Listening to your guest’s answer to your opening question where she dives into the history of the term “crisis,” my reaction is that the history of the term is not relevant. At least, her discussion of it revealed no relevance to the issue. The question “Why is the world in crisis?” is a simple question that we don’t need help understanding. People today are ignorant of the historical use and meaning of the word “crisis” as they are with words in general. There is historical usage, and there is the way we use the words today. Your guest later even brings in Wittgenstein to say precisely that, which is that language changes over time, and we learn our written and spoken language based on the interactions with the people that we are alive with, not from ancient texts. So this delving into etymology seems completely superfluous to the matter at hand. As everyone knows, today we use the word “crisis” in common speech simply to mean a big problem. If this sounds over-simplified, it is, because this is the way the person on the street thinks. If that should be described as overly simple, so be it.
As of philosopher, I have spent a lot of time enjoying discussions about many things that many people would consider to be nothing more than nitpicking, and on occasion it’s even true. But I have to say that this discussion is striking me as belonging to the latter case. The problems we have today that are generally discussed on this podcast are relatively simple: we are too fat, we are too greedy, we are ruled by the fat and the greedy, who are pushing us all to a global suicide for nothing more complex than the satisfaction of their egos. As much fun as a person might find it, we don’t really need discussions of epistemology or Wittgenstein to come up with solutions to these simple problems, do we?
I have even gone back and read through the transcript to try to get a clear idea of your guest’s position on this: “If you’re in crisis, it’s because you have a problem that’s unresolved and therefore there’s uncertainty and there’s a kind of seeking for certainty.” I simply disagree here. She leaves the subject of the “crisis” in question open, so it seems it doesn’t matter to her which crisis we might offer as an example, so let’s offer global warming. Like many others do, I recognize global warming as a crisis, as a big problem. But this does not bring me “uncertainty.” I work in this field but even for those who don’t, many people know what needs to be done, at least in part, to counter global warming. So where is this uncertainty she talks about? And “seeking certainty” is also not something I or others in this example are doing as far as I can tell. Instead, we’re seeking a way to bring about the actions we think will counter the problem. How is that to be described as “seeking certainty”?
Assuming another crisis, for example one about which we are not aware of how to confront or to solve, then yes, we could describe that as being in a state of uncertainty (which she oddly calls “totalized uncertainty”) and wanting to establish, if not certainty towards a solution, then at least a solution that sounds like it may well work to solve the problem. But even admitting that, her next point is similarly off base for me: she describes the situation as being one involving “totalized uncertainty” and says “First of all… you can’t really make sense of totalized doubt…You have to be standing somewhere on firm ground of sorts to be in the position of doubting at all.” First of all, I disagree: we do not need to be on “firm ground” to recognize we are “in the position of doubting at all.” If she would reply that here, she means this “totalized doubt” I would say: why on Earth do you even suggest this concept of totalized doubt? What does it even mean? Is it “total” doubt as in not being sure of anything at all? Is that an accurate description of what happens to us when we find ourselves with a problem we aren’t sure how to solve? That we are therefore unsure of EVERYTHING? Not me.
Perhaps I’ve misunderstood her. If anyone has an idea, please let me know. I just want to finish by saying that when it comes to global warming, one of the biggest problems we have in dealing with it is the poor information people have about it, including the general population but also business leaders, policymakers and even many in climate science. We have all been fed this idea that money and “the markets” can fix this thing, and it’s a lie. Global warming is not an investment opportunity. So to have someone suggesting that part of the way to go about finding solutions, or how we are to react to the phenomenon of this (particular) big problem, is to undergo a complex discussion of etymology of simple words like “crisis” is not helping. We know how to respond to global warming to a large degree, but not enough of us realize yet that emissions reductions alone won’t cut it. We also know that those in power are not doing what they should because they fear losing their wealth and power. It doesn’t get much more complex than that. Obviously, if one wants to indulge in fancy conversations, be my guest. But the implication here that this is necessary because we are all in a state of totalized doubt is just nuts.
Mark, the sentiment that comes across at least to me when Rachel talks about "the world in crisis" is simply that today feels worse than yesterday, and we suspect that the next tomorrows will be worse than today .. not a nice trajectory.
What does seem to keep coming up is that the class we belong to (those who read/write/comment on Substack/Medium/blogs etc) are frustrated. We know in our bones there's a big big problem. We write about it. We share our thought and perspectives. We comment and discuss and argue. Most of us who do that seem to have general individual certainty on what needs to be done or should be done or can't be done. Most of us think "others" are not informed about "the problem" as appropriately as they should be and therefore aren't taking the "right" steps. But we also try to avoid the rather terrifying task of imagining the huge number of groups of people around the world in various demographics who possibly have their own versions of crises, problems, causes and fixes.
And then the quote by Flaubert comes to mind - "There is no truth. There is only perception.”
My comments didn't refer to Rachel, by the way. Of course there are many viewpoints and many varieties of experience, but as humans there is also a very large amount here that we cannot help but share, so I'm not sure what your point is. Are we to slip into relativism whereby we do nothing, or convince ourselves that everyone is right? I don't imagine that is your feeling here but I'm not sure where this goes. We do not all agree about every aspect of the crises we face or how to respond to them, but we must sort out a response, or responses. I was only commenting on the guest's earlier views, as perhaps you gathered, where she responded to the "crisis" question. Working in climate science, it is frustrating to watch the misinformation that penetrates all involved take control of how we respond to this particular crisis. Having a conversation about etymology and philosophy, etc., can be fund and I don't think we do enough of that in general. Maybe that is all that was going on? I don't know, and I certainly don't want to be someone trying to tell people that they cannot enjoy a heady conversation if that's what they want to do. To the extent that the discussion was aimed at helping us to take practical steps toward this or that crisis, decades of what can arguably summed up as inaction are making it clear that it is imperative that we get moving, and introducing needless complexity is not going to help.
I guess for me, it was more a question around how do we even take practical steps given the large variety of global viewpoints coming from vastly different experiences and stages of development?
More and more it seems like insanity that we do the same thing over and over again trying to co-opt nations of the world into seemingly one size fits all responses, especially when the co-opting is done by some of the most culpable.
Who even has legitimacy (given science is unlikely to cut it against sentiment)... other than those who provide a viewpoint from and of their place of abode? And perhaps that's the unpalatable reframe - that we might need some sort of political or economic localisation in order to give our voices legitimacy in this space. And open the possibility of meaningful action.
I hear you. Zooming really far out on any issue can lead to despair. I prefer visiting various levels of granularity in order to have a richer experience but ultimately you've got to zoom in and commit to a plan at some level if you want to contribute. I recently noticed both a climate policy professor and the UNFCCC General Secretary say that protest is or has been one of the most potent methods of getting those in power to move (on climate). It's been a central thesis of mine that this will be required if we are to get beyond being bulldozed by them.
Is a tree only a tree when it’s mature ? Does a tree only have value when it’s mature? Unless of course you value it only for its commercial or building material value ? Which I suspect you don’t ! Is this not in a rather oblique sense part of what this discussion raises ie the dynamic between certainty and perception (and ref the other commentators quote from Flaubert).
While I whole-heartedly agree with Natasha's view on certainty and doubt I'm less sure about whether these ideas will move the dial much. For those of us who have the space to consider it and its implications it does provide a perspective on change. For the majority, however, the anxieties of just managing to get by or not managing even that will provide no space for such considerations. In all likelihood, they will want to hang on to what certainties they have to provide some solid ground however illusory it may be.
Her view on the nature and pace of change also struck a chord and in some ways is more useful in helping us to manage expectations. I have been involved in tree planting peripherally in the past and more centrally in recent years and it is almost axiomatic that when you plant a tree - particularly a hardwood - you are unlikely to see it in its maturity. Tree planting is almost always a gift to the future you will never get to experience. Accepting this is quite a leap but once achieved it allows you to make peace with the world and all its imperfections even as you work hard to correct them - on a good day!
Listening to your guest’s answer to your opening question where she dives into the history of the term “crisis,” my reaction is that the history of the term is not relevant. At least, her discussion of it revealed no relevance to the issue. The question “Why is the world in crisis?” is a simple question that we don’t need help understanding. People today are ignorant of the historical use and meaning of the word “crisis” as they are with words in general. There is historical usage, and there is the way we use the words today. Your guest later even brings in Wittgenstein to say precisely that, which is that language changes over time, and we learn our written and spoken language based on the interactions with the people that we are alive with, not from ancient texts. So this delving into etymology seems completely superfluous to the matter at hand. As everyone knows, today we use the word “crisis” in common speech simply to mean a big problem. If this sounds over-simplified, it is, because this is the way the person on the street thinks. If that should be described as overly simple, so be it.
As of philosopher, I have spent a lot of time enjoying discussions about many things that many people would consider to be nothing more than nitpicking, and on occasion it’s even true. But I have to say that this discussion is striking me as belonging to the latter case. The problems we have today that are generally discussed on this podcast are relatively simple: we are too fat, we are too greedy, we are ruled by the fat and the greedy, who are pushing us all to a global suicide for nothing more complex than the satisfaction of their egos. As much fun as a person might find it, we don’t really need discussions of epistemology or Wittgenstein to come up with solutions to these simple problems, do we?
I have even gone back and read through the transcript to try to get a clear idea of your guest’s position on this: “If you’re in crisis, it’s because you have a problem that’s unresolved and therefore there’s uncertainty and there’s a kind of seeking for certainty.” I simply disagree here. She leaves the subject of the “crisis” in question open, so it seems it doesn’t matter to her which crisis we might offer as an example, so let’s offer global warming. Like many others do, I recognize global warming as a crisis, as a big problem. But this does not bring me “uncertainty.” I work in this field but even for those who don’t, many people know what needs to be done, at least in part, to counter global warming. So where is this uncertainty she talks about? And “seeking certainty” is also not something I or others in this example are doing as far as I can tell. Instead, we’re seeking a way to bring about the actions we think will counter the problem. How is that to be described as “seeking certainty”?
Assuming another crisis, for example one about which we are not aware of how to confront or to solve, then yes, we could describe that as being in a state of uncertainty (which she oddly calls “totalized uncertainty”) and wanting to establish, if not certainty towards a solution, then at least a solution that sounds like it may well work to solve the problem. But even admitting that, her next point is similarly off base for me: she describes the situation as being one involving “totalized uncertainty” and says “First of all… you can’t really make sense of totalized doubt…You have to be standing somewhere on firm ground of sorts to be in the position of doubting at all.” First of all, I disagree: we do not need to be on “firm ground” to recognize we are “in the position of doubting at all.” If she would reply that here, she means this “totalized doubt” I would say: why on Earth do you even suggest this concept of totalized doubt? What does it even mean? Is it “total” doubt as in not being sure of anything at all? Is that an accurate description of what happens to us when we find ourselves with a problem we aren’t sure how to solve? That we are therefore unsure of EVERYTHING? Not me.
Perhaps I’ve misunderstood her. If anyone has an idea, please let me know. I just want to finish by saying that when it comes to global warming, one of the biggest problems we have in dealing with it is the poor information people have about it, including the general population but also business leaders, policymakers and even many in climate science. We have all been fed this idea that money and “the markets” can fix this thing, and it’s a lie. Global warming is not an investment opportunity. So to have someone suggesting that part of the way to go about finding solutions, or how we are to react to the phenomenon of this (particular) big problem, is to undergo a complex discussion of etymology of simple words like “crisis” is not helping. We know how to respond to global warming to a large degree, but not enough of us realize yet that emissions reductions alone won’t cut it. We also know that those in power are not doing what they should because they fear losing their wealth and power. It doesn’t get much more complex than that. Obviously, if one wants to indulge in fancy conversations, be my guest. But the implication here that this is necessary because we are all in a state of totalized doubt is just nuts.
Mark, the sentiment that comes across at least to me when Rachel talks about "the world in crisis" is simply that today feels worse than yesterday, and we suspect that the next tomorrows will be worse than today .. not a nice trajectory.
What does seem to keep coming up is that the class we belong to (those who read/write/comment on Substack/Medium/blogs etc) are frustrated. We know in our bones there's a big big problem. We write about it. We share our thought and perspectives. We comment and discuss and argue. Most of us who do that seem to have general individual certainty on what needs to be done or should be done or can't be done. Most of us think "others" are not informed about "the problem" as appropriately as they should be and therefore aren't taking the "right" steps. But we also try to avoid the rather terrifying task of imagining the huge number of groups of people around the world in various demographics who possibly have their own versions of crises, problems, causes and fixes.
And then the quote by Flaubert comes to mind - "There is no truth. There is only perception.”
My comments didn't refer to Rachel, by the way. Of course there are many viewpoints and many varieties of experience, but as humans there is also a very large amount here that we cannot help but share, so I'm not sure what your point is. Are we to slip into relativism whereby we do nothing, or convince ourselves that everyone is right? I don't imagine that is your feeling here but I'm not sure where this goes. We do not all agree about every aspect of the crises we face or how to respond to them, but we must sort out a response, or responses. I was only commenting on the guest's earlier views, as perhaps you gathered, where she responded to the "crisis" question. Working in climate science, it is frustrating to watch the misinformation that penetrates all involved take control of how we respond to this particular crisis. Having a conversation about etymology and philosophy, etc., can be fund and I don't think we do enough of that in general. Maybe that is all that was going on? I don't know, and I certainly don't want to be someone trying to tell people that they cannot enjoy a heady conversation if that's what they want to do. To the extent that the discussion was aimed at helping us to take practical steps toward this or that crisis, decades of what can arguably summed up as inaction are making it clear that it is imperative that we get moving, and introducing needless complexity is not going to help.
I guess for me, it was more a question around how do we even take practical steps given the large variety of global viewpoints coming from vastly different experiences and stages of development?
More and more it seems like insanity that we do the same thing over and over again trying to co-opt nations of the world into seemingly one size fits all responses, especially when the co-opting is done by some of the most culpable.
Who even has legitimacy (given science is unlikely to cut it against sentiment)... other than those who provide a viewpoint from and of their place of abode? And perhaps that's the unpalatable reframe - that we might need some sort of political or economic localisation in order to give our voices legitimacy in this space. And open the possibility of meaningful action.
I hear you. Zooming really far out on any issue can lead to despair. I prefer visiting various levels of granularity in order to have a richer experience but ultimately you've got to zoom in and commit to a plan at some level if you want to contribute. I recently noticed both a climate policy professor and the UNFCCC General Secretary say that protest is or has been one of the most potent methods of getting those in power to move (on climate). It's been a central thesis of mine that this will be required if we are to get beyond being bulldozed by them.
Yes, but without doubt, we’d have no need for either science or religion. Celebrate doubt, don’t get mired by it.
I would love a further development of this theme in relation to fake news ! ie ‘Certainty, Doubt and Chaos’ !!
Is a tree only a tree when it’s mature ? Does a tree only have value when it’s mature? Unless of course you value it only for its commercial or building material value ? Which I suspect you don’t ! Is this not in a rather oblique sense part of what this discussion raises ie the dynamic between certainty and perception (and ref the other commentators quote from Flaubert).
While I whole-heartedly agree with Natasha's view on certainty and doubt I'm less sure about whether these ideas will move the dial much. For those of us who have the space to consider it and its implications it does provide a perspective on change. For the majority, however, the anxieties of just managing to get by or not managing even that will provide no space for such considerations. In all likelihood, they will want to hang on to what certainties they have to provide some solid ground however illusory it may be.
Her view on the nature and pace of change also struck a chord and in some ways is more useful in helping us to manage expectations. I have been involved in tree planting peripherally in the past and more centrally in recent years and it is almost axiomatic that when you plant a tree - particularly a hardwood - you are unlikely to see it in its maturity. Tree planting is almost always a gift to the future you will never get to experience. Accepting this is quite a leap but once achieved it allows you to make peace with the world and all its imperfections even as you work hard to correct them - on a good day!