the bubble bursts. My company fails because others can't pay back their loans, which means I can't pay back my loans, which means another company can't pay back theirs, and the cycle goes on. Since all this growth was based on money that no one actually had, the current collapse creates a massive domino effect in the order of a few hundred billion dollars!
So why is this ironic? The very thing that we have been relying on to sustain our economic growth is now the very thing that is causing a massive economic fall-out.
Now, in a sense, that's how a bubble usually works. An industry booms for a while, and then something goes awry and that industry collapses. What makes this especially interesting, though, is that its not a single industry. Its our whole economic system that is being shaken.
Now is where what I said at the beginning is going to be important again. I see basically two options on the "capitalist" system: The first is the classical option- do nothing and let the economy fix itself. The Great Depression is the main counter-example to this method. And, if we did opt for this method, my prediction is the economic collapse would become very wide-spread (remember, this started in the finance sector, which is what the rest of the economy depends on. If it goes, it will take down every other major industry with it), with the end result being a revolution that will probably transform the west into a communist society. In other words, if we do nothing, we will see exactly what Marx predicted come about.
The second option is to try and salvage the economy through a "bail-out" (what we have been doing)- following the New Deal model, in other words. The problem is, in the long run this just perpetuates the problem. This problem exists because our economy is built on credit, which means it can't absorb the shock of a market failure. Dumping more money into the system to try and stimulate more growth is only adding to that problem. So in the long-run, we haven't gotten anywhere. We may temporarily avoid catastrophe, but then we still have the same root problem- an economy built on credit with no shock-absorbers and no way to sustain growth without more credit.
I'm not sure if this second option eventually leads us back into the first. I think that is the worst case-scenario: we get to the point where we literally cannot do anymore, so we have to do nothing. I don't foresee that happening in the major Western powers anytime soon, but there are concerns it might happen (or already be happening) in developing nations that are taking a hit from all of this.
The ultimate solution is going to require some sort of radical change to the underlying economic structure of our system, I think. I'm not sure how we get there (at least without it being a very painful transition). But we have to move away from a dependence on credit and adapt to a more long-term sustainable system. I am not saying we do away with all credit. Credit is important in a lot of ways. People generally buy a house or a car via credit. I (along with most other students I know) am at least partially financing my education through credit. However, what this economic crisis is showing is that we cannot depend on credit, so we have to adapt our system in some way to not be dependent on it (which may mean a fundamental change in the way we manage the economy). What that probably looks like is a much smaller economy on a whole and maybe much more simple life-styles. And for a lot of industries that simply cannot be sustained without credit (for instance, in a lot of ways, the medical industry), there may be a need for socialization.
Monday, May 4, 2009
NT Wright and Post-Modernism
Great video, watch and enjoy. Thanks to Ben Witherington (I saw this first on his blog).
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
The Free-Will Dilemma: Skepticism or Atheism?
Probably the most hotly debated question in Christian theology, and perhaps in philosophy in general, is the question of human free-will. There are essentially two options- Determinism and Libertarianism. Determinism claims that all things are determined by some "external" factor- be it the natural laws of the universe that govern how things physically interact or the will of God that decrees how all things will be. Libertarianism claims the opposite- no external force such as this compels us to the decisions we make or the actions we take. The implications of these two views is what interests me and I think leads to a rather unsettling dilemma.
I have previously argued that determinism leads to a radical skepticism. If all things are determined, this includes my thoughts and beliefs. This raises an important question: what reason do I have to trust that my beliefs are in any way valid or true if they have been determined for me? If determinism is true, I cannot even objectively wrestle with this question, my thoughts and conclusions concerning it are also going to be determined! Thus, it seems that this leads to a radical skepticism in which I have no reason to trust my mental faculties to tell me anything true.
Some determinists try to argue for compatibalism, which is an attempt to preserve some semblance of free-will under determinism. In essence, compatibalism argues that our actions are "free" if they coincide with our desires. This is primarily a solution employed in Christian theology to answer the question of how we can be held morally responsible for our actions under determinism, but some thinkers attempt to employ it to answer the question of skepticism as well, claiming that if our thoughts coincide with our desires, we have freely reached our beliefs and thus can trust them. There seems to be an underlying philosophical problem for this solution however, namely that it only pushes our problem back one step. Desires are not self-existing entities anymore than thoughts are. They too originate from somewhere, and if their source is external (ie, God shapes our desires in some sense), then we seem to gotten no closer to a solution to the problem of skepticism. If our desires are not externally determined (we determine them, in other words), then we are now libertarians and not determinists.
Libertarianism has its own set of philosophical problems. At the heart of these issues is the question of whether or not we can have any sort of "neutral decisions." In other words, do we really have equally available options when we make a decision or are other things influencing us in our decision? On face value, it seems that we obviously do not- there are always things that influence us or our desires. So to say our options in any decision really are equally viable, we have to say we have the ability to go against our strongest inclination. If this is even logically consistent (wouldn't the final choice we make turn out to be our strongest inclination?), then it seems to throw out causality (at least in terms of our decisions, but this probably has a wider scope as well). Once we have denied causality, however, we find ourselves on a quick slope to a form of atheism in which there are no reasons for anything that happens (interestingly, this form of atheism seems to also have to deal with a form of skepticism). This doesn't seem to be a viable option for a Christian theist.
However, if we say that our free decisions are not neutral, they are influenced by external factors, then it becomes very unclear how they are actually free. It would seem that external cause(s) are "causing" us to make the decisions we make, leading us back to a form of determinism, and thus to face the issue of skepticism again. So we seem stuck in a dilemma between skepticism and atheism (combined with another form of skepticism), neither a particularly appealing option.
This post is not meant to be a capitulation to skepticism or atheism or a throwing up in the air of my hands to give up thinking about these issues. I am sure solutions to these problems exist on both sides (I am certain I am not the only person to think about these issues), but I am unsure what they might be or how solid they actually are. So really this is meant to be a call for some sort of dialogue to be opened up.
Clarification: The dilemma it seems is going to require one of two solutions: either (1) a way out of skepticism for the determinist, or (2) a definition of libertarian freedom that allows for causation.
I have previously argued that determinism leads to a radical skepticism. If all things are determined, this includes my thoughts and beliefs. This raises an important question: what reason do I have to trust that my beliefs are in any way valid or true if they have been determined for me? If determinism is true, I cannot even objectively wrestle with this question, my thoughts and conclusions concerning it are also going to be determined! Thus, it seems that this leads to a radical skepticism in which I have no reason to trust my mental faculties to tell me anything true.
Some determinists try to argue for compatibalism, which is an attempt to preserve some semblance of free-will under determinism. In essence, compatibalism argues that our actions are "free" if they coincide with our desires. This is primarily a solution employed in Christian theology to answer the question of how we can be held morally responsible for our actions under determinism, but some thinkers attempt to employ it to answer the question of skepticism as well, claiming that if our thoughts coincide with our desires, we have freely reached our beliefs and thus can trust them. There seems to be an underlying philosophical problem for this solution however, namely that it only pushes our problem back one step. Desires are not self-existing entities anymore than thoughts are. They too originate from somewhere, and if their source is external (ie, God shapes our desires in some sense), then we seem to gotten no closer to a solution to the problem of skepticism. If our desires are not externally determined (we determine them, in other words), then we are now libertarians and not determinists.
Libertarianism has its own set of philosophical problems. At the heart of these issues is the question of whether or not we can have any sort of "neutral decisions." In other words, do we really have equally available options when we make a decision or are other things influencing us in our decision? On face value, it seems that we obviously do not- there are always things that influence us or our desires. So to say our options in any decision really are equally viable, we have to say we have the ability to go against our strongest inclination. If this is even logically consistent (wouldn't the final choice we make turn out to be our strongest inclination?), then it seems to throw out causality (at least in terms of our decisions, but this probably has a wider scope as well). Once we have denied causality, however, we find ourselves on a quick slope to a form of atheism in which there are no reasons for anything that happens (interestingly, this form of atheism seems to also have to deal with a form of skepticism). This doesn't seem to be a viable option for a Christian theist.
However, if we say that our free decisions are not neutral, they are influenced by external factors, then it becomes very unclear how they are actually free. It would seem that external cause(s) are "causing" us to make the decisions we make, leading us back to a form of determinism, and thus to face the issue of skepticism again. So we seem stuck in a dilemma between skepticism and atheism (combined with another form of skepticism), neither a particularly appealing option.
This post is not meant to be a capitulation to skepticism or atheism or a throwing up in the air of my hands to give up thinking about these issues. I am sure solutions to these problems exist on both sides (I am certain I am not the only person to think about these issues), but I am unsure what they might be or how solid they actually are. So really this is meant to be a call for some sort of dialogue to be opened up.
Clarification: The dilemma it seems is going to require one of two solutions: either (1) a way out of skepticism for the determinist, or (2) a definition of libertarian freedom that allows for causation.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
The Irrationality of Naturalism
The enlightenment and Modernist philosophy have posed a dramatic philosophical challenge to Christianity, with, for the first time in philosophical history, atheism becoming a dominant presupposition. Indeed, atheism seems the inevitable conclusion of Modernist philosophy. The problem, however, is that this results in a complete logical absurdity.
Modernist philosophy replaces the ancient concept of "telos" (the idea that all things are striving to fulfill a purpose) with naturalistic determinism: the regularity of the universe is explained by set natural laws. If we follow the naturalist thought process, this eliminates all supernatural existences- God, human souls, angels, etc.- and reduces us to a completely material universe governed by the physical laws. If this state of things is correct, then all things are completely deterministic. Under naturalism, this must also include the activities of our minds, which are natural entities. Thus our thoughts, desires, beliefs, etc. are all determined by the natural laws of the physical universe.
This description of our mental state results in a radical skepticism. If my thoughts and beliefs are merely the products of physical reactions that have been determined since the moment the universe came into existence then what reason do I have to trust that these beliefs are in any way sound? It does not seem that such a reason exists, and even if I could come up with such a reason that conclusion would also be reached only because of chemical reactions over which I had no control. This eventually results in an absurdity because even my beliefs in naturalism or the deterministic nature of the universe would also be subject to the same criticism. Ultimately then, I not only have no basis for knowing anything (the usual claim of skepticism), I actually do not know anything under naturalistic determinism.
This is certainly not an argument for Christianity. In fact, this could be used just as well by a pantheist mystic as by a Christian. What this does establish to me, though, is that if we want to maintain any claims to knowledge then we cannot embrace a fully naturalistic worldview. Even if we scrap naturalism, though, the question remains whether the modernist paradigm of science (which has an anti-supernatural balance and attempts to explain natural phenomenon according to set scientific laws) can be maintained without a naturalist conclusion. In other words, can we maintain Descartes dualism and claim that the natural world operates by fixed laws but somehow our minds are able to escape those laws (despite being attached to bodies that are subject to them)? This seems to be a very flimsy solution at best.
Instead, I think that we have to return to a more ancient way of looking at the universe and reinterpret Aristotle's concept of "telos." Christianity should have no problem adopting the idea that all things are working toward accomplishing an ultimate purpose. This idea also explains the regularity that science observes without moving toward a conclusion that is completely naturalistic and irrational.
Modernist philosophy replaces the ancient concept of "telos" (the idea that all things are striving to fulfill a purpose) with naturalistic determinism: the regularity of the universe is explained by set natural laws. If we follow the naturalist thought process, this eliminates all supernatural existences- God, human souls, angels, etc.- and reduces us to a completely material universe governed by the physical laws. If this state of things is correct, then all things are completely deterministic. Under naturalism, this must also include the activities of our minds, which are natural entities. Thus our thoughts, desires, beliefs, etc. are all determined by the natural laws of the physical universe.
This description of our mental state results in a radical skepticism. If my thoughts and beliefs are merely the products of physical reactions that have been determined since the moment the universe came into existence then what reason do I have to trust that these beliefs are in any way sound? It does not seem that such a reason exists, and even if I could come up with such a reason that conclusion would also be reached only because of chemical reactions over which I had no control. This eventually results in an absurdity because even my beliefs in naturalism or the deterministic nature of the universe would also be subject to the same criticism. Ultimately then, I not only have no basis for knowing anything (the usual claim of skepticism), I actually do not know anything under naturalistic determinism.
This is certainly not an argument for Christianity. In fact, this could be used just as well by a pantheist mystic as by a Christian. What this does establish to me, though, is that if we want to maintain any claims to knowledge then we cannot embrace a fully naturalistic worldview. Even if we scrap naturalism, though, the question remains whether the modernist paradigm of science (which has an anti-supernatural balance and attempts to explain natural phenomenon according to set scientific laws) can be maintained without a naturalist conclusion. In other words, can we maintain Descartes dualism and claim that the natural world operates by fixed laws but somehow our minds are able to escape those laws (despite being attached to bodies that are subject to them)? This seems to be a very flimsy solution at best.
Instead, I think that we have to return to a more ancient way of looking at the universe and reinterpret Aristotle's concept of "telos." Christianity should have no problem adopting the idea that all things are working toward accomplishing an ultimate purpose. This idea also explains the regularity that science observes without moving toward a conclusion that is completely naturalistic and irrational.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)