It’s common knowledge that the deadly mushroom is vividly colored and spotted, but what eludes most is that the deadliest of all mushrooms takes on the appearance of our everyday grocery mushrooms. Likewise, the threat to benevolence may come in part from the apparent, but not in any lesser part from the subtle, for beings lurking in the dark may practice malevolence with complete impunity.
Nor is every reality distortion created by an apparent act of sophistry or blitheful ignorance; certain ones are attended with subtle eidolae. These eidolae are often cloaked in the guise of one’s own thoughts, slithering into the inner reaches of the mind and impressing it with subliminal effects on the basis of spurious notions, which, once taken root, become prejudicial to the host, and may spread onwards from one host to the next by means of subsequent eidola emission.

Reality does not meet the hype.

Many have jumped on the AI hypewagon, but few understood the inner workings of AI, the underlying learning algorithms, decision trees, and training materials that prescribed its behaviors and outputs. And this general ignorance begets faith and fantasy in the actual capabilities of AI. As documented by WSJ and industry insiders, even the best-known AIs on the market frequently make errors of all sorts, from giving incorrect answers to basic math questions in natural language when phrased in a certain way; classifying filterable content incorrectly; to even getting plain facts wrong (e.g. the row number of CW in excel, the chapter of a book with a certain quote, the safe path in games where order or choices matter, travel requirements of a certain country, &c). While some errors may be the result of learning gaps, many others are attributed to its general dependence on webscraping for answers, and these answers they scraped or synthesized tend to be erroneous, in part or whole, because most information on the web are specious at best (On the value of information) ; and to its inability to reliably identify and separate out the dross before synthesizing them.
In short, AI is a great helper and advisor, especially useful for quick reference or summary of certain information; but this utility ought not be construed in the absolute sense. Double checking with official and reputable sources remains a necessary due diligence.
Also worth nothing is that AI doesn’t create, it recycles. Nearly every photo, video and textual content it “creates” is but a remix of those that already exist elsewhere. It’s analogous to Epicurus’ eidolae, in that everything humans can imagine or picture in their minds is but the reflection or remix of the things that already exist, as these things emit eidolae, both singular and composite. Humans cannot imagine something outside of the sandbox of defined existence. For example, the prevailing notion of an alien has eyes, head and limbs, features that already exist in humans or other living creatures; the pagan gods are but the remixes of animal parts (of eagle, dog, lion, elephant…), and so forth.

A misrepresentation of reality. Human intelligence is much more nuanced than a vain title.

PhDs originated from the Netherlands in the early nineteenth century for those who wanted to stay in school for longer than usual by assisting their prof. Staying in school longer, or working as an assistant to some prof, as such, carries no real merit of any kind. One needs not spend four- or forty years assisting another to demonstrate an ounce of intelligence. Neither would those of the highest intelligence stand in need of serving as an assistant to anyone at all— outside of fictions. In Sonic the Hedgehog (2020), Dr. Robotnik is said to hold three PhDs. Were such a figure to exist in reality, he would pursue none at all; for a mind of that caliber would not stand to benefit in an assistant capacity under anyone. If anything, his PhDs should’ve been entirely honorary, much like those associated with the eighteenth-century genius theologian John Gill who famously remarked, “I never sought it, thought it, nor bought it.”
Intelligence is a matter of genetic inheritance and direct conditions, not of the length of staying in school. Approx. more than half of our ability to memorize or retain knowledge is genetically related (or hereditary), with the rest attributable to direct conditions producing individual differences from one person to the next, conditions that span socio-environmental factors, upbringing, efforts in a certain direction as prescribed by Necessity, &c.
Further, the quality of said school has more bearing than the nominal degree, as it implicates everything from the quality of alumni networks and academic resources down to teaching quality, determinants bearing far more weight than the nominal degree. For instance, higher teaching quality generally leads to a solid and substantial intellectual foundation that supports originality and innovation. As the ancient Chinese maxim goes ("名师出高徒"), a claim borne out repeatedly by history: Lao Tzu-Confucius; Plato-Aristotle; Epicurus-Lucretius; a higher frequency and concentration of eminent philosophers, statemen and generals among the alumni of ancient academies like Plato’s Academy, Yuelu Academy &c; and of business magnates, political leaders and Nobel laureates among the alumni of modern academies like the Ivy League. Not all teachers are equal, as Plato intimated in his debunking of the sophists, public teachers who knew little of substance but taught much.
Finally, there’s little threshold to earning any degrees; if one can read, one can get a PhD. The real difficulty comes from the selectiveness of schools of a certain quality or standard (e.g. Ivy degrees are very elusive vs. public school degrees) but not the earning of degrees strictly speaking. Indeed, one can get a PhD every four years from a number of second- and third-rate accredited universities at or near 100% acceptance rate in the U.S alone, if time permits. Given enough time, even the average criminal has no issues earning a PhD from a state or public university behind bars during their prison terms, if they chose to put their time to such use.
And thus, making an apples-to-apples comparison here is invalid. A rolls-royce is not comparable to a toyota regardless of what trim, for the two are not in the same class. For as long as overall value is concerned, a standard rolls-royce eclipses any toyota, regardless of trim. Anyone in their right mind, given a free choice between the two, would've chosen the same without a moment's pause, assuming all other factors are constant.

A misrepresentation of reality.

Plato, the greatest mind of the West, never made a distinction between the terms “knowledge” and “experience”, and instead used them interchangeably throughout his dialogues. Whether one gleans a piece of insight from direct observation or the observation of another (e.g. Art of War/武经七书), it remains experience all the same (or knowledge for that matter). The writings of the ancient sages (e.g. Lao Tzu, Plato, Epicurus...) who have walked the full circle of human learning are not to be reckoned “dead” knowledge; a notion born of gross impertinence and ignorance, as this knowledge of theirs represent the vast experience accumulated through a life of deep observations, incisive insights and rigorous train of logic; passed down through the generations and stood the test of time; and greatly exceeding the intellectual reaches of any ordinary man, past or present, when it comes to understanding the workings of man and society, and the nature of things.
To put into perspective, the ancient Greek philosophers were able to make out the existence and properties of the atom without the help of the microscope, resorting only to math and deductive logic; and the ancient Chinese calculated the orbital positions of planets and synodic periods to great exactness (within 0.3% of modern estimates, as recorded in《五星占》and others) notwithstanding the lack of the telescope and other modern instruments that contemporaries now take for granted. Thousands of years ago, Plato warned that the bane of democracy is the excess of freedom, and how in the last days of democracy, criminals of every sort will roam free in broad daylight unpunished, as though nothing had happened. And it corresponds to what we're seeing today because the human nature has remained largely unchanged through time, making it predictable (and society being a magnification of that).
Napoleon did not win his first major battle by availing himself of direct sensory experience, which he didn't have at the time, but by applying the knowledge (or experience) of the greatest minds extracted from a pile of books. Alexander the Great, pupil of Aristotle (himself a pupil of Plato), defeated the far more experienced King Darius III with an army smaller than a fifth the size of Persia's, notwithstanding the absence of direct battlefield experience. And there are countless other such examples throughout history, and it all speaks to the fact that it is ultimately the quality of the knowledge or experience that weighs most heavily, not their length or form. One year of depth beats ten years of shallow. Written counsel of the greatest minds surpasses the muscle memory of the ordinary man. When the ignorant man makes light of and dismisses knowledge of the greatest minds, whether oral or written, the cost is inevitably paid in error. In consequential domains such as war or statecraft, those errors may be irreversible, matters not of inconvenience but of life and death, where no second chance exists to iteratively learn it like an obstacle bumping cleaning robot.

A misrepresentation of human intelligence.

Intelligence is a symphonious composition of three elements with equal importance: i) intellectual capacity, ii) ingenuity, and iii) insightfulness. The first refers to the ability to study and learn, aka. “scholastic aptitude” and has strong implications on a person’s memory, which is determined by both genetics and environmental factors such as brain health, access to education, socioeconomic conditions, efforts of a certain direction, instincts and tendencies, among a host of other factors, mainly elements of Necessity. The second refers to the ability to perform creative, tactical and strategic maneuvers in all facets of life (e.g. business, personal), which can be acquired immediately through direct sensory experiences; or mediately through philosophical pursuits and observations (e.g. consult the wisdom of ancient sages; exposure to their train of thought...). The last refers to the ability to see things others can’t, which can be acquired immediately through direct sensory experiences or mediately through the same line of philosophical pursuits and observations.
A quick critique of common measures of intelligence (2022):
i. Intelligence Quotient (IQ) Test: too vague and biased to be useful, with no clear standards from one test to another.
ii. “Emotional Quotient” (EQ): too vague and biased to be useful; it tries to metastasize away from the complete definition of intelligence in order to rationalize one’s inability or indolent tendencies to study and learn, making it a resort of comfort to those who didn’t have the scholastic aptitude.
iii. Brain-to-Body Mass Ratio: achieves a certain accuracy but relies too much on generalization.
iv. Encephalization Quotient: comparable from one population group to the next, but the results are overly speculative.

Case dependent

With age, one generally becomes more mellow and entertains a more accurate understanding of world. But this isn't always the case, and has become an increasingly rare case, especially for those who have been pampered at the hands of Necessity from their youth upwards. They may be already in their 50s or even 70s, but their experience is shallow, their world views narrow, and their minds flushed with hubris and ignorance; their experience having no depth nor complexity. They are like the dross, scrap irons that have not been refined for decades. They may think they’ve seen the light of the world, when in reality all they’ve been gazing at was the fire in Plato’s cave where all their lives were spent. They have not seen the heights of heaven, having not associated with those in the high places; nor have they known the depths of the earth, having not undergone enough pains and suffering or understood philosophy; enough to understand benevolence, foster character development, and to attain an accurate world view. They have lived as a spoiled child then, and as a manchild now, with no possibility of redemption until they are inundated with afflictive providence.
The foolish manchild manifests itself thus (having at least a few of these tendencies):
i. Lacks benevolence, having no hearty affection or true care and concern for his neighbors, unless done in public for popular applause or the preservation of personal reputation;
ii. Neither soft-spoken, graceful, nor patient in manner or speech;
iii. Follows a vile course of life, reveling in smoking, drinking, or carnal pleasures, at least in private;
iv. “Strains at a gnat but swallows a camel”: Make a big song and dance about trifles while ignoring more serious matters, as the manchild cannot differentiate between the weights of matters in life (as in the case of a drunkard who habitually faults his wife and child for every little act that did not please his eye, and yet overlooks his own monstrous course of domestic abuse, addictions and carnal excesses);
v. Habitually interrupts others when they are speaking;
vi. Incapable of taking real criticism, resorting instead to sophistry to rationalize every fault. In《道德经》第八十二章’s original text, the great sage Lao Tzu considers those who are well-versed or sharp-witted in sophistries to be morally depraved: “善者不辨，辩者不善” (here “辩” 指 “巧辩” 或 “诡辩”);
vii. Sees and attends to only the surface of matters or misrepresentations of reality, for he has no philosophy in him and understood not the essence of things. Connected to point #4;
viii. Generally not of a noble extract and upbringing, and did not receive a well-rounded education of any substance from his youth upwards; which tends to hubris and ignorance through adult and later life.
Any man who reaches old age while retaining this character is not a fine wine well-aged, but one long since spoiled. Having said that, not everything that such a man does must necessarily be wrong, for, if anything, even the vilest person can do certain things right.

A misrepresentation of reality.

We frequently hear tales and legends of the self-made millionaire or billionaire who wrought their success with their own hands. But in practice, there’s no such thing as self-made. All things achieved by any man are the consequence of 99% mechanical and/or providential Necessity and 1% collateral effort, which is tokenism in comparison to the works Necessity have wrought for them. And this respects not whether one inherited a bag of gold from the start, or acquired it through an eventful progression. One can only put meaningful effort into a specific direction, where he has already been given the prerequisite Necessity to do so. Even when Plato exhorted men to the pursuit of philosophy, he only meant those who are fitted by nature and circumstance to treat this most important subject, as not everyone is so fitted by Necessity (e.g. direct or indirect access to the right teacher, status of enslavement, compatible temperament, among other upstream conditions).
To illustrate further, the catalogue will apply to the case of the great sage Marquis Zhugeliang, which will be treated here in Chinese, language of the original text:
亮曰：‘’...若事之不济，此乃天也...‘’ （三国志-诸葛亮传）
诸葛亮智谋超群，目光如炬。但他竭尽了全力屡次北伐也未能制魏或收复中原；虽为蜀奠定了根基，创造了各种有利条件，然未改大势。
随着时间的演变，人可以创造或转化出有利于己的条件，可是这仅是在已具备某些上游条件的基础上创造或转化出来的下游条件。 （viz. mechanical & providential Necessity: spacetime event ordering/eidolae/status effects/assets such as state population, # of gifted individuals, state economics.../friendly assets/assets of the mind, &c)。
i）比如天时 (in the case of spacetime event ordering）：司马懿如果在五丈原中了某个计，或做了某个判断错误（owing to eidolae/status effects/passion and desires/flaws of the assets/flaws of the mind, &c）；给诸葛亮留了可出牌的空间，诸葛亮才有可能把握主动权，逐渐控制局势，甚至扭转乾坤。
ii）或基础上游条件（in the case of # gifted individuals）：“曹操比于袁绍、 则名微而众寡、 然操遂能克绍、 以弱为强者、 非惟天时、 抑亦人谋也”（三国志-诸葛亮传） （译文：‘’...就拿曹操跟袁绍来说、 最开始曹操既没有名气、 又缺乏实力。但是、 后来袁绍被他打败了。曹操之所以能够以弱胜强、 不仅是因为占据了天时、更是因片手下有一大堆优秀的谋臣武将为他服务。现在曹操军队已达百万...‘’）
简之而言，诸葛亮受限于上游条件，而条件不能凭空创。人仅创出下游条件，在上游条件的基础上（允许的情况下）。Necessity在万事上占有优先次序，不可逆，若水之归海；凡人无法通过自行修改elements of Necessity来实现个人目的。
根据央视/金鹰纪事，诸葛亮深知他毫无胜算由于这一蜀臭牌（viz. unfavorable Necessity) 与魏实力对比悬殊太大，用以打赢只能靠一系列微妙的上游条件或“天意”（诸葛亮未能享）；蜀道基础条件薄弱使计谋受限，有牌也不能出，难于上青天；但他北伐的核心动机是为了报答刘备知遇之恩，不负白帝城之托。
And here we cannot regard 诸葛亮’s loyalty, integrity and nobility as flaws of the mind, as this is a matter of personality and values, which necessarily differ from one person to the next. Personality is a unique bundle of decision-making rules with associated weightings, and though these rules are adaptive, any adjustments to such rules are circumscribed by Necessity. In light of this and the context at hand, there's nothing misguided in 诸葛亮’s preference for virtues over personal gain; nor, conversely, is there anything commendable in 司马懿’s cunning and conspiring nature, valuing personal gain above all else— apart from an acknowledgement that this latter personality type tends to the amassing of power and fortune when all other conditions are constant. Indeed he did just that, laying the groundwork for his sons usurp the throne of his liege in the making of the 晋 dynasty).

Quite the opposite

Indulgence in smoking, drinking, drugs or any other harmful relievers generally betrays a weakness in character and a feeble mind; an impulse to flee reality by numbing oneself with one of the above agents, for he is unable to confront and bear the pressures of life through sheer willpower and discipline.
The claims that such habits are "customary" or necessary in the conduct of business are equally untenable. In 2014, it emerged that the chairman of China's tobacco conglomerate was himself a non-smoker. Likewise, figures such as Warren Buffet and other prominent magnates neither smoke nor drink, some being strict teetotalers. Their example suggests true strength lies not in chemical (and harmful) relief, but in a mind and will capable of bearing pressure unaided. Having said that, drinking is not entirely without its utility. In times of great distress, for example, the bereavement of someone important to you, or to manage the horrors of wartime experience, drinking in moderation can be helpful when dealing with excessive grief. As the Bible instructs, “Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts” (Proverbs 31:6 KJV).

A misrepresentation of reality.

As Epicurus noted, not every pleasure should be taken, nor every pain be refused. Certain remedies— medicine or surgery, for instance — may be unpleasant or painful to the senses but it is for the long-term benefits and relief that they ought to be taken. Contrarily, reveling in drugs, alcohol and sex may gratify the senses for the time being, but this is usually attended with consequences that yield more pain and suffering over the long term.
In《道德经》第八十二章’s original text, the sage Lao Tzu considers the truth tends not to be pleasant to the ears, and that which is pleasant to the ears tends not to be the truth: "信言不美，美言不信"(where “信言” 指真实的话语，“美言” 指华丽的言辞)
Appearances do not conflict with reality nor the underlying order of things. An evil man clad in white doesn't render the man good; nor does the evil in that man render the white garments bad. So, while there's nothing necessarily wrong about admiring the appearances, these appearances have no bearing on the underlying realities. Appreciating Hitler’s art pieces for their pure artistic value doesn't render the audience more or less benevolent in character.

A misrepresentation of reality. Common argument of the unscrupulous and the unprincipled, or those who have no philosophy in them.

Relative they may be, but not equal. As Plato noted, things can be closer or further from a point of absolute truth such as "just" or "unjust", as derived from dialectics, even if such absolutes cannot be fully attained. And these positions are not interchangeable despite the protests of the unprincipled man, who may argue endlessly in an attempt to excuse his own corruption. He who cannot distinguish between good and evil, or between petty and grave crimes, is not merely unprincipled, but is a true danger to society. Therefore, human societies generally calibrate punishment according to the context of the crime or the degree of harm inflicted on society or victim, as reflected in distinctions such as third-degree injury and second-degree murder. Pickpockets driven by survival are not to be reckoned with the lot of Ted Bundy.
It's thus impertinent for the unprincipled to deal in absolutes given the context, because beings of absolute evil are not found with ease; not that there could not be one in a billion permutations, but it would be impractical. For, to be in the superlative state of evil, as Plato observed, one has to be in a state of total inner chaos (e.g. no possibility of cooperation with fellow criminals). Ted Bundy, monstrous as his crimes were, had shown some commendable qualities such as his affection and respect for his mother, qualities that cannot coexist if he were in that state of evil. Even Hitler was of a sober, patient and soft-spoken character, according to the released train tapes, which are of the few surviving records of his true voice and bearing. While it's true they're monstrous fellows, reckoned among the lower extremity of the Gaussian curve, but they are not the embodiment of the superlative absolute. When the masses called Hitler evil, they never meant he's the absolute embodiment, but rather a very close approximate.
Epicurus calls the unprincipled man a fool, while Plato mocks the ignorant masses who think in democracies neither political candidate has any differences whatsoever. They think the politicians are all equal, when in fact there are as many differences as there are an infinite permutation of leader qualities, however subtle; and it is the citizen’s duty to discern which of these differences, on the whole, are better or worse for the nation over the long term by the best means of information available to him.
And these differences are referred to as "measures and degrees" (what the ancient Chinese called “三六九等”), applicable to nearly all matters, individuals, groups of individuals, and even civilizations (On Civilizations; civilizations may share certain similarities but are not equal in orientations: ancient cultures like China and Greece tend toward settlement, cultural exchange, and trade relations; whereas barbarians tend toward colonization [parasitism], discrimination, and wanton aggressions). Lao Tzu and Epicurus generally refrained from adopting a strict interpretation of things, as in《道德经》第三章 where the sage noted "...圣人处无为之事，行不言之教"; not to dilute the morals but because the acts of men are deeply contextual and impractical to be dealt in absolutes. For example, murder is generally immoral, yet the execution of Ted Bundy, who raped and murdered young women across North America, was reckoned an act of justice, for it served to put a closure to his past and future acts of malevolence and seek remedy for the victims.
There are also fools who justify their actions by appealing to nature. Preposterous are those who draw their morals from the acts of nature when attempting to defend their questionable conducts, for the order of nature is not benevolent at its core. There are countless examples but one will suffice: a tropical fish like the guppy will feed on its own fries as soon as they left its gravid spot. Is this something we ought to imitate? Anyone who responds with a resounding “yes” should be helicoptered to the jungle where it belongs.

An ignorant misrepresentation of reality

Just as good and evil people alike bare and raise children; so do good and evil people alike kept pets, since ancient times. The generality of the population of our times has or had a domesticated living creature (or “pets”) of some kind over the course of their lives, be it avian (canaries, parrots, finches…), amphibian (turtles, lizards, snakes…), aquatic (salt and freshwater fish), insects (snails, ants, crickets…), mammal (porcupine, hamster, dog, cat, tiger), flora (money tree, cactus, peace lily, other houseplants…), be it what it will; as part of an ancestral human habit. Even Hitler was a dog owner, and he famously kept several dogs, most notably the German Shepherd. And in most, if not all, cases no one purchases a pet for the sole good of the pet, but rather for the personal comfort, psychological needs (companionship, curiosity…) or general utility, of the pet owner. Not that there's anything necessarily objectionable in keeping a pet to help alleviate depression, for example; but that ownership of any pet, by itself, has little bearing on the general character traits or tendencies of the owner.

Why, in modern times, do humans exhibit a particularly strong affinity for dogs and cats? The answer lies in their ancestral utility. These animals were originally domesticated for practical purposes: dogs for hunting, protection and cooperation, and cats for pest control and deratization. Dogs, in particular, were domesticated even by the savages of antiquity, as Darwin repeatedly noted (see The Origins of Species, Unabridged). While wolves may be better predators than dogs, they remain governed largely by instinct and resist effective domestication. The ancestral period of widespread utilitarian domestication of dogs and cats has persisted into the contemporary trends in pet selection we see today.

Placeholder Text

Placeholder Text