Notes from "Twilight of Democracy" by Anne Applebaum

Twilight of Democracy: The Seductive Lure of Authoritarianism by Anne Applebaum
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

I gained several valuable insights from this book:

On page 16 she cites the work of Karen Stenner (https://www.karenstenner.com), a behavioral economist, who argued that about a third of the population in any country has what she calls an authoritarian predisposition, a word that is more useful than personality, because it is less rigid. Authoritarianism appeals to people who cannot tolerate complexity.

On page 29 she says "If you are someone who believes that you deserve to rule, then your motivation to attack the elite, pack the courts, and warp the press to achieve you ambitions is strong. Resentment, envy and above all the belief that the "system" is unfair--not just to the country but to you--these are important sentiments among the nativist ideologues of the Polish right, so much so that it is not easy to pick apart their personal and political motives.
Then she goes on to delve into a case study of this phenomena by looking at two brothers who went in opposite ways. Very interesting.

On page 38 she distinguishes between the "Big Lie" and the "Medium-Size Lie" use in propaganda. The effort to avoid the facts of reality, but still have the lies believed, lead to these lies.

On page 45 she continues a specific discussion of conspiracy theory in Polish politics by generalizing that "The emotional appeal of a conspiracy theory is in its simplicity. It explains away complex phenomena, accounts for chance and accidents, offers the believer the satisfying sense of having special, privileged access to the truth."

On page 144, she quotes others from de Tocqueville to Reagan "... that American patriotism is unique, both then and later, was the fact that it was never explicitly connected to a single ethnic identity with a single origin in a single ethnic identity with a single origin in a single space." {To me this seems like common sense, but apparently not if someone needs to emphasize it.}



View all my reviews

Mathematics, Why am I studying my college textbooks?

First I want to have a better understanding of what my mind does in the process of solving mathematical problems, proving theorems and general propositions in mathematics.  Why do I want this? Because I plan to develop a deeper understanding of Objectivist epistemology compared to the one presented by Mortimer J. Adler’s “The Four Dimensions of Philosophy” and “Ten Philosophical Mistakes”.  Adler’s “object of thought” vs Rand’s “mental entity.” 

A second reason for deepening my knowledge of calculus and related topics in topology and abstract algebra is to be able to read Penrose’s “The Road to Reality.”   Penrose suggests in his preface to the book that by working through the exercises he presents, an interested reader can gain better knowledge of the mathematics that powers quantum physics.  His exercises  worked fine for me up to about chapter 5 where he asks for proof of his expansion of exponentials in radial coordinates as an exercise for the interested reader.  I recognized the process, but I don’t think I ever mastered in the first time around in my calculus, or physics, courses.  Then he goes way deeper into Complex Analysis than I ever did.  I disposed of my Complex Analysis book when we were paring down our possessions.  Fortunately Penrose recommended a complex analysis textbook  by one of his students. It is available for free on-line, and I am excited for the chance to study it.

Third, my high school assessment of psychology let to math as the “perfection” of human thinking, thus the pinnacle of psychological study.  Inspired by Isaac Asimov’s “Second Foundation” novel.

My reading Feynman’s biography by James Gleick “Genius” clarified the distinction for me that Penrose had alluded to, understanding more than just manipulating symbols but grasping the meanings of the equations in as near a sensory manner as possible.  Rand speaks of this in her essays about rationality, but never dives deep into it the way the physicists do.

Coincidentally, I am reading a history of economic thought in “Hayek’s Challenge” by Bruce Caldwell.  The history cites epistemological errors in the use of abstract concepts by brilliant people in the early 1900’s.  Sadly I still run across many of these same kinds of errors in current social, economic, news, and other reporting.  

My best guess is that many of these people come from a literary background and have no hands on appreciation for the role of abstract concepts used as tools to understand reality.  It as if I told them about a the concept of a circle, they would want to see empirical proof that it exists, else what good is it?  How many studies have we heard about over the years that dig into the causes of poverty, and they always come up with the same answer.  I can remember at least three that I have listened to, while commuting to work, over the decades.  It is reassuring that they all get the same answer, but does the endless accumulation of data ever going to give something essentially new?  It is like going out and gather data on all the examples of circles in the world in an attempt to prove the concept of circle.  Each area of knowledge has its own modes of investigation, and proof.  History is not the same as mathematics, chemistry is not the same as economics.  The problem with economic research is trying to meet the demand for forecasting in order to support state policy.  

Politics motivated the money spent in educating economists, hence economists doe the best they can to support providing the desires of politicians to “control” the economy for the benefit of the “common good,” e.g. more votes, more money for politicians.  I believe this phenomena explains I. Kant’s theories of reason, and ethics.  To support his Prussian King.

Example of learning, the definition of a function:

My initial steps were a cursory review of material that I “thought I knew.”  Well maybe I missed some of the nuances, such as. the definition of supply set, that I glossed over because it seemed pretty trivial.  The contents of the domain are drawn from the supply set.

The resistance to learning the formal definition of a function was that I had an intrinsic preference for curves instead of ordered pairs.  Because I feel very bored with infinite series, number theory, set theory, fields, all the algebraic reasoning that goes into this stuff.  

As I continue to study math, I make more and more connections between fields of math that I had not appreciated before.  Algebra (abstract algebra), matrices, calculus, series, polynomials, the limits of what may be calculated.

As I observe the back and forth of imagination and logic I develop a much greater personal appreciation for imagination.  Some how this study has also allowed me to recognize the allusions to this imagination-logic process by all sorts of people.  Allusions that I would have not and did not notice in the past.

Even current debate in mathematical theory about teaching and understanding calculus, a geometrical, image based (imaginative) approach or a more formal abstract explanation based in proven number theory,  delta-epsilon proofs.  The debate is still current and driving other lines of mathematical investigation.  

What would make this discussion more interesting would be the demonstration of the various findings and writings of these uses and discussions of imagination and logic.  Imagination comes before logic in our thinking, both developmentally and functionally, but many people stop at imagination because it moves so quickly and feels so satisfying, but really it is a short cut to thinking by skipping verification of imagination by the use of logic and establishing consistency with prior knowledge.  Even Kant mentions the importance of confirming imagination by logic unless it is his special intuition.  

[TODO: Quote Kant on above comments about verification of imagination]

Quotes from "The New Tsar: The Rise and Reign of Vladimir Putin"

 

The New Tsar: The Rise and Reign of Vladimir Putin by Steven Lee Myers
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

This book is very timely for today's events.
Quote from page 474 describes events in 2014 with war in Crimea, Eastern Ukraine and just after Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 was shot down over eastern Ukraine:

"Entire sections of the [Russian] economy, including banking and energy, now faced sanctions, not just the officials and friends close to Putin. By the middle of 2014, capital flight had reached $75 billion for the year as those with cash sought safe harbors offshore; by the end of the year $150 billion had fled the country. The economy, already slowing, slumped badly as investments withered. The value of the ruble crashed, despite efforts by the central bank to shore it up. The prices of oil slumped--which Putin blamed on a conspiracy between the United States and Saudi Arabia--and that strained the budget, depleting the reserves that Putin had steadfastly built up throughout his years in power. Russia plunged into an economic crisis as bad as the one in 1998 and 2009. Putin’s tactics had backfired. Many in the West cheered, seeing the economic crisis as evidence of the self-inflicted pain of Putin’s actions, but the isolation also fed Putin’s view that the crises confronting Russia economically and diplomatically were part of a vast conspiracy effort to weaken Russia—to weaken his rule.”

View all my reviews