Sunday, April 13, 2025

5 of the most misunderstood quotes in philosop

Mini Philosophy — April 6, 2025

5 of the most misunderstood quotes in philosophy

That Nietzsche quote might not mean what you think it does.

Public Domain / Big Think

Key Takeaways

Anyone can do philosophy, so long as they ask the right questions and think deeply enough.

However, the internet lends itself to short and pithy aphorisms that do little to explain a philosopher’s theories.

Here are five examples where philosophical quotations are misunderstood.

Jonny Thomson

Copy a link to the article entitled http://5%20of%20the%20most%20misunderstood%20quotes%20in%20philosophy

Share 5 of the most misunderstood quotes in philosophy on Facebook

Share 5 of the most misunderstood quotes in philosophy on Twitter (X)

Share 5 of the most misunderstood quotes in philosophy on LinkedIn

A place to pause and reflect on life’s bigger questions, with Big Think’s Jonny Thomson.

This article was first published on Big Think in July 2022. It was updated in March 2025.

The great thing about philosophy is that we can all do it. Anyone can ask philosophical questions about reality, truth, right and wrong, and the point of it all, and we often do, at least for brief moments throughout the day. The best books, TV shows, and movies all come dyed in philosophy, and they plant ideas that linger long after you close the book or the screen fades to black.

Nietzsche: “God is dead”

This quotation is much more powerful (and makes more sense) when you look at the parts which come afterward: “God remains dead! And we have killed him!”

Ockham: “Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily”

If I asked you to give your top three philosophical razors, I bet Ockham’s would rank high on the list. People often assume that Ockham’s razor is making the claim that “if something is simpler, then it’s more likely to be true” — as if simplicity is proportional to truth. But that’s not what it’s intended to do. Ockham’s razor is not meant to be a rule, but rather a guiding principle when choosing between options. Essentially, it’s saying that if we are presented with two equally compelling theories, it’s more rational to believe the simpler.

But the biggest problem in how we understand Ockham’s razor is that it was never really meant for real-world things, like in the philosophy of science. When Ockham was writing, he was taking aim at what was, quite frankly, some pretty insane metaphysics. This was the time of angelology and of “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” It was pedantic, convoluted, and very weird. Dun Scotus, for instance, believed the extramental world was made up of 10 distinct metaphysical essences, and 10 was a modest number for the time.

Ockham was trying to get everyone to calm down a bit — to stop inventing millions of metaphysical entities when one or a few would be fine.

Marx: Capitalism is completely bad

This is more of an idea than a quote. For a lot of people unfamiliar with Marx, or those who have only glancingly read his works, he comes across as a bank-burning, barricade-building anti-capitalist. It’s no doubt that Marx did not want capitalism, but that’s not to say he didn’t see the good side of it, too. In fact, he even recognized it as an important and essential part to history’s progress.

The opening section of his Communist Manifesto is a long, if grudging, recognition of capitalism’s successes. Marx points out the greater industry, commerce, and communication networks; the educational provision; and the rule of law. Capitalism is what brings together warring and bickering peoples to form “one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest”. It forces xenophobic, pariah peoples with an “obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate”. But the most important thing capitalism has done is to act as a kind of creative destruction.

Capitalism commodifies everything so that “all that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned”. It tears down the deities and sacred things of the past and replaces them with profit and industry. It’s this iconoclasm that will be the clean slate that allows an egalitarian restructuring of society. What’s more, capitalism’s fetishization of “profit” is what creates the surplus and productivity necessary for communistic redistribution of resources. Communism is not parachuted in as its own thing, but rather grows out from late-stage capitalism.

Of course, for Marx, capitalism is a “naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation” of humanity. It’s riddled with problems and tends to bring out the worst in us. But it’s also a necessary evil along the way to a better era.

Rousseau: “The noble savage”

This is a bit of a cheat, because rather than being “misunderstood” it is probably better to say this idea is “misattributed”. Rousseau’s “noble savage” idea is that, before we all began to live in cities and label ourselves “civilized”, humans were a naturally virtuous species. We were kind, social, and happy. Rousseau, it’s thought, used the phrase to show how modern society debased more than advanced human nature. “Civilization” is more corrupt than civilized.

Not only is the idea of “savages” versus “civilization” a massively dated, racist, and colonial notion, but the big problem is that Rousseau never said it. He likely didn’t believe it, either. Rousseau argued that we couldn’t call pre-societal people good or bad, virtuous or vicious, because these ideas evolved along with civilization. Our conception of what is right is formulated or given to us by the society to which we belong. To refer to a “noble savage” would amount to projecting our own values onto a pre-value people. Before civilization, humans were neither moral nor immoral. They were just natural.

Descartes: Cogito Ergo Sum, or “I think, therefore I am”

I admit, this one is a bit niche. First of all, “I think, therefore I am” most certainly does not mean, “if you believe it, you can do it”. Rene Descartes was not a 17th-century French version of Dale Carnegie writing self-help books to fuel his robot slave addiction. Instead, this was his attempt to resolve radical skepticism, which is that “how can we be sure of anything?!” question.

The basic point is that if I am thinking right now — or if I am doubting, to be precise — then it must also be that I am existing. A non-existent thing cannot think.

The misunderstanding comes in assuming this is an argument in the form of premises (I think) to conclusion (I exist). Admittedly, the “therefore” does rather lure you in. Instead, the Cogito is an “a priori intuition” — that is to say, it is true simply by thinking on it. It is more like saying “there is a triangle, therefore there’s a three sided shape”. It is not an argument but rather a statement that contains certain truths within.

The reason that this is important, and not (only) some philosophical nitpick, is that in Descartes’ Meditations he is quite explicit that we have no grounds for thinking our rationality is faultless. Our ability to find truth within arguments could just be the trick of some all-powerful demon.

As Descartes writes, “how do I know that I am not deceived every time that I add two and three, or count the sides of a square?” So, we cannot rely on our logic. This is why the Cogito — if it is to act as a way out of his skepticism — cannot be an argument.

Look a little deeper

As we can see, it’s rare (and highly unlikely) that the entire canon of the greatest minds in history can be summarized, or understood, in a beautifully lettered Pinterest post. It’s almost always the case that if you take the time to search for the full context of a quotation, you will find much more to it. At the very least, you’ll find detail and nuance, and a lot of the time, you’ll find something completely different to your first impressions.

But, of course, that’s not what a lot of people like to do. Quotations, especially the popular ones, act as a kind of magic mirror in which we see what we want to see. And, to be honest, if it gets people thinking and talking, there’s not much harm in that, either.

In this article

culturehistoryphilosophyreligion

A place to pause and reflect on life’s bigger questions, with Big Think’s Jonny Thomson.

Saturday, April 5, 2025

The Cardboard-Carrying Opposition Arrives Nationwide Hands Off protests Saturday •The Atlanti

The Cardboard-Carrying Opposition Arrives

Nationwide Hands Off protests Saturday

•The Atlantic / by Elaine Godfrey / Apr 6, 2025 at 1:21 AM

Photographs by Caroline Gutman

The opposition arrived in a flurry of painted cardboard.

Until this week, the 11th of Donald Trump’s second presidency, the resistance has not exactly been uppercase R. Any show of dissent by Democratic leadership has been virtually nonexistent, and protests against Trump’s policies have been small and sporadic. Citizen frustration with the new administration has registered nationally as little more than a distant rumble.

Today’s “Hands Off” protest, organized by a coalition of left-wing groups, was an attempt to raise the volume.

People carted their megaphones and rainbow flags to more than 1,200 sites across the country today—in D.C., of course, but also in Helena, Montana; Daytona Beach, Florida; and Dubuque, Iowa. The events spanned all 50 states, the organizers said, plus a few more exotic locales, such as Guadalajara, Lisbon, and Paris. Washington had expected to draw about 10,000 protesters; in the end, several times that showed up.

In interviews with some of those gathered today on the National Mall, demonstrators told me that they were under no illusion that Trump or Elon Musk would be much swayed by their anger or creative signage. The point, they said, was to show the rest of America that the opposition exists—and is widespread. “This is not for them,” Gina King, a retired teacher from New York City, told me. “This is for us.”

Hands Off protest — Caroline Gutman for *The Atlantic*

The first mass protest of this administration was well timed. The week began with Cory Booker’s record-breaking 25-hour tirade against Trump from the Senate floor. The monologue accomplished nothing tangible—though it threw Booker’s Oura-ring readings out of whack—but it was a welcome stunt for voters who have been craving louder public rage against the administration’s actions. (What says outrage more than a man willing to hold it for 25 hours?) Then, on Tuesday night, Democrats in Wisconsin won the first electoral test of Trump’s second presidency, by defeating a state-supreme-court candidate backed by Trump and $20 million from Musk. Also on Tuesday, one of the largest mass layoffs of federal workers to date began, when employees at the CDC and the FDA were dismissed. Finally, on Thursday, Trump’s tariffs sent Americans’ retirement savings plunging, triggered manufacturer layoffs, and forced CNBC to bring its bear-market graphic out of hibernation.

King, the retired teacher, carried a sign thanking Booker and Wisconsinites for their efforts in the fight against Trump. She protested the president during the Women’s March in early 2017, but this political moment is different, she told me. “It feels more desperate,” she said. “We should all be standing in front of the Supreme Court every day, in front of the National Institutes of Health every day.”

Half a dozen federal employees spoke with me at the protest, but none wanted to share their full name for fear of retribution from the Trump administration. “I’m here because I feel powerless,” said a man named Edward, who had just been forced out of his longtime government job. He carried a sign mocking the “five bullet points” that federal employees are now required to submit weekly to Musk’s DOGE.

“In the original Women’s March, we were very concerned with women’s rights, but now he’s touching all areas,” Tracie, an employee in the Department of Veterans Affairs, told me. She was willing to risk her job to show up at the protest, together with her daughter and granddaughter, she told me, because she wants America to see her anger. “The administration is completely discounting us. They’re saying we’re bought, we’re paid for, we’re bused in.” But the opposition to Trump is real, she said. “We are out here.”

Caroline Gutman for The Atlantic

On the Mall, it was difficult to pinpoint a chief complaint or singular demand. Hands off what, exactly? I asked.

There were so many things to be furious about. No single piece of cardstock could contain it all. People carried posters about the administration’s deportation of immigrants and dissident students; Laura Loomer’s Oval Office influence; Musk’s taking a chain saw to the federal government; the return of preventable diseases; the technological ineptitude of Trump’s defense officials; and attacks on abortion rights.

Many of those I spoke with cited creeping fascism. “There’s been a total disregard of habeas corpus,” Larry Bostian, a retiree from Silver Spring, Maryland, told me. “Democracy is in a death spiral.” Paul Singleton, an Air Force veteran from Stafford, Virginia, agreed. “I used to wonder, how did Hitler do what he did?” he said. “When Trump got into office and started appointing all these people, I stopped.”

Given the stakes, people wanted to know, where was Democratic Party leadership? Katrin Hinrichsen, a retired computer engineer from Connecticut, had brought a few signage options, including one that read Time to CHUCK Schumer. “I want some effective leadership of the Democratic minority,” she told me.

A few Democratic lawmakers addressed the rally in D.C., including Representatives Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota. They were speaking on a stage somewhere amid the dense crowd gathered at the base of the Washington Monument. But most people couldn’t hear them; some had no idea there was a stage at all. Instead, parts of the rally devolved into a kind of hippie picnic, where sign carriers chatted in circles or plopped on the grass to eat sandwiches. One woman handed out nuts and dried fruit: “Cashews, anyone?” Another laughed with her friends—“The last time I felt safe in a crowd this big was at a Taylor Swift concert!”

Caroline Gutman for The Atlantic

“We’ve been scattered; we’ve been demoralized,” Bostian, the retiree from Silver Spring, told me, looking at the sea of people around him. “But this is awesome.”

The 2017 Women’s March connected protesters who kept in touch, established “Resistance” groups in their hometowns, and eventually helped elect a wave of new Democrats during the 2018 midterms. Today’s protesters think that they can do it again. They just need the rest of America to hear them.

Caroline Gutman for The Atlantic

Thursday, April 3, 2025

What's wrong with tariffs C Doctorow

What's wrong with tariffs (permalink)

It's not that the Republicans and the Democrats are the same…obviously. But for decades – since Clinton – the Dems have sided with neoliberal economics, just like their Republican counterparts, so the major differences between the two related to overt discrimination, to the exclusion of the economic policies that immiserated working people, with the worst effects landing on racial minorities, women, and gender minorities.

So the Dems stood against discrimination in mortgage lending – but not for the minimum wage that would have lifted the lowest paid workers out of poverty so the could afford a mortgage. They stood for abortion rights, but against Medicare For All, which meant all women had the right to an abortion, but the poorest women couldn't afford one. And of course, in a country where racial and gender discrimination were still the order of the day, the poorest and most vulnerable Americans were racialized, women, disabled, and/or queer.

The Dems' embrace of Reaganomics meant that working people of all types experienced steady decline over 40 years: stagnating wages, economic precarity, increased indebtedness, and rising prices for health care, education, and housing. When Trump figured out that he could campaign on these issues, Dems had no response. Trump's "Make America Great Again" was meant to appeal to a time when working Americans were – on average, depending on their whiteness, maleness and straightness – better housed, better paid, and better cared for.

Of course, those benefits were unevenly felt: America was slow to extend the New Deal to racial minorities, women, disabled people, and other disfavored groups. Trump's genius was to marry white supremacy to economic grievance, tricking white workers into blaming their decline on women, brown and Black people, and queers – and not on the billionaires who had grown so much richer even as workers got poorer.

But Trump couldn't have pulled this trick off without the Dem establishment's total unwillingness to confront the hollowness of their economic policies. From Pelosi's "We're capitalists and that's the way it is" to Hillary Clinton's catastrophic campaign slogan, "America is already great," the Dems' answer to workers' fear and anger was, "You are wrong, everything is fine." Imagine having had your house stolen in the foreclosure crisis after Obama decided to "foam the runways" for the banks by letting them steal their borrowers' homes and then hearing Hillary Clinton tell you "America is already great":

https://www.npr.org/2014/05/25/315276441/its-geithner-vs-warren-in-battle-of-the-bailout

Racial and gender justice matter, of course, but when they're pursued without considering economic justice, they're dead ends. The point of racial and gender justice can't merely be firing half of the 150 straight white men who control 99% of the country's capital and replacing them with 75 assorted women, queers and people of color. The worst-treated workers in America are also its most discriminated-against workers, so the best way to help women, racialized people, and other disfavored minorities is to help workers: protect unions, raise the minimum wage, defend tenants, cancel student debt, and give everyone healthcare. In the same way that a special tax on incomes over $1m will disproportionately affect straight white men, an increase in the minimum wage will disproportionately benefit women and people of color – as well as the majority of straight white men who are also getting fucked over by people with $1m salaries.

Since the Clinton years, Democrats have been trying to figure out how to defend economic policies that help rich people while still somehow being the party of social justice. This has produced a kind of grotesque, Sheryl Sandberg "Lean In" liberalism, which stood for the rights of women who were also corporate executives. It's not that these women aren't treated worse than their male counterparts – misogyny is alive and well in the boardroom. But the number of women who experience boardroom discrimination is tiny, because the number of women in the boardroom is also tiny.

The right saw an opportunity and seized it. As Naomi Klein writes in Doppelganger, they created "mirror world" versions of social justice issues, warped reflections of the leftist positions that had been abandoned by a progressive coalition led by liberals:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/05/not-that-naomi/#if-the-naomi-be-klein-youre-doing-just-fine

In right wing, conspiratorial hands, rage at wage stagnation and lack of parental leave turned into reactionary demands for an economy in which women would be full-time homemakers while their husbands recovered their roles as breadwinners. The 1999 Battle of Seattle saw mass protests over the WTO and a free trade agenda that would let capital chase low wages and weak environmental and worker safety policies around the world. But Clinton went ahead and signed more free trade agreements, which were also pursued by Obama. So the right filled the vacuum with a mirror-world version of the Battle of Seattle's rage at billionaires, transforming the anti-free trade agenda into racism, xenophobia, and Cold War 2.0 sinophobia.

It's a cheap trick, but Dems keep falling for it. When the right declares itself to be against something, Dems can be relied upon to be in favor it, no matter how reactionary, anti-worker and authoritarian "it" is. During Trump 1.0, Dems lit James Comey votive candles and passionately defended the "intelligence community," a community that gave us CIA dirty wars and FBI COINTELPRO. Anthropologists call this "schizmogenesis" – when a group defines itself by valuing whatever its rivals deplore, and vice versa:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/12/18/schizmogenesis/

You can see schizmogenesis playing out right now, as "progressives" make Signalgate scandal into a fight over poor operational security (planning a war crime using a commercial app) and not a fight over war crimes themselves.

Signalgate will be out of the headlines in a matter of days, though – unlike tariffs, which will continue to make global headlines throughout the Trump presidency, as Trump continues his "mad king" policy of recklessly and chaotically erecting trade barriers that are certain to make supply chains more brittle and raise prices.

For the most part, the progressive discussion of Trump's tariffs takes the position that tariffs are always a terrible idea – in other words, that Clinton and Obama had the right idea when they created free trade agreements with countries around the world, and Trump is vandalizing an engine of American and global prosperity out of economic ignorance.

Economists support this analysis. But in a new, well-argued editorial in The Sling, University of Utah economists Mark Glick and Gabriel Lozada present a more nuanced version of the tariff debate, one that dodges the trap of neoliberal economics and schizmogenesis:

https://www.thesling.org/the-failed-assumptions-of-free-trade/

Rejecting tariffs is practically an article of religious faith among economists. As the NYT put it in their reporting of the 2025 meeting of the American Economic Association, "free trade is perhaps the closest thing to a universally held value among economists":

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/10/business/economy/economists-politics-trump.html

Every Econ 101 class has a unit on David Ricardo's "theory of comparative advantage," which argues that different countries have different capacities and specialties, and that free trade allows these advantages to be shared to the benefit of everyone, making trade a "positive expectation" game. The corollary is that tariffs make everyone worse off.

As Glick and Lozada write, the logic of this argument is unassailable, provided you accept its bedrock assumptions as true – and that's where the problem lies.

Economics has an assumptions problem. The foundational method of economic practice is to create models grounded in assumptions that are either not known, not knowable, or – incredibly – known to be wrong. As Milton Friedman famously wrote:

Truly important and significant hypotheses will be found to have "assumptions" that are wildly inaccurate descriptive representations of reality, and, in general, the more significant the theory, the more unrealistic the assumptions (in this sense)

https://pluralistic.net/2025/02/17/caliper-ai/#racism-machine

It's actually worse than it seems, because economics, as a field, has been violently allergic to empirically testing its assumptions, so it doesn't even know when it is operating on the basis of one of Friedman's "wildly inaccurate descriptive representations of reality." This is what Ely Devons meant when he said, "If economists wished to study the horse, they wouldn’t go and look at horses. They’d sit in their studies and say to themselves, ‘What would I do if I were a horse?’"

https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/27/economism/#what-would-i-do-if-i-were-a-horse

What are the assumptions that underpin the orthodox view of free trade, then? As Glick and Lozada write, the case against all tariffs depends on five assumptions, all of which fail empirical investigation.

I. Full employment

The standard model of free trade assumes full employment – "when workers are displaced by imports, they can easily become re-employed at the same wages." This is the crux of the "social surplus" that free trade theoretically produces. This assumption doesn't hold up to empirical scrutiny. After the US dropped its tariffs, it experienced a 74% decline in manufacturing jobs – the best-paid jobs for non-college-educated men. Those workers didn't find equivalent employment – indeed, in many cases, the found no employment at all. From 2001-18, the US lost 1.132m manufacturing jobs to China, and gained 0.176m jobs manufacturing goods for export to China.

II. No externalities

The employment losses from free trade are not evenly distributed – they are geographically concentrated, and the greatest concentrations are in regions that flipped from Democratic strongholds to Trumpish heartlands over the decades since the US dropped its tariffs. The losses to these regions aren't limited to the directly affected manufacturing jobs, but all the other economic activity those jobs supported. The people who sold groceries, cars, and furniture to factory workers also lost their jobs. When young people abandoned the cratering regional economy, that devastated education and other services catering to families.

III. Comparative advantage leads to long-term growth and development

The theory of comparative advantage says that the world is better off when each country gets to do the thing it's best at. What are poor countries best at? Being poor: having a cheap labor force and weak rule of law to protect workers' health and the environment.

Without exception, the poor countries that grew richer did so in the presence of tariffs: "free trade is not a development strategy, it is a static policy that can impede development":

https://2024.sci-hub.se/1864/6d3f610c51446f057a4054080c70ab0e/chang2003.pdf#navpanes=0&view=FitH

IV. Floating currencies keep trade balanced

In theory, adjustments in the currency markets will rebalance imports and exports – countries whose currency declines will have to switch to domestic production, because goods from abroad will become costly. That's not what happened. Instead, foreigners have invested the US dollars they got from selling things to Americans into US securities and real estate, "which does not increase US productivity because it generates no new capital formation (at least directly)."

V. The US provides compensation for trade-related job-losses

While other countries with robust social safety nets offered retraining, income support, and other programs to cushion the blow of trade-related job-losses, the US – with the worst social safety net in the rich world – offered "woefully inadequate" supports to dislocated workers:

https://www.piie.com/bookstore/job-loss-imports-measuring-costs

Now, just because some tariffs are beneficial, it doesn't follow that all tariffs are beneficial. When the "Asian Tiger" countries were undergoing rapid industrialization and lifting billions of people out of poverty, they did so with tariffs – but also with extensive industrial policy and direct investment in critical state industries (Biden was the first president in generations to pursue industrial policy, albeit a modest and small one, which Trump nevertheless dismantled).

Trump is doing mirror-world tariffs: tariffs without industrial policy, tariffs without social safety nets, tariffs without retraining, tariffs without any strategic underpinning. These tariffs will crash the US economy and will create calamitous effects around the world:

https://archive.is/JvRF9

But the fact that Trump's tariffs are terrible doesn't mean tariffs themselves are always and forever bad. Resist the schizmogenic urge to say, "Trump likes tariffs, so I hate them." Not all tariffs are created equal, and tariffs can be a useful tool that benefits working people.

And also: the fact that tariffs can be useful doesn't imply that only tariffs are useful. The digital age – in which US-based multinational firms rely on digital technology to loot the economies of America's trading partners – offers countries facing US tariffs a powerful retaliatory tactic that has never before been seen on this planet. America's (former) trading partners can retaliate against US tariffs by abolishing the legal measures they have instituted to protect the products of US companies from reverse-engineering and modification. Countries facing US tariffs can welcome US imports – of printers, Teslas, iPhones, games consoles, insulin pumps, ventilators and tractors – but then legalize jailbreaking these devices:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/03/08/turnabout/#is-fair-play

That would deprive the largest US companies of their recurring revenue streams – from service, consumables, software, payment processing, etc – creating huge savings for consumers all over the world, and huge profits for the non-US companies that make these jailbreaking tools, and the small businesses that supply them. For example, your country could become the world's leading exporter of iPhone jailbreaking tools, and the world's powerhouse for alternative iPhone stores that charge 1-2% commissions on payments, as opposed to the 30% Apple takes out of every dollar (euro, pound, peso) that iPhone owners spend within their apps. This would tempt in all the biggest app companies in the world – from Patreon to Tinder, Fornite to the New York Times – who could offer their products at a discount and still make more money than they make on Apple's App Store.

But that's just one market this enables: the actual business of iPhone jailbreaking would likely work much like the market for phone unlocking more broadly: thousands of small and medium-sized businesses like dry-cleaners and convenience stores where you can bring your phone and pay a few dollars to have it unlocked and set up with a new app store where all the apps are the same – but everything is 20% cheaper.

This is a development opportunity without parallel. US tech monopolists worked with the US trade representative to rig markets around the world, allowing tech giants to siphon away vast fortunes from America's trading partners. These rich deposits of wealth are just sitting there, begging for some country to sink a shaft into them and pump them dry, secure in the knowledge that Trump has ejected from the global system of free trade and they have nothing to lose.

Slippery Souls

Sunday, April 13, 2025