What hobbies do I have other than blogging?

 

Perceptive readers may have guessed that I am not writing about my hobbies because I like drawing attention to myself. There are some things that I want to publicize that are more worthy of your attention.

I usually list my hobbies as reading, writing, walking, and talking.

Reading and Writing

My reading and writing activities are not confined to this blog. As some of you will already know, I have written a book, entitled Freedom Progress and Human Flourishing.

More recently, I have written three book reviews that should be of interest to many readers.

Review of Chris Sciabarra’s trilogy

This review, published on The Savvy Street, is entitled: Chris Sciabarra’s Trilogy on the Dialectics of Liberty.

The three books in Chris’s trilogy are:

• Marx, Hayek, and Utopia, State University of New York Press, 1995.
• Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical, second edition, The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2013. (The first edition was published in 1995.)
• Total Freedom: Toward a Dialectical Libertarianism, The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2000.

Here are the last couple of paragraphs of the review:

“I began this review with the goal of assessing the strength of the arguments that Sciabarra presents in support of the view that dialectical thinking might help us to escape from quagmires in libertarian thought. My conclusion is that he has presented a strong case that context-dropping has led some libertarian thinkers into quagmires. He has also made a strong case that libertarian thinkers should take account of interactions between existing political and legal frameworks, culture and cultural change, and the aspirations of individuals.

As well, Chris Sciabarra’s trilogy of books has made an outstanding contribution by helping readers to come to terms with the social philosophies of Friedrich Hayek, Ayn Rand, and Murray Rothbard, three of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century.”

I would like to draw attention to the discussion of my review on Chris’s Facebook page.

Review of Ed Younkins’s trilogy

This review, also published on The Savvy Street, is entitled: The Vision of Ed Younkins’s Trilogy on Freedom and Flourishing.

The three books in Ed’s trilogy are:

• Capitalism and Commerce: Conceptual Foundations of Free Enterprise, Lexington Books, 2002.
• Champions of a Free Society: Ideas of Capitalism’s Philosophers and Economists, Lexington Books, 2008.
• Flourishing and Happiness in a Free Society: Toward a Synthesis of Aristotelianism, Austrian Economics, and Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, University Press of America, 2011.

I conclude as follows:

“In my view, Younkins has made notable achievements in writing a trilogy of books that can help newcomers to the philosophy of freedom understand the major contributions of Aristotle, Ayn Rand, and some prominent members of the Austrian school of economics. He has also made a significant contribution of his own in demonstrating that Austrian economics is compatible with Objectivism. That message seems to me to have been particularly important in the context of encouraging proponents of a free society to be nonparochial in their efforts to spread the freedom philosophy.

Those who are familiar with more recent writings by Ed Younkins will know that his efforts to understand and promote the philosophy and practice of freedom did not end with publication of the third book of this trilogy in 2011. Hopefully, Ed will decide that recent advances in neo-Aristotelian philosophy, Austrian economics and psychology provide him with sufficiently interesting opportunities to become the author of a tetralogy.”

Review of Modernizing Aristotle’s Ethics

 My review of the book by Roger E. Bissell and Vinay Kolhatkar was first published in The INDEPENDENT REVIEW, A Journal of Political Economy, Volume 28, Number 3, Winter 2023/24.

The title and publication details of the book by Roger and Vinay are as follows:

Modernizing Aristotle’s Ethics: Toward a New Art and Science of Self-Actualization, by Publisher: Cambridge, UK: Ethics Press.

Here are some extracts from my review:

“Roger Bissell and Vinay Kolhatkar offer a Neo-Aristotelian view of what it means to live well in the twenty-first century. They aim “to provide a highly practical ‘Neo-Aristotelian’ ethical framework to facilitate human self-actualization (and thereby freedom, flourishing, and happiness)”. Drawing upon modern insights from philosophy, psychology, and biology, they give readers tools to help them “sculp” rewarding and virtuous lives.”

“The main focus of the book is what we, as individuals, can do to live good lives. The authors base their view of what it means to live well on an understanding of humans as integrated organisms with minds housed in bodies that have physiological needs. They assert that the essence of human nature is that of “an introspecting animal on a need-identification and satisfaction hunt”. They see the ability to introspect as creating psychological needs along the lines suggested by Abraham Maslow.”

“The final chapter presents the authors with the challenge of persuading readers that their vision of a humane society is related in some way to Aristotle’s views.”

“The chapter ends by considering what individuals can do in the face of current threats to liberty and “the soul-deadening cultural pessimism that grips our society.” The authors encourage readers to challenge the current intellectual orthodoxies, and to promote an Aristotelian perspective of “the reality and the importance of the individual”

Overall, I think the authors have done very well in relating their vision of a humane society to principles that Aristotle would be likely to endorse if he were to visit the modern world.”

Walking

I try to walk daily for exercise and to enjoy a longer walk in the bush at least once a week. That may be described as rambling in some parts of the world. 

I have recently written on this blog about the benefits of walking in natural environments.

Talking

I list talking as a hobby because I am a member of Charlestown Toastmasters. I have now been a member of the Toastmasters organization for about 20 years (including my time as a member of clubs in Nowra and Canberra).

Most people join Toastmasters to improve their public speaking skills. Some join because they like public speaking and want the opportunity to hone their skills. Many others join to overcome their fear of public speaking. I was definitely in the latter group when I joined. Toastmasters gave me the opportunity to practice public speaking in a supportive environment where members are encouraged to develop greater self-confidence.

Some readers may be interested to listen to my podcast episode entitled FindingMy Voice.

Can utopian thinking be dialectical?

 

This illustration of the fictional island of Utopia was apparently in the first edition of Thomas More’s book, Utopia, published in 1516. The word utopia was coined by More to mean ‘no place’ or ‘nowhere’, but More suggested that it could also have the same meaning as eutopia, meaning good place or happy place.

Modern dictionaries, such as Mirium-Webster and Cambridge, hedge their bets.  They define utopia as “a place of ideal perfection” or “a perfect society in which people work well with each other and are happy” and also as “an impractical scheme”, or “an imaginary or infinitely remote place”.

Examples of different usage

Both uses of the word occur in some of the books I have read recently. For example, in Marx, Hayek, and Utopia, Chris Sciabarra clearly takes utopia to mean “no place”, when he writes: “In this book, I explore the distinction between the possible and the impossible – between the radical and utopian – through a comparative analysis of the works of Karl Marx and F. A. Hayek.” Sciabarra suggests that for both Marx and Hayek, “Utopians internalize an abstract, exaggerated sense of human possibility, aiming to create new social formations based upon a pretense of knowledge”. Sciabarra notes:

“Despite their differences, both Marx and Hayek embrace a profoundly anti-utopian mode of inquiry. Marx identified this method as dialectics.”

Sciabarra views dialectics as “contextual analysis of systems across time”. (I have discussed application of the concept to problem definition in the preceding essay on this blog.)

An example of the use of utopia to denote a good place is in Fred Miller’s book, Nature, Justice and Rights in Aristotle’s Politics. Miller writes:

“Aristotelian politics has two poles: one is ‘ideal’ or ‘Utopian’, concerned with identifying the best constitution consistent with human nature and with resources that can be expected to be available under the most favourable circumstances or, failing that, the best constitution attainable by a Greek polis; the other pole is ‘mundane’ or ‘empirical’, concerned with maintaining and preserving actually existing political systems.” (186)

Miller recognizes that in attempting to identify the best constitution, Aristotle is posed with the problem of the disparity between his ideal of a community composed of individuals qualified for and disposed to a life of ethical virtue, and the actual characteristics of community members. Nevertheless, Miller argues that “the study of the best constitution will provide guidance to the practical politician concerned with establishing or reforming a constitution in less fortunate or diverse circumstances”. (190)

Although Miller doesn’t mention dialectics, my impression from reading his subsequent chapter, “The Best Constitution”, is that Aristotle’s discussion of ideal constitutions was dialectical. His discussion of the prerequisites for an ideal constitution is preceded by a study of actual constitutions. He also considers factors such as the minimum and maximum level of population required for the polis to be self-sufficient for the good life of citizens.

Apologia

 A few years ago, I wrote a post on this blog entitled, ‘What purpose is served by utopian thinking?’. In that post I suggested that anyone who considers the nature and characteristics of an ideal society is engaged in utopian thinking.

The post contrasts an anti-utopian view and a utopian view. The anti-utopian view is that it is a waste of time to consider whether public policy is consistent with principles that should apply in an ideal society because outcomes are determined by power struggles.

 I suggested that the best way to challenge the arguments of those anti-utopians was to present some defensible utopian views:

1. Since human flourishing is an inherently self-directed activity undertaken by individuals, an ideal society must recognize that individuals have the right to flourish in the manner of their own choosing provided they do not interfere with the similar rights of others.
2. The flourishing of individuals depends on their ability to follow personal values, visions and aspirations that make their lives meaningful. Some of the most basic personal values of individuals – including respect for the lives, property, and liberty of others - are widely shared by people throughout the world.  
3. Progress toward an ideal society occurs when individuals have greater opportunities to meet their aspirations.

I think my argument was defensible in terms of the way I defined utopian thinking, but it would have been preferable to have adopted a more dialectical approach. My main point should have been that it is not necessary to choose between a world of power struggles and an unattainable world in which human nature has been transformed. We are more likely to improve opportunities for human flourishing if we approach public policy issues with a view to both (a) upholding ideals that ought to apply and (b) the real-world constraints that should not be overlooked.

By the way, I still think that much of the thinking that went into “Freedom, Progress, and Human Flourishing” was utopian, in terms of the way I defined that term. I think it is also true that there is a great deal of dialectical thinking in that book.

Conclusions

In considering whether utopian thinking can be dialectical it is important to be clear what we mean by utopian thinking. Under one definition, utopian thinking is out of this world. Under the alternative, anyone who considers what principles would apply in a good society is engaged in utopian thinking.

Chris Sciabarra adopts the first definition, and accordingly views utopian thinking as opposed to context-keeping and hence opposed to dialectical thinking.

Fred Miller adopts the second definition in his description of Aristotle’s somewhat dialectical discussion of an ideal constitution.

 I draw two conclusions:

1. People who claim to be opposed to utopian thinking don’t necessarily consider ideals and principles to be irrelevant to consideration of public policy issues.
2. People who defend utopian thinking may nevertheless be mindful of the need to consider real world context in considering public policy issues.

Addendum

I would like to draw attention to a response entitled 'Hayek, Bates, and Utopia', that Chris Sciabarra has posted on Notablog. In his response Chris mentions his excellent article, co-authored with Ryan Neugebauer, entitled 'Therapy for Radicals'. He also notes that Friedrich Hayek saw an important and honorable role for the notion of “utopia" in providing political inspiration.