In this book, renowned public intellectual and atheist Sam Harris concisely makes a strong case against all notions of free will.
My Prior Beliefs
BefoIn this book, renowned public intellectual and atheist Sam Harris concisely makes a strong case against all notions of free will.
My Prior Beliefs
Before reading this book, it had been about twenty years since I considered whether we have free will. Having some background in math and physics, including quantum mechanics, I spent a few days thinking about how one would define the concept mathematically, presupposing that there are laws of physics. I decided that there could not be a sensible definition without throwing out the notion that there are laws of physics. I further decided that the problem had a minimal practical impact: Even if it was only an illusion, I could still at least seem to make decisions from day to day and should try to make the best ones.
Sam's Case Against Free Will
I read this book to see if I had missed anything: In particular, if there was a definition of free will compatible with there also being inviolable laws of physics. (Saying "inviolable" is redundant: If the laws were violable, they would not be laws. Conversely, if there are laws, their consequences follow out of logical necessity: Even God himself could not change the logical consequences.) From the book, it turns out that Sam Harris also believes that the notion of free will is incoherent in light of the existence of laws of physics. According to Sam, this is the consensus in scientific and philosophical circles. In particular, almost nobody believes in "libertarian" free will, meaning an ability to choose that would imply something other than the laws of physics determine the universe's future state.
Sam's argument against free will is powerful in that it does not presuppose that the universe is deterministic. Sam argues that there is still no room for free will even in a quantum mechanical universe subject to fundamental randomness. The universe may end up in a random state, but the prior state plus randomness, neither of which you control, determine that.
Sam states that most who believe in free will seem to do so because it feels like we have it. Sam rejects this from a couple of angles: First, he asks the reader to introspect closely and answer whether the feelings of free will still feel real after closer thought. Are we really controlling the thoughts popping into our heads, for instance? Why is our choice made at one moment and not another? Sam also appeals to experiments showing brain activity predicting choices that will be made before subjects even feel they are making a choice.
Against Compatibilism
Sam spends a good portion of the book dealing with "compatibilism." This is a notion that free will is possible even if only laws of physics determine the universe's future state. Sam takes compatibilist arguments to either be redefining the idea of free will away from the fundamental question or stating something which can be seen to be false upon deeper introspection.
Societal Consequences
Although not strictly necessary to back his conclusion, Sam discusses the moral, societal, and personal implications of his belief in "no free will." Here he argues that there is a risk of adverse effects from not believing in free will, but he argues that these vanish when one thinks about the issue more deeply. A significant point that Sam makes is that he believes that less belief in free will results in greater compassion. He addresses positive benefits both in terms of secular parts of society: especially the criminal justice system, but, not surprisingly, considering he is an unspoken atheist, he thinks it would also have a positive impact on countering harmful religious beliefs: E.g., although you had no choice regarding your nature, the circumstances of your birth, and your "soul," you should still feel guilty for your failings and are, indeed, maybe even condemned to eternal damnation in some cases.
Summary
In the end, the book reinforced my belief that the notion of free will cannot be made compatible with the existence of laws of physics. I learned what "compatibilism" is and its flaws. I ultimately agree with Sam: upon deeper introspection, we do not even have an illusion of free will. I did not expect to end up believing this going into the book.
Unlike other Sam Harris books like The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, I agreed with Harris on every point instead of just the vast majority. Given this, I am a bit surprised that Harris believes in consciousness when I do not. I, thus, look forward to reading his thoughts on that subject.
People who do believe in free will will find a strong, concise, and clear case made against it in this book. For those who go in not believing, I suspect they will find the notion even more problematic than they initially thought....more
Vivek Ramaswamy set a very high bar for himself with his first book Woke, Inc.: Inside Corporate America's Social Justice Scam. Although this book hasVivek Ramaswamy set a very high bar for himself with his first book Woke, Inc.: Inside Corporate America's Social Justice Scam. Although this book has its good parts it is less focused than Woke, Inc. Indeed, the author seems to be being a little self-indulgent by sharing a broad swath of his philosophical, political and religious beliefs, along with his favorite historical anecdotes, as opposed to delving deeply enough into most topics to make his case ultimately compelling. Nevertheless, Ramaswamy is clearly a very intelligent person and generally has the courage to speak his mind regardless of whether or not it offends people including those on his (conservative) side. As such the book ultimately felt like being on the listening end of a loose conversation with an intelligent person discussing his overall view of the nation.
Ramaswamy's central thesis is that, a few decades ago, the United States began a decline as a result of its success up until that point. He argues that whereas Americans used to see themselves as underdogs they began to increasingly see themselves as victims. The key difference is that an underdog is primarily reliant on themselves and optimistically faces the challenge of rising up to excellence. A victim, by contrast, is convinced that there are unable to rise up by themselves and is dependent on making others recognize their victimhood and change society to help them instead.
To his credit, Ramaswamy does go a good job of providing examples of a growing sense of victimhood from both the left and right. From the left it is rather obvious: claims that all racial minorities and women were victims of America's dominate ideologies and laws up until the near past and that they continue to be the victims of racism and sexism to this day. Here Ramaswamy believes that although some sexism and racism linger it is no longer that significant and the response to it, as if it were just as bad as it was in the past, generally does much more harm to the country than good. He compares it to an auto-immune response ravaging the body after the disease it was trying to fight has already been cleared or is at the point of subsiding on its own.
On the right, where Ramaswamy begins his exploration of American victimhood, he cites The Lost Cause narrative and conservatives', especially southern conservatives', long campaign to insulate themselves from Federal government power so as to effectively revert much of the gains of the Civil War. His analyses of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments and legal misinterpretations are quite strong in making this point. Then, switching to looking at history closer to the present, he makes a compelling case that the legal system incentivizes groups to convince courts that they have been historic victims to win the ultimate prize of obtaining a standard of "strict scrutiny" for any laws passed which may affect them. If they lose this quest, however, the laws are most likely to be subject to mere "rational basis" which Ramaswamy describes as an effective rubber stamp.
With regard to current right wing feelings of victimization Ramaswamy cites claims that the 2020 election was stolen as the best example. Ramaswamy does not believe any of it. He points out that Trump always claims fraud when he losses. He did so when he lost a primary to Ted Cruz. He also discusses some of the problems with the film "2000 Mules" which claims to provide proof. Ramaswamy describes how he regarded Stacey Abrams' claims that her election was stolen as non-sense. Ramaswamy is greatly disappointed that rather than accept the fact that sometimes in a democracy you will lose and not get your way and move on, Republicans bought into the stolen election conspiracy theories wholesale and foresook the opportunity to be the non-victim party. Ramaswamy describes how alienated he now feels from conservative movements and how he is in search of a "shade of red" that he feels must exist but has yet to see.
Although, like in Woke, Inc, the legal arguments are the book's strongest points I did not think that Ramaswamy provided a compelling case that it is more common than not for Americans to now see themselves as victims. On the right, yes, they do believe in a stolen election but does that really affect their overall view of themselves greatly? That case is not made.
On the left, the situation is a little stranger. It is white liberals who most strongly buy into the notion that there is still rampant racism and sexism in America as opposed to those who are supposed to be its victims. Although Ramaswamy does cite statistics showing that white liberals are much more likely to support defunding the police than black people who are supposed to be the number one victims he misses citing other statistics that could help his case. For instance, there have been surveys which ask black people whether personal encounters with racism has been a big factor holding them back from success in life. A strong majority do not think that it has been a factor. At the same time, if you ask them if it has been a big factor holding other black people back, then a majority answer that it is. In general this mirrors the situation on the left of imagining that many more people in this country consider themselves legitimate victims than the number who actually do.
Although Ramaswamy is generally willing to speak his mind without regard to whether or not it offends anyone he did seem to pull his punches in some places. For example, I thought that Ramaswamy held back his punches in describing Critical Race Theory as non-Marxist since it focuses on race as opposed to class. This has some technical truth to it but the problem is that Ramaswamy does not go on to discuss whether or not CRT is neo-Marxist or just Marxism with race taking the place of class (some call this identity Marxism). He also does not discuss whether the economic implications of CRT, such as affirmative action and reparations, are Marxist.
Along these lines, I feel that Ramaswamy is either holding back his punches to make it look like he is balanced by accusing both the left and right of about an equal amount of falsely feeling victimized or he is not very familiar with neo-Marxism and post-modernism. It is pretty clear that in academia these movements are explicitly trying to find as many victims in modern America as they can and get as much sympathy for changing that as possible. By contrast, it is not possible to find anything comparable among conservative academics. With a strong victim ideology that originates in academia it does not seem that both sides deserve about equal shares of responsibility for victimization cultures.
Overall I found that Ramaswamy took too much of an opportunity to share his views on a wide range of topics loosely connected to victimhood narratives, for example the Federal Reserve's role in all of it, rather than dive more deeply into a more limited set of areas to make his case more compelling....more
Although I bought this book shortly after it was released it was not a high priority for me to read and it sat on my shelf for many months. My originaAlthough I bought this book shortly after it was released it was not a high priority for me to read and it sat on my shelf for many months. My original feeling was that it was likely to be just another book trying to cash in on the anti-woke backlash. I now wish I had read it earlier since it is definitely first rate.
Vivek Ramaswamy's greatest strength when analyzing the growing influence of wokeism, including ESG, on corporate America is his ability to distill what is going on down to the most fundamental assumptions and discuss those assumptions directly. Ramaswamy has a background in biology and he has been a founder and CEO of the pharmaceutical company Roivant. He also has a JD from Yale Law. The combined backgrounds in business and law make him particularly adept at providing legal arguments against rising wokeism in corporate America.
Early on Ramaswamy recounts his experience growing up in America but making periodic visits to the village his father grew up in back in India. From these visits Ramaswamy witnessed first hand how quickly capitalism brought some parts of India out of poverty. He credits capitalism with essentially destroying the caste system and takes this as an example of how capitalism has the power to transform much more about society than its wealth. Not all of this transformation is destined to be good, however. For example, Ramaswamy describes how capitalism led Indian families to live and grow apart and to more consideration about who owed what money to whom within a family. In general, Ramaswamy's recounting of personal experiences throughout the book make it clear how he ties anti-woke theory to his personal experiences.
Ramaswamy's central thesis is that businesses should just aim to maximize profit rather than look for a tradeoff between that and also working toward social good. Ramaswamy thinks it is up to the democratic process to decide social good not c-suite executives or Black Rock retirement fund managers. Ramaswamy writes that LLCs are given a tremendous legal advantages in society in which owners are shielded from liabilities resulting from a corporation's actions. Think of the Sackler family. Ramaswamy argues that since this does not apply to regular members of society, without anything acting to check to this power corporations would risk having too much power in society beyond their business areas. Ramaswamy argues that this was recognized when LLCs were first conceived and back then there was the understanding that the way to check this danger was that corporations would just focus on maximizing profit in their limited line of business. Ramaswamy describes how corporate charters were at first narrow but have generally now expanded to include any legal business activity. Ramaswamy also describes, in detail, how corporations are now gaining undo societal influence by moving focus away from profit maximization.
Key to Ramaswamy's notion of undo corporate influence is his notion of a "managerial class" which is becoming increasingly powerful. Ramaswamy argues that these c-suite managers generally have less ownership in the companies they work for than its founders and shareholders and, as such, their interests are misaligned. Rather than having their primary interest in maximizing profit their interest is in maximizing their reputation and, hence, power in society and their long terms careers. Ramaswamy discusses how people in this class will typical move fluidly between corporate management, public service, including the military, non-profits, and government. Ramaswamy argues that wokeism has provided corporate managers with unique opportunities to make it unclear exactly what their goals are: If it is not to maximize profit they can say that the interests of some stakeholder in society is more important. Since there are multiple stakeholders it is generally unclear which stakeholder's interest is of greatest interest and the managerial class can use the ambiguity to do what they want and which is best for their long term careers.
Ramaswamy argues that "stakeholder capitalism" gives corporate leaders a tool to do something they were previously much more limited in. Once you are Mark Zuckerberg you have, practically, infinite money but that money, or even getting more of it, will not win you reputation and, hence, power outside of your company. Wokeism, however, allows you to become a champion of social justice to enhance your reputation and gain that power.
Ramaswamy also argues that wokeism allows governments to get corporations to do what they would like to do but which legal restraints prevent them from being able to do. For example, censoring conservatives on social media sites. Because of the incestuous relations between non-profits, government, and corporate elites, wokeism gives cover to "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" situations. A particularly maddening example Ramaswamy's cites is how corporations were fined billions of dollars arising from the global financial crisis but were able to donate to Democrat approved charities, have a multiplier greater than one applied to those payments, and gain reputation and tax deductions along the way. Sometimes the charities agreed to were even the prosecutors' and judges' own alma maters!
The strongest parts of the book are Ramaswamy's arguments that wokeism can be fought through existing laws. One example is using legal rulings that corporations must put maximization of profits ahead of other concerns. Ramaswamy also argues that social media companies have a duty to protect free speech to extent that it protected by the first amendment and they cannot argue that they can be more restrictive due to the fact that they are private companies. Ramaswamy bases this on legal rulings that governments cannot use private companies to get around constitutional restrictions including through the threat of legal/regulatory action. For folks who hate corporate DEI seminars there is good news: Ramaswamy also argues that wokeism meets the legal definition of a religion and, hence, businesses cannot force their employer to attend these seminars.
If you take "the best of" this book it is definitely 5/5 stars. There were, however, some problems. For example, I found that some examples that Ramaswamy used were not good. For example, Ramaswamy repeatedly invokes the notion that Goldman Sachs was "bailed out" during the global financial crisis. During Senate testimony, however, Goldman Sachs said that they did not feel they needed a loan but were forced to take one anyway. (During the Great Depression loans were not required of all banks. Investors and short sellers then took this as a list of which banks were the vulnerable ones. During the global financial crisis Hank Paulson wanted to avoid this.) Indeed, Goldman argued that their riskiest bets were insured and, in some cases, even double insured should one of insurers itself go bust. Another poorly chosen example was when Robinhood restricted buying of Gamestop stock but continued to allow selling. Ramaswamy scoffs at Robinhood's claim that it had no choice due to margin requirement laws: if there really was a problem why not halt all trading? But what would have happened if Robinhood had also halted selling as the stock plunged? Would there not be complaints that stock holders could not get out? To believe that Robinhood's actions were the main cause of the drop seems to give its customers more market power than they have. More likely is that buying in, at that, point would have got even more late comers burnt. It is also clear that allowing selling but not buying would alleviate margin problems while a general halt to trading would not.
Another problem with the book is that Ramaswamy, although generally presenting the woke position fairly, does not always provide the best counter arguments to his views. For example, he believes that employers should not be able to discriminate based on political beliefs. A good example arguing for allowing such discrimination would be to ask if employers should be allowed to refuse to hire out in the open KKK members?
A final problem with the book is that the potentially negative implications of corporations focusing only on profits are not explored. Would this mean greater government involvement in regulating the free market if corporations did not self-regulate? What negative consequences would that have? Or does he think that the free market will tend to find good solutions when left to itself and just maximizing profit? It is unclear where Ramaswamy stands on this question.
After reading this book it is clear to me that Ramaswamy is going to be one of the key players fighting wokeism going forward. Indeed, he recently opened up an anti-woke ETF now actively trading. I am looking forward to his future books and keeping up with his future battles against wokeism....more
In this book, James Lindsay makes the highly controversial claim that Critical Race Theory is Race Marxism. Despite the criticism this book has receivIn this book, James Lindsay makes the highly controversial claim that Critical Race Theory is Race Marxism. Despite the criticism this book has received and a few missteps he makes, Lindsay's claim is ultimately convincing.
Making the Case that CRT is Race Marxism
What is CRT?
Part of the controversy around CRT revolves around exactly what it is. In the strictest sense, it is merely a school of legal studies that studies the legal system and closely related entities such as law schools relative to the racial context of the day. Significant are discussions of legal rulings in that racial context.
Lindsay argues that the narrow definition, which some claim proves that CRT is not taught in schools, is inadequate. For example, he cites a paper by Gloria Ladson-Billings entitled "Toward a Critical Race Theory of Education," showing that CRT quickly moved into education. Citing Isaac Gottesman's The Critical Turn in Education: From Marxist Critique to Poststructuralist Feminism to Critical Theories of Race, Lindsay further argues CRT is just one of a host of "critical theories of race" often lumped together, by critical scholars themselves, under the name CRT. Lindsay also strengthens his claim by stating that most CRT now appears in educational journals.
Moving into somewhat shakier ground, Lindsay expands the notion of CRT to include critical theories of races other than black people. Hence, Critical Whiteness Studies is included in his discussions. Robin DiAngelo, the author of White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism, thus becomes fair game. Most controversially, Lindsay even includes Ibram X Kendi, author of How to Be an Antiracist, as a critical race theorist.
What is Marxism?
Lindsay argues that although Marx happened to focus on class and, hence, economic struggles, economics was not critical for his work: its appeal to themes from Gnostic religion is. Class happened to be the point of most significant concern of the day, but if another had been, Marx would have run with that instead. This might sound surprising to some who point to the fact that Das Kapital was subtitled "A Critique of Political Economy," but here, Lindsay is on solid ground.
Although Lindsay does not mention it specifically, anyone familiar with mathematics who has started to read Kapital will notice that, in Chapter One, it never gets off the ground. Although presented mathematically, it is clear that Marx assumes what he wants to prove. (See Chapter 7 of Thomas Sowell's Marxism: Philosophy and Economics for details.) Lindsay points out that this is a general feature of Marx's work: his conclusions do not follow from facts and logic; instead, they assume the conclusion and then build his elaborate worldview.
Given what Marxism is not, Lindsay makes a solid case that it is a Gnostic religion. Indeed, this is the central theme of the book. The key to the case is the centrality of the dialectic. More exactly, the dialectic as interpreted by Hegel, but with refinements in the direction of materialism away from idealism, thanks to Marx. Lindsay shows how closely concepts in Marxism map to Gnostic and Hermetic concepts.
CRT as Race Marxism
Lindsay argues that Marx saw the world as a sort of prison into which the proletariat, without their choosing, are flung. Imprisoning them are the bourgeoisie, who possess a special kind of property called capital. The key to escaping the prison is for the proletariat to develop a special knowledge called class consciousness*. With this consciousness, the proletariat can seize the means of production and abolish this form of private property. What follows will be an intermediate Socialist state on the road to the final Communist Utopia in which the nature of man will be transformed and no longer require a state.
Lindsay's argument proceeds by mapping the various concepts from what I will call Marx's classical or Class Marxism onto racial concepts. For example, black people replace the proletariat; whiteness replaces capital; racial consciousness replaces class consciousness; racial equity replaces socialism; and, finally, racial justice replaces Communist Utopia.
Thus, the central argument in Lindsay's book is that Classical Marxist concepts map directly onto Gnostic and Hermetic concepts and that one can also map CRT concepts onto Classical Marxist concepts or, directly, onto Gnostic and Hermetic ones.
Is CRT Postmodern Neo-Marxism?
Lindsay traces the evolution of Marxism through the 20th century with a particular emphasis on the Frankfurt School. Lindsay argues that identity politics emerged in the late 1960s and was celebrated in an essay by New Left icon Herbert Marcuse. Lindsay's book further details two other keys to CRT's intellectual history: the sometimes uneasy merging with postmodernism and the incorporation of the crucial concept of intersectionality.
Lindsay meticulously points out that CRT can correctly claim that it is not precisely anything that preceded it. For instance, it is not classical Marxism since it centers on race instead of Class. Also, it is not postmodernism since it does not discard race as deconstructed. Instead, it looks to race as something that, although socially constructed, cannot be ignored due to its power dynamics and, indeed, should be embraced as a site of resistance.
Lindsay, indeed, argues that CRT believes that the dialectic is central to CRT, and as such, it cannot be exactly anything that preceded it. Nevertheless, it is fair to call it a blend of Marxism and postmodernism or, simply, "postmodern neo-Marxism" because of how strong the key contributions of the two schools remain.
For example, the most significant insight from the book is just how central the dialectic is to classical Marxism, neo-Marxism, and CRT. Along these lines, the book also helped me see the power of negative thinking in the minds of Marxists. It turns out that it is a crucial neo-Marxist belief. As Adorno said, "One may not cast a picture of utopia in a positive manner," meaning the oppressive nature of society can render one incapable of even conceiving of a better one. Nevertheless, neo-Marxists believe they must critique what they know is wrong to move the dialectic forward.
Although Lindsay's case is ultimately convincing, there are some missteps along the way, including:
- Lindsay includes Ibram X Kendi as an important critical race theorist, but the justification for this inclusion is insufficient. Lindsay's claims regarding a "Dictatorship of the Antiracists" would be stronger if he cited sources who more clearly are critical race theorists.
- Marx did not believe that there was a conspiracy of capitalists that caused its evils, but rather that it was due to the nature of the way society was structured that capitalists acted in the manner they did. In particular, he thought the enormous technological advances during the Industrial Revolution made fierce competition inevitable, which was the primary factor leading to the poor condition of the workers.
- Critical Race Theorists do not take disparity alone as sufficient proof of discrimination. In Part IV of Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed the Movement, for instance, there is an essay by Charles Lawerence that includes a discussion of how although an increase in bus fare, for instance, could be expected to have a disproportional impact on black people, that is not sufficient proof of discrimination. Instead, the author states that there must be a disparate impact, and the matter in question should have a history of racist motivations before being subject to strict scrutiny.
- In some cases, citations are missing for claims which seem hard to believe. For example, there is no citation for Lindsay's claim that some critical race theorists argue that two plus two plus may not be four.
- The book would benefit from demonstrating that his notion of Marxism is narrower than including any opposition to any status quo at any time in history. Were America’s Founders postmodern neo-Marxists according to the notion of Marxism presented?
Unfair Criticism
Although some of the criticism directed at this book is justified, it has also received its share of unfair criticism. For example:
Lindsay is accused, or at least strongly implied, to be equating CRT to Nazism. Lindsay explicitly states, however, that he does not believe they are the same. Indeed, he lays out many points in which the theories are opposite, e.g., the most obvious being that CRT wants to abolish any notion of innate differences between races and create a society in which all are equal.
Another common criticism is that Lindsay is accused of, generally, having a poor understanding of Marxism and postmodernism. This is hyperbole. In many ways, Lindsay understands Marx much better than his critics, for example, in arguing that Marxism is not an economic theory at its core. Lindsay also shows that he is deeply aware of the sometimes subtle differences between the evolving strands of Marxism in the twentieth century. Lindsay also has a deep understanding of the differences between postmodernism and Marxism.
At worst, Lindsay does not always seem to be aware that Marx's positions in private correspondence, as described in Sowell's Marxism: Economics and Philosophy, were sometimes much softer and doubtful than his public pronouncements. Indeed, Marx admitted to deliberately overstating his case to lay “traps” for critics. However, none of this significantly derails any of Lindsay’s essential claims.
Summary
Although there are some missteps along the way, Lindsay does prove his point. Critics of what he writes will always be able to find something, perhaps taken out of context or mistaken as central to his argument, when it is not, to dismiss his ideas. Nevertheless, those who can discern what is truly important will see that the missteps are not fatal. Furthermore, Linday's writing is concise, well-organized, and easily accessible for those without encyclopedic prior knowledge.
This book is an important read, even for those who do not ultimately accept his conclusions. This is because Lindsay clearly spells out his belief that Marxism, CRT, and Wokeism are religions. Vivek Ramaswamy, a friend of Lindsay's, also believes this and has made this case in Woke, Inc.: Inside Corporate America's Social Justice Scam although coming from a different angle.
Going forward, then, expect conservatives, once they identify test cases, to begin establishing legal precedents that CRT is a religious belief and hence in conflict with the first amendment. If this is established, it will not be legal to push CRT in public schools and other institutions or force it in the workplace.
* This phrase is more due to György Lukács than Marx....more
Loading...
