The frogs who asked for a king

Constructed from real photos; no AI.

The end of the year is always a time that we look back on what we did and on what happened around us, and we think about what was good and what was not so good and what was bad during the past year. It is also what I want to do in this blog. However, in evaluating this year, and actually the last few years, I don’t want to use my own words, but I have chosen a fable by La Fontaine. I present it without comment. I am sure that you, my dear readers, will understand what I want to say.

I wish you a Happy New Year!

The frogs who asked for a king

The frogs grew tired, by democrats beguiled,
And made the air with clamours ring,
Begging of Jove to grant a king.
He dropt one down, quite meek and mild ;
Yet fell his majesty with such a splash,
That threatened their destruction with the crash.

The marshy folk, a timid race,
Hid from their monarch’s awful face.
Down midst the bulrushes and reeds,
Each to his hole for safety speeds ;
Nor dared for days to look
At him they all for some dread giant took.
The monarch really was a log.

It looked so grave, it frightened the first frog,
Who had but just enough of soul
To venture from his lurking-hole ;
With trembling and with fear
He cautiously drew near ;
Another followed, and another yet,
Till quite a crowd at last was met ;
They grew familiar and much bolder,
And jumped up on the royal shoulder.

The peaceful king said nothing, and lay still.
Their measure of content he could not fill,
For Jove they now attacked again,
And almost split the monarch's brain :
“ Give us a stirring king ! ” they cried.

The king of gods in anger soon replied,
And sent them down a crane,
Who cracked their bones, and slew them at his pleasure,
And gulped them down regardless of all measure.
The frogs complained again, but Jove replied,
“ What ! must our will by your caprice be tied ?
You should have kept your former government ;
You would not do so, you were not content
With the kind-hearted, gentle king I sent.”

Be happy with your present curse,
For fear I send you yet a worse. 

Source
Fables, Jean de La Fontaine, Book III,4

Random quote
I am for peace; but when I speak, they are for war.

Psalm 120:7

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

 

The narrative fallacy

People like narratives, but people also like heroes, straight lines, unidimensional developments, events that happen for a reason and destiny. If we tie all these things together and construct it into a straightforward narration of cause and effect, and omit the details that don’t fit into the main line, we have a success story, or just the opposite, a story in which the hero is doomed to go down. But beware, if you have done this, you may have committed the narrative fallacy. It’s a natural tendency of humans to make such a “summary” story, for we like clear and simple lines that make the world around us understandable. However, often the world is not that way. It’s full of confusion, disorder, coincidences, and complexity, but it is difficult to live with that and therefore we look for order, intentions and simplicity. Didn’t Hume already say that cause and effect are in the mind?
The term “narrative fallacy” was coined by Nassim Taleb – a Lebanese-American essayist, mathematical statistician, former option trader, risk analyst, and aphorist – in his book The Black Swan, and further developed by Daniel Kahneman (pp. 199-200) and others. The essence of the narrative fallacy is that we prematurely create a coherent story from disconnected bits and pieces of information and leave out other pieces of the story that are relevant, either because we don’t know them or because we think that they aren’t relevant. The point is, however, that the pieces of information that we connect may have no relation at all, and that pieces that are left out may be essential. Such a misleadingly constructed story may lead to false conclusions about success or failure. Descriptions of successful life stories are often made this way: The successful businessperson had a good education, a stimulating father, took the right decisions at the right moment and knew where to invest. However, the moments that the person had luck, the contributions of others and the like are often not mentioned. Then we might think that someone with the same education, stimulating parent and drive simply must be able to get the same results. But look around, many people are like this businessperson but luck was against them because of an unexpected drop in the stock market, others were working against them, etc. Your personal contribution is only one factor in your success (or failure).
Today, it is difficult to ignore AI, and after I had typed “narrative fallacy” in my Google search engine, unrequested (for I was looking for articles) I got a summary of its most important elements. Here they are:
- Oversimplification: We reduce complex realities (like market trends, personal successes, historical events) into tidy, memorable narratives, ignoring contradictory information.
- Illusion of understanding: The stories give us a false sense of comprehension, making us believe we grasp cause and effect when we’re just connecting dots.
- Underestimating luck: We attribute outcomes to talent or intent (hard work, intelligence) rather than to chance; success seems inevitable for those who follow the “story”.
- Impact on decisions: In finance, this leads investors to chase “good stories” over data; in life, it makes us believe we can predict the future based on past narratives. However, as I want to add, “bad stories” and failures are left out, though these are (together with the good stories) important to estimate how the chances of success are.
Examples of narrative fallacies are:
- Success stories in which the success is stressed but the moments where it might have gone wrong are left out. Chance is often described as just taking the right decision.
- Financial markets: Explaining a stock’s rise with a simple story, even if multiple unknown factors are at play.
- Conspiracy theories: Crafting elaborate stories to connect unrelated events, blaming a single entity, like a person, a group or a country, in a simple manner, while leaving out many other factors and “mechanisms”.
However, as Alexey Tolchinsky says in Psychology Today: “The examples of narrative fallacy need not be extreme; we are all prone to this phenomenon. It’s a human proclivity to connect the dots quickly, which is likely related to the limitations of our minds—it is effortful for us to hold on to multiple unconnected details.”
Avoiding the narrative fallacy is above all a matter of being aware of the problem, especially, so AI:
- Focus on data and probabilities rather than just stories.
- Acknowledge the role of randomness and luck.
- Be sceptical of simplistic explanations for complex events.
Nevertheless, being aware is often not the solution but the problem itself: People often think that they are aware of the problem and next interpret the facts just so that they fit into their prejudiced stories, while leaving out, just because of their prejudices, relevant facts as irrelevant. Is it surprising? As Kahneman says (ibid.): “Narrative fallacies arise inevitably from our continuous attempt to make sense of the world.” However, so he continues: “The explanatory stories that people find compelling are simple; are concrete rather than abstract; assign a larger role to talent, stupidity, and intentions than to luck; and focus on a few striking events that happened rather than on the countless events that failed to happen.” Could it be else? “[N]o story can include the myriad of events that would ever have caused a different outcome. The human mind does not deal well with nonevents.” We have come full circle.

Random quote
We know that sometimes in war fortune is more impartial than the disparities in forces would suggest. Surrendering would instantly render us hopeless, but by resisting we will preserve some hope of success.
                                                                    Thucydides (c. 460 – c. 400 BC) 

Characteristics of the Enlightenment

Spinoza enlightens the world
(image constructed from real photos; no AI)

Recently, I attended a lecture on Spinoza, and at the end someone asked the speaker: Do you think we are experiencing the end of the Enlightenment these days? I think that you know that Spinoza was one of the founders of the Enlightenment, and the question was relevant in the context of the lecture. The question pointed to the present rise of authoritarian leaders; the increasing suppression of the freedom of expression; blaming your opponents for the simple fact that they are your opponents, especially in politics; etc., etc. You’ll know what I mean. Now I think that these tendencies are dangerous and should be stopped, but speaking of the end of Enlightenment is yet a step too far at the moment. Movements in history go with ups and downs and temporary setbacks are not unusual. I think that since the end of the Middle Ages, on average, the world has become more enlightened. It is like a gradual upward wave motion. Nevertheless, in view of the present political crisis, I think that it is good to ask: What are the characteristics of the Enlightenment? This in order to better understand and realize what is going on and what we need to defend.
What follows are the main characteristics of enlightenment, as I see them; not so much of the Enlightenment as a period in the history of ideas but as a standpoint towards the present world and towards our fellow human beings. So, maybe I should rather say that this blog is about the question “What are the characteristics of an enlightened attitude?”

I think that the core of an enlightened attitude is tolerance towards others and their opinions and views, even if they are different from yours. However, this is quite abstract, so let me fill it in. The characteristics that follow don’t only refer to the direct relations between individuals, but also to the general political situation, which has a broader influence on the way individuals live.

- Not authority but reason and rational thinking are the guides to truth. In case we have different opinions about how the facts are, don’t determine what is true by a call on authority, status, position or ancient scriptures, but look for concrete facts that support or just refute what we think to be true. Don’t blindly accept what an authority says but think self. Accept that some questions cannot be immediately answered. Maybe later, maybe never. That’s especially the case for moral and ethical questions. Therefore, differences in opinion and ideas are normal; not objectionable.
- Have respect for individuality, for self-governance, and for individual, personal rights. Basically, people have the right to fill in their lives in their own ways, as they wish. Human rights are a clear expression of this point.
- Montaigne always said: What do I know? Montaigne lived before the Age of Enlightenment but can be seen as a precursor. Life would be impossible without accepting certainties and securities. Without them, you cannot act and you would be like Buridan’s ass. Nevertheless stay sceptical. Things can be different from what they seem. Be open to questioning established beliefs, authority (religious and secular), judgments and prejudices, and superstition. Accepting authority because it is authority is the first step to suppression of freedom.
- Observe and discover the world and don’t be afraid to know. Do this in a methodical, systematic way. This makes it easier for you and for others to detect mistakes. Share your knowledge and methods with others, so that they can discuss them. Accept that you can learn from what others think about them. Open science and public scientific methods are the foundation of knowledge and progress.
- Everybody has the right to know and to be free. Nobody is better or worse than someone else. Since in practice there is much inequality between humans, emancipation and liberation from the inability to think independently must be stimulated. It’s why free education is so important.
- In order to stimulate enlightenment in the political field separation of church and state and the separation of the executive, legislative and judicial powers (the so-called Trias Politica) are important as ways to prevent tyranny and the oppression of freedom of expression of one’s thoughts if not of the freedom of thinking itself.

Without a doubt I could have added more characteristics of an enlightened world, but I think that I have mentioned here the core of what is at stake in the present world. Look around and draw your conclusions and think about what can be lost and is difficult to regain once lost.

Random quote
There is never doubt in the soul because of what is doubted ... Doubt will just exist because of a second idea, which, however, is not so clear and distinct that we can draw any conclusions from it with regard to what is doubted; in other words, the idea that makes us doubt is not itself clear and distinct.

Benedictus de Spinoza (1632-1677) 

Where did Spinoza live?

Spinoza's Opera Posthuma (Posthumous Works) with the Ethica,
 published in 1677 by his friends after his death. 

As regular readers of this blog will know, I am not only interested in philosophical theories, views and ideas, but I also like to visit places where philosophers have lived and worked. So, when I was in Egmond in the northwest of the Netherlands, I visited the places where Descartes had spent many years when he lived in the Netherlands. And when I was in Basel in Switzerland this summer, I made a walk along the sites where Erasmus lived in the last years of his life. In Innsbruck I looked for places that Montaigne visited during his journey from France to Rome. And already quite a while ago I had been in the room in his castle near Bordeaux, where he wrote his Essays. Later I went to Bordeaux, where Montaigne also had a house and where he has been buried. But where lived Spinoza, the most famous philosopher of the Netherlands – with Erasmus – and one of the founders of the Enlightenment? So, I took my camera and went looking for his traces.

The Waterlooplein in Amsterdam. The house where 
Spinoza was born was about where the church is.

Baruch de Spinoza – his Portuguese first name was Bento and his self-chosen Latin name was Benedictus – was born on 24 November 1632 in Amsterdam in the Jewish quarter. His parents had fled from Portugal, because Jews were forced to convert to Catholicism. The city of Amsterdam had made an island in the Amstel River available to Jewish refugees where they could settle, although they were free to live elsewhere in the city, if they preferred. Where Spinoza exactly lived in the Jewish quarter is not known. About 140 years ago the area of the Jewish quarter was reconstructed and the houses were demolished. So, the house where Spinoza was born and passed his youth doesn’t exist anymore. Now you find there a square, the Waterlooplein, and in 1986 the present Opera and Ballet House and Town Hall have been built there. In 2008 a Spinoza Monument made by Nicolaas Dings has been erected on the square.

The Spinoza Monument on the Waterlooplein in Amsterdam

When he was 23 years old, Spinoza was banned from the Jewish community. Maybe it was because his religious views strongly conflicted with the Jewish religion; maybe other reasons were involved, too. Since then Jews were no longer allowed to have contact with Spinoza. He moved to the Latin School of Franciscus van den Enden (1602-1674) on the Singel in Amsterdam. It is not known exactly where the school was located. Van den Enden taught Spinoza Latin, put him in touch with the classics, and inspired him. About then Spinoza learned how to grind lenses. Grinding lenses and making microscopes and the like became the way he made his living.

The house where Spinozahuis lived in Rijnsburg

We don’t know when and why he moved, but in 1661 we find Spinoza in Rijnsburg. Probably he moved there that same year. Spinoza lived in the house of the surgeon Herman Homan. Maybe, Spinoza moved to Rijnsburg because regularly the Collegiants met there, a group of people with religious views that conflicted with the teachings of the official Reformed Church and that were not unlike Spinoza’s views. Rijnsburg was on walking distance from Leyden with its well-known university, so it was a place that allowed Spinoza easily to stay in touch with other scholars. In Rijnsburg Spinoza started to write his Ethica (Ethics).
In 1663, Spinoza moved to Voorburg near The Hague. He lived there in the house of the painter Daniel Tydeman in Kerkstraat (Church Street). Spinoza will have met there both Constantijn Huygens Jr. (1628-1697), statesman, poet and scientist with a special interest in lenses, as well as his brother Christiaan (1629-1695), the famous mathematician, scientist, etc. Their father, the politician and poet Constantijn Huygens Sr. (1596-1687) had built a mansion in Voorburg. Spinoza kept working on the Ethica here.

The house on Paviljoensgracht in The Hague
 where Spinoza had rented a room

In 1670, Spinoza moved again, now to The Hague. He had room and board with a widow on the Stille Veerkade, but because it was too expensive for him, in May 1971 he rented a room in the house of the painter Hendrik van der Spyk on the Paviljoensgracht, just around the corner. In 1670, Spinoza published anonymously his Theologico-Political Treatise. It was forbidden by the authorities in 1674. During his years in The Hague Spinoza finished his Ethica. He died on 21 February 1677 in his room.

Interior of the Nieuwe Kerk in The Hague where Spinoza was buried

Spinoza was buried in the Nieuwe Kerk (New Church) in The Hague. There were many people present at the burial. Spinoza had been buried in a rented grave, and the grave was cleared in the 18th century. His remains were buried in the churchyard together with remains from other graves. Now you find a gravestone (from 1927) and a monument (from 1956) at the place where this may have happened. Soon after his death, his friends published Spinoza’s Ethica and other manuscripts as the Opera Posthuma (Posthumous Works). 

Gravestone and monument for Spinoza in the courtyard
of the Nieuwe Kerk in The Hague

Stone bricked in the wall of the Spinoza House in Rijnsburg

Ah, if all men were wise

And wanted good!

The earth would be a paradise.

Now she is most of a hell.

Dirk Rafaelsz. Camphuysen
(Dutch poet, 1586-1627) 

Inutilities

In his essay “Of vain subtleties” (Essays I, 54) Montaigne writes that “there are a sort of little knacks and frivolous subtleties from which men sometimes expect to derive reputation and applause: as poets, who compose whole poems with every line beginning with the same letter.” Writing such poems was fashionable among the rhetoricians of his days. They excelled in writing poems with literary tricks. For instance, the Dutch national anthem, written about 1571 by an unknown author and the oldest national anthem in the world, consists of fifteen verses and the first letters of all verses together form the name Willem van Nassou, also known as William, prince of Orange and count of Nassau, the leader of the Dutch struggle for independence. However, so Montaigne, such vanities are not only mental but also physical, for he tells us that “the cloth of state [=canopy] over our tables is not permitted but in the palaces of princes and in taverns.” What is the use of it except as a showpiece in honour of the owner?

Such “vain subtleties” were not only typical for Montaigne’s time. He found them already among the old Greeks. It’s not surprising: “Tis a strong evidence of a weak judgment when men approve of things for their being rare and new, or for their difficulty, where worth and usefulness are not conjoined to recommend them.” This human characteristic that existed already in the past still exists today. Political leaders want to display their omnipotence and glory with useless projects like highways that nobody needs or by building palaces that are by far too big for themselves, but that are full of gold and gleam. The private palace of the former Romanian dictator Ceaușescu (toppled in 1989) is a case in point, but also the present renovation of the White House in Washington, D.C., the residence of the US President, belongs to this category. But such vanities are not more than striking extravagances, if one realizes that in fact the economy of the western societies is based on such inutilities. There are shops and websites that (literally!) sell “Useless Gifts” and even such products like golden toilet paper or bricks for $ 30 each. However, these are only marginal cases, for a walk through a random city centre will show you what I mean: Look how many fashion shops you find there. Do we really need all those clothes? How often it happens that people wear the clothes they have bought there only once or twice (or never!) and then throw them away (sometimes only after years, ashamed that they bought it?). But also in supermarkets, where we buy the products we really need each day, the choice of products is so big that I wonder why. Do we really need a choice of, say, more than ten types of toilet paper? Not to mention websites like TikTok that try to sell products like fashion and makeup in the first place and to the most vulnerable groups like children in the first place; groups of people who actually don’t have the money for it and products they don’t need and often are not worth the money. As Sander Bais wrote in an article titled (translated) “Of vain subtleties” (indeed, inspired by Montaigne’s essay): “The point of things is mainly that they are sold... Advertising and media firmly show us the way to fulfilling our needs while also dictating what those needs are. Big Brother determines which creams we should put on our skin, which meatball to swallow, which films we should have seen and which books we will like very much.” Are you surprised that such a society, so a society economically founded on inutilities, vanity and superfluity, is on the way to its own ecological destruction?
Although Montaigne, then, couldn’t see yet this actual meaning of his words in this essay – so in spite of himself –, as so often he holds up a mirror to us. But we see our image and close our eyes.