14 Comments

I definitely like the more “probabilistic” attitude that the Academic skeptics came up with. While it may be hard to think of probabilities when dealing with philosophy, I find it useful for considering political & economic questions (and it can be helpful in thinking about what personal actions to take). I think people can often be dogmatic and have trouble thinking probabilistically.

I’m reading Nate Silver’s “On the Edge” where he talks about various folk (poker players, venture capitalist investors, and even effective altruists) who use probabilistic reasoning. A lot of it is in regards to amoral endeavors (poker and gambling and such), but it’s interesting when thinking in terms of ethics like effective altruism (which is basically utilitarian) & politics. (The Stoic is not a utilitarian, but I do feel like you have to use utilitarian reasoning to an extent when dealing with political-economic choices.)

Expand full comment

Matthew, yes, I find the probabilistic approach useful pretty much everywhere. Virtue ethicists are not utilitarians, but that doesn’t mean they don’t consider possible consequences: https://thephilosophygarden.substack.com/p/virtue-ethics-rules-and-consequences

Also, my take on Effective Altruism coming up on 10/16…

Expand full comment

Ah yes, I’d be curious what your thoughts are! I’ll await your article, though I do tend to distinguish between EA the movement vs. EA as a philosophy - also I think there’s a genuine difference between the regular EA folk who want to donate to more effective charities vs. “longtermist” EA folk who think we need to consider future humans, consider AI/nuclear risks, etc.

Expand full comment

Yes, lots of interesting distinctions to be made.

Expand full comment

Thinking is fun and worthwhile--organized, systematic approaches to thinking make it more so.

Expand full comment

I know, right?

Expand full comment

Thanks for this Massimo. I am still at the language school in Syracuse and thinking about Cicero, Verres, Archimedes, and Lilybaeum. I read "Against Verres" about 25 years ago, in school, but actually being here under the hot Sicilian sky brings it all to life. As you know, Cicerone was a fierce advocate, as well as a philosopher, family man and stand-up comic. No wonder Verres took to the hills; his story sounds frighteningly modern - his rapacity and greed resonates with the huge inequalities in income distribution that we see today. My Italian will never be much good, but it is freeing to have another language to read and think in. I reading the Latin and Italian side-by-side. All this good stuff that I am enjoying comes from following your philosophy garden. The proximate cause of this trip to Syracusa was your seminar in Ortigia last June. Thank you.

Expand full comment

Judy, what you are doing is impressive! And I’m a bit (unStoically!) jealous that you are in Syracuse right now!

Yes, Verres’s rapacity is very much a forerunner to what modern billionaires are doing. And a reminder that the fight against greed and injustice is a human perennial.

Expand full comment

I am moved by Cicero’s dedication to philosophy, broadening its voice and perspective in Latin as a political act, and moral support of Brutus and the pro-republic faction in Roman life.

Ceasar had made clear that Cicero’s life would end brutally and as soon as opportunity permitted. Cicero carried on bravely and resolutely in his literary production, with his death sentence looming. The manner in which Cicero conducted himself is inspiring.

Expand full comment

Joe, agreed. I really find Cicero to be one of the most inspiring figures in antiquity. In part because of his defects, of which he was conscious, and even made fun.

Expand full comment

Matthew and Massimo: I'm coming late into this conversation. I am not sure where games of skill become amoral, but they often do. There is nothing intrinsically bad about a deck of 52 cards, or even games of chance that use those cards. In my opinion , a good counter example is the life and work of Stanislas Ulam. He was a Polish-American mathematician and avid gambler who worked on the Manhattan Project. He developed, with John von Neumann, a probabilistic sampling method in econometrics called the Monte Carlo method (you can guess why). Its use has spread into many fields. Ulam never let his gambling get out of hand - it is not the cards but how you use them (how Stoic is that?). There is a sweet little movie on Ulam called “Adventures of a mathematician (2020). I say sweet because he seems to have been, besides a genius, a very sweet man. But it's only a movie.

Expand full comment

Judy, ah, I’m very familiar with the Monte Carlo method from my days in population genetics! I have never looked into the figure of Ulam, sounds interesting!

Expand full comment

Yes, when I was studying econometrics I did not look into the background of either econometrics or Ulam. In fact, I think that I was dazzled by von Neumann and just accepted that he was the lead figure. The arrogance ignorance of the young! Ulam has a small part in Oppenheimer.

Expand full comment

It’s easy to be dazzled by von Neumann…

Expand full comment