Some solids are crystalline. The natural minerals fall into that group. The atoms and molecules in them are joined in regular patterns. There’s an order that is often, but not always, recognizable in the outward form. Closely examine a bit of salt from a salt shaker, and you will see little cubes, broken probably, but still in recognizable partial form. Those cubes reflect an internal arrangement of sodium and chlorine atoms. Breaking a larger piece of salt produces smaller pieces that retain the atomic cubic pattern. Nature provides us with half a dozen basic arrangements, all of which can be “broken” while retaining their internal atomic order in the smaller pieces. Just keep this in mind: There’s an underlying, detailed reason for the outward appearance of a mineral crystal.
Crystalline solids form because atoms of certain sizes and valences can “interlock” in patterns. Sometimes other atoms replace the typical ones found in the structure. Diamonds are thought of as pure carbon minerals, but not all diamonds have the same composition. The famous Hope Diamond contains minute amounts of boron, an element that gives the jewel its blue/grey color. Boron fits into the arrangement of carbon atoms without changing the underlying cubic structure, but it does change the way light passes through or reflects off the gem. The outward appearance of crystals can also change with a depletion of certain atoms. The paucity of one kind of atom or a substitute atom stops crystal growth and truncates the structure. Simple: Running out of atoms to combine stops crystal growth. It’s worth noting that given ample space and supply of appropriate atoms, very large crystals can form.*
Some solids are amorphous, not crystalline. The atoms and molecules in them are random like drops in a cloud; they have no regular alignment or arrangement. Obsidian, or natural glass, is one of those non-crystalline solids. Whereas mineral crystals require time for growing, obsidian is a product of “fast freezing.” Formed from lavas that cool fast and solidify, obsidian’s internal atoms get locked or “frozen” in place before they can line up in patterns.
Fully developed philosophical ideas are very much like crystalline solids. There’s a logical arrangement of components. Splinter philosophies retain remnants of the underlying structure just as bits of salt retain the internal structure of sodium chloride. As a simple example, Platonism reveals itself as the underlying structure in Neoplatonism. The same holds true for other structured forms of thought: Political philosophies like Marxism, formal religions like Christianity, and psychologies like Freudianism. An originator, someone like Marx, St. Paul, or Freud, develops the structure that followers modify by truncating certain aspects or by including ideas that seamlessly fit into the structure like boron in the Hope Diamond.
Less organized philosophies of life manifest themselves in irregularities, and their outward form is not necessarily a reflection of their internal structure. Let’s make this a practical example: Take the instance of the recently elected Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whose ideas seem to be loosely affiliated with Marxism. Apparently, Marxism, like other ideas, has undergone various interpretations, meaning that Marx himself might not recognize the current variations of his thought. Back to Ocasio-Cortez and unstructured thought: When asked how one pays for an expensive entitlement program, she said, “You just pay for it.” And if you ask various socialists how the components of a society work for the betterment of mankind in the long run, you will find a random collection of atoms that make up an opaque glass. The details are obscure and only randomly connected. The solidity of the thinking manifests itself in the chaos of current Venezuela and in Ocasio-Cortez’s unspecific thoughts.
Maybe the old expressions about crystallizing ideas have some merit. Seldom do we encounter an idea of singular composition the way a diamond is “supposed” to be “just” carbon atoms aligned in a pattern. Keep in mind that the Hope Diamond contains boron—and maybe some other elements. Ideas are seldom, if ever, like pure diamond. There are atoms of other ideas that fit into the arrangement. We tend to crystallize ideas with the “atoms” in our reach, and we accept the imperfections in their arrangements because pure crystals are hard to come by. And there’s something else. We all realize that any philosophy, if carried to the extreme, contradicts itself; all social systems do the same. We also know that all philosophy rests, just like geometry, on axioms and assumptions.
What to consider: As each of us examines the structure of our own thinking, we might consider sorting through the atomic components of our ideas. A “pure philosophy” might lie only with the originator of an idea system. Any ensuing idea systems, including our own, probably have those stray elements that just happen to fit into our local version of a general philosophy. You might believe, as the Congresswoman seems to believe, you have a crystal similar to that of the originator, as she seems to think she has a handle on Marxism. But her ideas, like some ideas many of us hold, contain many substituting “atoms” that just happen to “fit” into the general structure.
Now, of course, no philosophy stands on its own. Martin Heidegger, for example, tried to “rethink” philosophy, but his own efforts blend elements from aesthetics. He wasn’t the “pure thinker” he thought he was. No philosophy ultimately derives from a purely logical arrangement since assumptions and axioms underlie our thought processes. But crystal growth has to start somewhere, so we take what we believe to be atoms that fit together in a clearly defined pattern. We do so at the risk of not being able to see those tiny inclusions, like the boron present in the Hope Diamond in a mere few parts per million.
There is a difference, however, between a crystal with a small inclusion of the “wrong” elements and the random nature of non-crystalline solids. Crystalline solids still have a regular arrangement inside, a “logical pattern.” With regard to crystallized thinking, the thinker can explain the system and show how it logically proceeds from its internal structure as long as one accepts its underlying assumptions. Those glassy solids like obsidian are opaque in their randomness. Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez, though probably well-meaning and committed, will probably always rely on the “You just pay for it” generalization of a mix of incompatible idea-atoms. In her dependence on a random collection of Marxist-based thoughts and her apparent lack of knowledge about countries like Venezuela, she will continue to extoll the virtues of a system of thinking that has depressed the economies of countries, held down the advancement of freedom, and even led to the deaths of tens of millions of people as Marx’s Manifesto turned into twentieth-century Communism under figures like Stalin.
Regardless of Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez's sincerity about making Medicare free and comprehensive or others’ sincerity in wanting to establish free college education, the reality of economics is that no socialistic or Marxist structure has proved to be self-sustaining without arbitrary redistributions of wealth and property. Socialists can proclaim “You just pay for it” as a solid solution to injustices and inequalities they seek to eliminate, but they are at best working with an inferior mineral, one whose purity has been diluted by the inclusion of many different kinds of idea atoms and little actual proof that the system can work in “the real world.”
But isn’t that the way of the human thought processes? Isn’t it easier to accept an idea as pure and effective than it is to put it into practice? Put aside the tension between the Haves and the Have-nots (though the Congresswoman did appear in an expensive outfit). Think, instead, of the nature of how we depend on ideas we think are perfect crystals.
The late Nobel Laureate Richard P. Feynman is legendary for his work in physics and his explanation of the 1986 Shuttle disaster. His lectures are still popular on YouTube, and his books still sell. Though I had read some of his books, I missed the collection of his shorter works until a friend** recently lent me a copy of The Pleasure of Finding Things Out.*** In his 1974 Caltech commencement address, entitled “Cargo Cult Science: Some Remarks on Science, Pseudoscience, and Learning How to Not Fool Yourself,” Feynman gives examples of thinking by scientists that mimic that of Ocasio-Cortez.
Referring to witch doctors, Feynman asks, “How do they know that their method should work?” (p 207) And then he relates some stories about scientists who built on other scientists’ work without rechecking that same work, that is, without redoing the original experiment or rethinking the method they used. Redoing experiments is the method Michael Faraday used as he wrote his book that summarized the knowledge accumulated about electricity and magnetism. Rather than accept what others had said about electrical experiments, he repeated them to discover their truth. That is the advice Feynman gives in his “Remarks.” It’s advice all of us should keep in mind. We are too willing to accept what others tell us about the world without thoroughly examining not only their ideas, but also the very nature of how they came about those ideas.
I conclude that most of our ideas, if not all of them, are either imperfect crystals or amorphous substances. It’s not that I want to pick out the ideas of a young Congresswoman in particular, but that I want to point out a way of thinking that has long pervaded even the most hallowed halls of academia and politics. We don’t look at the way previous experiments were run in either venue. We’ve spent trillions on eliminating poverty and untold billions on reducing illegal drug trafficking with little success. We’ve spent untold amounts on crime prevention, but our prisons are overcrowded. And, as Feynman points out in that commencement address, we have spent incredible amounts of energy on reading and math education with near zero results—and in some instances with declining reading and math scores.
We don’t really put matters to the test. We accept results on the basis of culture or ideals, both of which are flawed entities, both of which contain many elements hidden in their makeup. And we accept those we dogmatically accept or deem “pure” without tracing their potential consequences in a manner consistent with the workings of the real world. In short, eager to take shortcuts, we value the most worthless of solids highly and value the valuable solids more than we should. The Hope Diamond is under protective glass and watchful guards and cameras in the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History. It is currently insured for more than $250 million. Not far from the Hope are displays of other solids, including some other spectacular crystals. But, maybe there's hope near the Hope. On a recent visit to the Smithsonian, I could not find a piece of obsidian, not even among the igneous rocks. Maybe I missed it, or maybe, as I hope, the petrologists and mineralogists at the Smithsonian decided that something that is as disorganized in its makeup as obsidian isn’t worth the display space, isn’t worth much consideration. Obsidian might be shiny, might even capture the eye in a stare, but it is just glass. Just glass. Amorphous inside its opaque exterior that hides that disorganization. Not insurable.
What if we all looked at the interior of our philosophies to see whether or not they were truly organized within or contained some imperfection that we merely overlook because rejecting them would require considerable rethinking and possible practical experimenting? How, Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez, will we pay for an entitlement that will cost trillions of dollars with no proof that it will improve the human condition. “You just pay for it.”
*See pictures of the Cave of the Crystals (Giant Crystal Cave or Cueva de los Cristales ) in Naica, Chihuahua, Mexico. Pictures can be seen at https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/photogalleries/101008-giant-crystal-cave-science-mexico-pictures/
**Thanks, Ryan
***Feynman, Richard P. The Pleasure of Finding Things Out. Cambridge, MA, Helix Publishing, 1999. You can hear someone’s reading of Feynman’s “Cargo Cult Science” on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvfAtIJbatgor you can read it online at https://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~ravenben/cargocult.html
Crystalline solids form because atoms of certain sizes and valences can “interlock” in patterns. Sometimes other atoms replace the typical ones found in the structure. Diamonds are thought of as pure carbon minerals, but not all diamonds have the same composition. The famous Hope Diamond contains minute amounts of boron, an element that gives the jewel its blue/grey color. Boron fits into the arrangement of carbon atoms without changing the underlying cubic structure, but it does change the way light passes through or reflects off the gem. The outward appearance of crystals can also change with a depletion of certain atoms. The paucity of one kind of atom or a substitute atom stops crystal growth and truncates the structure. Simple: Running out of atoms to combine stops crystal growth. It’s worth noting that given ample space and supply of appropriate atoms, very large crystals can form.*
Some solids are amorphous, not crystalline. The atoms and molecules in them are random like drops in a cloud; they have no regular alignment or arrangement. Obsidian, or natural glass, is one of those non-crystalline solids. Whereas mineral crystals require time for growing, obsidian is a product of “fast freezing.” Formed from lavas that cool fast and solidify, obsidian’s internal atoms get locked or “frozen” in place before they can line up in patterns.
Fully developed philosophical ideas are very much like crystalline solids. There’s a logical arrangement of components. Splinter philosophies retain remnants of the underlying structure just as bits of salt retain the internal structure of sodium chloride. As a simple example, Platonism reveals itself as the underlying structure in Neoplatonism. The same holds true for other structured forms of thought: Political philosophies like Marxism, formal religions like Christianity, and psychologies like Freudianism. An originator, someone like Marx, St. Paul, or Freud, develops the structure that followers modify by truncating certain aspects or by including ideas that seamlessly fit into the structure like boron in the Hope Diamond.
Less organized philosophies of life manifest themselves in irregularities, and their outward form is not necessarily a reflection of their internal structure. Let’s make this a practical example: Take the instance of the recently elected Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whose ideas seem to be loosely affiliated with Marxism. Apparently, Marxism, like other ideas, has undergone various interpretations, meaning that Marx himself might not recognize the current variations of his thought. Back to Ocasio-Cortez and unstructured thought: When asked how one pays for an expensive entitlement program, she said, “You just pay for it.” And if you ask various socialists how the components of a society work for the betterment of mankind in the long run, you will find a random collection of atoms that make up an opaque glass. The details are obscure and only randomly connected. The solidity of the thinking manifests itself in the chaos of current Venezuela and in Ocasio-Cortez’s unspecific thoughts.
Maybe the old expressions about crystallizing ideas have some merit. Seldom do we encounter an idea of singular composition the way a diamond is “supposed” to be “just” carbon atoms aligned in a pattern. Keep in mind that the Hope Diamond contains boron—and maybe some other elements. Ideas are seldom, if ever, like pure diamond. There are atoms of other ideas that fit into the arrangement. We tend to crystallize ideas with the “atoms” in our reach, and we accept the imperfections in their arrangements because pure crystals are hard to come by. And there’s something else. We all realize that any philosophy, if carried to the extreme, contradicts itself; all social systems do the same. We also know that all philosophy rests, just like geometry, on axioms and assumptions.
What to consider: As each of us examines the structure of our own thinking, we might consider sorting through the atomic components of our ideas. A “pure philosophy” might lie only with the originator of an idea system. Any ensuing idea systems, including our own, probably have those stray elements that just happen to fit into our local version of a general philosophy. You might believe, as the Congresswoman seems to believe, you have a crystal similar to that of the originator, as she seems to think she has a handle on Marxism. But her ideas, like some ideas many of us hold, contain many substituting “atoms” that just happen to “fit” into the general structure.
Now, of course, no philosophy stands on its own. Martin Heidegger, for example, tried to “rethink” philosophy, but his own efforts blend elements from aesthetics. He wasn’t the “pure thinker” he thought he was. No philosophy ultimately derives from a purely logical arrangement since assumptions and axioms underlie our thought processes. But crystal growth has to start somewhere, so we take what we believe to be atoms that fit together in a clearly defined pattern. We do so at the risk of not being able to see those tiny inclusions, like the boron present in the Hope Diamond in a mere few parts per million.
There is a difference, however, between a crystal with a small inclusion of the “wrong” elements and the random nature of non-crystalline solids. Crystalline solids still have a regular arrangement inside, a “logical pattern.” With regard to crystallized thinking, the thinker can explain the system and show how it logically proceeds from its internal structure as long as one accepts its underlying assumptions. Those glassy solids like obsidian are opaque in their randomness. Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez, though probably well-meaning and committed, will probably always rely on the “You just pay for it” generalization of a mix of incompatible idea-atoms. In her dependence on a random collection of Marxist-based thoughts and her apparent lack of knowledge about countries like Venezuela, she will continue to extoll the virtues of a system of thinking that has depressed the economies of countries, held down the advancement of freedom, and even led to the deaths of tens of millions of people as Marx’s Manifesto turned into twentieth-century Communism under figures like Stalin.
Regardless of Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez's sincerity about making Medicare free and comprehensive or others’ sincerity in wanting to establish free college education, the reality of economics is that no socialistic or Marxist structure has proved to be self-sustaining without arbitrary redistributions of wealth and property. Socialists can proclaim “You just pay for it” as a solid solution to injustices and inequalities they seek to eliminate, but they are at best working with an inferior mineral, one whose purity has been diluted by the inclusion of many different kinds of idea atoms and little actual proof that the system can work in “the real world.”
But isn’t that the way of the human thought processes? Isn’t it easier to accept an idea as pure and effective than it is to put it into practice? Put aside the tension between the Haves and the Have-nots (though the Congresswoman did appear in an expensive outfit). Think, instead, of the nature of how we depend on ideas we think are perfect crystals.
The late Nobel Laureate Richard P. Feynman is legendary for his work in physics and his explanation of the 1986 Shuttle disaster. His lectures are still popular on YouTube, and his books still sell. Though I had read some of his books, I missed the collection of his shorter works until a friend** recently lent me a copy of The Pleasure of Finding Things Out.*** In his 1974 Caltech commencement address, entitled “Cargo Cult Science: Some Remarks on Science, Pseudoscience, and Learning How to Not Fool Yourself,” Feynman gives examples of thinking by scientists that mimic that of Ocasio-Cortez.
Referring to witch doctors, Feynman asks, “How do they know that their method should work?” (p 207) And then he relates some stories about scientists who built on other scientists’ work without rechecking that same work, that is, without redoing the original experiment or rethinking the method they used. Redoing experiments is the method Michael Faraday used as he wrote his book that summarized the knowledge accumulated about electricity and magnetism. Rather than accept what others had said about electrical experiments, he repeated them to discover their truth. That is the advice Feynman gives in his “Remarks.” It’s advice all of us should keep in mind. We are too willing to accept what others tell us about the world without thoroughly examining not only their ideas, but also the very nature of how they came about those ideas.
I conclude that most of our ideas, if not all of them, are either imperfect crystals or amorphous substances. It’s not that I want to pick out the ideas of a young Congresswoman in particular, but that I want to point out a way of thinking that has long pervaded even the most hallowed halls of academia and politics. We don’t look at the way previous experiments were run in either venue. We’ve spent trillions on eliminating poverty and untold billions on reducing illegal drug trafficking with little success. We’ve spent untold amounts on crime prevention, but our prisons are overcrowded. And, as Feynman points out in that commencement address, we have spent incredible amounts of energy on reading and math education with near zero results—and in some instances with declining reading and math scores.
We don’t really put matters to the test. We accept results on the basis of culture or ideals, both of which are flawed entities, both of which contain many elements hidden in their makeup. And we accept those we dogmatically accept or deem “pure” without tracing their potential consequences in a manner consistent with the workings of the real world. In short, eager to take shortcuts, we value the most worthless of solids highly and value the valuable solids more than we should. The Hope Diamond is under protective glass and watchful guards and cameras in the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History. It is currently insured for more than $250 million. Not far from the Hope are displays of other solids, including some other spectacular crystals. But, maybe there's hope near the Hope. On a recent visit to the Smithsonian, I could not find a piece of obsidian, not even among the igneous rocks. Maybe I missed it, or maybe, as I hope, the petrologists and mineralogists at the Smithsonian decided that something that is as disorganized in its makeup as obsidian isn’t worth the display space, isn’t worth much consideration. Obsidian might be shiny, might even capture the eye in a stare, but it is just glass. Just glass. Amorphous inside its opaque exterior that hides that disorganization. Not insurable.
What if we all looked at the interior of our philosophies to see whether or not they were truly organized within or contained some imperfection that we merely overlook because rejecting them would require considerable rethinking and possible practical experimenting? How, Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez, will we pay for an entitlement that will cost trillions of dollars with no proof that it will improve the human condition. “You just pay for it.”
*See pictures of the Cave of the Crystals (Giant Crystal Cave or Cueva de los Cristales ) in Naica, Chihuahua, Mexico. Pictures can be seen at https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/photogalleries/101008-giant-crystal-cave-science-mexico-pictures/
**Thanks, Ryan
***Feynman, Richard P. The Pleasure of Finding Things Out. Cambridge, MA, Helix Publishing, 1999. You can hear someone’s reading of Feynman’s “Cargo Cult Science” on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvfAtIJbatgor you can read it online at https://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~ravenben/cargocult.html
RSS Feed