@ Stefan Molyneux (A defense, a question, and a request.)

     Stefan Molyneux, as you can search for yourself, is a Canadian Philosopher.  I bumped into his works some time ago and was mostly interested in his positions on anarchy and the non-aggression principles.  Those works are quite interesting, and I encourage people to read and listen to what he has to say on these subjects.

     I don't fully agree with his positions, but agreement is not required for visible benefits.  To be completely honest, I disagree with some technical aspects of implementations of his theories, not the theories themselves.  Disagreement is how we improve ourselves and build our own beliefs.

     Stefan has a radio show which is largely based on callers and their questions.  The radio show has little to do with Philosophy, and much more to do with Psychology.  I'm not going to get into whether or not I believe the advice he provides is good or bad, because while I have extensive knowledge in Philosophy I am not a Psychologist.  I have some basic knowledge because I believe that good Philosophy requires knowledge of Psychology, but not enough to determine whether someone's advice is harmful or beneficial.  The "defense" portion of this blog is based on something he said on one show which I have seen attacked pretty hard.

     To understand the defense you need to first understand what was said.  I'm going to paraphrase this down quite a bit, but you can search Youtube for the complete video as well as all of the criticism.  I'll let you do the searching since videos are often taken down and re-added with complaints from various parties.  The following summary does not need context, but is not a transcript by any means.  The purpose is to provide all of the keywords necessary to find the show, and the people attacking the statements.  Stefan stated that he has considered having a phone handy so that the NWO (new world order) could call him.   He would change sides and rule over people instead of helping them.

The defense.

     Everyone who is awake to the world, myself included, has had to ask at some point whether or not the effort of helping people wake up is worth it.  The biggest reward I personally get is watching the light bulb go off in someone's head.  It's a priceless experience, but it's also very rare.  This is one of the many morals of "The Allegory of the Cave" written down by Plato 2,500 years ago.

    The other lessons from "The Allegory of the Cave" are that waking people up will not make you extremely wealthy, it will not provide you physical comfort, and you will not often be thanked for the efforts.  People will fight to stay in the dream world that someone has presented as reality, because cognitive dissonance is a painful experience.
   
     What Plato does not discuss in this Allegory is that while a few people are trying to wake the sleeping people up to the world, there other people pushing back and trying to keep people sleeping.  Since they lack the morals to wake people up, they gain enormous wealth by taking advantage of people who are sleeping.

     This is the dilemma for people that can see the outside of the cave.  If you change sides life is going to be physically comfortable.  You may not get the sparkles in the eyes, but you will have material wealth and comfort that a true Philosopher does not get.  It is a moral consideration that is made over and over again, because the fight does not end.  There will always be someone trying to take advantage of people, and there will always be someone trying to defend those same people.

     I say "true Philosopher" because the definition of Philosopher by Socrates includes the statement "searches for the truth in all things".  Socrates also states that it is the Philosopher's duty to wake people up at all costs, even if it costs them their own lives in the process.

     In other words, I don't know any Philosopher that has not considered changing sides.  With knowledge comes power, and it would be easy to take advantage of people and live an easy life.  "Easy" should not be confused with fulfilling, which is what Philosophers should always go back to as their answer.

The Question

     Why would you air this question in public without the context and a defense in the same dialogue?  In my opinion, this one statement has damaged credibility to the point where I'm not sure he can recover.  Every time he defines a position from this point onward, people will be wondering if the dialogue is his, or what someone paid for. 

The Request

     This is a rather simple request, but I would simply ask that you maintain the definition of Philosophy as Socrates gave it.   If you no longer hold the principles of Philosophy as given by Socrates do the world a favor and drop Philosopher from your title.  Keep the PHD, you earned that one.

     This is a request for honesty, not an accusation.  I'm sure if this was dialogue without proper consideration, under duress, etc.. we will have an explanation and apology soon enough.

The First Question

     Every time I happen onto an interview with a guy like Lawrence Krauss I get extremely frustrated.  Not because I disagree with his theory of the early beginnings of the Universe, but because he dissuades people from investigating the most important question we could ask regarding the origin of the Universe.  Does the Universe require something in order to exist?  From here, I'll be referring to this as "the first question".

     Contrary to what people may tell you, this is a very important question.  I'm going to delve into the reasons for this shortly, but before getting to the reasoning let me say that theoretical physicists are not the only ones that dissuade people from investigating the question.  Theology does the same thing all the time.  "If you don't believe what I do you will <insert action>" and "believe in what our book says because our book says it!".  Religions demand legal protection and prosecution against non-believers, and Mr. Krauss claims that teaching Religion should be criminalized.

     I personally find a comical irony in the fact that whether he likes it or not, Mr. Krauss behaves exactly like a Religious extremist that demands criminal prosecution for anyone who believes differently than themselves.

    Mr. Krauss happens to be untruthful in the title and claim that "A Universe" can come "from Nothing".  That statement is not meant to imply intention, which could be for simplicity as well as misleading.  I didn't write or title the book, so have no insight into the purpose of the title.

     In order for the expanding Quantum Vacuum to be possible stuff must exist.  "Nothing" in this theory happens to be quantum particles, energy, space, and of course all of the laws of physics.  Obviously his statement of "nothing" is in reality, well.. everything because these are the building blocks of the Universe.

      Cosmology has come a long way in terms of theories demonstrating that we don't need a lot of stuff to have a Universe.  A few very small building blocks is all it takes according to both the current Quantum Vacuum and Big Bang theories.  Compare this to when I was a kid and the Big Bang was the only game in town claiming that the Universe came from a ball of mass that was 270,000 light years in diameter when it exploded.

     We can't say "why" or "how" those building blocks came to exist, no matter what people like Lawrence Krauss claim.  The first question is as valid today as it was in our first Philosophical writings discussing the question over 2,400 years ago.  I also don't believe that we will ever know definitively, because we can only study what happens after the instant where the building blocks existed. 

     I don't mean to dismiss Mr. Krauss's work completely.  "A Universe From Nothing" does an exceptional job of explaining the quantum theory in terms that many people can understand.  His discussions incite thinking about Cosmology and Physics, and in my opinion getting people to think is a great thing.  That said, if you are not asking the first question you are not doing anyone any favors.  It's like telling people to learn math and ignore politics.  While math will surely make you better at a job and managing your bank account, politics impacts you every moment of your life.  People should be encouraged to study all subjects, and especially traditional liberal arts (Philosophy, Rhetoric, Logic, Ethics, and Political Thought).

     Why the first question is important is related to what I mentioned above, inciting thought and education.  The question of the origin of the Universe is an exceptional way of teaching people to think critically, to articulate their point of view, and to detect flaws in logic.  There are not only logical lessons in the question, but ethical lessons as well.  For an ethical example we can investigate Pascal's Wager.

     Few questions have the same power as this one in terms of promoting critical thought.  Fewer questions have the same power of getting someone to challenge their own beliefs, let alone challenge the status quo.  Those challenges are how society and science both improve.  If you have doubts, ask yourself why we no longer teach that the world is flat, or the Sun revolves around the Earth?  The answer is that people challenged the status quo and their own beliefs, and went looking for different answers.  Occasionally those people were correct!

    Instead of teaching people that your answer to whether or not the Universe needs something in order to exist is correct, why not teach them the question and give them the tools so that they can find their own answers?  Teach people that circular logic does not answer the question, teach them why an appeal to authority or emotion does not stand up to scrutiny, teach them what a masked man argument is, and for pity sake teach them what an ad hominem is and why not to use it!

     Criminalizing beliefs is not the answer.  History provides us with examples of societies that have tried this and failed with tragic consequences.  From the Burning of the Library in Alexandria through the Dark ages we see the consequences of criminalizing thought, and none of it is good.

     Conversely, when freedom of thought is given to the populace history shows progress and advances.  Athens sparked revolutionary ideas in Government and Philosophy, early Rome saw immense growth in Engineering, Architecture, and Art.  Not every line of thinking was correct in history, but we need to make mistakes to move forward.

     That's not saying that public schools need to teach Theology, because that is not the first question.  Theology matters only when you answer the question for yourself, and only if you come to the conclusion that something created the Universe.  So lets not build a straw man about teaching Theology.

     If we gave people the tools so that they can answer the first question for themselves, the world would be a much better place.  With those tools, they can begin to answer any other question they wish.

    Providing people with the tools to think is a frightening prospect for some people.  Arming the student to question the teacher takes bravado and confidence in your own beliefs.