Monday, August 08, 2022

The Cheap Omniscience of Progressive Serpents

Picking up where we laughed off, Pieper speaks of a kind of lightheartedness connected with not knowing everything and, by extension, not being in charge of the cosmos; for it seems that omniscience and omnipotence are closely related, even in humans. 

Put conversely, it's why most politicians imagine they are fit to rule, when they are actually too stupid to know they're not. Our political swamp is teeming with the infrahuman debris of end-stage Dunning-Kruger, as evidenced by Brandon and his line of suckcession, which goes from Kamala Harris to Nancy Pelosi, Patrick Leahy, Antony Blinken, Janet Yellen, Lloyd Austin, Merrick Garland, and on. I could continue, but you get the point: it's idiots all the way down

The larger point, if I have one, is that 

The claim to absolute certainty contains not only something which is fundamentally humorless but even formally un-human (Pieper).

This checks out. Humor requires a self-awareness that is entirely absent -- even forbidden -- on the left. I'm old enough to remember when it wasn't this way, because Dems used to at least pretend to be more liberal than leftist. Now there are no classical liberals at all among the progressive left. 

Omniscience and brittleness go together, hence the trigger warnings, the cancellation of truth tellers, the ban on noticing, the conspiracy of fake news, and the assaults on free speech more generally. 

For human beings, omniscience is always a function of nescience: the less you know, the more you think you do; and the more you know, the less you imagine you know it all. 

Now, the lure of omniscience is especially appealing to narcissists. This is why academia and journalism are such cesspits of intellectual narcissism, for what is ideology but a kind of cheap omniscience? Not only does it explain everything, but it simultaneously signals one's brilliance and virtue, plus it confers cost-free (except for one's soul) social status. It may be craven, stupid, and conformist, but you can't say it doesn't work.

Omniscience is always on offer by narcissists and sociopaths, for the simple reason that man is ignorant and always will be. Of course, we can know a great deal about a great many things, but there is is more that we don't know, plus a great deal that we can never know. It is always this last realm that the narcissistic political psychopath exploits. 

Never know? Bob, you're the guy who's always telling us how the intellect-as-such is conformed to the Absolute, and how man is therefore capable of knowing everything. 

That is correct as far as it goes, but what I actually say is that man is capable of knowing everything that can be known. I never say he can know what can never be known, so much so that I sometimes even wonder if God himself can "know the unknowable," but that would take us far afield. Suffice it to say that we cannot know what is absurd or fundamentally unintelligible, but we also cannot understand something that is infinitely complex.

Consider the human brain, which is by orders of magnitude the most complex entity in all of creation. As the old gag goes, if it were simple enough for us to understand, it would be too simple to host an intellect capable of understanding it. I just googled it, and there are said to be 100 billion neurons in the brain, with 100 trillion connections.  

It's enough that a single brain is infinitely complex, but they're also interconnected with other brains in irreducibly complex and fundamentally irreducible ways. Which is where Hayek comes in.

For what is an economy but an irreducibly complex web of brains, each with its own particular knowledge of economic conditions, plus its own needs, desires, goals, and plans. The central planner ignores all this complexity, and simply steamrolls over it, most recently with the not even fraudulent Inflation Reduction Act. The only mystery is why they didn't name it the Live Forever on Sugar Candy Mountain Act.

Of course it will fail, but this failure will have no impact on the perennial human desire to be as gods. Yes, it's the same old Genesis 3 All Over Again, which is to say, the false promise of omniscience. Unless, of course, the serpent is the hero of the story -- the first omniscient central planner with a better idea of how to run things. 

To be continued...

22 comments:

julie said...

I even sometimes wonder if God himself can "know the unknowable," but that would take us far afield.

This must be so to at least some degree, given that the Man did say so Himself.

For what is an economy but an irreducibly complex web of brains, each with its own particular knowledge of economic conditions, plus its own needs, desires, goals, and plans.

In a sane world, I, Pencil would be required reading for school kids, to be revisited at least a couple of times over the course of their studies.

Anonymous said...

A Christian who wants to solve social problems is hardly an idiot. But yeah I know, if they’re anything to “the left” of Donald Trump they’re almost certain to be demonically possessed.

That’s why I believe our Pope is a witch. You heard it here first.

Nicolás said...

In the Christianity of the leftist Christian, one of the two elements sooner or later eliminates the other.

Nicolás said...

Christianity does not solve “problems”; it merely obliges us to live them at a higher level.

Anonymous said...

I was once angrily advised (by an angry namecaller) to go educate myself with a few Prager U videos. And so I did. I appreciated the lessons taught at about the 7th grade level, which I had indeed once learned back in the 7th grade.

But then I remembered going into the 8th grade with many questions.

What if ‘Genesis 3’ comes to ruin our 7th grade level philosophies? Don’t we need checks and balances to say, keep stuff like “late-stage capitalism” from being supplanted by early-stage atheist CCP-ism? The latter seems to be on one helluva roll of late, in both success and strategic world power.

Could somebody point me to the Prager U video which answers that question?

Gagdad Bob said...

Just watching Brandon in Kentucky, and he actually said "the weather may be beyond our control for now..."

Anonymous said...

In the Christianity of the leftist Christian, one of the two elements sooner or later eliminates the other.

Indeed Nicolás. Could you elaborate? As you know, I tend to get confused. For example, there are many Christians in power who openly speak of solving America's problems with a big government theocracy. (Since I know your news sources are highly restricted, I can elaborate if you wish.)

julie said...

God help us if/ when they really do figure out how to do more than seed clouds to try and make it rain. I believe that's one of the long-term goals of our moral and intellectual betters, to try and dim the sun somehow to reduce global warming. Talk about anthropogenic climate change; frankly, I prefer the current warm cycle to an ice age.

Anonymous said...

Just watching Brandon in Kentucky, and he actually said "the weather may be beyond our control for now..."

I've seen the bit where some scientists claim that climate change is gonna be a whole lot worse than their peers have predicted. I'm certainly experiencing it where I live. Siberian methane blows and all.

I'd like to hear from others living in other parts of the world who are seeing otherwise.

Nicolás said...

No answer can be more intelligent than the question that gave rise to it.

Anonymous said...

Julie, One problem with climate change (if not a hoax) is Central and South Americans. Do you really want all those refugee brownies overtopping Trump's Really Great Wall like a scene outta World War Z?

Cousin Dupree said...

If you think climate change creates refugees, just wait until you see how many refugees are created by solutions to climate change.

Daisy said...

Meanwhile, in Mexico they're starting to complain about all the Americanos settling in the cities and driving up prices...

Gagdad Bob said...

Z Man today:

"Why are these people in these positions and why are they imposing these novel moral codes? What justifies their claim that noticing things about people is immoral? Who decided this and by what system did they decide it? Because there are no answers to these questions, the only solution is to silence anyone who raises them. To tolerate dissent puts into question the authority of the managerial system, which has no natural authority."

Gagdad Bob said...

Dunning Kruger all the way up.

Gagdad Bob said...

Can't recommend Alex Epstein's Fossil Future enough: the only feasible current solution to the problems of petroleum is MORE PETROLEUM.

John Venlet said...

While the importance of petroleum is not to be disregarded, a more feasible and effective solution is nuclear power. When you consider the importance of cheap power, beginning with the industrial revolution and the rise of coal as a source of power rather than men's muscles, then the move to petroleum and natural gas, which did not totally displace coal and should not, and the associated rise in the working man's financial well being due to the utilization of these resources, we should be pounding the drums for nuclear power. Think how beneficial nuclear power would be as an inexpensive source of power if it was instituted on a national scale. Not only would electricity be cheap, you would once again have a rise in the financial well being for the people who need it the most. We do need to keep the petroleum flowing also, as the bang for the buck you get from gasoline cannot be overstated.

julie said...

I think we need to embrace the healing power of "and" here. Nuclear as the primary source for powering the infrastructure, and petroleum for anything that moves. Although presumably it should be possible to use the same tech that powers submarines to power trains. I have to wonder if there's even remotely enough source material to make it viable for regular car use, though, and as nightmarish as it is when a Tesla catches on fire, I don't even want to think about what might happen if a nuclear-powered car decided to have a meltdown.

John Venlet said...

You are correct, Julie, cars and trains, at least at this point in our understanding how to properly utilize nuclear power, are not prime candidates for nuclear powered locomotion. Neither should cars or trains be prime candidates for being electrically powered by batteries charged by burning coal, though many people are being brainwashed into feeling that they are. Nuke power requires major cooling, at least based on the technology available to us in this day and age, and water is in large part required for this cooling. So drill for oil, produce gasoline, and drive combustion engine cars, preferably with a V8, and use nuclear power for all the world's electrical needs.

Gagdad Bob said...

The rejection of nuclear tells you the whole solar & wind thing is a scam and a grift.

ted said...

Let's see, maybe they'll use that new package to hire more corrupt FBI agents too. And still, no one is looking at the Biden's?! This country is really fooked up now.

Van Harvey said...

"Now, the lure of omniscience is especially appealing to narcissists. This is why academia and journalism are such cesspits of intellectual narcissism, for what is ideology but a kind of cheap omniscience? Not only does it explain everything, but it simultaneously signals one's brilliance and virtue, plus it confers cost-free (except for one's soul) social status. It may be craven, stupid, and conformist, but you can't say it doesn't work."

Exactly so, ideology is the soph-impressed's omniscience on the cheap - easily conveyed through textbooks, confirmed through testing, and protected from questioning by waving a degree in the face of those who want to be relieved of the burden of thinking for themselves.

Theme Song

Theme Song