Philosophy

From one perspective Pratchett’s Small Gods is a very accurate depiction of the basic principles of institutionalized religion. Its power stems from its followers. (And [this] power corrupts [its leaders], doesn’t it?) Its original ideals may get distorted over time. If there were any “ideals” to begin with…

That is, however, not the reason why I like the novel (I am not a particular fan of any religion, so maybe it contributed to me liking it); I like all these clever references to philosophy in general. Great ideas explained in very simple terms. And all the other puns as well, of course. A great time filler for any [train] trip.

Even though science fiction is one of my favorite genres I seem to have read rather few SF novels recently. High time for another classic.

Grimwood’s Replay is such a classic.

Some science fiction novels or series just do not let their protagonists die, the protagonists enjoy or suffer from relative immortality and the story spans several thousand years telling the tale of changing society and technology. Other achieve basically the same by reincarnations or regeneration. Time goes on and on. The characters stay the same.

Grimwood does the opposite. Time repeats itself, again and again. It’s the protagonist that changes with each replay of his own life. Always dying at the same time, the same day in 1988, and then regaining consciousnesses in his own younger body to live his life again with the full knowledge of all his earlier experiences. Doing things differently, taking other paths than before he first seeks riches, then meaning, then happiness.

Grimwood achieves the perfect balance between detail and advancing the story. There is no razzle-dazzle, everything seems rather credible. Replay is thus an almost modest account of this afflicted man’s journey through life.

By withholding an explanation for the repeated replays Grimwood leaves the reader with one question: Why? Not getting an answer to this question may be disappointing for some. I think, however, it is a good choice.

Infinity or infinitesimals really are something that can boggle your mind. Similar as zero, infiity was not always there in our (mathematical / philosophical) toolbox. Even though we nowadays use the concept of infinity and its reciprocal the infinitesimals almost nonchalantly, we do so without really considering the philosophy and history behind it.

Brian Clegg provides such a history. And if his book was not part of a larger series the books title would be the first pun: A brief history of infinity. There are others. The book even closes with one. Correspondingly the whole book has a rather light tone; Clegg’s rhetoric is almost colloquial. This makes the book rather enjoyable, the topic could have certainly also presented in a much duller way.

For anyone more generally interested in mathematics the book is, however, a disappointment. The focus is clearly on the history of infinity and not the mathematics or the deeper philosophical questions that are only commented upon en passant. And even the history part is certainly – as the classifier “brief” in the title indicates – not a complete and authoritative treatise. The author may also have padded the text with some material that seems to belong more to his own personal interests. There is surprisingly much space dedicated to Roger Bacon. Or, it is rather not so surprsingly; earlier Clegg wrote a whole book about this medieval scholar. In Clegg’s defense, Bacon really did contribute to the discussion on infinity.

Terry Pratchett’s novels are all just hilariously funny (at least the ones I have read so far). That is why I like to read them; especially on long trips or on the train to the office. They brighten my mood and sometimes they may even be instructive in one way or another. Pyramids definitely has instructive elements. It is a blend of physics, philosophy, politics, and ancient history. There are references to ancient Egypt (obviously), Greek, and Rome sprinkled with references to modern culture.

The references are so plentiful that – I have to admit – I most certainly did not “get” everything. Luckily, others already (ok, the book is some twenty old) provide some annotations…

Free riding — to an economist — is a rather opportunistic and consequentially rational behavior humans show in situations where they can reap private benefits from not participating in an action while still enjoying the public benefits of other’s participation. If, of course, everyone wants to enjoy the private benefits and nobody contributes there are no public benefits, and in the end, if everyone just behaves opportunistically, they may be worse off than if everyone, or at least a substantial number of people, contributed.

Richard Tuck poses the question whether this can indeed be rational behavior — again, to an economist, rational behavior is just behavior that is logically consistent with a person’s preferences that, in turn, need to conform to only a few innocuous axioms. (Ok, I am understating.) He argues that if an action is in some way efficacious and therefore causal for the ultimate result, it has to be rational to perform the action. He presents a rather long winded argument about negligibility that in my opinion ultimately does not necessarily support his conclusions. And it seems, this is not just my opinion…

In brief, I do not agree with Tuck. At all. And this is not because I just do not like some of his implications. Still, his book is a rather nice historical account of the notion of rationality of cooperation in public good and competitive scenarios in philosophy, political science and economics.

While Michael Tomasello cannot give an ultimate answer to the question on why we cooperate his book is an interesting contribution to the ongoing discussion. And thus his book’s form is also more styled as an discussion. In the first part he presents his own research on primates and young human children and his own conclusions. In the second part some additional prominent scientists from the fields of developmental psychology, anthropology, and philosophy are allowed to respond with their opposing views on his interpretations based on their own research.

It is clear that the different authors do not agree on the details but there seems to be some overlap. All in all it is a nice cooperative effort. By allowing opposing views to be voiced the whole endeavor becomes more balanced and the reader gains a more comprehensive picture of the research on human cooperative behavior.

Though I was already more or less aware of the various approaches there was something I did not consciously know so far. Tomasello distinguishes three domains of altruism: goods, services, and information that translate to the actions sharing, helping, and informing. As Tomasello points out, these domains entail different costs and benefits. Therefore I am inclined to adopt this categorization for my own research.