Talk Shows the Mysterious Power of Mathematics

Here's a very interesting video from the Ted Talks on the origin of fractals, and how they are used extensively in African culture. It reminds me of why I find mathematical history so fascinating.

The speaker, Ron Eglash makes some broad, rather unsubstantiated claims in this, particularly when, like the proverbial man with the hammer who sees everything as a nail, he suggests capitalism is an out-of-control self-replicating system.

Nevertheless, Eglash makes a real contribution to our understanding of mathematics and culture, and raises truly fascinating questions. Particularly about the mysterious power that mathematics offers up to us out of the riddles at its core.

Lecture on Evil, Harry Potter and More

Here is a very interesting video about the problem of evil, presented on the Google Channel. It is a a lecture by philosopher Jean Bethke Elshtain, with ample examples from the Harry Potter series. It reminded me of the importance of the Platonic and Augustinian conceptions of good even for understanding modern life and literature.

A Final Thought on Utility in War

One final thought on the post just before this one, in case I didn't make myself quite clear on what I meant by "morally extraordinary" behavior in World War II.

Bret Stephens makes the argument in the posted video that the firebombing of German and Japanese cities - which, it seems, everybody now accepts as morally licit - "hastened" the end of the war.

Well, exactly which bombings? If the earlier acts against non-combatants were moral because they would hasten the war, and presumably save even more lives, then why did we need the later atomic bombs?

Weren't the atomic bombings justified on the grounds that they were "necessary" to end the war? In what sense, if we were already engaged in acts of the same nature, also meant to end the war.

And, as has been argued before, Hiroshima didn't do the trick. Or, did it? No one is really responsible for scientifically pinning down this utilitarian calculus, probably because it cannot be done.

In fact, if atrocities in war are justified on the grounds that they will save more lives later, doesn't that mean that every atrocity, from Genghis Khan on, if done in the name of bringing about peace, was actually morally justified?

These specious arguments make a hash out of the whole notion of just war, and human rights for that matter. As Socrates pointed out, evil is done because it is believed to be good. The question for the American Right in general, and Mr. Stephens in particular, is, "are good intentions all one needs to engage in extraordinary wartime acts?"

Two Voices on Utilitarian Ethics and War

Funny how this issue keeps coming back to haunt me. Second time in a week that it hits the news.

While I have long been aligned with the movement from an economic point of view, I have always found the Right's willingness to embrace utilitarian ethics in warfare, or loosely defined warfare, (WWII, "War on Terror") disturbing.

Bret Stephens, a fine and intelligent gentlemen, has written a piece in the Wall Street Journal defending the "limited use" of waterboarding torture; citing as analogous our somewhat morally extraordinary behavior in World War II. A related video link is below.

Contrast that with journalist Stephen Grey's contention, in his new book Ghost Plane, that horrific things have been done during "rendition" of terror suspects, and that there is serious professional opinion that there are other ways to get information beside waterboarding, etc. See the video link below.

My contention against the Right on this issue (and against situationists in general, Left or Right) has always been epistemological.

The claim to "know" what will happen, and thereby justify "extraordinary" actions, even when rooted most firmly in statistical projection, ignores the nature of moral responsibility, where the actions of war lie within human choices.

We can't "know" that a result will come in the same sense we can predict a chemical reaction - because the choice to carry on or not carry on is always there.

And even where we can predict an outcome, the prediction should not hold the same moral weight.

There is a certain degree of moral vanity and underlying self-interest (pace Oppenheimer, see my last post), I can't put my finger on it, in suggesting that a kind of moral uber-man must emerge to do terrible things in the name of goodness, at any time. (The great myth of the "disinterested" utilitarian.)

Is not this moral vanity at the heart of every repugnant "real-politik" politician and so-called "professional" amoral foreign policy operative we have ever heard of?

One is not responsible to single-handedly prevent evil that will come as the result of the choices and actions of others - so long as one does everything one humanely can to prevent those actions directly. That means against the aggressor. Not against those the aggressor knows or cares about.

And even against the aggressor, cruel and unusal behavior is inherently codependent.

I don't know how to "prove" this. Stephens will cite the "facts" of history to make his case. The War ended. But are those all the facts? As Hadley Arkes once noted in his text, "First Things" the effects of Caesar crossing the Rubicon are never all in. Perhaps the effects of Hiroshima and Nagasaki still inform the thinking of Osama bin Laden? Perhaps they still inform the thinking of our foreign policy establishment, creating new ripples of codependence and reaction.

While I have respect for the facts of math and science, I also know that "facts" are often selected with certain biases. Ethical moments are not over when the news cycle is over. Americans look upon the morality of World War II entirely too much through the haze of triumphalist newsreels, and ignore the potentially codependent after-effects.

In any event, have a look at these two videos. Intelligent cases made. But, one is wrong; the other right.