Date: 17 Aug 2014 22:25
Topic: An Anarchist Reads - Series Introduction
Modified: 26 Jan 2015 23:25

Hello, and welcome to “An Anarchist Reads...”, the show were an arm-chair philosopher takes on the heavy-hitters one chapter at a time, and tries not to get too bruised in the process! 

Throughout my life I’ve had many layman discussions with the people around me about ethical questions, politics, American history, and many other things philosophical. Often, these people would name drop, or mention famous written works, in support of their own contentions. Names like John Locke, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson, and works like Rousseau’s Social Contract, Jefferson’s Notes On Virginia, and of course the de facto Bible of American Constitutionalism: The Federalist Papers. 

Funny thing is, though, when I pressed most of these people to tell me more about what they’d read, what I found was -- just like the Bible -- most of them hadn’t read any of the works they were citing. They just used them as tokens of authority. 

And I was always left wondering, myself: What *is* actually in them? So, I started reading them myself. And, of course -- just like the Bible -- I found that people often falsely attributed many ideas, arguments, and quotes to those documents that were never there to begin with. What’s worse -- just like the Bible -- I often found things while reading those documents that absolutely shocked and appalled me. Things we’d instantly recognize as dissembling, or dishonesty, or obviously factually false even in the time it was written. I also noticed lots of things that were taken simply for granted. Concepts like “self evident truths” and “general will”, and “inalienable rights”, and “common defense” and so forth. I didn’t know what these phrases meant. And everyone I asked seemed to be certain about what they meant, but couldn’t really explain them it a way that made any sense. Why is this? 

It reminded me of Catholic Catechism. Everyone could rattle off the phrases: “trinity”, “immaculate conception”, “vicarious redemption”, and so forth. Some could offer simple definitions, but none could really explain what they were or how they could work, other than to offer that “god is mysterious”. 

So I began reading other works. Dostoevsky, Marx, Nietzsche, Plato, Chomsky, Rawls, and on and on. And I found many of the same problems there, that I did with the ideology sustaining the American political system. 

Which put me in a place that is much the same as the religious seeker who reads his bible honestly. 

I am a political atheist. 

Which is to say... an anarchist. 

At least, tentatively. 

And that is what this playlist is about. These books are not easy to read. They’re often written in historical vernaculars that are difficult to understand today, or they’re written in highly technical philosophical terms (for example Rawls), that laymen aren’t expected to consume. So, most people don’t bother. They just take the unqualified pronouncements of their friends, relatives, and public speakers, as matter of fact. 

What I want to do, is to provide an accessible resource for the intellectually curious. Something I didn’t have when I started on this journey. Something that can act as a discussion platform for the inquisitive, and most importantly as an outlet for my own compulsion to “get to the bottom of it all”.

Since this is the introduction, now might be a good time for the disclaimer: As I mentioned before, I am not a ‘professional philosopher’. I’m merely an enthusiastic amateur, and the work I am about to undertake is entirely a labor of love. As such, none of this should be considered an authoritative or official opinion. 

I just want to help others who wonder now, as I did then, what really *is* in those books?

That said, I do try to live by a few formal rules of good form, in an attempt to lend at least some credibility to my effort, and to improve the quality of the work: 

	1.  The Principle Of Charity: This is a basic rule of philosophical debates in which you assume the best of your opponent. In the context of these reviews, I don’t necessarily have an ‘opponent’. However, the rule still has some value, in that it keeps me from assuming the worst of a writer, when more charitable possible explanations are available to me.
	2.  Steelmaning: This is basically an approach where you attempt to make a better argument for your opponent’s position than he appears to have made himself. The idea here is to be able to understand the opposing view with as much nuance and sophistication as your own, with the goal being confidence in your position as true. In the context of these read-throughs, the idea is to provide as much in favor of what’s written as possible. Even if that means going beyond what’s written. 
	3.  Respect The Listener’s Intelligence: I’m not going to pretend I don’t have a point of view, or that I’m some sort of superhuman ‘objective’ assessor of anyone’s philosophical works. Hell, some of it I can barely understand. I respect you, the viewer enough to let you sift out what is my prejudice from what is genuine insight. And, for that matter, I’d really appreciate it if you could point out where I might have made a mistake.

The methodology for my reviews will be pretty straightforward. I don’t have a lot of experience with literary analysis or critical philosophical analysis for that matter. But I do have a working knowledge of the various forms of logic (deductive, inductive, abductive), and know the difference between scientific standards of evidence, and other standards. So that’s basically going to be my approach:

	• First, for internal consistency: and for correct use of contemporaneous supporting materials. Any good theory (Scientific or otherwise), requires internal logical consistency to be properly defined and understood. Where there are contradictions, a proper understanding is not possible, and predictions from that theory cannot be made with confidence. I will point out where I find obvious contradictions, logical fallacies, and other problems with consistency.
	
	• Second, in retrospect: its is impossible and frankly, disingenuous to ignore our modern scientific understanding of terms like ‘human nature’, ‘primitive societies’, and so forth, as they relate to classical works of philosophy. Particularly where they are central to the thesis. So, while any author might be excused for the time in which he found himself trapped, his ideas must be subjectable to the scrutiny of progress. Otherwise, what is the point of philosophy at all? We should just go with what Aristotle and Epicurus asserted, and be done with it. No? Then retrospection is valid.

With all that out of  the way, I think I’m done here! I hope you enjoy my critiques, and I especially hope you find them useful in your own exploration of philosophy and search for the truth.