Category: Philosophy

My excellent Conversation with Toby Wilkinson

by  Tyler Cowen in

Here is the audio, video, and transcript.  Most of all, we cover Ptolemaic Egypt.  Here is part of the episode summary:

Tyler and Toby cover how Alexander took over the empire almost without a fight, why Alexandria became the Manhattan of the ancient world, whether the era was as philosophically fertile as it was scientifically, whether your ancient doctor’s visit had positive expected value, what Egypt was actually exporting and selling, whether living standards rose above subsistence or stayed Malthusian, how the ethnic divide between Greek rulers and Egyptian subjects shaped society, what constrained the Ptolemaic Empire from becoming the next Rome, whether Cleopatra has been overhyped, what Julius Caesar was really thinking when he sided with her over her brother, the new frontiers in archeology, whether Herodotus can be trusted, what ancient Egypt knew about Israel and India, when Egyptian jewelry peaked and why, what triggered the sudden emergence of civilization across the ancient world, why a six-year-old Tyler knew King Tut better than Napoleon, and much more.

Excerpt:

COWEN: Either technologically or institutionally, what is it that the Persians had that the Egyptians did not?

WILKINSON: The Persians had a pretty formidable army. Their military technology was certainly superior to the Egyptians at the time that they conquered Egypt originally in the 6th century BC. Like many empires, I suppose, throughout history, they overreached themselves. They overextended themselves, and they found it increasingly hard to hold together this empire stretching all the way from the Aegean to the borders of India. Bits of the empire started to fragment and pull away. Egypt had always had this very strong sense of its own identity. When it had a chance to throw off the Persian yoke, it took it.

COWEN: Let’s think about some of the achievements of Ptolemaic Egypt as an era. Infrastructure. What did they do that was most impressive?

WILKINSON: Build Alexandria. Alexandria the city was a new foundation established by Alexander the Great to bear his name. Unlike all previous ancient Egyptian cities, it was a city built from the outset for commerce. It was a city built on the Mediterranean coast with a great natural harbor, with facilities for loading and offloading ships. It had a great lighthouse guarding the entrance to its harbor, which became one of the wonders of the world. The whole city was really designed from the get-go as a great commercial center looking outwards to the Mediterranean, rather than inwards to the rest of Egypt.

COWEN: Canals, artificial lake. What else did they do?

WILKINSON: They built a city quite unlike anything previously seen in the valley of the river Nile. In fact, any inhabitant today of a modern city would recognize the grid iron pattern of streets. Streets intersecting at right angles, that was something completely unheard of until this point in Egypt with vast public buildings. This was the Manhattan of the ancient world, if you like, in scale, in grandeur, and in the level of commercial activity.

And:

EN: What were the main exports of the Alexandria region? What are they selling, making?

WILKINSON: Oh, the two big exports that account for the lion’s share of Egypt’s wealth at the time are gold and grain. Gold has been mined in Egypt for millennia up to this point, but it’s still the place in the ancient world that produces large quantities of gold. Of course, gold has always been a great currency of international commerce.

Then Egypt is famed as the breadbasket of the ancient world. It produces a superabundance of grain thanks to the fertility of the Nile and the benign climate. It produces more than it needed for its own consumption, by comparison with poorer agricultural regions in Greece and Asia Minor, which struggled to produce enough food. Yes, gold and grain were the absolute engine of Egyptian prosperity.

COWEN: There’s metalwork, there’s glass. What else is there, manufacturing, as we would call it today?

WILKINSON: Oh, yes. There’s a big ceramics industry, so producing not just pots, but terracotta statues and votive objects. There’s glassmaking, as you’ve said. There’s advanced metallurgy, goldsmithing, ironworking, copper and bronze foundries. There’s what we might call the decorative arts, so sculpture, painting. All of these things thrived in ancient Alexandria.

COWEN: Do they have living standards sustainably above subsistence, or is this a Malthusian equilibrium, where they get some wealth and then more people survive and the wage falls again, and it doesn’t get much above what is required to keep people alive?

Recommended, informative and interesting throughout.  And I am very happy to recommend all of Toby’s books, including his latest The Last Dynasty: Ancient Egypt from Alexander the Great to Cleopatra.

What should I ask Richard Hanania?

by  Tyler Cowen in

Yes, I will be doing a Conversation with him.  Richard does have a new book coming out, Kakistocracy: Why Populism Ends in Disaster.  While I liked the book (and blurbed it), I do not feel our conversation about the book would be that interesting — too much beating up on the stupidities of other people, which is an activity not in short supply.  So we agreed to (mostly) discuss Joseph Conrad’s Nostromo instead.  Given that, what should I ask Richard?

Can liberals be pacifists?

by  Tyler Cowen in

This is mostly a podcast about Benjamin Britten, and in particular his War Requiem, with Rebecca Lowe (former singer and conductor, in addition to philosopher and also her current role at Mercatus).

Here is the YouTube, here is the transcript and further listening links.  Excerpt:

LOWE: Yeah, so we should think about what it means for a conscientious objector to have written this work, which is supposed, in some sense, to maybe pay tribute to the soldiers. Maybe, in some sense, it’s supposed to play some role in the British response to the war. At a time when, of course, conscientious objectors had been seen as maybe betraying the nation. There are very interesting, tense questions about the choice of Britten to compose this work.

COWEN: And Benjamin Britten himself, he described the work as a reparation.

LOWE: Yes.

COWEN: Paid to the dead soldiers.

LOWE: That’s right.

COWEN: I think in some ways, he always had World War I more in mind than World War II. But other parties involved, of course, didn’t see it that way.

LOWE: That’s true.

COWEN: But Wilfred Owen was a World War I poet. And that was the formative experience for him, was World War I. And also, the Spanish Civil War influenced him greatly. So, he wanted to do this work, and I’m not sure he ever found a way to make it succeed with World War II. That, to me, is one of the drawbacks of the work.

Definitely recommended, it is fresh material throughout.  Can you find a better podcast on Britten and his War Requiem, arguably his greatest work?  And here is the Rebecca Lowe Substack and podcast more generally.

Robert Wright’s *The God Test*

by  Tyler Cowen in

The subtitle is Artificial Intelligence and Our Coming Cosmic Reckoning, due out June 23.

In the first chapter, Wright summarizes four of his perspectives, these are my paraphrases of his pp.5-6:

1. When it comes to AI, we should be somewhere on the awe spectrum.

2. We can create a future where the upside of AI far outweights the downside, though that involves steering human understanding toward the better side of the awe spectrum.

3. A major reorientation of human thought is required, and right now few people seem inclined to do that.

4. The worldviews of the current AI acclerationists and also doomers are not cosmic enough.

It is a good time for this book to be published, and I agree with much more of it than I disagree with.  My main difference is that I am more focused on very small things — such as Rainier cherries and the forthcoming three to four hour Apichatpong movie — than on cosmic awe per se.  For better or worse, I was not born with those genes, and unlike Wright I am far from Buddhism.  I do think there will be a transformation of “observed awe,” and I am somewhat worried that it will not go well.  Will we be good at building a fairly new world, if not from scratch, on the basis of some new premises about what is possible and what is not?  I will in any case interpret the pending transformation through a Straussian lens, namely thinking that a lot of the observed transformation of awe will be about something other than what people are claiming.  It will be about people arguing over relative status, but under different guises.  Not as tasty as a good Rainier cherry, but interesting to follow as well.

But are we still good at steering and evolving grand visions?  Christianity and the Enlightenment are a hard act to follow.

Conscious introspection leads to more self-deception?

by  Tyler Cowen in

It seems, then, that we need another signal that can add precision to our introspection. And that signal is as follows: we are more likely to be lying to ourselves when we are engaging in internal monologue.

An internal monologue is the experience of having concrete, “narration-style” thoughts as opposed to passive experiences. This argument maybe doesn’t apply to people with a constant internal monologue, or those who have none. But it seems like most people’s internal lives are some combination of subconscious thought and active monologue: most of our day-to-day moments are spent instinctively receiving and reacting to external stimuli, but in certain moments — e.g. when faced with difficult choices that require serious deliberation — our thoughts morph into something that resembles language as we try to articulate our feelings and ask ourselves questions.

This is more likely to happen when there’s a divergence between your actual feelings and what you want your feelings to be.

Here is more from Elizabeth Li, via Tejas.

Repugnant Economics

by  Alex Tabarrok in

I spoke on a panel at AEI with Nobelist Al Roth about his new book, Moral Economics, which covers “repugnant markets,” from prostitution to surrogacy to kidney exchange. A fun book!

My case study was acting. Acting was considered repugnant for over 2,000 years. In Rome, actors could not vote, hold office, or be trusted to give an oath in legal proceedings. So why don’t we find acting repugnant today?

One lesson: weighing costs and benefits is not enough. Roth discusses empirical research showing that legalizing prostitution cut STDs and sexual assaults—against prostitutes and others. But evidence alone won’t shift a repugnance norm. You also have to reframe the activity. Acting, for example was reframed from body rental to a skill requiring intelligence, training and ability. So I went out of my way to say that I am a fan of Aella—though not her only fan—and that I see no reason why escorting should not be considered a skill, requiring intelligence, training, and ability. I can think of few better ways of raising social welfare than making sex 10% better!

I also spoke on human challenge trials. Roth and I agree: challenge trials could have sped up COVID vaccines and saved tens of thousands of lives. We should be angry this didn’t happen. Why didn’t it? Even though most people think human challenge trials are a good idea, there was a repugnance bottleneck because the minority who did find human challenge trials repugnant were in charge. I discuss how to change this.

Al leads the discussion. My comments start at 25:15.

Revealing Life Preferences Through LLMs

by  Tyler Cowen in

Here is some Weberian verstehen (or is it?), but from unexpected quarters:

Large Language Models (LLMs) are trained on a prodigious corpus of human writing and may reveal human preferences over characteristics of life courses, such as income, longevity, and working conditions. We present OpenAI’s GPT-5.4 and a broadly representative sample of Americans with pairs of life stories and ask them to choose the life they would prefer for themselves. A person’s choice is better predicted by the LLM’s choice than by another person’s choice over the same stories, and LLM valuations of several life attributes are similar to those derived from human responses. Our results suggest that LLM responses offer a scalable and cost-effective complement to existing methods for studying human preferences.

That is from a new NBER working paper by Omar Abdel Haq, Amitabh Chandra, Tomáš Jagelka, Erzo F.P. Luttmer & Joshua Schwartzstein.

Philosophical Ideas Behind Their Time

by  Alex Tabarrok in

Justin Weinberg at Daily Nous riffs off my post, Ideas Behind Their Time, to ask for philosophical examples. He nominates Gettier problems–i.e. counterexamples to the idea that knowledge is simply “justified true belief” as a possibility. The classic Gettier paper is from 1963. Wikipedia notes that the Indian philosopher Dharmottara has some clear examples c770 AD but as an element within the Western tradition the idea does seem behind its time.

I would nominate the following as philosophical ideas behind their time:

  • Hume’s is/ought distinction: the idea that you cannot derive a normative conclusion from factual premises.
  • Hume’s problem of induction: past regularities do not rationally guarantee future regularities.
  • Rawls’s Veil of Ignorance: the principles of justice should be derived without knowing one’s own particularities of class, race, gender and so forth. Seems obvious as an idea.
  • The Trolley Problem: similar ideas can be found earlier but the clean distinction between killing and let die or more generally omission and commission could have come much earlier. One might also think of the Prisoner’s Dilemma in this category of ideas or constructs that cleanly isolate an otherwise present but opaque idea.
  • The analytic/synthetic truths distinction: some things are true by definition, others are empirical. Obvious and it can be found before say Kant, yet a clear earlier statement would have resolved many issues and seems well within say Aristotle’s capability.
  • Aumann’s Agreement Theorem, technically, this requires Bayesian machinery and is difficult to formulate with precision, so I would not say the actual theorem was behind its time. But the underlying idea—that disagreement itself, not merely the arguments offered, should cause one to question and refine one’s own beliefs—could have been developed in Athens.
  • I’d also nominate a package of ideas like abolitionism, equal rights for women, and religious toleration–each of these is tendentious as examples yet the basic package seems fairly obvious as a category and yet late. (Perhaps if the veil of ignorance had been thought of earlier so would these ideas!) Note, that I am not arguing that abolitionism or equal rights for women could have happened much earlier only that these ideas were behind their time–the ideas were morally obvious even if not institutionally feasible.

Note also that I am not arguing that these ideas are all correct, only that they were philosophical ideas behind their time. More examples?

Xavier, Nick, and Tristan podcast with me

by  Tyler Cowen in

All three are from Queens College, I thought they did a great job, and mostly fresh material.  They describe the episode as such:

Xavier, Tristan, and Nick talk about everything interesting under the sun, including aesthetic convergence, the probability that Tyler lives for many centuries, if Spain was the most culinarily optimal culture to colonize Mexico in the 16th century, if Tyler would have joined the fellowship of the ring, why we don’t yet have a GMU lunch podcast, and much more. We hope you have as much fun listening to it as we had recording it!

Recommended, this is a good argument for sometimes doing podcasts with semi-random people, though choose them wisely.

Is psychotherapy underdiscussed these days? (from my email)

by  Tyler Cowen in

I listened to your recent conversation with Arthur C. Brooks and found myself struggling with his core premise. His framing of happiness seems to reduce it to something like a biological or behavioural optimisation problem, which feels quite far from how psychotherapy traditionally and historically understands it.

I tried to find where he engages with psychotherapy as a discipline. The only reference I could locate was a passing mention of mindfulness-based CBT in a Free Press piece. But approaches like MCBT, while valuable, sit within a narrower, symptom-focused, behavioural tradition. They are not really representative of the broader psychotherapeutic field, which is less about “happiness” and more about understanding conflict, ambivalence, and the structure of the self.

That omission seems important. Sigmund Freud’s answer to the “happiness problem” is almost a rugpull: human beings are fundamentally conflicted, and any attempt to engineer sustained happiness runs up against unconscious forces, compromise formations, and the reality principle. Indeed, the goal of therapy to Freud, is to turn misery into “ordinary unhappiness”.

Later clinicians have developed this further. Jonathan Shedler, for example, has written compellingly about how psychodynamic therapy aims not at happiness per se, but at increasing the capacity to feel a full range of emotions without defensive distortion. I’m sure you’ve come across him – he’s absolutely brilliant.

It made me wonder whether there’s something slightly neurotic, even Bryan Johnson-esque, in trying to treat happiness as if it were a macronutrient to be optimised. That framing risks flattening the very thing it’s trying to measure.

PS. I liked that you asked him about the price of his book – and I respected his response too!

That is from Adam Goott.

What makes art great?

by  Tyler Cowen in

That is the title of the new and very stimulating essay by Nabeel Qureshi.  It is difficult to summarize, but here is one excerpt:

2. Great art contains multiple overlapping layers of echoes.

This is often harder to spot in verbal artifacts, but it is this feature that I think distinguishes really good works of art from merely ‘ok’ ones.

Most of us are familiar with the surface level ways of doing this: rhyme, for example, knits together different lines of a poem in a semantically irrelevant way that nevertheless makes it feel like part of a unifying whole. Same with assonance and other such effects most of us are familiar with from English class. It is echoes, for example, that make so many verses from the King James Bible so pleasing and beautiful to listen to:

“Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee.” (Isaiah 60:1)

Note the echoing vowel sounds throughout in ‘arise’, ‘shine’, ‘light’, and ‘thy’. Rhyme and assonance are verbal echoes.

In music, the most famous example perhaps is Beethoven’s Fifth, with its famous “ba-ba-ba-BUM“ theme; the short-short-short-long statement in the beginning then echoes through that movement in thousands of ways, sometimes stretched, sometimes slowed down, so that the whole movement feels like an organic thing that has grown from that single seed.

Good art layers these, one on top of another, to build up artifacts of stunning complexity. These are the text equivalents of Gothic cathedrals. Each layer alludes to other layers, too, adding more and more constraints, until you get an artifact where changing any one word does violence to the whole.

To see this density in action, let’s look at Shakespeare’s Sonnet 15…

Do read the whole thing.  And here are some comments from Henry Oliver.