Modern Skepticism, Attempt At Reconciliation

Skepticism. No word has gained a worse reputation in a short amount of time. The expression started a long time ago, with good prospects, high hopes. Greece, I think. Yet there it is now, sinking like a stone...

What it truly means to feel skeptical as "in doubt" of people or ideas I think every person alive knows. It is an intrinsic part of being human to have the feeling, that something is wrong, "off", a certain fact, an idea, maybe even a generally considered truth. Similar to a sense of foreboding - when you think something bad is about to happen - it can be quite overwhelming. 

That's why I'd like to define skepticism as a state of feeling, not being, because unlike the philosophical movement, it is not a product of thorough thought or opinion formation - no, feeling skeptical is typically what happens before that process starts, maybe even the foundation for it. Theoretically, you could remain in skepticism mode for a longer time period, but people usually don't. Same as with feelings of premonition, it is a state of mind that passes once the occasion, the trigger for it is gone.

A world pandemic is a substantial occasion for skepticism, because not only does the virus target our lives, the safety measures to contain it challenge our ways of living. And the truly agonizing part is, that we can't escape the situation, and the complete control it exerts on all of us.

Some say these feelings of lacking control are justified, others say, they are excessive, and a small price to pay for all our physical health. Whatever your position on it may be, the fact is, that at the moment, many people feel confined, trapped, and that feeling is real and needs to be taken seriously. 

Confinement usually starts when someone's personal freedom is in some way limited, controlled, watched over, even a public topic of discussion. "How to sneeze" is a new etiquette, same as not showing one's nose and mouth in confined spaces. "Not be too many" is a hard rule to follow, maybe the hardest. I think, this may be the one linked to skepticism the most.

I have a suspicion, that at its core, skepticism is a direct result of feeling confined. Societal normalcies like being close to each other, hugging or talking to someone while seeing their face are tumbling right now. People are afraid to stand too close, thus, we as a people, feel separated from our own tribe. But the tribe is our history, our existence, our everything. It has always been the solution, not the problem. It has been the most basic human need ever since we stepped out of the mud and decided to live on dry land. So, feeling skeptical, when our world is turned upside down, is a completely understandable reaction.

Too symbolic? Oh, well.

It may take crazy turns once we decide to "side" with Covidtruthers, ProCovidmeasurists or anyone, who, motivated by a feeling of skepticism, is loud and opinionated. These are not tribes we can rely on, but a mere "signaled" affiliation to some people we feel close to in our shared anxiety. And we feel the need to attach to someone, something, during this crisis. So what can we do?

I don't know. We need to try and get through it, somehow, and let the feeling run its course. Usually, what happens after skepticism is opinion formation. Let it be based on facts not fear. Don't let fear overrun your thoughts. This may sound simplistic, but you just tell your fears to shut up for a minute. "Shut up fears, while I check these facts." These fears will be much quieter, once you've collected your information.

Let me just say this: we belong to one tribe, all of us, even the loud obnoxious ones, who seem to be on the opposite side of what you feel is right. Don't let anyone or anything drive a wedge between you and someone else. We all share the same anxieties, we are all afraid. We all want to survive this, and there are no two sides to beating this virus. Let's just agree that separation is not the answer, neither to the virus, nor to the feelings we have concerning this matter.

And speaking of an enemy image: this virus is more than enough, so we really don't need any fights amongst ourselves. Let's just try and kick its ass instead. 

There's Spiders on the Interwebs

I had a blog on the interwebs at the foot of the Ngong Hills...well, duh. I still have a blog, though deserted at daytime, I'm always close by at night, never far from putting down thoughts in writing. And I seriously realize I need to do some spring blog cleaning before spring turns into summer, and summer makes me want to do everything but clean, even on and between those dusty interwebs.

So, how have you been doing lately - she asks - casually. Are you OK? Have you been shaken by the various crises of this earth or did you just stop caring? I mean, seriously. Horrific news, every day. We are being sold, our private lives being spied upon, our data being inflationary goods for intelligence worker drones and the nations that employ them. They doodle on our love letters, and draw funny faces on our porn collection. The guy with the mustache got an even bigger mustache. Funny stuff. They rated our naked holiday pictures from 1 to 10. If there has ever been a moment to uprise, that moment is here, staring us in the face. Unfortunately, we let it pass. We just shake our heads in disagreement if we're not too busy having insignificant thoughts about nothing. We're all fresh out of disappointmental energy. And anger is that much harder to come by. We feel as though we're the smallest link in the celestial alignment of our existence. We're just too damn unimportant. I have to ask this of me, of everyone: are we? Are we the insignificant ant in this equation? Let's see: human - check. All limbs and brains intact - check. Human Rights being beaten with a stick - ding ding ding, jackpot! Hey there, you with the sad eyes, we do have some power. Confidence, please. We have all the power. It's not us and them. It's only us, and we control what we do. This idea of big nobs separate from us, it is an illusion.

You could hold the view that we had it coming. We got lazy, we let things run into the ground. But I'd like to think there is a slight ticking noise going on in the background, and it gets a little louder every day. At some point, there'll be an explosion. It's what happens when people are undermined, cornered. People and wolves. It's what needs to happen, so we can be free for a while. Until the next election, take-over takes place, coup, whatever you want to call it. Because wolves will remain wolves, and the balance between freedom and security will always be fragile and fleeting. And nature will catch up with itself eventually.

Some Thoughts on Drone Warfare

There is a drone in my backyard, and I don't mean figuratively, but literally speaking! It's a very expensive vehicle, the Euro Hawk at Manching Airport, about 16 kilometers from where I live. It must be lonely there, in a hangar all by itself. This unmanned aircraft has been the cause of many a debate regarding certain advances in war technology and the moral implications of killing under modern (and improved) circumstances.

What sometimes happens in public discussion forums, besides things getting blown way out of proportion is that we're quickly getting ahead of ourselves. This particular drone is a surveillance aircraft, specifically aimed at gathering intelligence via high resolution radar and infrared sensors, it is not designed to be a killing machine. It could be one, with the proper development and investment by the ministry of defense, but the there are some other fundamental flaws until we'll get there, having to do with the flight control system, and the pending approval for air space itself.


But for the sake of argument, let's just assume, we were actually talking about an unmanned armed drone, aimed to kill people in war zones. Sure, why not.

There are several problems with the principles of a "clean" warfare, meaning operations to precisely kill targets. Firstly, the act of killing itself. My thoughts do not revolve around the wrong or right of killing, and although it oftentimes comes down to that, the whole argument shouldn't be misconstrued as pacifists versus militarists. Pacifists per definition will always find fault in killing no matter how it's done. The act of killing, to them is not a variable to consider as the deed itself is inherently amoral. I'm not sharing this point of view, but I do understand it. In my, I guess more utilitarian, world view there are military actions that are morally justified with all their consequences, but ideally with as little casualties as possible.

Killing with a gun, a knife or killing with a joystick control - are there any differences in how we feel doing it? For all it's worth, in drone warfare like in any other act of killing, there will still be someone in charge, deciding about when it is the right place and time to strike. The drone is the eyes and ears, and the trigger, at least for now, remains in the hands of a human pilot. (We'll have to talk a bit more once there will be automated combat drones) The pilot not actually being inside the vehicle and on-scene is a lot safer for him.

The more interesting question is if the fact that a pilot is not present will somehow change his feelings about the mission, or rid his sense of responsibility. Considering the act of killing, is it necessary to have someone in that piloting position who weighs the pros and cons, given that the power of command even factors in such personal considerations?


You can find answers to these questions with the help of an interesting case study which shows that the rate of both drone pilots and combat pilots suffering from the ramifications of their job, mainly PTSD, depression, and anxiety disorders is roughly about the same. No matter where and when a trigger is pulled, there are similar reactions in present and absent pilots to the act of killing. It shouldn't surprise us as much as it does. As lame as that sounds, they are all humans, and as such they find it hard not to think about the moral implications of what they are doing.

That factor may not always stop them or us from doing things that may be morally questionable, but it will play a part in how we decide before we do what we do. That is how we are built. The preconception that anyone in that line of work immediately loses their conscience, or thinks they're playing a game of chess instead of what actually happens, seems ridiculous. The assumption that the physical distance to an act immediately creates emotional distance is shortsighted.

 

It's the act of killing itself that causes the (moral) response, not how it's done. But for some reason we still don't believe we're morally guided beings. Sure, our understanding of moral responsibility and the feeling of guilt are directly linked to an action and a sense of locality. We still have trouble even imagining our conscience remaining intact while our bodies are absent from the place of action. It is though.

We know what is right and wrong, even when we're physically removed from a moral realm. That's when our laws come into play. Being a tourist in a foreign country, we still retain a sense of law and right-doing, knowing that we can't commit crimes just because we're somewhere else (except for persons like Charles Manson, but he proved to have no regard for laws or morals, no matter where he went).


That moral connection remains binding for all of us non-sociopaths, no matter where we are, and it is binding for all our lives. I'm almost certain that with the help of our inbuilt compass we'll manage to safely navigate on shaky ground, through all kinds of predicaments, even the ones caused by advances in technology and warfare. But maybe that's just me, for once in my life thinking that we are not as bad as we think we are.

Bring Back The Dead G(r)eeks

Plato's Academy

According to philosophy there is a designated approach to thinking about the world, with defined objectives and methods to understanding reality. Thinking itself is as old as humanity, some even say, it's older than anything else that exists in the materialized world. I must say I'm not that fixated on the meta aspect of it, but we can safely assume that it's as least as old as the old Greeks.

Methodic thinking is the cradle of everything we are, and everything we have accomplished as a species.
Isn't it a bit weird that the important questions we ask ourselves have already been asked by our Greek forefathers? They found answers according to their timeline and state of knowledge, but they knew very little compared to what we know today.

Yet somehow there is this incredible boldness in what a Thales of Miletus or an Anaximander thought about the world, what it was made of. Thales thought water to be the basic element of all things and the Earth itself to be a disc floating on water like a raft, Anaximander coined the term "matter" in a much broader sense, thinking that no specific element but matter itself was the basis for everything that exists.

The Greek table of elements

They knew nothing about atoms, but they had a theory - much like the experimental physicists do today, trying to "split" the world of atoms in subatomic degrees. Unlike today, the philosophers of ancient Greece were all scientists, mathematicians and physicists trying to back up their worldview with science. Today there is this partition wall between science and philosophy - the latter doesn't produce any usable results, numbers and figures on its own, thus has sadly degenerated into a theoretical exercise at universities alone.


Ideally, a modern scientist should be detached from all things ideological, especially his own hopes or expectations for finding an answer. This is so completely un-Greek!

Did Socrates' beard attract groupies?

Today's scientists can be philosophers only in their spare time. That strikes me as both strange and a bit ungrateful, because philosophy is responsible for us asking those questions, as it teaches us how to find out things about the world.
Yet it appears that over time, science accumulated the tools of the trade and ran with them. It's OK, I don't have a beef with science - although it evolved based on the (Borg) principles of assimiliation and compliance. Sometimes though, I wish there was a way to summoning the spirit of the Greeks back into our daily lives. Not only for the sake of knowledge, but for wisdom's sake - to remind us of the timeless relevance there is in understanding the world and its workings. Because sometimes we tend to forget why we want to know things, unlike the Greeks; their whole culture revolved around that aspect. It was a proud trait to think, a useful and esteemed quality to be able to speak one's mind in debate. I imagine that Plato's students got lots of tail for being the think-stars of their time. (Nowadays philo students are laughed at for being too lazy to do something useful-)


What is more useful than thinking? It's the value of wanting to know something, stating a theory out of curiosity; and even the celebration of finding out that they were wrong that made them reach for the stars - which, according to ancient Greek astronomy, consisted of fire, caught in bowls.

Strife is the father of all things, sundering itself, coalesces with itself, like the harmony of the bow and the lyre. - Heraclitus