Virtues and Values


I’m gonna get a little Sapir-Worfy here.
I think something went terribly wrong when we as a society stopped talking about virtues and started talking about values.
Just… think about the words themselves. Value. what does it mean to value something? to passively regard it as a good thing.
I value good screenwriting. I value good wine. I value my time.
But virtue is different. virtue is a character trait. Virtue is a guideline for actions.
With Value, it’s enough to believe something.
With Virtue, you have to do something.


Too cool for school

On another occasion when Euthydemus was present, Socrates noticed that he was withdrawing from the group and taking care not to seem impressed by Socrates’ wisdom. “Gentlemen,” he said, “it is easy to see from the way in which our friend Euthydemus spends his time that, when he is old enough, he won’t refrain from advising the State on any political issue that comes up. And it seems to me that by carefully avoiding the appearance of learning anything from anybody, he has provided himself with a splendid preface to his public speeches. Evidently, when he begins to speak, he will introduce what he has to say like this: ‘Gentlemen of Athens, I have never learned anything from anybody, nor have I sought the company of any person whose abilities in speech and action I have heard of. Nor have I troubled to acquire a teacher from among those who understand these matters. On the contrary, I have consistently avoided not only learning anything from anybody, but even giving the impression of doing so. However, I shall offer you whatever advice occurs to me of its own accord.”

Such an introduction would be appropriate for candidates applying for a public medical post. They could suitably begin their speech in this way: ‘Gentlemen of Athens, I have never learned medicine from anyone, nor have I tried to secure any doctor as a teacher. I have consistently avoided not only learning anything from medical men, but even giving the impression of having learned this art. However, I ask you to give me this medical post. I shall try to learn by experimenting on you.'”

-Xenophon’s Memorabilia


What religion is not

If I could hammer one thing into Rationalist’s heads it would be this: religions are not primarily concerned with explaining natural phenomena. It’s rarely even a secondary concern. Christianity isn’t, Islam isn’t, Buddhism isn’t, Hinduism isn’t, Judaism isn’t, and most of the rest that I’ve looked at aren’t either.

You may have a distorted view because Creation/Evolution debates have been elevated to The Most Important Thing in your particular bubbles, but even that revolves around a small handful of Bible chapters. You won’t find discussions of natural phenomenon in any of the Pauline epistles, or the Gospels for that matter. Psalms and Proverbs aren’t concerned with the interactions/existence of atoms. Religions want to answer, “what is wrong with the world, and what are we to do about it?” (Everyone agrees that all is not right in the world.)

Yes, overlap does occur, because no sphere of knowledge is fully distinct from all the others. That is why you get the evolution/creationism debate, and that is also why the physicists of the day needed Lemaitre to school them about the origin of the universe. Similarly, when Rationalists wonder whether we live in a simulation, they are simultaneously reinventing the Buddhist idea that this is all an illusion, and reasserting faith in a Creator God.


This is for all the lonely people

Ripped from the comments:

Hundreds of fellow species of insects, birds, even a handful of primates. But at our level, only us. We want a companion species, something or some entity to be our equal, our make. If the Neanderthals or the Denisovans had survived as separate human species, and there were two or three of us humans on the planet, I think matters would be different.

As it stands, I think we want intellectual children and AI is that hope: like us, but different, so we’re no longer alone in a world full of non-human animals. It’s the same impulse that makes people treat their pets as children, as blood members of their family, and unironically refer to themselves as “mommy and daddy” to a dog or a cat that is their “baby”.

I think we’re even worse off than that. We’re definitely lonely, but it’s because we’re in denial about the potential companions that already exist.

What if the Neanderthals had survived to the present? Since they’re able to interbreed with humans, aren’t they really just another race? What difference would it make to have Neanderthals in addition to whites, blacks, Asians, etc? We already don’t know how to deal with having all these races which are visibly different (and here I’m only speaking to the skin-level, nevermind any deeper differences). How much worse would we be if Elves showed up who were our superiors in every measurable way?

The truly alien minds are in our own homes: men and women. We are quite different, sometimes in large and sometimes subtle ways, and we cannot do without the other. Currently, we respond to this with denial, to the point where it took me years of living with a woman to unlearn the idea that we were just different skins slapped on the same basic mind template.

So yeah, we’re lonely, in the same way that Burke and Wills were starving; we’re misusing the resources that are there to fit the need. The trouble is that our current conception of “equal” does not allow room for “different,” so we just deny difference entirely. After all, in any reductionist materialistic view, a different thing is not equal. The Pauline view of equality as “valuable, yet different, parts of one body” is much more workable.

A babied toy dog is a clear case of parental instinct gone haywire because it has no baby to lavish its attention on. Encourage everybody to delay marriage and treat women as men-with-boobs, and it is any surprise that the craving for interaction with someone truly other manifests in more unusual ways?


A meritocracy, if you can keep it

Our society is a meritocracy, yes (with merit mostly measured by IQ). But I’ve started to think that we don’t reward merit/IQ so much as we punish its absence.

Many social institutions were built up to simulate the effects of IQ, binding marriage being one of them. In destroying the ability to legally make a life-long commitment, we eliminated the ability for most of those in the lower class to get the benefits of a life-long marriage. Those will now accrue only to those who are able to maintain the composure not to hit the self-destruct switch for every moment in their entire lives.

This is, in effect, the removal of safety nets. Now, your ability to succeed is driven far more strongly by innate qualities than before. If you lack those, you once could have fallen back on the other institutions built to catch you. Now you just fall.

Picture a rock wall. There are some people who can free-climb all the way to the top. Many more could do so with the help of some ropes, but the free-climbers have cut all of those. If they ran a study, they would find that ability to reach the top really is driven entirely by climbing ability. Tying a rope around your waste is found to have no effect (and nobody realizes that in the old days, ropes had the other end attached to the mountain). So at the top of the cliff, you have a lot of free-climbers strutting about, congratulating themselves on how evolved they are to not use ropes, as their fellow climbers splatter on the canyon floor below.

Private Law

Today, I flew on an airplane. As is dictated by the rituals, I prepared to unpack all my computers, remove my shoes, empty all drinks, let them take naked pictures of me, and just generally have my travel made much less pleasant.

But not this time. This time somebody else purchased our tickets for us using their frequent flier miles. This time we got to go to some special security line where they all but waved us through. I didn’t unpack anything, remove any articles of clothing, I carried a whole 8 ounces of milk right in, and I only had to pass through an old-fashioned metal detector. It was exactly as things had been before 9/11.

I always knew that the politicians who assure us of the necessity of these measures would never in their lives have to endure them. I didn’t realize that the whole upper echelon of society got to opt out. If somebody lets you sidestep a security measure in exchange for money, they don’t actually believe in that measure. They’re just keeping out the riff-raff.

The word “privilege” is derived from the phrase “private law,” specifically referring to laws passed for the benefit of a single person. With the TSA, laws were passed that do little other than harass people who are not rich enough, and then everybody at the top exempted themselves from it. I like the old corruption better.


How to Sin

(The following is a tangent arising out of our last class on Augustine)

What is sin? Can you define it? This should be a basic question, but we often skip over the basics. When pressed most of us would define sin as “breaking one of God’s rules.”

This definition is not incorrect, per se. The rules are useful, and following them will steer you away from a lot of common human failure modes. But it doesn’t cut to the heart of the matter. What is the unifying factor that makes breaking those rules a sin?

What is sin?

Sin is Love

To be more specific, sin is loving what you should not, or loving something that you should, but in the wrong manner. Even sin, at its core, comes down to love.

The nature of love is to unite the lover and the beloved. This, done properly, is not just a beautiful thing, it’s what we exist for. Indeed, we often mistake love itself at the marker of morality. But just as loving the wrong woman will ruin a man, so will any of our other loves if not directed properly.

Augustine had personal experience with this. When he was young, a very close friend of his fell ill and died. Augustine felt like a part of his own soul had been torn from him, because indeed it had. Friendship is not a bad thing by any stretch of the imagination; most philosophers would have actually ranked it as the greatest thing this side of eternity. But where Augustine went wrong was in seeking final contentment in his friend; in loving him as if he weren’t going to die. To find true lasting happiness, we must unite ourselves to that which is eternal.

Salvation is love

Salvation, then, is coming to love God as we should. And this gives us a hint of what it means to say that after the resurrection we will be “unable to sin.” Once we are fully transformed, we will love God truly and fully. To ask if we could love something else instead becomes something of a category error.

Could we still sin? It is analogous to asking me if I could murder my daughter. On the one hand, I am indeed physically capable of it. On the other hand, no, never, no. No no no no. This could not be. I love her, more than anything in this world. The question itself is nearly unthinkable. If I, though I am evil, am bounded so by love, how much more when I am not evil, and I can love freely and truly?


Saint Augustine of Hippo

Augustine is hugely important to Christian theology. Throughout the Middle Ages, to say you were Augustinian was basically the same as saying that you were orthodox. At the time of the Reformation, Luther, Calvin, and the Catholics all wanted to claim him as their own. This makes studying Augustine very handy. He is early in the church relative to us but late enough that Christians had had time to think through and develop a lot of their basic doctrines, and he is claimed by all major branches of Western Christianity. If the Bible is the gold standard of orthodoxy, Augustine may be something of a silver standard: the ideas he presents may be incorrect, but they are at least not heretical.


Augustine lived from 354-430AD. He was born less than 50 years after Emperor Constantine proclaimed religious tolerance, ending the extremely vicious persecution that had been prosecuted against Christians before then. (For comparison, if you were born in the 1980s, about the same length of time separates you and the Holocaust). He was born in Africa, in what is now Algeria, back when it was still part of the Roman empire, and was of Berber descent. His mother was a Christian; his father was not (although he converted shortly before his death). The family was middle class, with enough money to give Augustine a good education (he later went on to become a teacher).

This came in very useful when he wrote his Confessions, which are essentially his autobiography, structured as a prayer to God. He starts from the beginning of his time as a baby, before moving on to the famous incident of the pear tree:

There was a pear tree close to our own vineyard, heavily laden with fruit, which was not tempting either for its color or for its flavor. Late one night — having prolonged our games in the streets until then, as our bad habit was — a group of young scoundrels, and I among them, went to shake and rob this tree. We carried off a huge load of pears, not to eat ourselves, but to dump out to the hogs, after barely tasting some of them ourselves. Doing this pleased us all the more because it was forbidden.

Those pears were truly pleasant to the sight, but it was not for them that my miserable soul lusted, for I had an abundance of better pears. I stole those simply that I might steal, for, having stolen them, I threw them away. My sole gratification in them was my own sin, which I was pleased to enjoy; for, if any one of these pears entered my mouth, the only good flavor it had was my sin in eating it.

The incident is notable to him because he can come up with no justification for the theft. He wasn’t hungry, and he had better pears at home. Apparently, the only reason he stole was to do something wrong. Each of us have also done the same thing (for example, any time you’ve intentionally annoyed somebody simply to get a reaction out of them). He uses this as a starting point to explore both the nature of sin, especially how it usually consists in (poorly) imitating some aspect of God, and his own sinful nature.


Though he was ostensibly raised as a Christian, it didn’t take, and as a youth he left it for Manichaeism. Manichaeism, then about 150 years old, was one of the more influential of the Gnostic religions that were cropping up at the time. In answer to the problem of evil, it posited a dualistic world, with both a Good God and an Evil God. The Good God was identified with light and the spiritual realm; the physical world was the domain of the Evil God. Humans had a soul made by the Good God, but it was trapped inside the evil body that belonged to the Bad God.

Manichean followers were divided into two groups: the hearers and the elect. The elect had to follow a life of extreme asceticism: they were completely celibate, could eat no meat, or even kill plants for food. They were entirely dependent on the hearers to cook and provide for them. When taking a meal, the elect would ritualistically deny all responsibility for having killed the wheat to make it. This would then allow them to ascend to the spiritual realm upon their death, while the hearer who had made the meal would have to do penance in the form of being reincarnated as a vegetable themselves in their next life.


Augustine’s faith in Manicheanism crumbled when he met a famous Manichean teacher, and found him unable to answer any of his questions. At the same time, he met Ambrose, and found him very impressive. Ambrose was a great speaker, and dazzled Augustine with his interpretation of Scripture, which Augustine had previously found to be of too simple a style. Finally, he learned about St. Anthony, and was ashamed that such an uneducated man could live such a better life than he seemed capable of.


Before long, he was intellectually convinced of the truth of Christianity, but still unable to give himself over to it.

Wretched youth that I was — supremely wretched even in the very outset of my youth — I had entreated chastity of thee and had prayed, “Grant me chastity and continence, but not yet.” For I was afraid that you would hear me too soon, and too soon cure me of my disease of lust which I desired to have satisfied rather than extinguished.

I kept saying to myself, “See, let it be done now; let it be done now.” And as I said this I all but came to a firm decision. I all but did it — yet I did not quite. Still I did not fall back to my old condition, but stood aside for a moment and drew breath. And I tried again, and lacked only a very little of reaching the resolve — and then somewhat less, and then all but touched and grasped it. Yet I still did not quite reach or touch or grasp the goal, because I hesitated to die to death and to live to life. And the worse way, to which I was habituated, was stronger in me than the better, which I had not tried.

They are sentiments we can all relate to. Make me righteous, after I’ve had the chance to be wild and enjoy myself. The conflict tears Augustine apart, as part of him desperately wants to make the leap, but the other part just as desperately clings to his old habits and lusts. Many times he comes very close to making the change, but never quite gets there. On his own strength, he is powerless to change.

Like the man who said to Jesus, “I believe, help my unbelief” (Mark 9:24), Augustine is praying not only that he will change, but that he will want to change. The change in his heart that needs to take place goes down to the very core, covering his actions, his motivations, and even that part of him that attempts to change his motivations.

Finally, in frustration, he throws himself down under a fig tree in his backyard and gives up, submitting himself fully to God’s power.

I flung myself down under a fig tree — how I know not — and gave free course to my tears. The streams of my eyes gushed out an acceptable sacrifice to thee.

I was saying these things and weeping in the most bitter contrition of my heart, when suddenly I heard the voice of a boy or a girl I know not which — coming from the neighboring house, chanting over and over again, “Pick it up, read it; pick it up, read it.” Immediately I ceased weeping and began most earnestly to think whether it was usual for children in some kind of game to sing such a song, but I could not remember ever having heard the like. So, damming the torrent of my tears, I got to my feet, for I could not but think that this was a divine command to open the Bible and read the first passage I should light upon.

I snatched it up, opened it, and in silence read the paragraph on which my eyes first fell: “Not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying, but put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof.” I wanted to read no further, nor did I need to. For instantly, as the sentence ended, there was infused in my heart something like the light of full certainty and all the gloom of doubt vanished away.

Closing the book, then, and putting my finger or something else for a mark I began — now with a tranquil countenance — to tell it all to Alypius. And he in turn disclosed to me what had been going on in himself, of which I knew nothing. He asked to see what I had read. I showed him, and he looked on even further than I had read. I had not known what followed. But indeed it was this, “Him that is weak in the faith, receive.” This he applied to himself, and told me so. By these words of warning he was strengthened, and by exercising his good resolution and purpose — all very much in keeping with his character, in which, in these respects, he was always far different from and better than I — he joined me in full commitment without any restless hesitation.

Here we see God performing one of those deniable miracles which He seems so fond of. Nothing in the chain of events is explicitly supernatural, but the string of coincidences is so unlikely that is hard to take any other explanation seriously. The voice Augustine overheard did not boom down from heaven, and may well have been simply a child in a neighboring house, and yet the strange chant was exactly what Augustine needed to hear (Augustine himself seems unclear as to whether the voice had an actual human behind it or not). Augustine then opens his Bible and against all odds lands on a verse that is again exactly what he needs to hear; one followed immediately by another verse that is exactly what his companion needs to hear. It could all be a coincidence, but would a mere string of coincidences really have been able to make such a radical change in both Augustine’s and Alypius’ lives?

Augustine was ordained a priest in 391, and became bishop of Hippo in 395.

Pelagian controversy

Pelagius was a monk from Britain, who became very concerned with society’s moral laxity, and came to blame this in part on the doctrine of the divine grace. The essential core of his doctrine was that mankind can avoid sinning, and that we can use our free will to choose to follow God’s commandments. There is no original sin; each person is a new free agent with the same power of choice as Adam. We are fully capable of not sinning our entire lives.

Augustine reacted strongly against this doctrine, which starkly contradicted his own experience. He recalled how even in his youth he would do things simply because they were wrong, and how even when he was intellectually convinced of the truth of Christianity, he was unable to let go of his past sinful habits.
Augustine’s response can be boiled down into the following points:

  1. Original Sin: As humanity’s representative, we are involved in some way in Adam’s fall, and consequently we all inherit that guilt from our parents.
  2. This corruption of man’s nature makes us unable to choose God or move towards restoration with him in any meaningful way. Essentially, Adam started in a state of being both able to sin and able not to sin. After the fall, humans become not able not to sin. After our redemption and death, we will finally become not able to sin.
  3. Most importantly, it is only through the grace of God that we can be saved.

Augustine also brings in predestination, and though Pelagius was ultimately condemned by the church, the debate still rages today over the precise interplay between God’s grace and our own free will.



Your mind is in Pi

Suppose your mind is really nothing more than the sum of a bunch of physical processes. If so, this can be simulated on a computer (albeit a much more powerful computer than any we currently have).

When you get right down to it, computer programs are just a bunch of ones and zeroes. Every single one of them, from Plants vs Zombies, to the browser you’re reading this on, is just a really, really long number.

We’re pretty sure that π contains all finite number sequences. Your mind as a computer program is a finite number sequence. π contains that number.

Consider digital-you once more, running inside the computer. I think we can agree that he’s conscious.

What if we remove the computer? On what basis do we privilege a physical substrate, when really we’re only already interested in what it is representing in the abstract. Remove the computer, and you just have the number. From the inside, the number itself is conscious. This number feels exactly like you do right now.

And so π is not only conscious, it is teeming with minds (same goes for e and √2). Every version of every person that ever has or will exist, and infinitely more who haven’t, live within it.

This is the metaphysics of Max Tegmark.

I find it incredibly seductive, escapable only by denying the supposition in sentence 1.