True Freedom at a Cost?

"Our politicians make the same sophisms about love of freedom that our philosophers have made about the state of nature; by the things they see they make judgments about very different things which they have not seen. And they attribute to men a natural inclination to servitude due to the patience with which those who are before their eyes bear their servitude, without thinking that it is the same for freedom as for innocence and virtue -- their value is felt only as long as one enjoys them oneself, and the taste for them is lost as soon as one has lost them." Rousseau. From Second Discourses p. 164.


In this portion of the Second Discourse, Rousseau discusses the role of politicians if man's true nature is to serve. He hints that governments are there to keep the people in servitude, which the people obey and serve, on the basis that the government has legitimacy. He makes the claim that man does not truly know what freedom because they never really questioned what it was, and from in his view, he claims that no one actually knows what freedom is.

Rousseau’s reasoning as to why man does not know true freedom stems from being content. He claims that we are happy in our ignorance of what we are really capable of and hints that we are unwilling to discover what freedom truly is.

At first, I thought that Rousseau’s claim about how man wants to live in servitude and that it was our natural inclination seemed a little too extreme of a statement. But after reading a bit more of his Second Discourse, I tend to agree that man does not know what true freedom is because we are inclined to serve. But the major issues that arise with man exploring true freedom is that true order can lead to chaos and the fall of civilization.

Since Rousseau claims that governments are there for the people to serve and that this is limiting their freedom, he must believe that an absence of government must be a part of true freedom. With this, mankind would be free to choose every aspect of their lives. The problem with this is that it would actually be damaging to civilizations because there would be no structure or any overarching authority to keep mankind in line. And if Rousseau's claim that mankind's natural inclination is to servitude, then mankind would join together with other people to form their own types of governments or systems put in place to maintain order and survival. So basically they would just try to reform the governmental structures that they abandoned and ultimately abandon their true freedom to gain order and stability.

So from this, it seems that mankind really does want to serve to better the system of order and rule that they are under. By serving, they do give up a degree of their freedom to follow the laws of their respective systems, but they gain stability and increased chances of survival by being in a community. But do you think that I may not be accurate with my description of how mankind would act if we abandoned our governments? Would we even try to rebuild them? Or is true freedom not even worth seeking in the first place?

 

Nature, Knowledge, and Us

Peoples, know once and for all that nature wanted to keep you from being harmed by knowledge just as a mother wrests a dangerous weapon from her child's hands; that all the secrets she hides from you are so many evils from which she protects you, and that the difficulty you find in educating yourselves is not the least of her benefits.  Men are perverse; they would be even worse if they had the misfortune to be born learned.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, First Discourse, page 47

This particular passage, one of the only parts in which Rousseau mentions "nature," is shocking because of its characterization not only of nature but also of knowledge and of humans.  In much of what we have read, we have been lead to see knowledge as a way to nature, especially according to Aristotle and Bacon.  But here, humans are not the empowered agents looking down at nature and deciding to study it; instead, nature herself is looking down at us as mere children and is saying "I must warn you of that knowledge-seeking activity you feel so compelled to do."  While there is no sense that nature herself can indeed stop us from studying and wasting our time doing so, there is the sense that nature knows what is best for us and that, whether we follow her advice or not, we will live by her rules and suffer if we disobey.

Besides uniquely characterizing nature--as a consciousness that cannot make us obey but knows the rules we should obey nonetheless--this passage also gives new meaning to knowledge.  Instead of being a means by which to explore and come to know nature herself, it actually obstructs us from doing that which nature encourages--cultivate virtue.  So science, in a sense, redirects our mentalities and our lives in a direction that is not meant for our intellect to take us.  This intellectual ability should instead seek out strength and courage and virtue, etc.

Lastly, Rousseau rather blatantly asserts that humans are "perverse," suggesting that knowledge (and the Enlightenment) pursued on its own without any attention to virtue is 1) difficult to achieve for the very good reason that it is unnatural and 2) extremely dangerous once accomplished.  Knowledge does not help to cultivate virtue, as Aristotle fervently believes, but instead distracts from it and leaves it uncultivated.

If people are "perverse" as Rousseau believes, how does knowledge accentuate that perversion?  While it seems to be a good point that humans naturally have a difficult time acquiring true knowledge, isn't it a similar point to say that humans often have difficulty acquiring "virtue" as well?  What's the difference?

The Origin of Property

The Origin of Property

Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this nobody has any right to but himself. The labor of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labor with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labor something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labor being the unquestionable property of the laborer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others. (On Property, Section 27)

Locke takes an etiological approach to understanding property. He begins his argument by accrediting God as the sole attributor of the abundance included in the natural world. The beginning of Locke’s argument establishes an understanding of nature that is similar to Mckibben’s separate natural realm that is untainted by the influences of humanity. As such Locke is concerned as to how it had come to be that these vast territories and aspects of nature had become the property of men. Locke comes to the conclusion that property is acquired when an individual’s labor is added to that object. For example, an apple that grows on a tree is owned by no one until it is picked by a farmer. Once the farmer has picked the apple the value of their labor has been added to the object and the apple becomes their property. Locke’s encouragement of men to attain property and utilize its abundance is a prospective that might be construed as crude under Aristotelian thought but encouraged under Baconian thought.

Locke’s ideas of ownership were novel to previous realms of political thought. Since Locke was concerned with the origin and preservation of personal property, his model for political and social organization embodied similar priorities. While Locke’s writings on the property are with concern to physical possessions they are also hold true to individual liberties. Therefore an effective Lockean government focuses on the protection of property as well as life and prosperity. Unlike other philosophers, such as Machiavelli, Locke opposes the absolute authority of men over others. The fundamental division between Lockean and Machiavellian schools of thought is evidence of either philosopher’s opposing understanding of the natural state of man and man’s natural rights. Where Machiavelli and other philosophers believe in a hostile natural man, Locke would describe a harmonious natural man whose autonomy and liberty should be protected rather than oppressed.

As such, Locke believed that no one individual had power over another. The force and cruelty that would be consistent with a Machiavellian social order would not be necessary within a Lockean political society. In the Lockean state of nature it is the responsibility of each individual to protect their own property. By creating a system by which people can best protect their own property by promoting the common good, harmonious living and the protection of man’s natural rights are preserved. Therefore very man who lives under a Lockean government is bound by social agreement that serves the general good and needs of society. People who live in a state of anarchy in which their property is not protected will willingly enter into an ordered political society based on Lockean principles whereby their property is protected. These concepts of social order and social contracts will be important in our future discussion of Rousseauian works.

Discussion Question: How is Locke’s explanation of property connected with political life? How use his understanding of the origins of property to expand into justifications for individual and natural rights? What is his understanding of the nature of man and how does property and government change this understanding?

Locke's Sustainability

"Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it, any prejudice to any other man, since there was still enough, and as good left; and more than the yet unprovided could use. So that, in effect, there was never the less left for others because of his enclosure for himself: for he that leaves as much as another can make use of, does as good as take nothing at all. No body could think himself injured by the drinking of another man, though he took a great draught, who had a whole river of the same water left him to quench his thirst: and the case of land and water, where there is enough of both, is perfectly the same."

John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, Sec. 33.

Locke believes that God gave the Earth to man for his own use and pleasure, which may at first seem in line with Bacon's view. However, Locke later states that no man should take more than is his share; he should only take what he needs to survive, lest he spoil the resources of the Earth by altering them through labor. Not only does Locke maintain that man should be prudent with his handling of Earth's resources, he also asserts that there is no way that anyone could overuse these resources and thereby cause suffering to his neighbors and the Earth itself. In Locke's time, perhaps this was true; the smaller population of Earth coupled with many vast unexplored territories made resources seem endless, impossible to exhaust. Today is a different story, as many animal species face extinction, most of the forested areas have been cut down to make way for housing, and much of the freshwater in our aquifers has been used up to enable our unsustainable farming practices. The human population, too, has grown in size so much that it is difficult to provide for everyone on the planet. In fact, there is hardly a square inch of space on the Earth left unexplored. So what would Locke have to say about all of this?

In light of these modern problems, it may be impossible to bring our planet back to the resource-rich paradise that Locke and his contemporaries lived in. However, we can take Locke's advise by only taking what we need to survive, although the new technology we have developed does make it possible for man to take more than his fair share and make a profit on it. We need to fight this human greed, conserving our resources especially because we have explored and exhausted much of the Earth.

Do you think it is possible to go back to such a way of living? Or does the human desire to be master of the Earth and to make a profit on it make this impossible?

Mindblowing Limits of Language & Perception

There are a few Youtube channels about science that I am subscribed to and the subject matter they discuss in their videos is astounding. Vsauce, is one of 3 different Vsauce Youtube channels; this one in particular discusses science and mind blowing fact.  In Vsauce: Is My Red The Same As Your Red?,  the host talks about perception of color and the senses & animals’ ability to communicate.

Humans face massive language barriers when it comes to describing what sensations like pain and fear. We can explain all the processes that occur within the body the moment we feel something, but we fail in our ability to explain the feeling of that feeling, without the use of another feeling.

 The second half of his video talks about the extend in which animals copy human communication, such as using sign language or solving simple math to treats. The host makes a pretty interesting point about these animals, but I don’t want to spoil too much of the video.

 Throughout the video, my thoughts kept pacing between Aristotle and Bacon. (I suggest watching the video before reading this part). Bacon blames our lack of a sophisticated vocabulary is due to idols of the marketplace. We used jargon that is dumbed down as we associate with each other, and our ability to understand and describe and understand nature suffers. “Qualia” seems to be an example of where every human being falls victim to this idol. According to Aristotle, actions in the natural world are ordered and occur with a reason; an end that each living thing aims to reach. There is no chance, so as animals learn language, even to a limited extent, do you think this barrier between man and creature is bound to break some day? Is this another end animals will soon reach?

I hope you enjoy the video and subscribe!

Too Much Information?

In The New Organon, Bacon suggests that there are several things for anyone interpreting and writing of history. His second suggestion states that writers should not focus on the subtle variations seen in natural history, as these subtleties are petty. He equates these interesting yet useless characteristics to the nature of individual people:

“…there is little point in natural histories, indulging in numerous description and pictures of species and in minute varieties of the same things. Such petty variations are nothing more than nature’s fin and games, and are quite close to the nature of an individual. They offer a kind of ramble through the things themselves which is attractive and delightful, but give little information for the sciences, and what they do is give more or less superfluous” (Bacon, The New Organon: Outline of a natural and experimental history, Aphorism III, p.222).

                I actually felt the opposite about overlooking subtle differences in nature. Though focusing on such a thing may very well be time consuming, I think taking a deeper look at the delicate variations of species would possibly contribute more to the sciences in terms of re-investigating what nature is.

Do you think overlooking the subtleties of species in nature is too “petty” and “superfluous” to be useful in Bacon’s plan to reconstruct the way people understand and approach nature? 

Experimentation of Nature

Bacon says there are three states in which nature exists. Nature is either free, taken away from its state by obstructions, or shaped by humans. He refers to the third state as the arts and later states in aphorism V that the most important part of forming natural history is the history arts.

            “ The most useful parts of history which we have mentioned is the history of arts; it shows things in motion, and leads more directly to practice. It also lifts the mask and veil from natural things, often hidden and obscured by a variety of shapes (227 Bacon).”

Bacon is suggesting that nature is at its best state when we manipulate it. To know the true history of nature we must alter it in ways that enable us to understand it. He later talks about how the best types of art are the ones that truly alter nature, not just to understand it, but to also use it for material goods. He believes we must use experiments to understand and use nature properly, and not only relevant experiments. “ We must accept not only experiments which are relevant to the purpose of art, but any experiments that happen to come up (228 Bacon). “ So we must manipulate and alter nature, even if we do not see a clear purpose to it.

Where do you think the line should be drawn for experimentation on nature? Do you agree that the most important part of natural history is the history of the arts?

Science: A Search for Knowledge, Truth, or Utility

"Therefore, because he that knoweth least is fittest to ask questions, it is more reason, for the entertainment of the time, that ye ask me questions, than that I ask you." -Governor of the House of Strangers, New Atlantas Section 15 p. 127

Aphorism CXXIV "Here is another objection that will certainly come up: that (despite our criticisms of others) we ourselves have not first declared the true and best goal or purpose of the sciences. For the contemplation of truth is worthier and higher than any utility or power in effects.... We declare that inept models of the world (like imitations by apes), which men's fancies have constructed in philosophies, have to be smashed. And so men should be aware (as we said above) how great is the distance between the illusions of men's minds and the ideas of God's mind. The former are simply fanciful abstractions; the latter are the true marks of the Creator on his creatures as they are impressed and printed on matter in true and meticulous lines. Therefore truth and usefulness are (in this kind) the very same things, and the works themselves are of greater value as pledges of truth than for the benefits they bring to human life." The New Organon p. 96

After some discussion of the new scaffold for science that Bacon is suggesting we use to reconstruct our understanding of the world from the total beginning Bacon addresses some foreseeable objections. The objection which he raises in the above aphorism centers on what the goal this rebuilding of science is. There are many issues that could be brought up against Bacon here such as his assumption that their is a divine consciousness that planned the world and that this being is a necessary one for all existence and experience. Another issue is that Bacon seems to think that this new methodology or instrument will guarantee that our experiments will interpret nature only in the correct way and that they guarantee truth. However, I think the largest problem with Bacon is his equating truth and usefulness. His view can only be considered to make any sense if we assume that this new method gives us an essentially God's eye point of view. We also run into the huge problem of truth losing its objectivity if we consider utility and truth equivalents of any kind. The concept of utility is itself subjective, it totally depends on the agent's views and goals. Truth on the other hand is supposed to be universally objective and agent-independent. I don't know if the famous tri-part definition of truth was something Bacon was aware of so it may not be fair to blame him for being unaware of many of the now famous epidemiological issues that come from seeing truth as being certain and concrete. Bacon's attempt to deal with these issues however are side-stepping at best.

Regardless, it brings us to an important question: What is the goal of science and the study of nature currently and what should it be? I personally think that conceiving of science as a search for utility or production is incredibly naive, misguided, and dangerous. Do you disagree? Are their solid reasons to think of science in this way? If so are they able to withstand the counter-arguments one could make?

Bacon on the Importance of Gaining Knowledge

 “And it is better to know as mush as we need to know, and yet think that we do not know everything, than to think that we know everything, and yet know none of the things which we need to know” (Aphorisms CXXVI, p. 97).

“If anyone objects that the sciences and arts have been perverted to evil and luxury and such like, the objections should convince no one. The same may be said of all earthly goods, intelligence, courage, strength, beauty, wealth, the light itself and all the rest. Just let man recover the right over nature which belongs to him by God’s gift, and give it scope; right reason and sound religion will govern its use” (Aphorisms CXXIX, p. 101).

In these passages, Bacon argues why acquiring knowledge is important and attempts to encourage others to support both this argument and his methodology. In the first chosen passage, I think that Bacon correctly observes that when it comes to gaining knowledge, it is best for individuals to be motivated by the idea that most of the phenomena and things on this world are unknown to mankind. This idea is also a much more realistic one as it is an established truth within science that mankind only knows a fraction of what happens on this planet. In the Aphorisms, Bacon talks about the three major benefits that knowledge has gained: gunpowder, the ability to print, and the compass, all of which have caused great political and cultural changes (CXXIX, p. 100). He successfully shows that such discoveries are necessary in order to see mankind develop further.

Bacon, in my opinion, rightfully depicts the importance of acquiring knowledge but then he forms a further argument that the knowledge gained do not lead to evil or corruption that I do not easily agree with. I do believe that in general new discoveries and inventions have to great and positive effects on societies, yet I do think that some developments can lead to danger or consequences with the absence of regulations or rules. For instance, while the development of the Atomic Bomb led to even more growth within science and technology, the world saw its devastating effects on Nagasaki and Hiroshima during World War II. Now the western world must still deal with the effects, both environmental and political. Although Bacon does show that other elements, like individuals own characteristics like courage and intelligence can lead to disastrous effects.  However I still do not believe that religious faith and reasoning alone will keep new advancements in check. Do you agree with Bacon on the importance of the acquisition of knowledge for the advancement of mankind? Do you think that “right reason and sound religion” can keep these advancements properly in check?

Bacon, Experience over Experimentation

• "Thus the first reason for such pathetically small progress in the sciences is rightly and properly ascribed to the small amounts of time that have favoured them". (LXXVIII, p. 64).

• "And now another important and powerful reason why the sciences have made little progress revels itself. It is this: it is not possible to get around a racecourse properly if the finishing line is not properly set and fixed. The true and legitimate goal to the sciences is to endow human life with new discoveries and resources". (LXXXI, p. 66).

• "The problem has been wonderfully compounded by a certain opinion or judgement, which is deeply ingrained but arrogant and harmful, namely that the majesty of the human mind is diminished if it is too long and too deeply involved with experiment". (LXXXIII, p.68). 

In class we learned that Bacon has a more optimistic view towards the benefits of science to society. His reasoning behind suggesting that science is not to be viewed as a damaging entity to our natural and human world is because the scientific principles and particulars that people have become familiar with through the process of experimentation, at that time, have divorced society from the true principles that are sought and found solely through humble experience. Because for Bacon, any progression rather it be scientific, economic, theologic, etc. should strive for the humble goal of charitable ends for the uses and benefits of all life. In doing so, Bacon calls for a divorce from the general principles around us that has led to the progressive experimentation in which molded, confined, and harassed nature into the abusive perspective we have continued to share for now six centuries since Bacon's death. Obviously, his plan didnt play out just as well as he had hoped. 

Today I see an even worse damaging entity than Bacon's perspective towards the scientific harassment of nature through experimentation. The role of nature has transformed from a means to a beneficial end in regards to the progression of knowledge and understanding to now a means to attempting to sustain a society which has been blessed with such previously discovered knowledge and unserstanding. Because of all the experimentation and scientific progress we have made, now we must sustain it to enable us to enjoy and build upon it. Nature in its present state does not have much more available resources to sustain us for the next granted century but how can it sustain us for an even greater leap in understanding and knowledge. Bacon would agree that so far progression entails the increase in knowledge and understanding of our surroundings, rather it be technological, scientific, theologic, or whatever. This finish line to knowledge may not exist, but the means to that knowledge is nature and nature's finish line certainly exists. That is why Bacon insists on experience rather than experimentation. Rather than pushing for a better understanding of something, just experience it and rely on the chance of luck that a new discovery will reveal itself to you. 

Do you think that Bacon would agree that there is no finish line to our progression besides the means in which we use to seek it, that being nature? Do you think that maybe experimentation is not all that bad and could even help in regards to our diminishing natural world?

Playing God: Bacon's Conflicts with Religion

• “Finally you will find that some theologians in their ignorance completely block access to any philosophy, however much emended.  Some are simply anxious that a closer investigation of nature may penetrate beyond permitted boundaries of sound opinion; they misinterpret what the holy Scriptures, in talking of divine mysteries, have to say against prying into God’s secrets, and wrongly apply it to the hidden things of nature, which are not forbidden by any prohibition” (Aphorism LXXXIX, p. 74).

• “Others, finally, seem anxious that something might be found in the investigation of nature which would undermine or at least weaken religion (especially among the uneducated)” (Aphorism LXXXIX, p. 75).

• “No wonder the growth of natural philosophy has been inhibited, since religion, which has the most enormous power over men’s minds, has been kidnapped by the ignorance and reckless zeal of certain persons, and made to join the side of the enemy” (Aphorism LXXXIX, p. 75).

              

             I found Aphorism LXXXIX particularly interesting, as we have been discussing in class Bacon’s ties to King James and the Christian environment in which this work was written.  I also like this section, because it makes an interesting claim about interpretations of the Bible.  Bacon writes that theologians fear natural philosophy, because they worry that seeking such knowledge goes against the teachings of the Bible.  This, Bacon argues, is a misinterpretation of the Bible, as “the hidden things of nature” are not those things forbidden to humans.  We spoke in class (on religious scripture day) about Genesis and man’s dominion over nature.  While Bacon’s specific understanding of the man-nature relationship is more complicated, it seems that he generally agrees that men are and should be free to manipulate nature to learn everything they can about it.  This addresses also the idea of questioning God.  We spoke about the book of Job and God’s scolding of Job for questioning God and attempting to understand things that were beyond his capacity to know.  This, I think, could be a problem for Bacon’s plan, especially because the setting in which he is writing The New Organon is very Christian. 

                Even today, many fear (or simply reject) some scientific progress as an attempt to “play God.”  By this reasoning, we are either not supposed to question such matters, or we are at least forbidden from manipulating nature too much through science.  This can create a conflict between science and religion—one I think we see often today.  Bacon is concerned about this, as he almost seems to suggest that religion and science can benefit from one another.  The fear that science will lead to discoveries that will weaken religion seems really odd to me.  It seems to be more of a political concern than a truly theological one.  Religion, in this time, held great power over men (as Bacon mentions in that last quote).  The concern that it will be weakened is a concern that its control over men will be loosened. 

                How would you characterize the relationship between science and religion in the U.S. today?  Is there conflict, or is any scientific advancement seen as general progress?  What about issues in which scientists are criticized for “playing God,” such as cloning and genetic engineering?

Nature's Agent?

                       

"Man is Nature's agent and interpreter; he does and understands only as much as he has observed of the order of nature in fact or by interference; he does not know and cannot do more." p. 33

This quote had me pondering while doing the reading for the class because throughout the semester thus far we have learned how humans think of themselves separate of nature but here Bacon says that we are nature's agent but how can that be. My thinking is that if we are really nature's agent then we would not be destroying the environment and would be taking care of it. We would not think of nature as something we do not care about due to the fact that we are nature's agent. Maybe I am a little bias because I see how we treat the environment here in the United States. We destroy the environment so we humans can live on it. Of course there are many places around the world who do everything they can to help the environment such as places in the Western part of the United States with the creation of National Parks but for the most part we destroy it. In the Middle East they destroy countless parts of nature to drill oil and even here in Alaska there is a debate on whether we should dig for oil although we would be destroying the homes of many animals such at the grizzly bears or caribou.

Bacon introduces a new idea to our society by showing humans that not only are we in fact part of nature but it is our duty to be nature's agent. He says that we have to do everything we can to protect nature and to understand it. He says that there are a lot of things that we do not understand about nature but we should do everything we can to advance our studies of nature and see how it benefits us. This thinking to me is problematic because I think we surpassed the stage of trying to understand nature and we only want to do what is best in our eyes. My question really is do we consider Bacon to be correct when he says that we are nature's agent and that we should go beyond our limitations to understand it or is it to late for that sort of thinking.

"Man is Nature's Interpreter"

"For man is nature's agent and interpreter; he does and understands only as much as he has observed of the order of Nature in work or by inference; he does not know and cannot do more. No strength exists that can interrupt or break the chain of causes; and nature is conquered only by obedience...The whole secret is never to let the mind's eyes stray from things themselves, and to take in images exactly as they are. May God never allow us to publish a dream of our imagination as a model of the world, but rather graciously grant us the power to describe the true appearance and revelation of the prints and traces of the Creator in his creatures" (Bacon, The New Organon 24). 

As Bacon begins the New Organon he incessantly comments on man's incorrect way of approaching nature and philosophy. Bacon insists that man as a whole should deal with and attempt to understand nature through experience rather than relying on intellect. He supports the study of philosophers and scientists' previous works, but stresses that we must add on to them because analysis alone can not help us develop a natural history. Furthermore, if a man strictly relies on thought and analysis of the thoughts of his predecessors then no real knowledge has been acquired other than the knowledge of others, because, as Bacon said, a man understands only as much as he has observed himself.

In addition, the spiritual aspect of the purity of nature parallels our previous study of Bill McKibben's The End of Nature. Bacon speaks of understanding the reality of nature, rather than projecting one's own opinion or idea of nature onto it. He continues on to describe nature as a gift from God, one that as humans we are blessed and lucky to be able to enjoy. McKibben took this position as well, and in our class reading he talks about people experiencing God through nature. However, as Bacon suggests, man can only experience God through nature if he appreciates it for what it is. No imagined beauty is allowed--man must grow to be gracious for the beauty that God created for him.

As we understand Bacon's command for relating to nature personally and not through intellect alone, and pair it with our understanding of both McKibben and Bacon's idea of God's presence in unadulterated nature, we can come to one conclusion: in our current day and age, man cannot be idle. Both authors' messages can be interpreted and applied to modern issues like preservation and sustainability. Although man is "nature's agent and interpreter," man also affects nature unlike any other force and has power over it. In modern times, man's projection of a prototypic nature may very well be an attempt to fool himself into thinking that Bacon's call for discovery through true inspection and analysis, as he describes on page 19. To Bacon, as it should be to all of us, it is essential to preserve nature through education and promote its longevity so that man can provide as thorough and precise a natural history as possible.

These are the questions that my inferences have left me with: Can one actually place oneself in nature and learn from it without relying solely on intellect? What type of action can be taken to prevent nature becoming simply an ideology? Furthermore, although Bacon would cringe at this suggestion, is nature better off as an ideology rather than a creation of God for which man is the interpreter?

Deduction, induction, + syllogism.

"For in ordinary logic almost all effort is concentrated on the syllogism. The logicians seem scarcely to have thought about induction. They pass it by with barely a mention, and hurry on to their formulae for disputation. But we reject proof by syllogism, because it operates in confusion and lets nature slip out of our hands" (Bacon, The New Organon, 16).

In the Preface and "Plan of 'The Great Renewal,'"Bacon is laying the foundation for a new method of inquiry that will correct the mistakes that all philosophy and science currently rests on. He believes that the very foundation, the bedrock if you will, that the house is built on doesn't exist. It essentially floats in the sky (the example he uses is a palace floating without a foundation). The core of his new mode of inquiry is the use of inductive reasoning versus the prior use of deductive reasoning. Therefore, I thought it might be a good idea to try to explain or work through these two methods of logic and figure out why Bacon so favored one over the other.

Deductive reasoning is based upon the categorical syllogism, which is a kind of logical argument where the conclusion (a proposition) is inferred from two or more other propositions (the premises). A common example of a syllogism is this:

All men are human.
All humans are mortal
Therefore, all men are mortal.

Deductive reasoning is also called "top-down logic." In this process, one or more general statements is used to reach a logically certain conclusion. Another example is this:

All philosophy classes are hard to understand.
This class is a philosophy class.
Therefore, this class is hard to understand.

Inductive reasoning (also known as "bottom up logic") is the kind of reasoning that constructs or evaluates general propositions from specific examples. This contrats with deductive reasoning where specific examples or generated from general propositions. Inductive reasoning is probabilistic. An example I found on the internet is this:

All life forms that we know of depends on liquid water to exist.
All life depends on liquid water to exist.

In this example, the possibility exists that there could be a life form in the future that doesn't depend on liquid water to exist but historically all life does depend on water to exist.

So what does Bacon think the inherent value of inductive reasoning is versus deductive reasoning? That I am not entirely sure of. I think it may be that inductive reasoning is better because one goes from specific facts to general conclusions rather than general conclusions to the specific. Also, maybe he values inductive reasoning because it leaves open the room of probability, whereas if one were to be deductive all the time then that doesn't leave open the possibility for error. Take this logically valid deductive argument for example:

All people who are smart go to Rhodes.
James is smart.
Therefore, James goes to Rhodes.

Logically, this argument makes sense in terms of its structure but clearly the first premise isn't true so it's not a sound argument. Maybe this is why Bacon detests deduction so much? It's better to prove generalities from specific examples rather than state generalities first.

Do you have anything to add or to clarify in this? It's been a while since I took Logic. What do you think the values of induction versus deduction are (or vice versa)?

Is Greed Good?

"Further, the wickedness of human beings is insatiable: at first the two obol allowance was adequate, but now that this is something traditional, they always ask for more, and go on doing so without limit" (Book 1, Chapter 2, Page 690, 42-45)

     For Aristotle, there seems to be a predictable pattern for how wicked and greedy humans are.  This pattern, in Aristotle's opinion, is unbreakable because of the fact that we, as humans, always have a desire for more.  He gives the image that we are greedy beings who are always overlooking what we have to pursue something newer.  So basically to Aristotle we are like small children who will have an infinite want for new toys.     
     This is also very evident in today's consumer society as well.  We see commercials for new and improved forms of technology, for example new phones or laptops, and we have a desire for it because of how much better it is than what we currently have.  But soon after we get it, something else catches our attention and its even better than what we currently have.  Now we see the very thing that we desired and have obtained as obsolete because a new and improved version has come out.  So even though our original desire was satisfied, another one has arisen to take its place.  That is what Aristotle means by the wickedness of human beings because our desire for improvement cannot be quenched.
     But is this necessarily a bad thing? Can our so-called "wickedness" actually be beneficial to us as a human race?  This wickedness can also cause people not to settle with what they currently have and drive them to make improvements.  This wickedness has provided us with countless improvements that allows us to further understand nature and better our race, like discovering atoms, creating fuels, or making the latest improvements to Siri.  But would Aristotle agree with this? Or are my views on wickedness incorrect?

Qualms with Aristotle's Politics

“For the refined may well become disaffected, on the grounds that they do not merit [mere] equality, and for this reason they are frequently seen to attack [the people] and engage in factional conflict.  Further, the wickedness of human beings is insatiable […]” (Book 2, Chapter 7, Page 69)

These, Aristotle claims, are reasons that equality of property would not prevent factional conflicts.  I find this claim and the underlying assumptions behind it to be very troubling and, I believe, untrue.  In the first statement, Aristotle clearly asserts (and he does this again a few sentences later when he mentions “those who are respectable by nature”) that some people are by nature more “refined”—more deserving of capital—and that some people are by nature less “refined”—less deserving of capital.  The second statement assumes that human beings are just wicked by their very nature.

First, it is difficult for me to see how Aristotle could have believed that some people are inferior based on his assessment of the human soul as being on the same rung on the hierarchy of potencies/material of the souls.  Furthermore, the practical effects of such a judgment are huge.  While Aristotle might believe that people judge others incorrectly and that the people with more property sometimes should be the ones with less property and vice versa, the basic concept that anyone should be of a certain status based on nature severely limits the possibilities for people in “naturally” lower statures.  As far as people being wicked, I cannot see how this view is compatible with the ultimate goal of every action being goodness (which he equates with happiness).  Perhaps this is because I firmly believe that individual’s happiness is intricately tied up with other’s happiness.  It’s difficult for me to tell, but maybe that is where Aristotle and I disagree on that one.

Later, he reveals the legitimate factor in judging people as equal or unequal: “political virtue” (Book 3, Chapter 9, Page 10).  But what makes some people more politically virtuous than others?  Nature? And if our virtue is in our nature, does that oppose the idea of free will?