Uncertainty – Parts Per Billion

Risk and Rationality in Uncertainty

We have many philosophical ideas about how money is not everything in life but deep down, everyone knows how money constitutes to a bigger portion of who we are. Although money can’t buy everything, the unexplainable value it holds behind presence of almost everything in our lives will never go unnoticed. We know that this importance of money/ resources/ assets is highly dependent on how much of those we have right now and how much of those may get lost in an uncertain event. This perception of value drives our decision making in risky situations. The Expected Utility Theory (EUT) in economics deals with the modelling of such scenarios. The mathematical formalization of the perception of wealth and our risk profile is facilitated by this fundamental theory. EUT lies at the foundation of actuarial science/ insurance, financial risk management, decision making under budget restrictions, asset management, and investment management.

EXPECTED UTILITY THEORY

We live in an uncertain world. Timing events where too many interactions are happening could be risky especially when it comes to money or the basic resources for sustenance. In crisis situations, our survival instincts have always kicked in to ensure preservation of life and the resources required to ensure its longevity. They need not to be always rational, they are just meant to save life somehow, that is why most of the acts of survival seem extraordinary. Interesting thing to understand here is that when such extraordinary survival instincts kick in as a mass effect the whole mass effect becomes irrational, unexplainable, incoherent. There is no sane explanation to justify these mass events. When such events badly affect the resources responsible for basic life of every being, it can be catastrophic. Huge sudden falls in stock market are good indicators of such disasters, crises. Insurance on the other hand could prepare person to handle the disasters in a preventive way. Stock market and insurance are one of the best examples to understand how people assess risk and maintain/ reject rationality while making important decisions. We will see what formal ideas from economics lie behind these events of uncertainty.

Expected Utility Theory (EUT) in Economics

Expected utility theory lays the foundation of how a rational person would make decision in an uncertainty where valuable resources like money are involved. The whole idea is based on the quantification of that uncertainty and connecting that uncertainty with the individual gains from individual uncertain event. Expected utility also creates a formal structure of how person perceives risk in given scenario. This helps to quantify the value generated from any economic event.

Origin – St. Petersburg Paradox

Daniel Bernoulli is credited to establish the expected utility theory which is one of the foundations of economics. The theory emerged from the St. Petersburg Paradox which goes like this:

You have $2 and we toss a coin. Heads, the amount you have now is doubled and tails then the game stops and you leave with whatever amount you have right now. The game continues till its always heads in series and stops when the coin shows tails.

The question is how much will you be willing to pay to enter this bet?

The probability of heads and tails is 50-50% which is ½ . If it is a series of heads (heads followed by heads) then the events are dependent on each other, so the probability of this event is intertwined with the probability of the previous one. If there happens a game where you start with $2 and every time heads comes, and the money goes on doubling the equation of gain would be:

As this math goes, a person should pay infinite amount as he will be gaining infinite amount from such game. ‘E’ value here is identified as expected value. Even if one such possible game would happen in reality, people won’t pay infinite amount in reality to enter this bet.

Bernoulli resolved this paradox by creating the concept of Expected utility. People will pay not what actual value it delivers (as in the $s of money); they will pay according to how actually it will be useful to them, ‘utilizable’ to them – that is where the utility and thus expected utility comes in picture.

Expected utility is calculated by the amount one would gain and the chances of gaining that amount. The expected utility thus is sum of all the gains connected with the probabilities of gaining them.

Daniel Bernoulli
The determination of the value of an item must not be based on its price, but rather on the utility it yields.

1^st Tenet of EUT: Expectation

The overall utility of a prospect, is the expected utility of its outcomes.

In very simple words, for a given scenario you will weigh the chances of its constituent events and connect them with their respective gains. The sum of the all connections of each gain with their chance of realization is the usefulness – utility of that scenario.

Mathematically,

Expectation:

In our example we need to assume something that is the usability of the money – utility.

We assume $10 has utility of 1 unit. (This is just an assumption to understand the concept. When multiple objects are involved, their utilities will be different.)

So, the expected utility of this scenario is:

E = ((1000/10)x0.2) + ((50/10)x0.65) + (10000)x0.15) =

20 + 3.25 + 150 = 173.25 units

So, the expected utility – the usefulness of this event is 173.25 units.

The unit of value which we assumed in this calculation is sometimes called ‘utils’ – the basic unit of utility. It will change based on how one perceives the value in given scenario.

You will realize that the expected utility is the weighted average of utility of events and their individual probabilities.

Four Axioms of Utility Theory

Later John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern expanded the concept of EUT with the idea of rationality. The agents involved in such uncertain economic exchanges are ‘econs’-the rational beings.

They have clear preferences among the options provided in every economic decision which comes under the idea of “completeness”. If out of the given set they select multiple options at a time, then it is said that they are ‘indifferent’ to these options. Whatever might be the internal distribution of constituent they might have. It’s about the final utility they perceive. When presented with choices, a rational person has clear preferences for those choices.

For all given uncertain events there is a hierarchy of preferences. If A is preferred over B and B is preferred over C, then A is always preferred over C. Which goes as transitivity.

Suppose we have been presented three events where event A is preferred over B and B is preferred over C. Now if one introduces a new event N which is slightly less preferred than B and more preferred over C then event B and N would be indifferent. In simple words, the choices between options would never directly jump, they will align as per the preferences in line.

So, A>B>C and B>N>C then A>B>C and A>N>C mean the same.

This is continuity. Graphically, the utility function is always a smooth curve.

Why do A>B>C and A>N>C mean the same even when the calculated numeric value would differ? It is because utility is never an absolute value it is just used to arrange the preferences by quantifying them. Ground rules used to define usability from the given resources i.e., the utility function of given scenario will be different for different scenarios and different sets of people. This is simplification of the concept called ordinality of utility. You can rank utility but not say that event A is this many percent better than event B.

When you have set the preferences of A over B and if you are offered another totally different/ irrelevant event M with new utility. You would still prefer A over B. Introduction of M will not affect the preferences as if A and B are independent of M. This is called ‘independence‘ in EUT.

So, completeness, transitivity, continuity and independence are the four axioms of EUT. Note that they are not ‘complete’ representation of reality. It’s just that they bring in simplicity to treat given scenarios and evaluate them. That is why you will find contradictions to these axioms. (Maybe a topic for another time.) The axioms are there to create a formal mathematical structure to draw useful inferences.

2^nd Tenet of Expected Utility Theory: Asset Integration

In EUT, asset integration is an idea based on the assumption that all people making economic decisions are rational. So, in uncertainty or risky scenarios a rational person will look at the overall gains instead of focusing on one certain gain and neglecting other unsure gains. A rational person will look at the risks of scenarios in a collective way and decide to enter only if the expected utility improves his assets’ position. A rational person will only enter the given scenario if the collective utility is better than the individual utility of its sub-events or sub-gains.

A rational person will not focus on an individual more probable gain even when his overall gains are becoming low.

3^rd Tenet of Expected Utility Theory: Risk

The beautiful insight EUT creates is about the mathematical formalization of risk profile. For that we will understand some ideas in advance.

Utility function – it is a mathematical relation between how one sees the value of given object/ resource. The value of resources is different for different people. A crude example would be how a beggar values money for one time meal compared to a filthy rich person. The value of $25 would be different for different people based on the conditions they are in.

This is where marginal utility comes in picture.

Marginal utility talks about what difference it makes in your perception of the value of a given thing if one would give you more of that in the next event. Roughly speaking the more we have something, the less we value it, so marginal utility is always diminishing. If I already have 10 packets of chocolates which are enough for the day to me, the next 11^th packet of chocolate won’t make that much difference in my current excitement of having 10 packets. (Please note that we are talking about rationality here, although nobody is rational when it comes to chocolates.) A rational version of me would trade that 11^th packet for something else with a person who hasn’t received even a single packet. A person who has no chocolate would perceive that single packet with higher value than how I perceived it (provided that he loves chocolates).

Alfred Marshall – the British Economist brought the concept of
‘Marginal Utility’ through his book ‘Principles of Economics’ in 1890.

So, utility function is a mathematical transformation of objects in given event to a unitary value so that the results can be easily compared with each other because the transformation converts everything to single unit system. These single unit of value is called ‘util’.

Utility function can be any possible mathematical relation. Generally, it is expected to be simple to not invite the complexities in modeling of given economic scenario. It should be simple enough to draw realistic conclusions.

An understanding of utility function gives insight into how the person evaluates risk with respect to the resources they hold.

Consider a scenario:

Event 1 – You enter a lottery where there is 50% chance that you will win $100 and 50% chance that you win nothing.

Event 2 – You are given $50 for sure, unconditionally just for playing the lottery.

Assume we have three differently thinking people to make choices in this scenario. Different thinking means how they assess the risk of entering the lottery which has some uncertainty and the surety of winning $50. Difference in assessment of risk means difference in the perception of utility. It further means that the utility function will be characteristic to each person.

Person 1 has the following utility function:

So, for Person 1 the utility of certainty (7.07 utils) is higher than the uncertainty (5 utils). He is happy to walk away with sure $50 gain instead of betting for $100 lottery.

Person 1 doesn’t want to take risk by entering the Event 1 of betting when he is sure about gain of $50 in Event 2. This is risk-averse behavior. The utility function mathematically models that risk averse behavior. Utility function is concave in risk aversion.

Now comes Person 2 with the following utility function:

You will see that the utility of certain and uncertain choices is the same. It means that it doesn’t matter for this guy if he enters the lottery having uncertainty or gets $50 for sure. This is risk-neutral behavior. The person 2 doesn’t care about certainty or uncertainty. He values both events the same. As mathematically both have similar utilities. Person 2 is indifferent to both events.

Now see the Person 3 with following utility function:

This guy has a radical view, he perceives the worth of entering the lottery (5000 utils) better than gaining $50 for sure (2500 utils). This guy is gambler! He finds it more interesting to enter the bet instead of gaining $50 for sure. He is happy to take the risk in uncertainty.

Looking at these three people you should note that the scenarios/ events they are presented are exactly the same. The only thing which is different is how they see the value in lottery and the sure gain.

So, the first person demonstrates risk averse behavior. He wants surety of gain rather than gambling for higher but unsure gain.

The second person demonstrates risk neutral behavior. Bet or no bet he doesn’t care. Just be done with it.

The third person demonstrates risk loving behavior. He wants the thrill of uncertainty in betting, so he sees more value in uncertainty of lottery.

This is how Expected Utility Theory can be implemented to mathematically model how different sets of people/fund managers will make decisions based on the risk profile. The relation between expected utility (which is the weighted average of gains) and utility function (which shows how one values the gain) can show us the risk profile.

In the graphs shown, blue lines show utility function and the orange lines show expected utility. The orange line in our case connects the utility of $100 and $0 which is Event 1. This orange line connects any points on utility curve and it will give the expected utility value for that scenario of uncertain gain. In simple words, it’s the line of weighted average exactly like the definition of expected utility. This line is used to find out the certainty equivalent (CE). A certainty equivalent is the utility of an uncertain gain if it was certain.

Almost all the time, people are risk averse. People want to avoid uncertainty about higher gains when they are presented with some lower but sure gain. This is where marginal utility becomes important. (This point deserves broad explanation which we will cover another time under Prospect Theory)

Marginal Utility

In risk averse people, you will see that the utility function starts to flatten out once the value gained increases. The more value someone already has the less he values the next addition of bunch into the preexisting bulk. Remember the chocolate box example?

One with 10 boxes of chocolate perceives one additional box with less value, whereas some with no chocolate will see it as a precious one as he has nothing right now. The perceived value of the additional next lot goes on reducing. This is known as diminishing marginal utility. Marginal utility is always diminishing.

So, a safe playing person would stop entering the next gamble because he now has enough. The next uncertainty in gambling has less value for him.

EUT in actuarial

Now it is obvious that only a risk averse person would go for conservative approach in uncertainty. This also means that risk aversion will also invite preventive measure against loss of certain assets, resources. Insurance thus comes into the picture. EUT here helps to mathematically formalize the probability of the risks which would compromise current gains, the perceived value of asset/ property/ resource and losses one can bear. We can now calculate the premium for the insurance against uncertainty of loss of something.

So, we will look into a scenario where risk aversion exists thus marginal utility is always diminishing.

We have the utility function of a man has a property giving revenue of $100K/year as:

u(x)=ln x

Now will see the risk scenario. Suppose this person does a fire audit of his property and the auditing agency finds out that there is 50% chance that he will suffer a loss of $60K/year due to fire hazard and 50% chance that nothing will happen.

After rephrasing, the gains from the property would look this:

50% chance that the income is $40K/year and 50% chance that income is $100K/ year.

Using the tenets of EUT the mathematical expression becomes:

Now, what we are doing differently here is to find out what this expected utility in uncertainty means when there is complete effect of loss with some chance and gain of some chance. In earlier examples we had second event of certainty against which we compared to understand the risk profile. Now it’s reverse calculation, we know the risk profile, we know the perceived overall value i.e., EUT of the property. Now we will find the certainty equivalent (CE) using the risk profile which can be explained by the utility function of the person.

How much is this 11.05 utils in terms of money from the property for this guy? We can find this from utility function of the person.

ln(x)=11.05, thus x=$63245.55

Now, think the fire hazard as a lottery where you gain $63245.55 money as per EUT calculation. Whether the fire will happen or not, the possible overall earning from this property would be $63245.55.

Now, if the property without any fire hazard was giving me $100k and the insurer guarantees me that same earning for the losses due to hazard. How much maximum amount should I pay to the insurance agency?

I will pay only that much amount which falls short to the $100k when compared to perceived earning calculated from the combined effect of certainty and uncertainty as given by EUT.

My earing due to uncertainty is $63.2k/year, I would receive $100 for a fine year so in order to continue that $100k even for a worse year I would pay insurance agency = $100000 – $63245 = $36754.45.

Anything I am paying above $36754.45/ year for insurance premium is loss for me. I would not go above this amount to insure my property which guarantees income of $100k per year. This is how the insurance premium is decided.

Conclusion:

We have many philosophical ideas about how money is not everything in life but deep down everyone knows that money constitutes a bigger portion of who we are. Although money can’t buy everything, the unexplainable value it holds behind presence of almost everything in our lives will never go unnoticed. We know that this importance of money/ resources/ assets is highly dependent on how much of these we have right now and how much of those may get lost. This perception of value drives our decision making in risky situations. The mathematical formalization of the perception of wealth, our risk profile is facilitated by expected utility theory. Although this theory has its own limitations it lies at the foundation of the economics.

For further reading:

Von Neumann, John, and Oskar Morgenstern. “Theory of games and economic behavior: 60th anniversary commemorative edition.” Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton university press, 2007
Kahneman, Daniel., and Amos Tversky. “Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk.” Econometrica 47.2 (1979): 363-391
Thinking fast and slow – Daniel Kahneman
Connecting money with sentiments – Behavioral Economics
Settling accounts with the losses – On Prospect Theory

The Utility of Human Life and Morality

Why doesn’t Batman kill all his villains once for all? Why the sentence passed by judicial systems in certain heinous and extraordinary crimes feel unjust for the pain victim went through? How one can tell that given person was right or wrong when he/she had no intent of doing it? Can you just look at the end consequences of the actions and decide right or wrong for such scenes? Jeremy Bentham’s philosophy of Utilitarianism tried to answer some of these questions but it revealed certain flaws in our ways of judgement. Even though hedonism and utilitarian philosophy create an objective model of morality, they fail to address the subjective and human aspect of any moral discussion. It reveals that the purpose of living is not mere happiness but self-improvement thereby mutual and overall improvement.

How to judge morality and its impact on human life?

The Moral Dilemma

A healthy sense of good and bad makes a society livable. There are some special, rare events that happen in the society we live which challenge our idea of what is good and what is bad. There are uncountable offenses and also in varying types which create problem of who should actually be punished and what should be the punishment.

An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.
Mahatma Gandhi

If this is really the case, the law and order should punish the victim in such a way that it prohibits the future perpetrators to not do such crimes again. But again, as this above mentioned quote goes if the punishment given for the crime is equally dangerous then what exactly are we trying to establish through such punishment?

It’s like that scenario where murdering a murderer creates a new murderer so the net number of murderers in the society remain the same. An Italian philosopher called Cesare Bonesana di Beccaria had given a thought on this. In his book ‘Of Crimes and Punishments’ he discusses that if the punishments grow on crueler and crueler the net mindset of people also grows crueler. It’s like how water levels itself irrespective of the depths. The baseline of what is right and wrong furthermore what is more wrong and what is more right shifts up. Crueler and crueler crimes reduce the sensibility of people of that society. This could be one reason why people always argue that the judicial system does not provide equivalent punishment as a justice to the victims of certain heinous, exceptional cases of crimes. (Although there are many other factors to make such decisions.)

“In proportion as punishments become crueler, the minds of men, as a fluid rises to the same height with that which surrounds it, grow hardened and insensible; and the force of the passions still continuing, in the space of a hundred years the wheel terrifies no more than formerly the prison. That a punishment may produce the effect required, it is sufficient that the evil it occasions should exceed the good expected from the crime, including in the calculation the certainty of the punishment, and the privation of the expected advantage. All severity beyond this is superfluous, and therefore tyrannical.”
Cesare Beccaria, Of the Mildness of Punishments from ‘Of Crimes and Punishments’

In similar spirit, the relationship between Batman and Joker can be understood. Joker never cares about killing people he will try to stretch the limits of batman in every possible sense where innocent lives are at stake. Batman has one solution to stop all this – to kill the Joker. But with a high moral ground Batman would never kill Joker. What is the motivation behind such character design of Batman. Batman knows that killing Joker would solve the problem once for all. Believe me, this is not just a fictional comic book scenario. The reality that we live in has uncountable such scenarios where exactly same decision dilemmas occur.

The famous trolley problem also points to somewhat similar moral dilemma. Where should the trolley be directed if one track has single person and another has 5 people tied to the track? Nobody wants blood on their hands.

But the same trolley problem becomes interesting if you start adding additional attributes to the people who are on track.

What if the single person tied to the track is a scientist with the cure for cancer and the track with five people are criminals? Then definitely you would kill the five criminals instead of the single scientist.

Did you notice what change made us to decide faster? The moment we understood the consequences of our actions we had the clarity of what is right and what is wrong. Our moral compass pointed to North the moment we foresaw the consequences of our actions.

The foundation of some of the principles of morality are based on similar ideas. Utilitarianism and Jeremy Bentham’s an English Philosophers ideas have contributed to the ideas of morality for humanity, especially when we are talking about the human society as a whole. The ideas put by Jeremy Bentham also faced severe criticism, we will see those in detail too. But the key intention of my exploration is to understand how we create the meaning of Morality and how subjectivity, objectivity totally change the way we perceive morality. In the end we may reach to rock bottom questioning the morality itself to be nonexistent – and if morality is non-existent then what separates human beings from animals? (I hope to enter in this territory with some optimism, I don’t know where will it end.)

Utilitarianism

As I already explained in the trolley problem that by adding one simple, short part of information shifted our moral compass in (supposedly) proper direction. What did this information add in the dilemma to make it solvable?

The answer is the foresight of consequence. Once you saw the consequence it leads to you got the hold of what is right and what is wrong. You decided one side to be right and other one to be wrong. This foresight of consequence helped you to weigh the ‘right’-ness of your decision.

Utilitarianism is based on the measurement of morals based on the consequences of the actions you take. What is the other side of taking actions? It is ‘the intent’. This is where the fun game begins.

Many philosophers are always fighting over morals based on the intent of the person and the consequences of the actions they take. For example, thinking of murder (pardon my thinking) makes me less of convict than really murdering someone. My thinking has not led to the loss of the person I hate. Utilitarianism thus calls out for the construct of morality based on the actual actions and their consequences; it’s like saying ‘what a man is more about what he does instead of what he thinks’.

Hedonism, Utilitarianism and Jeremy Bentham

Happiness is a very pretty thing to feel, but very dry to talk about.
Jeremy Bentham

Jeremy Bentham an English philosopher contributed to the utilitarian ideas of morality. He was not well appreciated in his home country due to the misalignment of his ideas of socio-political reforms with the British sovereignty of those times. The French translation of his works on law, governance gave him popularity in Frenchmen. Bentham was one of the people who pushed the political reforms during French revolution.

While reading Joseph Priestly’s Essay on the First Principles of Government, Bentham came across the idea of “greatest happiness for the greatest number” which motivated him to expand the ideas of utilitarianism.

Priestly brought the idea of “Laissez-faire” (‘allow to do’ in French)- a policy of minimum governmental interference in the economic affairs of individuals and society. Joseph Priestly developed his ideas of politics, economics and government based on the ideas created by Adam Smith (Author of the Wealth of Nations – the holy grail of classical Economics).

The Greek philosopher called Epicurus was the supporter, creator of hedonism. Hedonism defines ethics to pleasure or pain. According to hedonism that which gives pleasure is morally good and that which give pain is morally wrong. The idea behind hedonism is the aversion of pain to live an undisturbed life because anyways this all won’t make sense once you are dead. According to Epicurus – fear of death, retribution is pushing people to collect more wealth, more power thereby causing more painful life. The collection of wealth, power is done thinking that they can avert the death but that is not the reality. So, worrying about the death sucks out the pleasure of living the life which itself is equivalent of death.

Non fui, fui, non-sum, non-curo
(“I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care”)
Epicurus

So, epicurean hedonistic morality tries to maximize the pleasure. The other end of this idea is that if everyone tries to maximize their own pleasure (egoistic hedonism) wouldn’t it disturb others?

If I want to listen to a song on loud speaker while bothering my neighbors, what is the moral standpoint here?

The answer is the overall good of the system. So, if you neighbor also wants to listen music loud and overall loud music is good for the group then we are morally right to play loud music. (Just pray that the group has same music interests!)

So, Jeremy Bentham is known to rejuvenate this ancient philosophy of egoistic hedonism through his philosophy of utilitarianism.

The basic idea behind Utilitarianism is to maximize the utility of anything, value of anything. The utility can be increased by doing what is right which can be done by doing what gives more pleasure or by avoiding those things which increase or give pain.

Utility is a property which tends

To produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good or happiness
To prevent happening of mischief, pain, evil or happiness

So, the right action is the one that produces and/ or maximizes overall happiness. Please understand that the word “overall” is important for Jeremy Bentham’s philosophy of Utilitarianism. Because from selfish point of views, what is pleasurable for one may not be pleasurable for others. (This is also where the certain philosophical problems of Utilitarianism are hiding, save this point for later.)

To solve this bottleneck of clarity, there are two types of pleasure in human life – one is happiness from senses, physical experiences and one is from intellect. The intellectual happiness is higher than the pleasure from senses. So, on personal moral dilemmas these two attributes can solve the problem.

All good on personal level but what about the moral decisions for the group, for society? Here, Bentham solved the moral dilemma by using the idea of “greater good for all”. When we don’t agree on what makes us happy together, making sacrifices in your happiness to make others happy is the solution. (Keep this idea parked in your mind.)

“Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters – pain and pleasure. They govern us in all we do, all we say and all we think.”
Jeremy Bentham

Felicific Calculus – Measuring happiness

Jeremy Bentham is known as the Issac Newton of the Morality for developing the felicific calculus/ hedonistic calculus. Bentham pointed out the key factors which affect the net happiness and using this factors’ effect as a whole, one can quantify the happiness.

Following are the factors which affect the happiness:

Intensity – how strong is the pleasure from the given action?
Duration – how long does the happiness remain from given action?
Certainty – what is the likelihood of given pleasure to occur?
Propinquity – how soon/ immediate is the occurrence of the pleasure?
Fecundity – what is the possibility that this pleasure will also lead to the newer pleasure(s)?
Purity – what is the change that this pleasure will not bring some opposite sensation?
Extent – how many people are affected?

If one considers these factors and the principle to maximize the communal happiness, most of the social moral dilemmas can be effectively solved.

So, according to this felicific calculus,

Batman should kill the Joker for the greater good of the Gotham
The trolley should go over the group/ person which creates more pain for the society
Baby Hitler should be killed once we get the chance to travel back in time

You must appreciate the clarity which the felicific calculus brings. This clarity is very important for the policymakers, politicians while deciding the fate of the group, state, nation as a whole.

Now a simple question –

If batman keeps on killing the villains, won’t he become the greatest killer of them all? What would differentiate Batman from other villains?

What would happen if you were given false information about the nature of the people tied on track while riding that trolley? Could your wrong decision be undone? If it was the wrong decision then now ‘you’ are morally wrong, with the blood of the innocents.

You would kill baby Hitler only because you have vision that this baby will grow up to be the mass murderer tyrant. The mass murder hasn’t happened yet. So, now you are the killer of a ‘now’ innocent baby.

Maintaining same emotion, now you would appreciate why even for a strong judicial system giving capital punishment for rapists, terrorists is difficult morally. You would solve the problem for now because the act has been already done, the consequences have already happened (which is why moral judgement is effective as it relies on the consequences). Killing the perpetrators or punishing them with equal pain would definitely bring peace of mind using the principles of morality but that also degrades the morality of innocents who fell down from that morality. It is not matter of what one deserves because what bad happened to them, it is about how less human you will become once you perform that act of punishment.

Recall the quote of Beccaria in the early part of my discussion.

Killing joker will create fear among other villains but it also creates chance for the creation of even dangerous villain in future.

Killing baby Hitler doesn’t guarantee prevention of World War and mass murders, as our personalities are the result of our surroundings – another Hitler-like person would have emerged in such given circumstances. (I honestly don’t know if he/she would be worse or less harsh than the original one but you get the point – conditions anyways would have created another cruel person.)

Jumping out of the trolley seems the best way to run away from the pain of murder of other unknown people (joking). The trolley dilemma remains dilemma.

Also, the felicific calculus allows pain for small groups for the betterment/ pleasure of the bigger society. For example, according to this utilitarian idea killing few healthy convicted prisoners to save lives of many innocent people by harvesting the prisoners’ organ is justified. It is for the good in the end.

You see where this goes?

See the level to which any human or a group could go if they start justifying their moral rightness using these ideas. Using these principles any big group can overpower the minorities in morally right way. It is just a matter of time that the felicific calculus principles would get exploited for other “immoral” gains.

That is exactly why many people criticized the felicific calculus saying that a pig laying in the mud for his whole life would be happiest than a human being (Socrates to be specific) if Bentham’s calculus is used to decide morality.

In a crude way, there are two type of Utilitarianism which help to solve the problem to certain extent, but it is not a complete solution:

Act Utilitarianism – to act for the greater good of all
Rule Utilitarianism – to set rules in such way that no one inherently gets the pain or everyone is happy because actions and their consequences are bound by certain set rules in first place now

Happiness is not the ‘only’ and the ultimate goal – the limitations of Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarian Philosophy

What people were not ‘happy’ with Jeremy Bentham’s felicific calculus was that it made humans more like machines and very objective. People don’t always want happiness for their or the group’s greater good. Exercising daily, reducing fat-sugar maybe painful but that guarantees healthy, illness free long life. Doing drugs isolates the person from pain but it impacts the long-term physical and mental health of the person. Hardships and pain make people to reach their difficult goals which is what is the real and ultimate happiness for them.

Happiness is not always the goal of life, if one is completely tangled in the pleasures of life and if everyone is having same mentality then in the end no one will be happy, because as a group we all would never agree on what makes us happy; different environments in which we grew, our personal experiences, our upbringing, our motivations prevent us from creating a common definition of happiness.

The subjective factor of pleasure or pain is not present in Bentham’s philosophy of Utilitarianism. Building further upon that, the victim who has suffered from the morally wrong action will only be satisfied when he/she gets justice, not when they are made happier than their perpetrators. (This justice must again not be mechanical and objective like the felicific calculus.)

One more flaw of the Bentham’s utilitarianism is the imbalance between personal scenarios and the communal scenarios. In most cases, it demands personal sacrifice irrespective of their subjective morality for the betterment of the group. (that is exactly how many past cruel dictators have justified their moral correctness on their acts against the minorities.)

A British philosopher, Bernard Williams presented a thought experiment to highlight such flaw of the Utilitarianism.

In this thought experiment:

A botanist on his South American expedition is ordered by the cruel regime soldiers to kill one of the Indian tribe people. If the botanist fails to kill one Indian the soldiers would execute all of the tribe members.

So, if we implement utilitarian principles, then the botanist should kill one Indian to save the remaining all. That is morally right.

But on the other hand, one must also understand that the botanist has nothing to do with the cruel regime and even with the indigenous tribe members. He is under no moral obligation to do anything. The consequences are in such a way that whatever he will do he will be called morally wrong. Which in the end is wrong.

The utilitarian philosophy neglects this subjectivity and consequentialism while we are deciding morality of anything.

Maybe that is also why even when we have all the rules in place, penal code in place for all types of offenses, similar crimes – we have a judge – a subjective, consequential observer to grant the final justice.

You must understand that the discussion does not want to pose Utilitarianism as completely wrong idea. The intent of this discussion is to understand how to de-clutter a complex moral scenario and how to inject subjectivity in it so that the correct person will get the justice in the end. As we are human beings and not machines, every day brings new subjective scenarios with new subjective moral dilemmas. Direct implementation of utilitarianism may bring in the transparency in the moral puzzle but it is at the expense of oversimplification and loss of personal subjectivity, consequential personal point of view and also freedom of person to exist.

The ways in which Utilitarianism brings immediate clarity by elimination of some important subjective aspects is dangerous and limits the judgement of real morality. Friedrich Nietzsche had warned new philosophers in his book beyond good and evil about the philosophies which create such “immediate certainties” like Utilitarian philosophy creates-

“The belief in “immediate certainties” is a moral naivete which does honor to us philosophers; but – we have now to cease being “merely moral” men!”
Friedrich Nietzsche

Conclusion – If not happiness then what is the goal of being human?

Jeremy Bentham’s philosophy of Utilitarianism and the felicific calculus can help to decide the morality of what is good for all but it ignores the presence and worth of personal integrity, the well being of the minorities, subjectivity of the person in given consequences. It by default eliminates the possibility of humans remaining human beings instead it attributes them as the machine maximizing a targeted outcome (which is pleasure here).

So, the question remains – If we are not meant to maximize pleasure during our tenure in life because in the end after death there will not be anything to experience or gain happiness – if our existence and final purpose does not align with being happy then what exactly is the purpose of being a human being?

Based on my understanding on what many great people have commented about the purpose of life, I found that most of them point to remaining the human being you always were. I am not saying that the personality should remain the same, rather it should change and keep on upgrading itself till the end but the core should remain same or it should not degrade at least.

Some wrong events, injustice, oppression, cruelty will make you suffer, but that should also not vilify your human spirit. Once we let go the pursuit of happiness and chase the goal of being a better human being (or at least remain the human being you are) we can fulfill the purpose of our lives and also make other people’s lives better.

Once you will let go of such utilitarian, mechanistic setups of morality you will realize that people don’t need gods, religions, governments, judicial systems to keep in the check of right and wrong. Our inner compass is more than enough to take care of what makes us human beings, this inner compass is not about what is right and wrong, for me it is about what better version of yourself you would become if you act in that certain way. It takes care of what you are thinking and what would be the consequences of actions thereby resolving the dilemma of morality which got separated on the basis of either intent or the consequences.

I am highlighting the importance of inner personal human compass because the rules designed to keep morality in check would always need revision and the utilitarian philosophy would wait for the consequences to happen to decide the morality. The goal of human struggle to improve their current version to a better one does not need either of the metrics to decide the morality.

Imagine what the world would become if everyone started appreciating this inner human compass!

(For now, we can only imagine, but I am optimistic on this.)

P.S. –

Even though the Utilitarian philosophy had many flaws, Jeremy Bentham contributed largely to bring in new political reforms, improve governance, establish penal codes in judicial systems, define sovereignty, reduce the influence of religious institutions on the lives of people and governments. His works were strategically maligned by some lobbies to lessen the impact of his other notable works. He was the proponent of liberty and freedom from religious influences on lives of people. The pushed for the establishment of a secular educational institute in London – now famously known as University College London. Jeremy Betham’s fully clothed wax statue containing his original skeleton remains in the entrance hall of the University main building upon his request.

Anxiety – Ugly (But Precious) Gift From Evolution

Anxiety serves to prepare a person for threats. Anxiety just like pain is one uncomfortable but effective way to cope up with the adversities in life, that’s how we build strength, resistance and deeper understanding of the surrounding for better and more precisely predictable future.
The remarkable concepts like smoke detector principal and optimal threshold in signal detection theory developed by modern psychologists/ psychiatrists help us to draw a line between a healthy anxiety (adaptive function) and unhealthy anxiety (pathology) and show ways to handle/treat them effectively.

Anxiety’s like a rocking chair. It gives you something to do, but it doesn’t get you very far
Jodi Picoult

Survival, Fear, and Anxiety

Every living thing if not have any goal in their lifetime would at least have sole goal of existing, surviving. Nobody wants to die and all of us always yearn to live forever but we know our limitations and hence are always on the quest of justifying the finite existence granted to us. Even if we are certain of the end closing in, our instincts are evolved in such way that many of the times, we bear the ability to cheat death. Humans have further extended cheating the death using science and technology. Technology augmented our lives, reduced the risks of death, created a safe environment to grow, increased our chances of survival.

The fear of death and uncertainty of future is the key driver in our improved survival instincts and excessive use of technology to achieve it. We plan for things in advance, create backup plans if something would go wrong, have risk assessments before the execution, understand and decide according to the cost benefit analysis. That is what makes us humans and also separates from other species (although rest of the surviving species are also smart in their own ways to increase their chances of survival like viruses – but hopefully humans have other ways to overcome them)

So, fear in a way triggers the actions to ensure survival. Anxiety – a sophisticated form of fear which prepares us in advance even before the fear causing scenario is supposed to happen. Simply put anxiety is an anticipatory type of fear to increase the chances of survival.

I am talking about fear and anxiety because they are bugging my mind for many days. Recently I watched Inside Out 2 movie and the it really delivers. The narrative has successfully presented how all emotions play a vital role in creating our personality in whole. Anxiety was new and important emotion presented in this movie. Every moment where anxiety came in focus it was fully relatable to me. Once I was done crying in the end the anxiety never left me (figuratively!), I felt a strong urge to understand the anxiety on deeper levels and what the domain experts have to say about anxiety.

The discussion heron is not a movie review rather I have made some attempt to summarize what the real-world scientists have to say about anxiety. I won’t be giving you the tricks, counseling and recommending any medicines to cure anxiety disorders. (Trained professional, experts are the best people to do that – “I AM NO EXPERT”)

My focus of the discussion is to question why anxiety exists in first place when we have an emotion called fear, another question is how to interpret the anxious emotions and what leads to anxiety disorder, where does the root of anxiety lie and is anxiety a bad or negative emotion? If it is so then why? and if not – then why?

While posing such questions and researching articles I came across some beautiful ideas, experiments and theories established by professionals in the field. I will throw light on these ideas in the coming discussion.

The fear is real! – is it? – Defining anxiety

As I already mentioned that fear of death, the unknown and urge to live long are always fighting with each other. Humans rather every species existing today in nature mastered this battle to some extent and have ridden on chariots of evolution to augment – change themselves to adapt with the surroundings and improve the chances of survival.

A deer completely aware of its surrounding, grazing in the open grass fields can distinguish the rusting of leaves due to winds and rustling due to sudden movements of an apex predator like tiger. When the exams are on top of tomorrow, we are ready to sacrifice the night sleep to crack them (engineers would resonate more with this!) We know that the pain of failing, fear of failing is worse than painfully covering syllabus overnight! The fear is there and the anticipatory response is also there, only the level of sophistication is different.

Why I say sophistication? It is because due to the advancements in our lifestyles humans are rarely exposed to the real life-threatening scenarios like animal do (still today). Our fears are now more anticipatory. I would say most of our fears are now classified as anxiety.

Wikipedia goes like this for anxiety –

“Anxiety is an emotion which is characterized by an unpleasant state of inner turmoil and includes feelings of dread over anticipated events.”

So, the key differentiating aspect between fear and anxiety is the anticipation. Anxiety is a prospective emotion and a forward-looking emotion. Whereas fear is the emotional response to current threat. Fear makes us act immediately; anxiety keeps us ready for future threats. Fear will immediately decide fight or flight whereas anxiety will create plans, strategies for both and also calculate which one is more probable. (now you can appreciate why anxiety is more intense in over-thinkers, the analysis paralysis is one mild example of this.)

Anxiety is also an emotion important from evolutionary perspective as it has helped the current existing species to remain existent. The ability to anticipate future and preparing for it in advance gives competitive edge in survival.

Why Is Anxiety Good?

While reading about anxiety I came across a very good paper by Dr. Randolph M. Nesse.

Randolph M. Nesse is a Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry and Psychology in University of Michigan. The ideas and theory he created to understand and identify anxiety and its intensity are very important and interesting.

Dr. Ness developed the smoke detector principle to control and quantify the medication used to fight with anxiety disorder. (He poses very simple but important question the opening of the paper that “Is he medicating his patients too much? is he harming them?”) The fundamental doubt Dr. Ness had was if the anxiety is evolved during evolution to improve our chances of survival, then why are we forced to reduce its symptoms and effects? Why are we using medications, therapies to reduce these symptoms, effects of anxiety. What if the patient is too anxious for given thing and that thing is too real to happen but the doctor dumbed that emotion down? (Dr. Ness calls it down-regulating the mechanisms causing anxiety)

The core of his thinking is that if we keep on “down-regulating” our anxiety which is an evolutionary gift to us, we might never be able to gauge the future in better way and prepare for it in advance to improve our chances of survival. (this is an exaggeration of the scenario but it proves a point)

This calls for the quantification of anxiety. Which Dr. Ness did through the smoke detector principle.

The Smoke Detector Principle – How Much Anxiety Is Too Much?

Dr. Ness in another paper talks about the mechanism which is a feed-back system between the animal and its surroundings, which selects the emotional response to improve the chances of survival. The emotions we have today are the result of such evolution to maintain “homeostasis” – the balance among our bodily system to survive and function properly.

According to his ideas, anxiety works like a smoke detector.

The anxiety response is always trying to maximize the chances of survival and escape from a life-threatening situation. When we set a smoke detector it will go off even when the fire is not that extreme or if there is just some smoke which can be a controllable one. The smoke detector is designed to never miss a single fire causing situation. This ensures complete confidence in smoke detector that it will save people from every life taking fire scenario. But, it’s the same mechanism of smoke detector which forces people to evacuate frequently even when the fire or smoke where controllable or life threatening.

The frequent emergency evacuation even when it is not required is the same problem with the extreme intensity cases of anxiety. Always having armor ready for combat may sometimes make the soldier to lose the agility.

The patients with anxiety disorder have lowered sense of real threat. Their system triggers too many false alarms.

Dr. Ness established various techniques to quantify the levels of anxiety. The responses from anxiety include increased heart rate, rise in certain bodily chemicals – stress hormone secretion which can be easily measured as signals using instruments. Thus, the smoke detector principal paved a way to quantify the anxiety and understand what triggers the anxiety disorders in patients. It helps to understand how and why a level of anxiety is healthy in normal person and what level of anxiety is unhealthy and needs drug administration, therapy, how it can be administered by altering the setting within and around the person.

The core reasons why we need not to be intensely anxious about common life threats are as follows as Dr. Ness explains in his papers:

Regulatory mechanisms have tendency to make errors and be extra defensive about situations
We do not need to always be extra defensive to avoid given threat. (A machine gun in a bulletproof enclosure is not required to kill a mosquito.)
Our body and surroundings have multiple layers of defense for almost all common threats. We are evolved and have survived in that way.
Our environment is much safer than it was at the time we evolved

Types of Anxiety Disorders

Now that we have understood what is the nature of anxiety and what is its mechanism. Here are some important anxiety disorders to outline. Huge amount of information is available in literature, internet websites on these:

Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) – too much worrying about ordinary things, problems like money, work, health, relations, family, and anything possible or imaginable, it may not exist in reality.
Hypochondriasis – People suffering from this often worry about the health condition when nothing is wrong with their body. The word comes from feeling of stomach pain the person experiences even when everything is alright.
Specific phobia – fear of anything but specific without any reason. It’s the fear for certain thing even when it does not pose threat.
Social anxiety disorder (SAD) – In this scenario people intensely fear the public situations, humiliations, embarrassments, criticisms.
Separation anxiety disorder (SepAD) – People in this case intensely fear the loss of person or a place
Agoraphobia – it is fear of being in situation where there is no exit door, or escape strategy. Fear of using public transportation, being in large crowds are some examples.
Panic disorder – these are outburst of all the collective or intensive fears, they come quickly and last for short time.
Selective mutism (SM) – in this case the person is extremely fearful of initiating a conversation, does not speak to specific people or in specific situations or conditions even when they are forced to talk by humiliation or mocking.

Post traumatic syndrome disorder (PTSD) and Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) were once classified under anxiety disorders (now not under anxiety disorder in DSM – Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental disorders)

Signal Detection Theory For Interpreting ‘Anxiety Like Responses’

One good paper in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry by Bateson et al. shows how the smoke detector principal can be used to decide the boundaries of different levels of “anxiety like-responses”. This paper talks about signal detection theory and optimal threshold. The beauty of this paper for me is the mathematical model it establishes to explain psychological events. A single formula will help you understand the difference between normal anxiety and anxiety disorder.

With the smoke detector principal, we can now appreciate that not every common threat needs full armored protection. The signal detection theory in this paper shows where a person draws line when they overestimate or underestimate anxiety.

It talks about “optimal threshold” to show a threat response in given situation. Optimal threshold is a mathematical parameter which is function of probability of the occurrence real event and vulnerability of the individual.

The signal detection theory says that the superposition of response signals for given background noise and response signal from real threat give us the quantified judgement of how intensely the anxiety is triggered compared to the practicality of the threat – this quantified judgement is called optimal threshold (λ). Lower the threshold more intensely the anxiety will be triggered for given disturbance – background noise.

Figure 1 : Signal detection problem, how the optimal threshold can be calculated. (Credit: Anxiety: An Evolutionary Approach, 2011, Bateson et al., Canadian Journal of Psychiatry)

Equation 1: optimum threshold (Credit: Anxiety: An Evolutionary Approach, 2011, Bateson et al.,Canadian Journal of Psychiatry)

Here,

λ = optimal threshold

p_nt= probability that there is no threat

p_t= probability that there is real threat

w_fa= cost of false alarm

w_miss = cost of a miss

Once this equation comes in focus the discussion becomes interesting. The ratio of p_nt to p_t mathematically quantifies how practical the threat is. The ratio of w_fa to w_miss mathematically quantifies what will be the cost if the anxiety trigger is accepted or rejected – will the subject live or die. This ratio shows how we trigger anxiety response. If the cost of responding is nothing for even a simple threat scenario, we will choose to trigger that response, same would happen if the cost of losing is ultimately the loss of life, we would trigger any possible anxiety response to avoid it. The authors call this ratio as individual’s vulnerability.

The ratio (p_nt/p_t) can be seen like this. If the surrounding really is hostile and consists of events which cause many life altering events than the safety ensuring events then the p_t (probability of threat) will be way higher than p_nt (probability of no threat and safer environment). In war situation where multiple bombings, gun firings are happening around you the probability of threat happening (p_t) is way high than it not happening (p_nt). The optimal threshold will drop immediately and anxiety triggered will be very high.

The ratio (w_fa / w_miss) can be seen like this. If the person is way stronger to handle given threat, then the person will need no effort, investment or cost to trigger any reaction alarm to even a false threat. Consider the example where you are about to be bit by mosquito, you know the efforts to slap many times until the mosquito dies are not worthless, you will try many times to kill it even when you know it will swiftly escape, you are less vulnerable in this scenario. But now when you are about to be killed by John Wick (!?) you know for sure that even a pencil will do the job for him, any environment is hostile for you, you are vulnerable here, the value of losing life (w_miss)is way high than the cost of attempts to save it (w_fa). Your optimal threshold will immediately drop down thus triggering intense anxiety.

Once you generate enough data for such optimal frequencies you can easily distinguish the healthy anxiety responses and anxiety disorders. I loved how these two factors (probability of threat and vulnerability of an individual) can predict the levels of anxiety in a person. This equation explains and can also quantify why pregnant women have heightened awareness of their surroundings, why people get insomniac after constant mental stress, why restless people are always in the mode of action and fight, why reclusive people hesitate to visit foreign, unknown places.

Your Surroundings and Mindset Matter!

Figure 2 : Three levels of vulnerability, here optimal threshold and probability of event can be correlated for difference in the anxiety responses (Credit: Anxiety: An Evolutionary Approach, 2011, Bateson et al., Canadian Journal of Psychiatry)

It is really interesting what the authors have achieved and established in this research. They compared three different levels of vulnerability and explained them using given plot. The thing to highlight here for anxiety disorders is that they emerge from the environments which always keep on presenting high probabilistic practically threatening scenarios. The anxiety disorders also emerge when the individual feels more vulnerable.

Higher the vulnerability lower will be the optimal threshold and intense will be the anxiety response.

As shown in research, in the uncertain times of Covid-19 people who were locked in their home had no disorders, were not exposed to the virus also felt anxious and faced some anxiety disorders because of the environment they were in.

If the person feels less vulnerable and stronger then even for given strong life-threatening events the optimal threshold will be higher thus the anxiety triggered will be lower.

Are you noticing where this is going?

This is a mathematical model which shows how a healthy, supportive, and safe environment and also a strong mindset and better judgment of reality is important for handling challenging situations.

For a person suffering from anxiety disorder, it becomes very important to make sure that they know that they are in a safer environment and are cared for. It is very important to make them feel safe and understood. Creating a system of critical thinking and reasoning can also help the person to have a sense of strength and high resistance to vulnerability, this also goes for physical strength. The vulnerability is not only mental it is also physical when it comes to reality.

You will now appreciate why teenagers and trauma patients are more exposed to anxiety disorders. Mostly and generally in teenagers it is due to the uncertainty of many new things happening with them simultaneously and in trauma patients it’s the constant bombardment of life-threatening events in hostile environments.

Conclusion

Anxiety serves to prepare a person for threats. The emotion called anxiety is an evolutionary gift to ensure long survival of our species but as it is also related to our primitive instincts, we mostly let anxiety overpower other emotions in seemingly safer scenarios. Strategy and anticipation are the gifts of anxiety but if overused they will end up in imparting unnecessary caution and overprotective attitude which inhibits adaptation to changes there by slowing evolution of our species. Anxiety just like pain is one uncomfortable but effective way to cope up with the adversities in life, that’s how we build strength, resistance and deeper understanding of the surrounding for better and more precisely predictable future.

The remarkable concepts like smoke detector principal and optimal threshold in signal detection theory developed by modern psychologists/ psychiatrists help us to draw a line between a healthy anxiety (adaptive function) and unhealthy anxiety (pathology) and ways to handle/ treat them effectively.

These theories show how we can quantify seemingly intangible emotions like anxiety and way to handle them. If you can measure something effectively you can control and predict it effectively. All credit goes to such brilliant minds!

References, Image sources and further reading:

Questioning Our Consciousness – Solipsism

Solipsism warns about the impossibility to know everything in absolute manner but if appreciated in a proper way it guides us to seek for continuous up-gradation from existing lesser absolute truths to newer and better absolute truths. A pure solipsist would be delusional, neurotic but a practical solipsist would bring about a revolution in his own world thereby in the worlds of the others and even in the whole world altogether!

The problem of other minds – do they exist in reality or the reality just exists in my mind?

Have you ever felt that words are failing to express the joy you have? Do you feel uncomfortable when you are unable to understand the vibe of your environment? Is it just you or is it the surrounding? Do you sometimes feel that everyone is treating you in a certain way and then you realize that actually it was you who was behaving differently? Do you get the feeling that someone is behaving in a way but thinking in a completely different way? Am I unable to get early in the bed because I don’t wish so or the weather is cozy? As if they are hiding something and you would never know what and how they feel? Could you make others feel your exact experiences in the exactly the same way? If yes, then how? If not, then why is impossible? How come our senses have practical limitations? Are those the limitations of our mind? Is empathy a real thing or is it just the construct of my mind to mirror the people in front of me? Why my experiences are so private?

The questions posed through Solipsism may clarify the origin of these ideas.

Where solus means “alone” and ipse means “self” in Latin

A philosophical idea that only one’s mind is sure to exist

Origin of Philosophy – Knowledge is power

Everyone of us is born with a tendency to have control over the surrounding. This is closely connected to our survival instincts. Though our survival instincts are mainly primitive what differentiates us from rest of the animals is our reasoning ability. Almost every animal is proven to have emotions, many of them can think logically at least from survival perspective, some of these animals have shown signs of intelligence closer to humans when trained properly. Our reasoning ability is some sort of highly evolved survival instinct. Reasoning introduces understanding, awareness of the surrounding in which we live, this understanding increases the predictability of the future thereby increasing the chances of the survival of the species. So, we can say that the better we understand the system which w are part of the better will be our chances of anticipating the risks of the environment; the better we anticipate the upcoming risks the better we can be prepared for to handle them to procreate further thereby ensuring the survival.

That is why we have many fields of knowledge to understand the establish different aspects of the reality we live in. When there were no boundaries between different fields of knowledge everything would start from simple question (even today single important and specific question can establish a completely independent field of knowledge) We are always one question away from a completely new perspective towards reality. (See Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem if you are interested in this idea)

Philosophy could be attributed to the most primitive, original, and the crudest field of knowledge. Although most part of philosophy is properly structured, it is crude due to the plethora of unanswered questions it has. Once the fundamental questions in any domain of understanding are answered, once the paradoxes lying at the end of an established field of knowledge are solved then a new field gets created and separates from the fundamental philosophy.

(The primitive man survived on whatever nature provided then the humans realized that one can sow the seeds to get certain crop from certain soil in certain season in this much quantity thus came farming – Botany, Geography, Mathematics and many more. When we were unable to understand the Newton’s theory of gravitation to some heavenly bodies (the perihelion of Mercury) then Einstein’s theory of relativity disrupted our existing understanding of the universe. It has literally affected every field of modern knowledge.)

Skepticism – Keep on questioning until you get consistency in understanding

So, in nutshell, the job of philosophy is to ask those questions which would challenge the complete domain of a certain field of knowledge, once you get the proof of this question then it becomes the part of that field of knowledge or a completely independent field of knowledge. They detach from the Philosophy. Philosophy was never meant to provide answers, if certain philosophy is providing proper answers, proper predictability then it is a field of knowledge.

What happens to the questions which remain unanswered?

What if there are unresolved paradoxes at the end of the a fully established field of knowledge?

I would say the philosophy carries the unanswerable, paradoxical nature – the imperfections in our understanding until they are formally, satisfactorily, and most importantly – coherently answered. That is exactly why philosophy always seems crude, as if it is carrying all the imperfections in our understanding of the reality.

Skepticism lies at the base of the philosophy. Once you get consistent answers to the questions posed, you keep on questioning that consistency. Everything (and I mean it) will end at a point of paradox or inconsistency. (If one finds exceptions then it is better to upgrade that theory otherwise soon it will get replaced with better theory.) There are ways to deal with such paradoxes/ inconsistencies (See Agrippa’s Trilemma if it interests you.)

Solipsism – Extreme skepticism – Questioning the existence of the question and the questioner!

So now we that we are familiar with the nature of questioning everything to establish consistent answers thereby to create knowledge, it is important to know how we do so. What make us answer these questions in a consistent manner. Our experiences, observations of the surrounding, our interaction with one another and the results of these interactions give us the fundamental model of reality. This model is developed by our minds – bunch of neuron connections physically per say – the collection of the sensorial feedback from the body.

Now the question is, as we go on questioning the reality, the final question is come like this –

If there are still some gaps in my absolute understanding of the reality which are creating this uncertainty somewhere, which is creating paradoxes, inconsistencies; what exactly is absolute? What exactly is the most certain thing in the world? What is the most real thing, real measuring scale with which I could measure and understand my surrounding?

Solipsism says that only the existence of your mind is certain, the existence of other minds will always be uncertain. As the presence of other minds is uncertain, you can be sure of only what you experience as “the reality”. As only you absolutely and fully realize the reality through your mind, the reality is just mere figment of your mind and imagination (when stretched too far!) When you try to transfer your minds realization of the reality to others you will always see that something got lost in translation. If reality is just the construct of my mind, then what exactly is existence?

Why Solipsism stands strong? – Why idea of living in the Matrix fascinates us?

Is the creator playing with my mind to show me a false reality for something different which is beyond my access?

The earliest evidence to ask such question is found in the writing of a Roman skeptic Sextus Empiricus quoting Gorgias (c. 483–375 BC) as follows:

Nothing exists
Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it
Even if something could be known about it, knowledge about it cannot be communicated to others.

Then René Descartes (the one who established Cartesian coordinates) came up with one of the famous quotes/ ideas about the absoluteness of the reality.

Cogito, ergo sum.

I think, therefore I am.
René Descartes

Simply put, Descartes argued that, the most certain knowledge one can have is through personal experiences because knowledge transferred from others are never perfect also there is no way to measure where the translation was perfect. The existence and experience will always be discrete – separate; it will vary mind to mind, so what is reality for you is the only absolute reality; that is why absolute knowledge is private property. As you can be only certain of your experiences only your mind is the reality, everyone else’s minds don’t exist. (OR should I say others are mindless! Jokes apart!)

George Berkeley – Bishop Berkeley is also one famous philosopher who developed the ideas of immaterial-ism. He is known for the famous analogy of “a falling tree” although his writings never explicitly mentioned such analogy but let us say in a crude way, he pointed towards it. (See, even here we can see the gap that is created during the communication of an idea, a simple analogy someone established before us!)

So, the idea is, if a tree falls in a forest and nobody saw it falling, nobody heard it falling, nobody felt the vibrations of fall how come we be sure that a tree fell down somewhere? Unless and until someone observes the fall through their senses one can never be sure that the really fell. So, if no one noticed it and in the end even you didn’t notice the fall, then the tree never fell down!

Your mind, you consciousness and you had to exist absolutely to observe, experience the fall of the tree. If you weren’t there to see and experience the fall, how could you be so absolutely sure that the tree fell?

Solipsism – Trust no one but yourself!

Now, you would have understood what may be going wrong with Solipsism!

Modern day answers would be like “I would have been presented with a video to prove the fall.” OR “I would have been presented with the person who cut down the tree”

But the counterargument would go like this “What if the video was faked? (by using deepfake!!!)” OR the witness found to be forged – I wouldn’t know if the person is lying with confidence (even polygraphs tests can be fooled, false alibis can be created!!!)

Jokes aside, these are mere representative examples to demonstrate the point. When you start formally questioning the nature of reality by using the most consistent tools that we have in modern science, then this question again peeks out in a bizarre way!!!

According to quantum mechanics, the moment we measure the state of a quantum object, its state changes. So, the measurement of that instance will never refer to the actual state of the quantum object. Meaning that you could never be sure of what actually happened before or at the instance of measurement. You can have a probability but you will never be sure.

Your observation had to exist to define the state of the quantum object, if you weren’t there were infinite state of the quantum object to exist. Your observation assigned it a definite, objective, absolute state. Your observation made it a real “reality” otherwise it was always possibility rather probability of many events. Please note that these are not just the flights of minds by the most compelling specimens of humanity, these are actually mathematically, experimentally proven ideas.

The one liner to understand solipsism is –

Your personal experience is more dependable than common sense!

I understand that how is it even possible to question common sense, common experiences. Solipsism is such a foolish idea rather the most foolish idea one can have! But, bare with me when we try to answer the paradoxes which lie in solipsism. Any person who is having existential crisis has been warned hereon!

Different ideologies in Solipsism

Metaphysical solipsism – the most extreme solipsism – the external world doesn’t exist. My mind creates the reality for me. (A rude adamant philosopher made it clear!)

Quick Joke – Unless I didn’t observe the tree falling, it is still there (and maybe giving fruits if it is a Mango tree!)

Epistemological solipsism – The reality around me is absolute and objective, but we cannot know it directly as it is through our sense and experiences. It is the limitation of my senses which inhibit my understanding of the reality. (This is a humble approach I would say!)

Sensory organs are not the experiences from the reality rather they are just the interpreters of the reality with practical limitations. There is no direct agency to experience what others are experiencing, to know other minds.

Quick Joke – A person drinking tea finds a fly in his tea asks the waiter to replace the tea. Waiter helplessly trying to convince his of not having any fly in that tea gives up and replaces the tea. After few same complaints from same person and replacing many cups, it is discovered that the fly was in the guest’s spectacles!

It’s like I cannot hear certain sound frequencies but certain animals can hear those frequencies. I can see only the light in visible spectrum, but other animals can see in another spectrum. It’s the limitation of my senses which dulls down the objectivity of the reality. You have to be ‘the God’ to understand all the spectrum of the reality! (excuse my introduction of some spiritual power here but we will come back to this again!)

This is the most practical, plausible and calming version of solipsism.

Methodological solipsism – Every logic is fallible, that is why you could never know what the absolute looks like. There is nothing like ‘the God’, if there is something supreme you won’t even understand how supreme it is and why it is so! (I know we are getting spiritual to go away from early religious epistemological solipsism but that is how it works)

It says that even our brain, our mind is the part of external reality. (I am feeling uncomfortable here.)

Quick Joke – A criminal was convicted for murder. He went scot-free because he didn’t do that murder, his had hand – rather the knife did the murder.

Jokes apart, but consider cognitive dissonance. Many things which we learned in our childhood as the absolute concept, as the ultimate truth gets replaced by something life changing and even more true and absolute. So, what is real truth is beyond our understanding.

Paradoxes at the end – Where Solipsism would break down!

The paradoxes of the solipsism are the most fun part which explain why solipsism deserves any explanation.

Here are some doubts,

If my mind is the absolute reality I live in, then why can’t I convince myself to survive by just imagining that I have eaten a lot today (while not eating even single crumb!)

I could just survive by thinking of eating the best food I could “think” of.

Everyone knows that this is not the real case. A person with that much will power and fasting will barely survive.

Now, the counterargument for this (and I love this part due to pop-culture reference!) –

What if your brain is kept in a container giving some electrical impulses exactly like in movie The Matrix. The matrix is programmed in such way that not eating will kill you definitely.

Solipsism ends in a matrix, a simulated reality beyond our experiences!

If there no such thing like matrix then how come all of us would die if we face the same degree of starvation? How come the experiences (even though not purely translatable to others but still the same based on the objective, consistent observations) we have in such cases match?

Many of the knowledge established as the most absolute, consistent and closer to the reality is developed because all of us had same experience (at least objective experience, ideally fully efficient translatable experience) in every one of our lives.

The answer is that we all share a common consciousness which enable us to experience the same scenario. We all are living a common and shared dream.

Our reality is a shared dream! Our consciousness is a shared dream! We all are connected by something so common and absolute thing. A spiritual person would call it the soul, a scientist would call it the energy.

This is technically known as the Solipsistic idealism – the best answer we have which will not blow our brains and will not give us the existential crisis!

The bizarre one comes here –

Even if the matrix is real, you would never be able to get the absolute understanding of it. Existence of external absolute reality is uncertain. You won’t even know if it is called matrix or a chewing gum or something else!

Pro tip – don’t over-love solipsism

You must understand that the arguments in solipsism are quite good. (It is just my failure of communicating those to you if you are not convinced till this point. I apologize for that.)

If the reality is just created by my mind/ in my mind then there is no way to verify that from external agency.

But, our experiences, emotions (at least some of them) always feel common. René Descartes Descartes posed that the experiences, sensory feed-backs are purely created by our mind but modern science proves that babies are not born with absolute ideas of reality (it is possible that they are exposed to certain sensorial experiences from their mother right from the conception) The absolute experiences they get are from their interaction with the surrounding objects and people. Our personalities, identities are created from mutual interactions. We cannot be ourselves without the people around us and the environments we are exposed to.

Only a completely isolated person would have the polarized inclination towards solipsism.

But again, what if it is just a construct beyond our understanding? There is no way for us to know that.

Even if there lies a construct beyond our understanding, there are some practical ways to purposefully ignore extreme ideas of solipsism rather leverage the ideas of solipsism.

If you are bound to the existing construct of reality which is practically within the reach of your experiences, your mind then you must abide by the laws of that reality. If you only stick to only the reality of your mind, then your so called “absolute truths” will immediately be challenged by the truth of others. It will be a blood bath but let your older absolute truths die to let the newer ones be born. They won’t be ideally absolute but at least they will be better than the previous one.

Even if the illusion of reality is shared among all of us as a common dream, we would never be able to escape that. Meaning, again play by the laws of the land. Ignore the existential crisis on the absoluteness of reality. At least try to get closer to the reality.

I think this is exactly why even though the pursuit of solipsism may feel worthless in the end but it’s understanding and appreciation gives us a hope to continuously keep on improving our version of the reality – private or shared whatever they may be.

Learn the rules to break them in a better and glorious way!

The acceptance of Solipsism (in a positive way) can also create an urge in person to seek for the real freedom. Solipsism in positive way urges the person to take that inner route in order to create the world of their desires through disciplined thinking (in a healthy way and not in a delusional way!) A pure solipsist would be delusional, neurotic but a practical solipsist would bring about a revolution in his own world thereby in the worlds of the others and even in the whole world altogether!

The Practicality of Philosophy

What is the purpose of Philosophy?

one of my favorite memes (Source: starecat.com)

We live in a competitive and fast-moving world where everything’s success depends on the outcomes and their value delivery. Take any example, if any movie release fails to entertain the major audiences, consider it flopped; if any project is not delivering the expected profits to the company consider it stopped; if any equipment is not working properly for the performance it promised, consider it a market failure; if any start-up is not built upon the actual market requirements, consider it a flop business; an employee fails to reach his targets, consider no promotion or even a pink slip. Whenever you are working on achieving anything and if your actions and thought process behind them are not directing you to the Goal, people will suggest you to change your strategy. In nutshell, everything you do, every thought you have is expected to have a fruitful outcome, value creation, profit, gain, benefit thereby there must be some utility. We now call these things, these thoughts “practical”. General thought process always suggests to have the practical way of life in order to succeed in a way.

I am of the same opinion, that doing certain things, acts, thinking (actually overthinking) about everything you stumble upon is expected to deliver some “practical” benefit in my life. If you studied enough and can’t get the job of specific salary then what good is your education? There must always be some definite value delivery from our actions otherwise we are just wasting time and getting nothing.

The situation worsens when you implement the same logic to the ways you think about anything and everything you stumble upon. It is like day dreaming as you are only thinking about some random things, are engrossed completely in the world of your own and there is no real-life benefit from it. Then, it becomes imperative to “Get Real” in life, sort your things and be practical and use your common sense.

Now, here comes a short story-

In a fight, the flight attendant finds an elder person going through severe chest pain, she immediately asks for the expert help.
Flight Attendant- Attention all, we have an emergency. Is there any Doctor onboard?
(One person raises his hands)
The person- Yes, I am a doctor.
Flight Attendant- We need medical help.
The person- But, I am a doctor of Philosophy.
Flight Attendant- He is going to die
The person- Aren’t we all anyways?

One can only imagine the awkwardness and impractical response of philosopher to the situation in the flight.

I used to think that the philosophy and it’s ideas yet interesting and intriguing cannot handle the reality of life and solve practical problems.

And, (as usual) I was wrong.

Here it goes…

The question is-

Will thinking about every possible thing you are exposed to (and even about the things you may never get exposed to) and asking “unnecessary questions” about it add value to our life? Will thinking about things irrelevant to your job is going to increase your performance at your workplace? Is thinking about any random thing is going to put food on your table?

In short, what is the worth of the philosophical ideas, questions if they are not going to solve our practical problems? What is the practicality of philosophy?

This was the question I was stuck at; even though philosophical ideas have always intrigued me.

Then I found my answer in Bertrand Russel’s book called “The Problems of Philosophy” with the last essay called “the Value of Philosophy”. The ideas explained by Bertrand Russel in this writings answer the very basic question about the utility of philosophy.

Ends of life

Russel explains the idea of ends of life by distinguishing between the nature of Physical Sciences and the philosophy. The idea is that all the physical sciences that we as a human have established have contributed to the society in some ways. The developments in physics led to inventions of uncountable things like lasers, semiconductors, telescopes, machines and what not hence landing mankind into the modern world. The developments in virology, bio-technology, modern medicines helped us to come out of the global pandemic. The developments in geography helped us to explore the globe, share our trades, cultures, profits, save us from natural calamities. The psychology helped in maintaining the mental well-being, the social well being of the society there by controlling the sanity in the people. The economics helped to efficiently utilize and manage our resources in order strive as a species on a space floating rock. These physical sciences have mastered various ends of life and are continuously contributing ahead

What about philosophy? If we are going to discuss how certain philosophy has solved the world hunger or how a philosophy has cured the incurable diseases in history or how a philosophy has saved people from famine or how a philosophy landed us on another celestial body, then the answer is surely no. There are no practical ends of life which philosophy helps us to achieve.

Uncertainty of philosophy

Bertrand Russel has very beautifully established the difference between the nature of Physical Sciences and philosophy. The Physical Sciences have postulates, theories, formulae, a definite structure which builds the all knowledge they represent. There is a systematic path to be followed in order to answer the posed question. If you ask a physicist why the sky is blue? he will approach the problem from the branch of optics then thereby refraction and scattering and the spectrum of light. If you ask how the eclipses occur? to an astronomer, he will take you through solar system, to planets, their satellites and their rotations, orbits. It can go on and on.

In short, in all the physical sciences the truths established are definitive. There are definite answers to the questions posed. Such is not the case with philosophy. If you pose a philosophical question as in “What is the purpose of life?” every philosopher will have his own versions and there is no surety of definite answer. If you ask questions like, why was the world created? Why was the universe created? Are we really body with a soul or a soul with a body?

See the pattern we can observe from the philosophical questions is that the truths they are giving are not certain. On contrary, the truths revealed in physical sciences are definite, their truth value is certain based on the truths they are derived from due to structured-ness. Bertrand Russel establishes that all the physical sciences are originated from philosophy. When the definitive-ness, certainties of truth extraction system, knowledge building system of these philosophies became strong, they separated from the philosophy and get independence.

Thus, the only thing certain in philosophy is that there are no certain answers to the questions posed. If the answers are getting definitive, certain then a new physical science gets established thereby separating from philosophy. Philosophy of mind became psychology; philosophy of heavenly bodies became astronomy.

What I found interesting in this idea of “genesis of physical sciences from philosophy” is that though upon certainty of truth/ knowledge physical sciences become free from philosophy, the next unanswered questions in physical sciences immediately start to redirect themselves to philosophy again until the certainty of answers are obtained thereby proving the presence of philosophical inheritance. Our quest for understanding “the nature of reality” in the world of modern physics is one such strong example.

Richard Feynman in one of his famous lectures discussed about questioning the nature of reality as we understand:

“it’s a very strong tendency of people to say against some idea, if someone comes up with an idea, and says let’s suppose the world is this way.

And you say to him, well, what would you get for the answer for such and such a problem? And he says, I haven’t developed it far enough. And you say, well, we have already developed it much further. We can get the answers very accurately. So, it is a problem, as to whether or not to worry about philosophies behind ideas.”
Richard Feynman

Meaning is it not always compulsory to have structured-ness and definitive nature to any idea. There may be always some indefinitve-ness to the answers in philosophy.

Truth of the answers to the questions of philosophy

Now that it is clear that the answers to the questions in the philosophy are not definite, not certain; it is also important to understand that the answers don’t lose their value due to their indefinite or uncertain nature. Rather they bring us closer to the unrealizable, un-experienceable truth.

According to Russel, the confinement of knowledge is the major point which poses the question on “the practicality” of philosophy in our life.

I think what Russel is trying to say here is that as soon as the nature of the truth of knowledge starts following a pattern/ a trend, it gets confined in the structured-ness of certainty thereby getting its independence, self-reliance. The philosophy hence will always remain as a field (even the word “field” is so confined) rather expanse of uncertainty where there will always be some room for speculation.

In order to ask for value of philosophy, one has to confine it to some ideas and then compare these ideas to other ideas. But the game philosophy plays here is that the you lose the identity of philosophy once you confine it to some set of ideas in knowledge/ physical sciences. Thus, remains incomparable.

Funny thing is that the solution of such problem will start with – What is comparison? How to measure the worth of anything? (Which themselves are good philosophical questions!)

Philosophic Contemplation: the idea of Self and not-Self

Russel suggests that the value of philosophy will be only realized when the ends of the life are not limited to ‘Self’. I think what Russel is trying to convey is that the realization of something greater above ourselves itself is humbling. Understanding that the knowledge will still exist irrespective of our existence is one important part of we becoming free from our own identity.

When there will be search for knowledge for Self, the answers gained will be confined, they will always reflect the nature of the self or the seeker.

But, once one understands that the knowledge, philosophy is above himself i.e., once a person starts seeking questions to the answers not for the betterment of himself only but for the knowledge itself then the knowledge reveals itself. This knowledge will not be definitive, certain. This knowledge will not have concepts of good or bad, pure or impure, left or right, profit or loss, worthy or unworthy. It will be only the knowledge itself where truth is still uncertain, indefinite an innocent. Russel calls the philosophy as the union of Self with not-Self. That is in order to understand something greater than ourselves, we have to lose the idea of ourselves, our being.

The curse on humanity

The question of finding the worth of philosophy itself has its own limitations. The concept of being worthy brings in the ideas of comparison, tradable value, what one gets in return, replacement value, a sense of transaction, gap due to absence, appreciation due to presence. This transactional, tradable, replacement value itself is a very small part of materialistic ideology of our human life.

See, our existence, thereby we being alive is dependent on so many materialistic things/ resources which are inherently important for our existence. You will not find a beggar asking for the explanation of the ideas in stoicism or nihilism. Most of the times he will only think about the ways to get the next meal. (Although, a beggar can also question about nature of him being a beggar

instead of a king if he wants)

In short, what I am trying to establish here is that for us as a human being, we need materialistic objects and our interactions with them through our senses to become aware of our consciousness. To become sure that the materialistic world and the sensations from them are not the only bounds of the life that we live in. The curse to human life here, I would say is that the first step in awareness of “knowledge greater than Self” starts with the awareness of our materialistic nature. Our first dose of true knowledge is only possible from the establishment of truths from the material world and our interactions with them. The material worlds being born from higher level of “uncertain things” reveal these uncertainties, thereby making us question their fundamental nature. This leads us to understand that there are things greater that what we are experiencing but there is no surety of completely true, certain answer.

Lifting the curse

I have a thought that, there is also benediction for this curse, rather anti-curse which is “the Curiosity”. Curiosity itself is the definition of philosophy. The whole purpose of philosophy is not to find the definitive answers, truths to the questions rather it is asking the questions and keep asking the questions.

Satisfaction of the curiosity is I think the boundary of the truths. The extent of satisfaction of the curiosity will be dependent upon how real or practical you want to get (What is the extent of real and practical also needs definition thereby). Here, there is no place for value, worthiness rather it is about satisfying the purpose and truly implementing philosophy to solve some real problems.

Bruce Lee has one famous quote on the same front:

“…here is the natural instincts and here is control. You are to combine the two in harmony. If you have one to the extreme, you will be very unscientific. If you are another to the extreme, you become, all of a sudden ‘a mechanical man’- no longer a human being. So, it is a successful combination of both, so therefore it’s not pure naturalness, or unnaturalness. The ideal is unnatural naturalness or natural unnaturalness.”
Bruce Lee

It is about the union of Self and not-Self to find the knowledge as Russel explains. You need not to infuse your boundaries, your prejudices to the questions of philosophy while on the quest of knowledge. You have to again lose your identity to find the real knowledge.

Again, Bruce Lee’s philosophy about being water reflects similar ideas about the nature of true knowledge from philosophy.

“Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless, like water. Now you put water in cup, it becomes the cup. You put water in bottle, it becomes the bottle. You put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow, or it can crash. Be water my friend”
Bruce Lee

Be water my friend!

– Bruce Lee

This also explains the innocent nature of knowledge. It takes shape of anything that it is in.

(That is the exact reason why we were forced to write the essay in our school on “Science: Curse or Boon”! OK, Jokes apart)

Having answers to the questions ends the quest thereby giving the boundary to the idea; asking the questions creates the possibilities. And creation of possibilities however uncertain they may be is the purpose thereby the worth of philosophy.

So, philosophy is not about finding definitive answers, it is about keeping on asking questions.

“I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.”

– Richard Feynman

“Through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind is also rendered great, and becomes capable of the union with the universe which constitutes its highest good”

– Bertrand Russel, The value of Philosophy from “The Problems of Philosophy”

EXPECTED UTILITY THEORY

Expected Utility Theory (EUT) in Economics

Origin – St. Petersburg Paradox

1st Tenet of EUT: Expectation

Four Axioms of Utility Theory

2nd Tenet of Expected Utility Theory: Asset Integration

3rd Tenet of Expected Utility Theory: Risk

Marginal Utility

EUT in actuarial

Conclusion:

You can share this:

How to judge morality and its impact on human life?

The Moral Dilemma

Utilitarianism

Hedonism, Utilitarianism and Jeremy Bentham

Felicific Calculus – Measuring happiness

Happiness is not the ‘only’ and the ultimate goal – the limitations of Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarian Philosophy

Conclusion – If not happiness then what is the goal of being human?

P.S. –

You can share this:

Survival, Fear, and Anxiety

The fear is real! – is it? – Defining anxiety

Why Is Anxiety Good?

The Smoke Detector Principle – How Much Anxiety Is Too Much?

Types of Anxiety Disorders

Signal Detection Theory For Interpreting ‘Anxiety Like Responses’

Your Surroundings and Mindset Matter!

Conclusion

You can share this:

The problem of other minds – do they exist in reality or the reality just exists in my mind?

Origin of Philosophy – Knowledge is power

Skepticism – Keep on questioning until you get consistency in understanding

Solipsism – Extreme skepticism – Questioning the existence of the question and the questioner!

Why Solipsism stands strong? – Why idea of living in the Matrix fascinates us?

Solipsism – Trust no one but yourself!

Different ideologies in Solipsism

Paradoxes at the end – Where Solipsism would break down!

Pro tip – don’t over-love solipsism

You can share this:

What is the purpose of Philosophy?

Ends of life

Uncertainty of philosophy

Truth of the answers to the questions of philosophy

Philosophic Contemplation: the idea of Self and not-Self

The curse on humanity

Lifting the curse

You can share this:

1^st Tenet of EUT: Expectation

2^nd Tenet of Expected Utility Theory: Asset Integration

3^rd Tenet of Expected Utility Theory: Risk