Simplification will finish off with us. Shortage and bad faith.

And this in our days! at a time when philosophy has made so much progress!... It seems that fanaticism, indignant over reason’s recent successes, struggles under it even with more anger!

(1)

Among the few clear ideas that I have from the time I was studying at the University is the definition of Economics.  It was defined this way: Economics is the efficient management of scarce resources.  Shortage is in the essence of Economics.

The great star was David Ricardo and his ‘On the Principles of Political Economy Policy and Taxation’. If Portugal and England were good in manufacturing wine and cloth, but Portugal was better in manufacturing wine, and England manufacturing cloth, Portugal should devote all his working force manufacturing wine, and England manufacturing cloth.

This way we all would win. With the international trade we will optimize this way the management of resources.  It would come later Paul Samuelson with another kind of proof to consolidate this argument. Once in that situation, where all the countries are producing the goods in which they have a comparative advantage, through the international commerce all the countries will be in a better position.

That is, in the hypothetical situation where the profits of the international commerce were equally shared, all the countries will win. But the cat and the jingle bell dilemma should be remembered: which mouse would impose the equally partition to the cat? (Some followers of the motto’ things will be as they have always been’ shall conclude so: the mouse cannot and the cat does not want)

A principle of economy/shortage governs many areas of our life, which could have perverse consequences.

Beginning with the one known as the ‘Ockham’s razor’. We are talking about the principle of medieval logic that William of Ockham and his teacher Duns Scotus used a lot (2) and that William Hamilton later called it 'razor' (3). The principle that plurality must never be posited without necessity (Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate) that guides the science.

This one mean, among other features, that what can be done with a little should not be done with a lot, that where there is a direct relation between two things no third thing should be put in-between and lastly, in summary, that a simple explanation of the phenomena should be sought.

Nature seems to follow this behavior in the principle of least action. Every movement follows the trajectory that supposes the minimal action. In general, it is expressed this way: Nature in all its operations employs the least possible action (4).

When it is anthropomorphized, person made, it is said: ’Nature is wise’.  Instead of that, we should say that our wisdom proceeds from the knowledge of the behavior of Nature. We, instead of taking Nature as a person and make it foreign to us, are certainly part of Nature.

In the realm of people, this scarcity is noticeable in the senses. In our imaginary we find first the straight line. We were told that the straight line was the shortest distance between two points.  Not at all, because we are on a sphere within a curved space. Because of this the geodesic, the line that originally went on the surface of spherical earth, is the shortest distance between two points.

If we go in a car through an apparently endless plane, however it would seem to us an endless straight line, we go over a curved trajectory.

Some physicists maintain that we live in a hologram, but not going so far it is clear that this scarcity has an influence in our senses. Our eyes process external stimuli at a certain speed, some frames per second, to get the visual information.

But beyond this constraint, it seems that our brain, considering that limitation, complete the information by itself. The example of the cube is well-known (5). We see only its three faces, but our brain completes the cube. Of the mug in front of us we only see the part facing us. But our brain completes the vision of its whole.

Magicians take advantage of this limitation. As an example, when they appear before us with a brass dice cup in the left hand and three coins only in their right hand. When they start throwing the coins from the right hand to the dice cup, we will see the coins flying from one hand to the another even from the fourth, fifth and following coins, despite not being possible.

These additional coins will have hidden in their left hand that holds the dice cup, letting the coins fall into the dice cup. The sound of these coins falling into the dice cup and the gesture of the right hand ‘throwing’ the fourth, fifth, and following coins will make us ‘see’ the flight of these fourth, fifth, and following coins from the right hand to the left hand; despite being introduced from the same hand that holds the dice cup (6). Our brain completes the process.

It will be enough to listen to the sonorous first bars of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, so that the complete first movement comes to mind, even if the music shut up after the first bars.

Without going into the complex problem of the given (Gegeben) and what is put by the intellect let us take the scarcity to the next level.

Clearly, at an intellectual level everything cannot be known, nor can everything be reasoned. We live in a limited time, and we are immersed in a reduced environment. Despite that, each one completes a totality, his own. That totality has its components, although those components have their own mixture in each person. A hermit at the far end of the earth will also have his idea of the whole world.

Only to a small extent can we discern its components.  This totality is the result of several factors, including the following ones: evolutionary characteristics of the human development (the inability to visualize something spatially beyond three dimensions…), own life experiences, the customs of our environment and the cultural information received (books, media, education).

All this management of our scarce resources gives us 'our world'. And for that world, the official history of 'our world' that they pass on and tell us is very important. Although only a hundred years ago our parents or grandparents were expelled under a rain of stones from the neighboring town for having won a miserable soccer match, in the history of our political community a mythical past of brotherhood is forged.  

That, which in principle is very important for the maintenance of the community, can have, on the other hand,  bad consequences. The prejudice of considering that our political community is better than that of the others is a basic error.

To illustrate this biased narrative of the History let us go to the war between Charles V of Spain and Francis I of France. In the book I studied in the High School was illustrated with a drawing of Francis I fallen from the horse under the sword of a soldier (the soldier was Joanes de Urbieta, from Hernani). At the bottom of the drawing was said: Francis I being defeated in Pavia. Then in some place of the text appeared the following statement of Francis I: ‘I will surrender only to the king.’

In France, in the book of the High School of an acquaintance of mine appeared the drawing of Charles V seated in front of the city walls of Metz. At the bottom was said: ‘Charles V pensive before the walls of Metz that he will not be able to conquer’. One war, two tales.

Placing ourselves in a positional field, with these scarce components everyone makes the image of himself. It's not how others see him, but how he sees himself. In the same way that giving each coordinate a value, with a mathematical point in each of the coordinates of the set, a figure is obtained in space, each one completes his position in the world he knows.

This way, managing all the data he knows he defines himself. It is not a minor problem to know how many coordinates he uses. In a sophisticated or simple way, each one makes his own composition. Some of these points are given by the society, such as age, profession, studies, social position, etc. Other ones carries he in his inner, such as intentions, how far is he willing to commit, desires, dreams, etc.

At each stage of life, one of the coordinates will be more important than the others. In that totality there is a part that is strange to us, that is unknown to us, where the unforeseen has its own place.  That totality has, therefore, elasticity. That is to say, the ability of questioning his beliefs or modify them, of changing his ‘position’.

If I made today a first draft of myself, I would say something like: Basque-speaker, that want to live in his own language, searching for a courageous publishing house to publish his book... Try to make here a little draft of your ‘position’.

That scarcity of resources that we manage has its evil points. And these points lead us to a critical position. That is, our future will worsen if we do not correct them promptly.

Among the most importants I will choose four. These four are based in what is called ‘bad faith’ reasoning (7). The first one leads a large part of society to a position of inferiority, and the other three ones we can be located within what Freud called ‘thanatos’ drive (that leads a being to its dead or destruction).

About the first one I will quote the words of Simone de Beauvoir, that express a thousand times better than what I could say about it. She says so: ‘Antifeminists draw from the exam of History two contradictory arguments: first, women have never created anything grand; second, woman’s situation has never prevented the development of great women personalities. There is bad faith in both assertions; the successes of some few privileged women neither compensate for nor excuse the systematic degrading of the collective level; and the very fact that these successes are so rare and limited proves precisely that their circumstances are unfavorable.’ (8). There will not be a healthy and complete society, that is, without castes and free, if the woman continues without being subject and equated to the man.

 

The second example of bad faith will be the next one: evil is in the other groups, so our attack is not an attack, but it is our defense. If we add a leader who want to stay in power all his life, you will have war, destruction and death as the obligatory consequence. No matter how many destructions, terror and deaths are caused to the other group, as the other group is an evil society. Our society not, our society is a pure and clean one.

The third example can be placed in some mythical past. That mythical past, after eighteen centuries of absence, gives to the newcomer the right to expel the people who lives in the land for centuries. An amazing cultural history and being the source of many religions can be totally tainted that way. A conflictive and plural past ‘becomes’ a homogeneous past giving so the right to ‘throw into the sea ’the other group. That way, the first group becomes absolute lord and owner. 

The fourth will say this one: Nature is wise and because of this we should not worry about it, because it will heal itself all wounds we cause to it. Go on poisoning the water, the lands, and the air without neither qualms nor worry, as the Nature will heal itself.

Bad faith leads us to the abyss. If we do not change direction, we won’t leave anything good to our heirs.

 

(1) Voltaire. (1763). Traité sur la tolérance. http ://www.bibebook.com/search/978-2-8247-1631-2: bibebook

 Et c’est de nos jours ! et c’est dans un temps où la philosophie a fait tant de progrès ! … Il semble que le fanatisme, indigné depuis peu des succès de la raison, se débatte sous elle avec plus de rage.

(2) William of Ockham said in his Summa Logica, I,12: ‘ And for these, this reason is because’ what can be done by fewer is done in vain by more’ . (Et pro istis est ratio ista quia ‘frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora’).

The latin text can be read in the following internet address: http://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Authors/Ockham/Summa_Logicae/Book_I/Chapter_12

(3) Hamilton, W. (1853). Discussions on Philosophy and Literature. New York: Harper & Brothers , Publishers

 “We are, therefore, entitled to apply “ Occam's razor ” to this theory of causality

(4) Euler, M. (1753). Dissertation sur le principe de la moindre action avec les examens de l'objections de... Berlin: Michaelis

‘That Nature in all its operations employs the minimum of action that is possible’ (Que la nature dans toutes ses operations employe les moins d’action qu’il soit possible)

(5) Husserl, E. (1973). Cartesianische Meditationen und Pariser Vorträge. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff

“for example the die here, in the near sphere shows itself to be, in turn, the synthetic unity pertaining to a multiplicity of phenomenal variants corresponding to it. Thus the near-thing, as the same, appears now from this , now from that side; and the "visual perspectives" change also, however, the other “manners of appearance” (“tactual”, “acoustic”, and so forth), as we can observe by turning our attention in the right direction .”(etwa Würfel hier in der Nahsphäre, zeigt sich aber selbst wieder als synthetische Einheit einer Mannigfaltigkeit zugehöriger Erscheinungsweisen. Nämlich das Nahding als dasselbe erscheint bald von dieser, bald von jener Seite, und es wechseln die "visuellen Perspektiven", aber auch die "taktuellen", die "akustischen" und sonstigen "Erscheinungsweisen", wie wir bei entsprechender Richtung der Aufmerksamkeit beobachten können)

(6) The explanation of this trick is taken from the following book:

‘’ Sleights of Mind. What the Neuroscience of Magic reveals about our everyday deceptions “ by S. L. Macknik, S.Martinez-Conde with Sandra Blakeslee.

Published by Holt & Company, Henry, 2010

(7) Sartre, J.P. (1943). L'être et le nèant. Paris: Gallimard

‘’For the one who practices bad faith, it is about hiding a displeasing truth or presenting as truth a pleasing error ‘’.(pour celui qui pratique la mauvaise foi, il s'agit bien de masquer une vérité déplaisante ou de présenter comme vérité une erreur plaisante.)

(8) De Beauvoir, S. (1976). Le deuxième sexe. Paris: Gallimard

‘Les antiféministes tirent de l’examen de l’Histoire deux arguments contradictoires : 1° les femmes n’ont jamais rien créé de grand ; 2° la situation de la femme n’a jamais empêché l’épanouissement des grandes personnalités féminines. Il y a de la mauvaise foi dans ces deux affirmations ; les réussites de quelques privilégiées ne compensent ni n’excusent l’abaissement systématique du niveau collectif ; et que ces réussites soient rares et limitées prouve précisément que les circonstances leur sont défavorables’