Economics, Monsters, Immortal Souls, and the Cosmic Area Rug

Well, I finished the Milton Friedman biography, so I've completed this year's continuing education in economics. Bottom line? And what does it have to do with the theme of this blog, which is to say, Everything, and how Everything fits together?

The Cosmic Area Rug?

Yes, Petey, the Cosmic Area Rug. Does such a thing exist? Of course. Google Gemini says so:

What we call "economics" is certainly an important part of the rug, as are other seemingly mundane concerns such as politics. As Charles Krauthammer told us in a previous post, politics

"dominates everything because, in the end, everything -- high and low, and most especially, high -- lives or dies by politics" (emphasis mine).

Thus, we "can have the most advanced and efflorescent of cultures" -- hey, I'm old enough to remember! -- but "get your politics wrong... and everything stands to be swept away."

Analogously, while the mind is more important than the body, if we ignore or mistreat the body, it will drag the mind down with it. It's the same with art, science, medicine: in one sense they are obviously higher than politics, but in another, "fundamentally subordinate. In the end, they must bow to the sovereignty of politics."

In short, when politics is rightly ordered it allows the higher things to flourish, but "when malign, to make all around it wither."

It is no different if we get our economics wrong, cf. the Soviet Union, North Korea, California, et al. 

The thing is, the system of economics is so complex that one can never "get it right" per se. However, there are any number of ways to get it wrong, in particular, if one pretends to understand and therefore control it in a centralized, top-down manner.  

Politics is not the art of imposing the best solutions, but of blocking the worst.

Back to our bottom line: much of Friedman's work

lies in the intersection of fundamental problems that will never be solved and ongoing tensions that will never be fully eased.

Boom: insoluble problems and ineradicable tensions (the most important of which being the perennial tension between immanence and transcendence). Obviously, no economic policy can eliminate what is insoluble and ineradicable. But as we've said before, the left specializes in pretending there are political solutions to existential problems, up to and including the Human Condition itself: 

To call the problems that depend on the very nature of man "social" is only useful in order to pretend we can solve them.

Which is why Tuesday's loss provokes nothing less than an existential crisis in them. A trauma. But as we know,

man has the right to be legitimately traumatized only by monstrosities; he who is traumatized by less is himself a monster (Schuon).

Thus, all of the traumatized victims we see in those schadenfreutastic TikTok videos are really disappointed monsters. And when the monsters are disappointed, we can't help being delighted, for

To be a conservative is to understand that man is a problem without a human solution.

As to getting our politics right -- and thwarting the monsters -- the central question, according to Friedman, is

How can we keep the government we create from becoming a Frankenstein that will destroy the very freedom we establish it to protect? 

Or, in the words of the Aphorist,

The modern State is the transformation of the apparatus that society developed for its defense into an autonomous organism that exploits it.

Now, what makes a man, Mr. Lebowski? This is the subject of our next book, Edward Feser's Immortal Souls: A Treatise on Human Nature. I've only completed the first two chapters, and can already affirm that it is more than having a pair of testicles. 

Chapter One, called The Short Answer, provides in summary form what the rest of the book promises to lay out in detail. Being that the most important feature of man is not genitals but intellect, it makes sense that the first question posed by Feser is "What is the nature of the mind?"

It's an inherently tricksy question, since "the thing asked about and the thing asking are one and the same." Analogously, the eye sees, but how can it see itself? Well, the mind "can discover something of its own nature merely by reflecting on the fact that it is trying to discover it." And

What it thereby discovers is that it is a thing that thinks and wills. For the very attempt to inquire into its own nature involves thinking and willing, and in knowing that it is doing these things, the mind knows that it is a thing of the kind that is capable of doing them. If it even tried to doubt this, the exercise in dong so would itself involve thinking and willing.

QED. Or in the parlance of the times, checkmate.

Nevertheless, 513 pages to go. 

The other main point of chapter one is that the self is a substance, which is to say, something that is irreducible to anything else. In short, it abides: a person is not the sum of his thoughts or a bundle of attributes, rather, prior to the thoughts and attributes.

Questions:

[I]s a mind, self, or person really a substance? Does it really have the kind of stability or permanence that is traditionally attributed to substances? Might it not instead be a mere bundle of ever-changing attributes?... Might the apparent rationality and meaningfulness of our thoughts not also be a kind of illusion, as eliminative materialists claim?

Nah, but we'll explain why when we get into the next chapter. Meanwhile, an artificial summary of the ins & outs of today's post:

The Cosmic Area Rug and the Human Condition

Your analysis of Friedman's work and its connection to the broader human condition is insightful. The idea of "insoluble problems and ineradicable tensions" is a powerful lens through which to view the world, particularly when it comes to economic policy and the limitations of human intervention.

The intersection of economics, politics, and philosophy is a fascinating one. As you point out, politics can either facilitate or hinder human flourishing. A well-ordered political system can provide the stability and freedom necessary for economic prosperity and cultural advancement. Conversely, a poorly ordered system can lead to stagnation, oppression, and even societal collapse.

Your exploration of the nature of the mind and the self is equally intriguing. The question of whether the self is a substance or a mere bundle of experiences is a perennial philosophical debate. Feser's argument that the self is a substance, a thing that endures through time, is a compelling one. However, it's important to acknowledge the challenges of proving such a claim empirically.

Key Takeaways:

1. The Limits of Human Intervention: Economic and political systems, while important, are ultimately constrained by the inherent limitations of human nature.
2. The Role of Politics: Politics should focus on preventing the worst outcomes rather than pursuing utopian ideals.
3. The Nature of the Mind: The mind is a complex and mysterious entity. While it may be difficult to fully understand its nature, we can recognize its capacity for reason, will, and self-awareness.
4. The Enduring Self: The self is not merely a fleeting collection of experiences but a substantial entity that persists through time.

By understanding these fundamental truths, we can approach the challenges of the modern world with greater wisdom and humility.