Cooperator’s Dilemma
Get used to the bad conditions of relatives; as well as the bad faces: it is convenience where dependence thirds. There are fierce geniuses that cannot be lived with or without them. It is, therefore, skill to get used to it, as with ugliness, so that they do not do it again in the terrible occasion. The first time they frighten, but little by little they lose that first horror, and the reflection prevents unpleasantness, or tolerates it.
(Oracle and Manual of Prudence: B. Gracian)
I watched a conversation between two friends that made me think. They gave each other advice that was as rational and pragmatic as it was well-intentioned. — Since your sister cheated on you that way, more than twenty years have passed without her speaking to you again. It is clear that nothing wants with you. No doubt he is prey to Hobbes’s paradox, you know: “Having done more harm to a man than he thinks he can atone for, inclines the offender to hate the victim. because he must expect vengeance or forgiveness from her, both hateful things” Don’t think about her anymore, forget her, turn the page, don’t get obsessed, live your life. The second counterargued that it had been done due to his sister’s poor condition, but that being dependent, it was not in his power to forget or ignore. On the contrary, he felt the desire to know.
Get Teilhard’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
At first I thought it was wise advice. Life is too short to waste trying to prey on the dogs that come your way. And I say in principle because as I thought about it my mind was suspended and confused. Sapere Aude, dare to know! Kant wrote. ! Know yourself! says an inscription in the temple at Delphi. “An unexamined life is not worth living” Socrates admonished. The great thinkers of humanity seemed to advise the opposite of that well-intentioned friend. How could one not dare to discover why the most useful things happen? How to blind yourself to such an intimate fact? How to live without examining a fact that surely has its roots in the past and necessarily has to be projected into the future? In short, how to renounce humanity itself? Faustian advice to submit to the biblical sacrifice!
Another thought came to me. I had recently listened to a lecture by successful businessman and financier Nick Hanauer advocating a new economy, the guiding idea of which was that man’s evolutionary advantage is our ability to connect in inclusive social networks. The same thesis of Peter Turchin in his last book “Ultrasociedad”. Everything indicated that our desire to connect is what has made us prevail over the rest of the species. So much so that recent archaeological discoveries indicate that many of the great structures of the past such as Goblequi Tepe, Stonehenge or Poverty Point, actually had the purpose of hosting large gatherings of people, socializing at large parties, satisfying our gregarious desire, ultimately connecting. One with another. They were the dawn of an evolutionary process so successful that it has allowed us, over a few centuries, to coordinate several million people from more than ten nations to build something as complex as the International Space Station, as indicated by Peter Turchin. Would that friend be, without realizing it, advising to give up the main evolutionary engine of man. Our desire to connect with others, to interpret our past and project our future?
And yet another thought occurred to me. That impromptu counselor, without realizing it, was acting as the “rational agent” in the “Cooperator’s Dilemma” It says: “it is better for everyone to contribute to the common good, but it is better for each one individually (rational agent) to shift the burden to the others.” others” And so it was. For the common good, the sister’s behavior was unacceptable. If it were known, it would surely have a legal-public reproach and in any case it was ethically reprehensible. As the dilemma shows, if everyone acted looking the other way, even the rational agent, the one who only looks out for his own interest, would end up harmed. The solution goes through Kant’s Categorical Imperative.” Act in such a way that your behavior can be extended to everyone “
