Diogenes

Alex, Have You A Drachma For A Cup Of Tea. Arse?

Diogenes was a Greek fella of the diaspora and was born around 413 BC and died in 324 BC, or thereabouts. Apparently, he was a well-to-do citizen of Sinope, a Greek colony in what would be now northern Turkey. As a man of independent means he was the recipient of the liberal  Greek education of the time. This education focussed on learning the epics of Greek literature and memorising Homer while cultivating a healthy body through gymnastics. His father was a money changer responsible for exchanging foreign currencies for the local coin. When Diogenes came of age, he followed in his father's footsteps and assumed the position of Money Changer. Early in his career, he became embroiled in an accusation of Defacing the Currency. This was a serious charge, and he either fled from Sinope or was officially exiled. The details concerning the interlude are not clear. At some stage, he migrated to Athens, the seat of high Greek culture and philosophical thought. His banishment affected his economic status, and he was forced into penury. For many, the shock from wealth to sudden impoverishment would have had a baleful effect on their character. However, Diogenes embraced his hardship due to the adoption of Cynic philosophy. Cynic philosophical thought flourished at this time, advocating the rejection of political and social norms. They preached a simple, austere life, valuing reason and virtue above all else. A most admirable stance to take, especially if you are penniless. Diogenes would take the Cynic worldview to the extreme by living in a large jar, begging and defecating/pissing/masturbating in the street. He considered possessions as encumbrances and consequently owned nothing. Although he possessed the skills and wit to earn a good living as an administrator, orator or teacher, he chose to do nothing. He believed that true virtue and simplicity came from living like a dog. He would berate passerbys as they went about their driven and pointless lives. Better to contemplate the absurdity of life by not taking part in it. Be content with nowt and be free of society's fetters. Diogenes did not believe in government or private property and preached oneness with nature. There are elements of hippy culture, communism, anarchy, and nihilism in Stoic thought, but not coherently stated. 

Though Cynic philosophy is immediately associated with Diogenes, he was not the founder. Diogenes had a teacher named Antisthenes, another aristocrat turned beggar. Cynic philosophy is not a philosophy spawned of optimism. Indeed, it is a philosophy of its time and reflects a degree of pessimism born of political reality. The politics of the city-state had been upended by those pesky and barbarous Macedonians led by Phillip and Alexander. Optimistic philosophical thought in the ancient world ended with Aristotle. Aristotle was an unabashed elitist. Greeks were superior to non-Greeks, and Greek aristocrats were superior to all. This is interesting as Aristotle was a Macedonian and considered by Athenians semi-Greek at best. By the power of the Macedonian sword, the Greeks had lost their autonomy and independence. Macedonia had imposed political stability on the quarrelsome Greeks; they were fettered if not tamed (go tell it to the Spartans). Thoughtful Greeks, by dint of political reality, became weary and resentful of the trappings associated with their old Greek city-state conception of 'stability'. Proud and supposedly 'superior', Athens had been humbled and stripped of its age-old power. The solution: nothing matters in this world. Turn to a simple life of no material consequence. Cynic philosophy would never have emerged in Pericles' Athens.

Diogenes is oft remembered for his acerbic one-liners. Once, he was visited by Alexander of Macedon. During the visit, Alexander stated that he would grant Diogenes anything he wanted, and Diogenes supposedly replied, "Move out of my light." And my favourite, "There is nothing more beautiful than freedom of speech."    

What are we to make of this mixture and the man himself? Diogenes advocates a simple life without all the baubles that we exalt but do not make us happy. The long hours at work at a boring job, physically demanding and unfulfilling. And for what purpose? Do you really need that 'top of the line' luxury car? Do you need to live in a five-bed home when there are only two occupants? Strip it all down and list what you really need to be happy. I'm not promoting penury here. When we lay our existence bare, what are the important things to sustain life and peace of mind? This is not a mindset that is appealing to most. Diogenes would be admired more if he had willingly given up his luxurious lifestyle for that of a mendicant, but this was not the case. In this regard, Diogenes' mentor and founder of Cynic philosophy, Antisthenes, deserves our accolades and applause. 

Diogenes was true to his beliefs and remained a harsh and consistent critic of contemporary Athens throughout his life. There was no hypocrisy in Diogenes, or so he thought. Although he embraced poverty, he was happy and willing to accept alms from those he admonished and abused. Folk, unless impoverished, do not naturally lend themselves to this mode of life. Very few can follow its strict precepts. Diogenes was an exception and a very odd fellow at that. In the final analysis, I baulk at considering Cynicism as true philosophy—there just isn't enough intellectual and structured merit in the 'thought' system. From a philosophical standpoint, it proffered no new science or deep ponderings. In its purest form, it is reminiscent of the Eastern aesthete, of which I have no interest. Parts of Cynic teaching were absorbed into a contemporary philosophy, Stocasiam. Now Stocasism, is a much more interesting philosophy by far.         

In the final analysis, was Diogenes a wise sage (without onion) or just an eccentric, dirty old man? 

 

On Knowledge

Berty had an interesting love life...

I wrote about the Dunning-Kruger effect a while back. If anyone is interested, they can search the 'back catalogue'. In essence, folk with limited cognitive abilities overestimate their competence (there is a caveat). Not only that, but they are also blithely ignorant of their own shortcomings. There is more to the effect than, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. What many people don't realise is that there is a flip side to the phenomenon. There is a tendency for highly competent people to downplay their own skills, especially in comparison to their professional peers. It is often misunderstood by 'lay folk' that those afflicted with the condition are necessarily stupid and unintelligent. However, misconceptions about their skills may be restricted to a specific area of knowledge. In other regards, they may actually possess expertise. That said, I suspect there are more dullards than wise men within the Dunning-Kruger community- tis a very large assemblage.

Most of us have encountered an individual afflicted with classical Dunning-Kruger at some point in our corporeal existence. The typical pub boor who will painfully berate anyone within earshot of how incredible they are at any given task or subject. Usually, these folk are self-confessed polymaths. Any topic you mention will garner a quick and confidential reply about how skilled and knowledgeable they are concerning said task/topic. A typical pub boor is forever lost in his inconsequential world, never comprehending. 

I remember quite distinctly when I was 16 and studying for my O'levels, feeling I had grasped everything I needed to know about physics, chemistry, and biology. What else did I need to comprehend? I confess that, at 16, I was a foolish proto-man. I was angry and reactive, responding to the chaotic swirl of the hormonal deluge. Luckily, this was just a stage in my natural maturity, physically, emotionally, and intellectually.

I'm curious about many things and have a particular and abiding interest in a few subjects. With one exception, I do not consider myself an expert in the interests I follow. There is only one subject where my knowledge base borders on the expert: Human Clinical Diagnostic Cytogenetics. I confess that my genetic knowledge extends to other areas of human genetics, but I know enough to know that I'm not an expert in these subjects. This is not false modesty but a cold, hard reality. Expert status in any endeavour can only be achieved through hard study and application over many years. And then the student must admit that further hard work is ahead. Regardless of the subject matter, any expert knows that the quest for ultimate knowledge is folly as it can never be attained. We are all perpetual students lost in the chase. When we think we are close, we are far away.   

There are a few, very few, intellectual souls that come close to the sublime when it comes to knowledge acquisition. We are oft to use the word 'genius' rather glibly, and the term is loosely applied, daft buggers that we are. True folk of genius are rare eggs indeed. For instance, John Lennon is often cited as a genius; he was not. He was a mediocre poet and an average guitarist with a poor taste in women. The rest is just media hype. Isaac Newton was a genius, as was his contemporary Leibnitz. Other folk of this ilk include the mostly forgotten Spinoza and the sadly tortured and probably mad Wittgenstein. Obviously, Einstein and the mobility-impaired Stephen Hawking enter this exclusive arena. There are others (don't forget Darwin), but I won't turn this post into a list. A gaggle of ancient philosophers also enter this restrictive club. Perhaps Plato comes to mind, but I'll place his derivative student, Aristotle, in the enclave instead. Paradoxically, the vast majority of Aristotles' work, excluding his ethics, logic and political musings, is complete and utter bollocks. Sadly, his 'scientific' work would stifle the advance of Western thought for nearly two thousand years; such was the man's authority, especially with the Catholic Church.     

I'd like to finish my disjointed discourse with a brief consideration of a vastly underrated man of genius, Bertrand Russell. Some books leave a distinct imprint on the intellect. This is the case with Russell's 'History of Western Philosophy'. My paperback copy is falling apart—I should have bought the hardback edition. The breadth and depth of knowledge within this hefty tome is impressive enough. However, this, combined with Russell's astute analysis of the subject matter, elevates the book into the monumentally profound category. Not only are we participants in a work of astonishing erudition, but we are also privileged to be part of Russell's brand (sorry, I couldn't resist) of breathtaking, if audacious, synthesis.  Anyway, I recommend that my readers purchase a copy. But be advised, it is best to own the hardback edition. Enjoy.       

Quake

Wellington Earthquake, the Aftermath

I have lived in New Zealand with my family for nearly 25 years. During that time, I gained NZ citizenship and now hold dual British/New Zealand citizenship. I visited the UK once about 21 years ago and have no plans to return. As a single child, I have no close relatives left in Britain. I do have two close friends in England. I have known these drunken reprobates since I was eighteen years of age, and to be honest, I miss them, but not enough to shell out the travel costs. Also, I hate flying, not because of any innate phobia of flight. I suffer from severe spinal arthritis, and I find the cramped seats horrendously uncomfortable. This becomes an issue on a combined series of flights lasting approximately 27 hours. I have never been able to make friends easily, and though I have met many wonderful folks since emigrating to NZ, I have made zero friends. The friends I do have here were originally from the UK.

I love it here and would not contemplate living elsewhere. I believe New Zealand is one of the best countries to live in this turbulent world if you have moderate financial means. However, this does not mean that New Zealand is without problems. New Zealand is subject to the same issues as the UK and the US but differs in degree. Having said that, the United States is, in my opinion, the best place to live if you are very wealthy, but hell on earth if you are poor. 

There is one thing about living in New Zealand that is frankly terrifying. Due to the vagaries of nature, New Zealand lies directly on several geological fault lines. In fact, one runs several kilometres from where I live. As a consequence, New Zealand is subject to earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. The 2011 Christchurch earthquake flattened large parts of the city and killed 185. In 2016, Wellington shook to a less devasting event. I was a resident of the northern suburbs at the time, and the event was pretty scary. 

One week ago, as I lay in bed at about 10.30pm, I felt a little bump; it did not last long. Fifty minutes later, just as I was about to turn off the lights, I heard a sound. It was difficult to describe but similar to an approaching train. I had heard this sound before and knew what was to come. And then it hit. It lasted a second, but in that brief period, the house violently shook. Once I had gathered my wits, I checked out the online earthquake resource, Geonet. According to Geonet, the earthquake was classified as 'Severe' and occurred 10 km east of Eketahuna, 35 km in depth, with a magnitude of 5.3. I did not sleep well that night. Since then, NZ has been subject to 32 quakes, all classified as light or weak.

If the 'Big One' hits, I'm as prepared as you can be in such circumstances. My home is a brick bungalow. As I understand it, a brick home does not do well in the event of a strong earthquake because bricks do not flex. In contrast, timber homes do better due to wooden frames having a degree of give. My home is an 'odd one out' as most Kiwi homes are constructed of timber. In the wood-framed barn, I have a small tent and a bugout backpack containing the usual survival items. I'm hoping that it never comes to that.

Life goes on. It is best not to dwell on catastrophic eventualities I cannot control. However, initiating and maintaining a survival mindset and establishing the relevant systems makes sense- just in case.   

Apparently, there was an earthquake in Dudley in 2002. Sadly, there was only minor structural damage.     

Watch and Weep