8:48PM
Padomju cilvēkiem bija pieejama zinātniskā patiesība par sociālajām parādībām - tie bija visi marksisma-ļeņinisma priekšmeti. Ļeņina viedie vārdi: Marksa mācība ir visspēcīga, jo tā ir pareiza. Nu un beigu beigās mēs zinām, kur noveda šādas pareizas teorijas.
Ja būtu jānosauc viena vienīga vissvarīgākā lieta, ko briti un amerikāņi ir iemācījuši pārējai cilvēcei - tad tā nav Adama Smita politekonomija, Frederika Teilora zinātniskā menedžmenta teorija, un pat ne kodolieroči vai datortehnika. Svarīgākā lieta ir empīriskā izziņas metode. T.i. teorija (vēl jo mazāk "zinātniskā patiesība par sociālām parādībām") nav īpaši svarīga. Pieredze un novērojumi ir svarīgi. ASV ir 50 štati. Dažos nāvessods ir, citos nav. Dažos štatos ir legalizētas homoseksuālistu laulības un visas iespējamās izvirtības, citos štatos ir spēkā veco laiku likumi pret laulības pārkāpējiem un svešas sievas/vīra pavešanu (alienation of affection). Dažos ASV nostūros šaujamieročus un braukšanas ātrumu stingri kontrolē; citās vietās - vienkārši paļaujas uz to, ka pilsoņi brauks un citus šaus apzinīgi. Un beigu beigās uz 300 miljoniem cilvēku izkūņojas kaut kas interesants un dzīvotspējīgs. Ko pēc tam brīvas konkurences apstākļos var nokopēt un par lētu naudu izplatīt - vispirms Ziemeļamerikā un pēc tam arī pārējā pasaulē.
Kurpretī tie, kuri būvē sabiedrību pēc stingriem teorētiskiem modeļiem, kas ir nelokāmi uzticīgi "научной истине в отношении социальных явлений" - tie ir palikuši Ziemeļkorejā, Lībijā, Irānā un dažās citās jautrās valstīs. Pat Krievija ir atmetusi veco laiku ideoloģiskos rāmjus - Putins un viņa vadītie "siloviki" ir normāli empīriķi, kuri savā sirdī spēj novērtēt amerikāniskas vērtības - visa veida materiālos labumus, izejvielu eksportu, utml. Vienīgi Krievijas politisko īpatnību dēļ viņi var veikt savus supercentralizētos eksperimentus vienā lielā "štatā" nevis piecdesmit štatos uzreiz - tādēļ viņiem empīriskās informācijas uzkrāšanas temps ir lēnāks. Nu bet tas nav nekas ļauns - globalizācija nodrošinās to, ka viņi būs spiesti pārkopēt no amerikāņiem ievērojamu daļu gatavo sasniegumu. Kas arī pakāpeniski notiek.
Empīriķi nekavēja arī padomju varas izveides pirmsākumus - Londonā Kārlis Markss mierīgi rakstīja savu "Kapitālu" un organizēja komunistu internacionāli. Londonā 1903.g. notika KSDSP 2.kongress. Bet viņi paši uz savas ādas ar to neeksperimentēja - šos modeļus anglosakšu vietā pārbaudīja citi. Tā vajag strādāt! Empīriskā izziņa rullē. Un tagad tā pati empīriskā filozofija, pateicoties britiem, ir pārsviedusies uz visu Eiropas Savienību, kur 27 dalībvalstis paralēli attīsta visādas lietas. Protams, daudziem (kontinenta) eiropiešiem ir noslieces uz racionālismu un birokratizēšanu. Ja vāciešiem un frančiem ļautu - viņi izperinātu ļoti smalkas teorijas. Par laimi neviens to vairs neņem galvā. Tādēļ arī Eiropā vairs nenotiek nekādas liela mēroga traģēdijas un izkūņojas šādi tādi interesanti biznesa modeļi. Svarīgi, lai Latvija nekļūtu visās jomās par galīgo "basket case" - mistkastes gadījumu.
Here's an example of Troll's strategy: you take a sensitive topic (like the ban on minarets or the latest problem with Macintosh OS), and you build an argument around it. The conclusion of your argument is blatantly absurd, but every premise is correct, except one. The trick is to hide that wrong premise under an intricate discussion. You know that people will be so hasty to resist your conclusion that they will start by attacking the true premises. You have prepared a violent rebuttal for each objection, and you know that, since you are right on those points, some objective debaters might side with you, which will divide the discussion group (a crucial step). You hope that the discussion of your true premises will become so heated that, when someone finally notices the flaw in your argument, people will be too busy insulting you to care about that. This is the kind of cold-blooded, cunning, premeditated strategy that only genuine Trolls can devise.
We can find Trolls in some of the first public places where free conversation between strangers was allowed, on a variety of topics : the antique Forum, grandfather of the virtual forums of today, womb of all Trolls. There you may find the antique equivalent of Trolls : what people at the time called 'sophists' or 'philosophers' - two words that were used interchangeably by the man on the Forum. Many Sophists did not want to endorse the label - sophistry was frowned upon or downright illegal in many places - and insisted on being called Philosophers. But the average citizen did not distinguish much between all these varieties of arguers. It is clear from most outsiders' accounts that sophists/philosophers were perceived as disrupting the usual rules of conversation in a noxious way.
Two important men are having a careful conversation on military training. What do you call the guy who, having no particular competence or interest in the matter at hand, jumps in the conversation, systematically contradicts everyone with contrived arguments, ridicules the two competent discussants, orients the conversation on a completely different topic, then leaves the audience baffled and walks away, laughing? That Troll is Socrates in Plato's Laches. True, Plato's Socrates seldom hops in uninvited, and most of his interlocutors do not consider him noxious. Indeed one wonders why the whole city grew so irritated that they voted to condemn him to death. But Plato, like all philosophers and sophists, had a stake in defending his colleagues. In other views of Socrates (like Aristophanes' caricature), he is unmistakably trollish.
And Socrates was not your average philosopher or sophist. His colleagues' methods were much cruder. Take Diogenes, a hobo who combined unsollicited moral counselling with aggressive begging. Take travelling philosopher Stilpo, who, each time he entered a town, went on the forum, jumped on a soapbox, brandished an onion and claimed he could prove it was not a vegetable (Proof: a vegetable existed 100 years ago. This vegetable did not exist 100 years ago. Therefore, this is not a vegetable), then rebutted all contradictors and baffled the audience till the town went mad at him. There were hundreds of Stilpos at a time, in all parts of the world where annoying intellectuals were tolerated. The Chinese had their Trolls too, whose discussions would create Chinese Logic. And of course, just like Trolls, these early philosophers tended to make themselves quite unpopular in several places. There is a reason why Athens punished sophistry with banishment, or worse.
Conversation hackers are useful. Like other hackers, they test the boundaries of a system, and they force users to devise better systems. They strain human argumentation to its limits. Dealing with Trolls forces you to sharpen your arguments and keep a cool head. Sometimes you might even learn something from a Troll. Socrates was maddening, but he helped make some concepts clearer. And all these Greek and Chinese philosophers/sophists forced their interlocutors to revise the usual rules of argumentation and make them much more specific. Some modern logic was born from these efforts. As usual, a system's hacker is often the best expert in the security of that system.
| ← Previous day | (Calendar) | Next day → |