485
Everything we sense about the universe we think we can measure. Why do we
want to? We even seek to measure qualities, render nearly numerical certainties
within subjective realms; how much we feel, the degree of faith, of sacrifice, of
despair. We even set out to measure joy, in whatever doses. Again: Why this insistence to measure anything? Plato’s “Apology 29b-d” leads to the Socratic Paradox—I
know that I know nothing (or at least, about human virtue)
5
—which, in turn, takes
us to the curious “Münchhausen Trilemma” of circular, regressive and axiomatic
arguments always turning in upon themselves—the physics of introspection. In
1576 the young Portuguese scholar, Francisco Sánchez (c. 1550–1623) applied his
devastating skepticism to a syndrome of no-knowledge in a work entitled Quod
nihil scitur (That Nothing Is Known).
6
Elsewhere, we have described a quintessential debate within sociobiology that
expresses our species’ and individual existence on a pendulum that swings from
the ultimate embrace of Self, whether by a Galileo or a Camus who referenced the
former’s ultimate renunciation of scientific theory under the pressure of his life at
risk, and that of modern biological synthesis, which extols the hegemony of some
ultimate operating system in control of the philosopher’s very “hypothalamus and
limbic system.” The result being, says E. O. Wilson, that “the philosopher’s own
emotional control centers are wiser than his solipsist consciousness”.
7
Which
places the getting of wisdom in a lesser category than the getting of emotion.
Fair enough.
Wilson describes our hopes for a biological future, citing Camus’ pessimism and
Camus’ talk of suicide as the only truly worthy philosophical topic, in light of “A
world that can be explained even with bad reasons [because it] is a familiar world.
But, on the other hand, in a universe divested of illusions and lights, man feels an
alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of
a lost home or the hope of a promised land”.
8
Adding, “This, unfortunately is true.
But we still have another hundred years”.
9
Paul Ehrlich is less sanguine, declaring,
“Collapse of civilization is a near certainty within decades
10
(Fig. 52.2).
5 See “The Paradox of Socratic Ignorance in Plato’s Apology,” by Thomas C. Brickhouse and
Nicholas D. Smith, History of Philosophy Quarterly, HPQ, Vol. 1, No. 2, Apr. 1984, pp. 125–131,
University of Illinois Press on behalf of North American Philosophical Publications, https://www.
jstor.org/stable/27743673, https://www.jstor.org/stable/27743673?seq=1, Accessed May 14, 2020.
6 Francisco Sánchez, Quod nihil scitur, Edited and Translated by Elaine Limbrick, and Douglas
F. S. Thomson, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2008.
7 See E. O. Wilson, Sociobiology, The Abridged Edition, Drawings by Sarah Landry, The Belknap
Press Of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 190, p. 3 of the chapter “The Morality of
the Gene.”
8 Albert Camus, The Myth Of Sisyphus and Other Essays, Translated from the French by Justin
O’Brien, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1955, p. 6.
9 op. cit., Wilson, 1980, p. 301.
10 Interview by Damian Carrington, “Paul Ehrlich: ‘Collapse of Civilisation is a Near Certainty
Within Decades,” The Guardian Newspaper, London, March 22, 2018, https://www.theguardian.
com/cities/2018/mar/22/collapse-civilisation-near-certain-decades-population-bomb-paulehrlich, Accessed May 14, 2020. Cited in The Hypothetical Species: Variables of Human Evolution,
by M. C. Tobias and J. G. Morrison, Springer Nature, New York, 2019, p. 53.
52.1 Navigating a World of Chance and Uncertainty
Everything we sense about the universe we think we can measure. Why do we
want to? We even seek to measure qualities, render nearly numerical certainties
within subjective realms; how much we feel, the degree of faith, of sacrifice, of
despair. We even set out to measure joy, in whatever doses. Again: Why this insistence to measure anything? Plato’s “Apology 29b-d” leads to the Socratic Paradox—I
know that I know nothing (or at least, about human virtue)
5
—which, in turn, takes
us to the curious “Münchhausen Trilemma” of circular, regressive and axiomatic
arguments always turning in upon themselves—the physics of introspection. In
1576 the young Portuguese scholar, Francisco Sánchez (c. 1550–1623) applied his
devastating skepticism to a syndrome of no-knowledge in a work entitled Quod
nihil scitur (That Nothing Is Known).
6
Elsewhere, we have described a quintessential debate within sociobiology that
expresses our species’ and individual existence on a pendulum that swings from
the ultimate embrace of Self, whether by a Galileo or a Camus who referenced the
former’s ultimate renunciation of scientific theory under the pressure of his life at
risk, and that of modern biological synthesis, which extols the hegemony of some
ultimate operating system in control of the philosopher’s very “hypothalamus and
limbic system.” The result being, says E. O. Wilson, that “the philosopher’s own
emotional control centers are wiser than his solipsist consciousness”.
7
Which
places the getting of wisdom in a lesser category than the getting of emotion.
Fair enough.
Wilson describes our hopes for a biological future, citing Camus’ pessimism and
Camus’ talk of suicide as the only truly worthy philosophical topic, in light of “A
world that can be explained even with bad reasons [because it] is a familiar world.
But, on the other hand, in a universe divested of illusions and lights, man feels an
alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of
a lost home or the hope of a promised land”.
8
Adding, “This, unfortunately is true.
But we still have another hundred years”.
9
Paul Ehrlich is less sanguine, declaring,
“Collapse of civilization is a near certainty within decades
10
(Fig. 52.2).
5 See “The Paradox of Socratic Ignorance in Plato’s Apology,” by Thomas C. Brickhouse and
Nicholas D. Smith, History of Philosophy Quarterly, HPQ, Vol. 1, No. 2, Apr. 1984, pp. 125–131,
University of Illinois Press on behalf of North American Philosophical Publications, https://www.
jstor.org/stable/27743673, https://www.jstor.org/stable/27743673?seq=1, Accessed May 14, 2020.
6 Francisco Sánchez, Quod nihil scitur, Edited and Translated by Elaine Limbrick, and Douglas
F. S. Thomson, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2008.
7 See E. O. Wilson, Sociobiology, The Abridged Edition, Drawings by Sarah Landry, The Belknap
Press Of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 190, p. 3 of the chapter “The Morality of
the Gene.”
8 Albert Camus, The Myth Of Sisyphus and Other Essays, Translated from the French by Justin
O’Brien, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1955, p. 6.
9 op. cit., Wilson, 1980, p. 301.
10 Interview by Damian Carrington, “Paul Ehrlich: ‘Collapse of Civilisation is a Near Certainty
Within Decades,” The Guardian Newspaper, London, March 22, 2018, https://www.theguardian.
com/cities/2018/mar/22/collapse-civilisation-near-certain-decades-population-bomb-paulehrlich, Accessed May 14, 2020. Cited in The Hypothetical Species: Variables of Human Evolution,
by M. C. Tobias and J. G. Morrison, Springer Nature, New York, 2019, p. 53.
52.1 Navigating a World of Chance and Uncertainty