tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post4895224298094657866..comments2024-03-28T08:57:53.180+00:00Comments on Darwinian Conservatism by Larry Arnhart: Does the Flynn Effect Show the Success of Scientific Enlightenment and Thus Refute Strauss?Larry Arnharthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-34128188826261205692015-03-28T11:43:27.682+00:002015-03-28T11:43:27.682+00:00Its scientifically proven that IQ and morality has...Its scientifically proven that IQ and morality has nothing to do with each-other, an example is a serial killer, a serial killer can have very high IQ and no pre frontal lobes physical equivalent of a super ego and thus commits horrible crimes because of the sub emotional system of the reptilian brain. And so the rise of IQ is more likely the rise of a robotic race of soulless mutants that will detach the human from the soul. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-19535161085013772202015-02-22T18:12:32.484+00:002015-02-22T18:12:32.484+00:00It seems ironic that there is a correlation betwee...It seems ironic that there is a correlation between improved IQ and “better moral reasoning.” Improved IQ seems requisite for extended abstract thinking, but to confuse this with a better form of thinking seems to conflate facts and values, hence what I take to be the core of the debate between ancients and moderns.There will never be a complete form of any kind of rational behavior. This is one sound conclusion we can make due to the work of Kurt Godel, and apply his incompleteness and undecidability theorems to a political frame.<br /><br />One pitfall to elevated IQ’s is that people become dependent on what I believe Strauss would call the Sociology of Knowledge. They may contemplate other “moralities” due to their intellectual predilection, but are limited in ability to verify that which they hold as an object of thought. Thomas Kuhn described a similar process in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” where science is divided into “puzzle solvers” and those who give birth to new paradigms. This makes an enlightened group of puzzle solvers subject to either degenerating paradigms or out right deconstructive strategies.<br /><br />No doubt that there is a dynamic tension between the described frames. Perhaps Strauss was aware of this, and hence is called either an Eastern, Midwest, or Western Straussian. Mobius Triphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11620423740245738406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-24702755819760085312015-02-22T03:39:23.527+00:002015-02-22T03:39:23.527+00:00You wrote that the idea of the "moral arc&quo...You wrote that the idea of the "moral arc" is taken from a line in Martin Luther King's famous speech in Montgomery, Alabama, in 1965. Actually it was originally from a 19th century Unitarian minister, Rev. Theodore Parker, from an pro-abolition speech given in 1858: "I do not pretend to understand the moral universe; the arc is a long one, my eye reaches but little ways; I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by the experience of sight, I can divine it by conscience. And from what I see I am sure it bends towards justice."<br /><br />The Flynn Effect probably does represent increased familiarity with abstract thinking, particularly within the lower class segments of society; however most experts now think that the Flynn Effect does not involve actual increases in g-factor type general intelligence.<br /><br />The story about trying to convince the father to imagine having black skin is pretty lame because actual racist views involve the notion that Blacks are different from Whites not just in their skin color but in the fact that they tend to have lower IQs, increased impulsiveness, and higher predilection toward violent crime. Thus racism involves belief in innate differences in the brain, not mere attention to skin color differences.Galtonianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11542550046419854091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-61965303400463002015-02-21T19:49:28.577+00:002015-02-21T19:49:28.577+00:00It seems to me like we're both being a bit sli...It seems to me like we're both being a bit slippery about whose views are really at issue here (premodern philosophers, the Enlightenment, Strauss, Melzer, Midwest Straussians, etc).<br /><br />So let me try to be a bit more specific: you may be right about Strauss (I'm not sure). But I think you're mistaken about Melzer (as best I can recall his book). <br /><br />Basically, I don't think that Melzer is giving such a clear endorsement of the Enlightenment, because he would say that even in an Enlightened society popular opinion/custom remains an obstacle to philosophy - and one that is now harder to recognize, because it often comes in the guise of quasi-Enlightenment.<br /><br />Acknowledging this point needn't force one to denying that Enlightenment is really happening (i.e., a Flynn Effect), and it needn't force on assert that Enlightenment is a bad thing.<br /><br />It just means that intelligence and philosophy are not quite the same thing, so simply by making people more intelligent, you haven't removed all the obstacles to philosophy - and, if there really is a fundamental disjunction between philosophy and society, some obstacles will always remain. One can admit this point without rejecting the Enlightenment, I think (or at least that's how I read Melzer - but maybe not Strauss).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-92214464904379155242015-02-21T19:27:10.203+00:002015-02-21T19:27:10.203+00:00That's good. I see your point.
But I am wond...That's good. I see your point.<br /><br />But I am wondering how we should understand "the disjunction between philosophy and society." <br /><br />Strauss interpreted premodern philosophy as teaching that this disjunction was such a deep conflict that no stable society could tolerate freedom of speech and thought for philosophers, and thus the need for esoteric writing.<br /><br />He interpreted modern philosophy as teaching that the success of Enlightenment could overcome that conflict, so that society could tolerate freedom of speech and thought for philosophers.<br /><br />The Midwest Straussian would say that this modern Enlightenment project has really worked, and therefore premodern philosophy as Strauss interpreted it has now been shown to have been mistaken.<br /><br />This seems to be Melzer's conclusion. But I'm not so sure this was Strauss's conclusion, given Strauss's deep commitment to premodern philosophy as superior to modern philosophy.Larry Arnharthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-11584535423589375322015-02-21T18:34:02.133+00:002015-02-21T18:34:02.133+00:00No, that's not what I'm saying. I state ab...No, that's not what I'm saying. I state above that the kind of developments you describe would have implications for philosophy. <br /><br />To elaborate on that point a bit: a widespread move "away from concrete and practical thinking toward abstract and theoretical thinking and toward rational skepticism about traditional prejudices" would likely make people more receptive to philosophy - less likely to persecute philosophers, more likely to study it, or appreciate a few basic points derived from philosophy, etc.<br /><br />But none of this would address the heart of the disjunction between philosophy and society, as Strauss saw the issue - and I'm pretty sure that Melzer would agree as well. <br /><br />To repeat: "intelligence" and "philosophy" are not the same thing. The former is a precondition for the latter, but you can be extremely intelligent without being particularly philosophic. <br /><br />This point isn't a knock on intelligence, either. A smarter world is a better world - for philosophers, and everyone else (if supporting the Enlightenment makes you a Midwest Straussian, then count me in). It just means that intelligence and philosophy aren't the same thing - and, again, I'm sure that Melzer would agree with this. (I've never met him, but I've read his book, although I don't have it in front me to cite from at the moment.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-38139348757691584032015-02-21T18:16:54.915+00:002015-02-21T18:16:54.915+00:00So you're saying that moving away from concret...So you're saying that moving away from concrete and practical thinking toward abstract and theoretical thinking and toward rational skepticism about traditional prejudices has no connection to philosophy?Larry Arnharthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-36910306685142906712015-02-21T16:27:23.152+00:002015-02-21T16:27:23.152+00:00This is interesting, but somewhat beside the point...This is interesting, but somewhat beside the point. <br /><br />"Intelligence" and "philosophy" are not exactly the same thing.<br /><br />The Flynn Effect might be a piece of evidence in favor the political project of the Enlightenment. And it would undercut a lot of traditional philosophic rhetoric about "the wise" and "the vulgar", etc. (Although you find this kind of language in early moderns as well as ancients - and it is most common among medieval authors.)<br /><br />But the classical disjunction between philosophy and politics is not really a question of test scores. The same point would hold true for anti-Enlightenment philosophers in the modern period (although for somewhat different reasons).<br /><br />Think of it this way: Strauss might have doubted that everyone could reach Einstein's level of intelligence. So if one day everyone matched Einstein's IQ level, that would be a very interesting development, and it would probably have implications for philosophy. But since Strauss never classified someone like Einstein as a philosopher in the first place, that development would not go the core of the relationship between philosophy and society, as Strauss saw it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com