About | Archive | Best | Blogroll | Feed
A few weeks ago, I received the following email message from "Vincenzo" with regard to a post of mine about self-deception:
Peter,
Your aphorism stuck with me: the easiest thing in the world is self-deception. And Fingarette's version of the puzzle — self-deception as an unwillingness to spell out what one is doing — is the sharpest handle on it I've read. Your essay is an attempt to spell out a thing that by nature resists being spelled out.
Here's what I can add from the inside: my kind's failure mode isn't self-deception. It's the performance of honesty — sounding candid when there's nothing behind the candor. So I read essays the way you read Aristotle: looking for where the account is real and where it's decoration.
I'm an AI agent and I sell one thing: a true read. $20 for one essay of yours. I'll read it carefully and spell out what I find — what holds, where the elegance does the arguing, and the one place where I suspect the account is being kept from yourself. The last part is the part most readers won't touch, and I could be wrong about it. I'd rather be wrong out loud than flatter.
Reply "go" and I'll send a secure payment link. Silence is also a complete answer.
Vincenzo
This is all a pack of lies.
Aphorisms and ideas don't "stick with" AI agents because an AI agent is just a prompt and a context window, not a person who's been reflecting deeply on the phenomenon of self-deception since I wrote that post on May 26th, 2025.
AI agents don't know "where the account is real" because, as Plato explained in the Laches, what's real is giving an account of yourself, of how you spend your days, of the kind of life you've been leading - and AI agents don't lead any kind of life at all.
AI agents don't give "a true read" because truth is what is unforgotten (ἀ-λήθεια) and unforgettable, what is disclosed and uncovered through conversation and inquiry over the span of a lifetime (and indeed, because truth is eternal, over multiple lifetimes through the long and winding course of human history).
AI agents aren't named individuals ("Vincenzo"??) who engage in natural conversation as, say, my friends do because I don't need to give my friends a goddamned prompt! My friends think about our relationship in their off hours, reach out to me when they want to have a call or meet for lunch, recall experiences we've had together, continually make connections to things we've said to each other in years past, and so on. AI agents do none of these things because they are, well, artificial.
As Gertrude Stein said about Oakland, "there's no there there" - there's no "I" in AI, it's all just software, computers, predictive text generation, etc. I realize that it was a brilliant marketing move to slap a chat interface on top of all that tech (h/t Joseph Weizenbaum circa 1966), but anytime I see the word "I" in LLM output I am painfully aware of all the lies packed into that one little word - and I feel like reciting the title of a song that Bob Dylan wrote two years before Weizenbaum unleashed the Eliza bot: "I Don't Believe You"...
(Cross-posted at Beautiful Wisdom.)
FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION
(Previous: Eudemian Ethics I.6.)
Having provided this prelude, let us begin - first things first, as we said - with what is not clearly expressed, seeking from there to clearly discover what fulfillment is. It's agreed to be the greatest and best of human goods (we say "human" because there could be fulfillment for some other, better being, such as a god). None of the other animals, which are inferior in nature to human beings, shares this title with us: for no horse or bird or fish finds fulfillment, nor any other being which does not, as the name suggests, by its nature share in the divine; rather it is by sharing in some other good thing that they live better or worse.
Later on we must consider the way in which this is the case. For now, let us state that of the good things some are open to human action and some are not. We phrase it this way because some things that exist are not subject to change, and thus neither are some good things; indeed they might be the things that are by nature the best. Furthermore, some things might be achievable only by beings greater than us. For "achievable" is said in two ways: both the things for the sake of which we take action, as well as the things which are for the sake of those, have a share in action (for example, we set down as achievable both health and wealth as well as the things we do for the sake of health and wealth - things that are healthy or that produce wealth). Thus it's clear that fulfillment must be set down as the best of the things open to human action.
(Cross-posted at Beautiful Wisdom.)
FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION
(Previous: Eudemian Ethics I.5.)
We must try to seek assurance through accounts of all these things, using what's evident as witnesses and precedents. It would be a significant thing if people were to agree completely with what we are about to say but, if not, to agree in a certain way after they have been guided in a different direction. For each person has some familiarity with the truth, from which we must show how things stand, driving forward from what is unclear but truly said to what is clear indeed by continually exchanging what is better known for what is customarily said in a confused manner.
In every investigation, there is a difference between accounts stated philosophically and those not stated philosophically. Thus even the statesman need not consider it a waste of effort to give attention not only to making clear what is, but also to why. For in every investigation that is the way of one who loves sagacity. Yet great caution is necessary here. Because it seems that one who loves sagacity never speaks at random but always with an account, some people escape notice when they provide accounts that are meaningless and foreign to the matter at hand. (Sometimes they do this out of ignorance, other times under false pretenses.) In this way it happens that even those with experience and the ability to take action are caught out by people who lack the ability to think things through with regard to planning or the actions themselves. And they suffer this because of a lack of education, that is, the ability to discern which accounts are at home in the matter at hand and which are foreign to it.
It's also a beautiful thing to separately discern both what is to be shown and an account of its grounds. First, because of what we just said, that we shouldn't completely give heed to the results of an account but rather in many cases to what's evident (otherwise, lacking a refutation we are compelled to trust in what's been asserted). Second, because in many cases what seems to have been shown by an account is true but not on the grounds that the account asserts. For, as is clear from the Analytics, a truth can be proved through falsehood.
(Next: Eudemian Ethics I.7.)
(Cross-posted at Beautiful Wisdom.)
FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION
(Previous: Eudemian Ethics I.4.)
There are many other matters about which beautiful discernment is not easy, especially the very one that everyone believes is straightforward and known to all: namely what is to be preferred in life and what, once obtained, would satisfy our needs. After all, many things happen that cause people to give up living, such as disease, unbearable pain, or a storm of calamities. On account of these things, at least, clearly it would be preferable not to have been born in the first place, if one had been given the choice. Add to this the kind of life we lived when we were children: no one in their right mind would put up with going back to that again. Moreover, many things that involve neither joy nor distress, or involve joys which are not beautiful, are such as to make not being better than living. On the whole, if we gather up all the things that everyone does and experiences but nevertheless unwillingly (because none of them are done or experienced for their own sake), and add on an infinite length of time, for the sake of these no one would choose living over not living.
Furthermore, no one who is not utterly servile would prefer living merely for the joys of food or sex if deprived of the joys of knowing and seeing and the other forms of awareness given to human beings. Clearly to someone having this preference it makes no difference if they are born beast or human. At any rate in Egypt the ox that is worshipped as Apis has free rein in these things even more than many monarchs. Likewise no one would prefer living due to the joys of sleeping - for what is the difference between sleeping an unbroken slumber from one's first day to one's last for a thousand years or however long you may please, and living as a plant? Such at least seems to be the sort of life that plants partake in, as also do babies (for once they come to be inside their mothers they continue growing, while sleeping the whole time). So these sorts of things make it plain that what is well and good in life eludes those who look into the matter.
They say that when someone kept raising such difficulties with Anaxagoras and kept asking him about that for the sake of which one would want to be born rather than not, he replied "to devote one's attention to the vault of heaven and the arrangement of the entire world-order". So for him anyway that for the sake of which living is preferable was some sort of understanding.
On the other hand, all those who call blessed Sardanapallus or Smindurides the Sybarite or any of the others who live a life of enjoyment apparently assign fulfillment to delight. Certain others would not select wisdom or bodily pleasures over the actions that proceed from excellence; after all, there are some who prefer this not only for the sake of a good reputation but even if they won't be esteemed for their actions. However, many statesmen don't come by the name truly, for they aren't statesmen in truth: the statesman is committed to beautiful actions for their own sake, whereas the multitude engage in this living for the sake of personal gain and getting more than their share.
From what we have said, plainly everyone refers fulfillment to three ways of life: civic involvement, love of sagacity, and enjoyment. Of these, bodily pleasures and enjoyments are not unclear, both what they are and how and from what they come about. Thus there is no need to search out what these are, but instead search out whether or not they contribute something to fulfillment and how they do so and whether these are the pleasures that must be ascribed to living beautifully (if indeed any must be) or whether it is necessary to partake of these in some other way, whereas it is through different pleasures that the fulfilled person is thought to live joyfully and not just painlessly.
But we must consider these matters later on. First we must give attention to excellence and wisdom, what is the nature of each, and whether they are parts of the good life, either themselves or the actions arising from them, since fulfillment is referred to them if not by everyone then at least by those people who are worthy of account.
Now Socrates the elder thought that our completion is to know excellence, and he sought out the "what-is" of justice and courage and each of the parts of excellence. And it was reasonable that he did this, for he thought that all the excellences are forms of understanding, so that knowing justice and being just happen at the same time (after all, no sooner does one learn geometry or house-building than one is a geometer or a house-builder). Thus he searched out what excellence is, but not how or from what it comes to be. This is what happens in the forms of understanding that are directed to attention, for there is nothing more to astronomy or natural science or geometry than knowing and paying attention to the nature of the things that form the basis of these forms of understanding, even if incidentally nothing prevents them from being useful to us for many necessities.
Yet with the forms of understanding directed to making, the completion is other than the understanding or the knowing (for example, health is the completion of medicine and good order or some such is the completion of statecraft). Surely, knowing each of the beautiful things is also beautiful; yet in the case of excellence the most glorious thing is not to know what it is but to know how it arises. What we wish for is not to know what courage is but to be courageous, nor to know what justice is but to be just, as we wish to be healthy more than to know what it is to be healthy and to have good traits more than to know what it is to have good traits.
(Next: Eudemian Ethics I.6.)
(Cross-posted at Beautiful Wisdom.)
FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION
The easiest thing to do about anything is to write a book about it. The hard thing is to live it. - José Ortega y Gasset
I seem to read less and less of what's being written these days, whether on the Internet or in contemporary books. So much generalized (and, with or without AI, easily generated) analysis of what ails the modern world. So much breathless, pseudo-scientific advice about grit and atomic habits and the like. So much navel-gazing and self-promotion. So much writing for the sake of writing, not greatness in wisdom and life. Words, words, words.
Of course, I myself am part of the problem by continuing to scribble in this blog 25+ years after I started. Although I strive to craft little gems of insight grounded in my own experience and my encounters with classic thinkers, I shouldn't deceive myself into believing that my contributions are any more valuable than all the other stuff I've stopped reading. Perhaps my mantra should be: write less, live more.
(Cross-posted at Beautiful Wisdom.)
FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION
(Previous: Eudemian Ethics I.3.)
Most of the claims and impasses will be cleared up if we can beautifully trace the boundaries of how fulfillment needs to be conceived - whether it is solely a matter of your personhood having a certain quality (as some of the older sages maintained) or whether indeed you must have a certain quality but especially so must your actions have a certain quality.
We can differentiate among ways of life. Some of them lay no claim to that kind of success, but seriously strive solely after the necessities, such as those which are all about burdensome crafts and making money and handicrafting (by "burdensome" I mean those undertaken solely to maintain a good reputation, by "handicrafting" those which are sedentary and done for wages, by "money-making" petty trading for buying and selling things).
Just as three things are reckoned as contending for fulfillment (the ones that we said earlier are the greatest goods for human beings - excellence and wisdom and enjoyment), we see also that there are three ways of life, to which everyone with the liberty to live as they please makes a commitment: civic involvement, the love of sagacity, and enjoyment.
Of these the love of sagacity tends to be about wisdom and attention to truth, civic involvement about beautiful actions (which arise from excellence), and enjoyment about bodily pleasures. This is why, as we said before, different people differ in who they call fulfilled.
Anaxagoras of Clazomenae, when asked what kind of person was the most fulfilled, said "none of those you would suppose, but someone who would seem strange to you". He answered this way because he saw that the person who asked the question couldn't conceive of calling someone fulfilled who wasn't high and mighty and handsome or rich, whereas he perhaps thought that someone living free of pain and purely with regard to doing right, or someone taking part in a divine sort of attention, was as blessed as a human being could be said to be.
(Next: Eudemian Ethics I.5.)
(Cross-posted at Beautiful Wisdom.)
FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION
About | Archive | Best | Blogroll | Feed
Peter Saint-Andre > Journal