What do you think?
Rate this book
The Case for Meritocracy
The human race is ill. One story above all reveals the sickness at the core of the human psyche... the tale of the Tree of Knowledge. What does it say about the human race that knowledge is associated with the loss of paradise, with the forbidden, with the defiance of the rightful authority ("God"), with alliance with the serpent (the Devil), and with the advent of suffering, sin, and death? Why should we be surprised that Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, described reason as "the Devil's whore"? Why was Socrates put to death by Athenian democracy? Why has no genius ever been a king, prime minister or president? Why are intellectuals held in contempt? Knowledge and reason have always been viewed by the human race as distasteful, suspect, unnatural, and certain to lead to trouble.
Of course, the smartest human beings have always taken the opposite view. It's ignorance, faith and irrationalism that are holding back humanity. The allegory of the Ship of Fools derives from Plato, one of the world's greatest geniuses, and describes the disaster that will befall a ship if the crew gets rid of the navigator..., i.e., if the fools, contemptuous of knowledge and expertise, put themselves in charge of steering the vessel.
Human history has been subject to three disastrous forces - three Horses of the Apocalypse, we might 1) the power of violence (war, military strength... everything that's sustained by brute force), 2) the power of stories (religion, monarchy... everything sustained by the beliefs people hold, by the Mythos they have chosen to explain their lives to themselves), and 3) the power of money (the universal currency for buying what you want, for getting people to do what you want because they crave the money you can give them).
Human societies have always been ruled by military elites, or Mythos elites (religious or royal), or rich elites. They have never been ruled by intellectual elites.
Humanity could be saved by knowledge, understanding, reason and logic, but these have always been despised by the average person. Plainly, none of these things plays any role in the lives of typical Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, or consumer capitalists. They play no part in prayer, meditation and going shopping. No one in the West says you can be "saved" by maximizing your intelligence; no, you must instead maximize your irrational faith. No one in the East says that the path to Enlightenment is the one concerned with the most rational ontology and epistemology; no, you must cross your legs, close your eyes, and literally try to escape from your own mind - the exact definition of a Mindless ideology (not Mindfulness)! No capitalist says that anything other than buying stuff can make you happy.
In comparison with the three Horses of the Apocalypse, intellectual attributes have never played a decisive role in human affairs. They have always served the Horses, and never controlled them. The intelligentsia have always been advisers, and never those occupying the throne, taking the decisions.
What would happen to the world if Logos people rather than Mythos people were in charge, if smart people rather than military people were in charge, if people of knowledge ruled rather than people of wealth? The world would be transformed. Humanity would undergo a wondrous metamorphosis.
A political system exists that can deliver this New World Order... a world where intelligence becomes the most valued resource. It's called Meritocracy.
Of course, the smartest human beings have always taken the opposite view. It's ignorance, faith and irrationalism that are holding back humanity. The allegory of the Ship of Fools derives from Plato, one of the world's greatest geniuses, and describes the disaster that will befall a ship if the crew gets rid of the navigator..., i.e., if the fools, contemptuous of knowledge and expertise, put themselves in charge of steering the vessel.
Human history has been subject to three disastrous forces - three Horses of the Apocalypse, we might 1) the power of violence (war, military strength... everything that's sustained by brute force), 2) the power of stories (religion, monarchy... everything sustained by the beliefs people hold, by the Mythos they have chosen to explain their lives to themselves), and 3) the power of money (the universal currency for buying what you want, for getting people to do what you want because they crave the money you can give them).
Human societies have always been ruled by military elites, or Mythos elites (religious or royal), or rich elites. They have never been ruled by intellectual elites.
Humanity could be saved by knowledge, understanding, reason and logic, but these have always been despised by the average person. Plainly, none of these things plays any role in the lives of typical Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, or consumer capitalists. They play no part in prayer, meditation and going shopping. No one in the West says you can be "saved" by maximizing your intelligence; no, you must instead maximize your irrational faith. No one in the East says that the path to Enlightenment is the one concerned with the most rational ontology and epistemology; no, you must cross your legs, close your eyes, and literally try to escape from your own mind - the exact definition of a Mindless ideology (not Mindfulness)! No capitalist says that anything other than buying stuff can make you happy.
In comparison with the three Horses of the Apocalypse, intellectual attributes have never played a decisive role in human affairs. They have always served the Horses, and never controlled them. The intelligentsia have always been advisers, and never those occupying the throne, taking the decisions.
What would happen to the world if Logos people rather than Mythos people were in charge, if smart people rather than military people were in charge, if people of knowledge ruled rather than people of wealth? The world would be transformed. Humanity would undergo a wondrous metamorphosis.
A political system exists that can deliver this New World Order... a world where intelligence becomes the most valued resource. It's called Meritocracy.
- GenresPhilosophy
398 pages, Kindle Edition
Published December 2, 2015
5 people are currently reading
54 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
March 15, 2021
This book was far better than one would expect from the blurb. Many potential reders may be put off by the author's lurid style. However, the basic argument in the book is far better than the style would make one expect.
The great merit of the book is that unlike most authors discussing meritocracy, the author sees that capitalism is not a genuinely meritocratic system, and that building a genuine meritocracy requires destroying capitalism.
However, there are some sloppy arguments, exaggerations and errors in the book.
The author says (p. 260) that libertarianism is incompatible with any sort of government. This is not correct (according to a common use of the words). Libertarianism is generally distinguished from anarchism and unlike it only opposes big government. It allows or even requires a small government that maintains peace and justice.
Libertarians hold that the power of rulers should be restricted to protect the negative liberty of people. However, libertarianism does not entail much regarding who should be the rulers. Right-libertarianism is indeed not compatible with meritocracy, as it requires capitalism which is incompatible with meritocracy. However, left-libertarianism is incompatible with capitalism but compatible with the rulers being selected meritocratically. Left-libertarianism is then compatible with constitutional meritocracy (as well as with constitutional democracy). In fact many of the author's specifically economic proposals agree with those of many left-libertarians.
Faust agrees (e.g. p. 257) that the power of meritocrats should be restricted by a constitution, so it is not wholly clear why he should be against libertarianism. Perhaps it is a matter of what the constitution should be like; perhaps the author thinks that a libertarian constitution would hamper the effectiveness of rulers too greatly. However, I think that the danger of rulers becoming corrupt and abusing their power is greater. The author's plan for an ideal society - influenced by Plato, Rousseau, Hegel, Weishaupt and Fourier- seems to to pose a genuine danger of totalitarianism.
The author seems to think that if the smartest or most talented people are in power they will use that power well. However, being intelligent (or even talented in many ways) does not entail being moral. A smart person can still be a psychopath, without conscience or empathy. Also even an initially decent person can get corrupted by wielding power. A functioning meritocratic society must then also find ways to prevent intelligent evil people from coming to power or retaining it. A mere constitution helps here but is not enough, as a talented psychopath can find ways to undermine it. However, there is no way to be certain that rulers do not get corrupted and therefore their power should be strictly limited as a precaution.
Faust rails against religion, especially Abrahamic religions, but then (p. 146) asserts without justification (at least in this book) the religious belief that people have infinitely old souls. It is true that this is a less obviously irrational claim than many claims of fundamentalist religions. However, such arbitrary claims still harm the credibility of the book. and are irrelevant to its main theme.
The great merit of the book is that unlike most authors discussing meritocracy, the author sees that capitalism is not a genuinely meritocratic system, and that building a genuine meritocracy requires destroying capitalism.
However, there are some sloppy arguments, exaggerations and errors in the book.
The author says (p. 260) that libertarianism is incompatible with any sort of government. This is not correct (according to a common use of the words). Libertarianism is generally distinguished from anarchism and unlike it only opposes big government. It allows or even requires a small government that maintains peace and justice.
Libertarians hold that the power of rulers should be restricted to protect the negative liberty of people. However, libertarianism does not entail much regarding who should be the rulers. Right-libertarianism is indeed not compatible with meritocracy, as it requires capitalism which is incompatible with meritocracy. However, left-libertarianism is incompatible with capitalism but compatible with the rulers being selected meritocratically. Left-libertarianism is then compatible with constitutional meritocracy (as well as with constitutional democracy). In fact many of the author's specifically economic proposals agree with those of many left-libertarians.
Faust agrees (e.g. p. 257) that the power of meritocrats should be restricted by a constitution, so it is not wholly clear why he should be against libertarianism. Perhaps it is a matter of what the constitution should be like; perhaps the author thinks that a libertarian constitution would hamper the effectiveness of rulers too greatly. However, I think that the danger of rulers becoming corrupt and abusing their power is greater. The author's plan for an ideal society - influenced by Plato, Rousseau, Hegel, Weishaupt and Fourier- seems to to pose a genuine danger of totalitarianism.
The author seems to think that if the smartest or most talented people are in power they will use that power well. However, being intelligent (or even talented in many ways) does not entail being moral. A smart person can still be a psychopath, without conscience or empathy. Also even an initially decent person can get corrupted by wielding power. A functioning meritocratic society must then also find ways to prevent intelligent evil people from coming to power or retaining it. A mere constitution helps here but is not enough, as a talented psychopath can find ways to undermine it. However, there is no way to be certain that rulers do not get corrupted and therefore their power should be strictly limited as a precaution.
Faust rails against religion, especially Abrahamic religions, but then (p. 146) asserts without justification (at least in this book) the religious belief that people have infinitely old souls. It is true that this is a less obviously irrational claim than many claims of fundamentalist religions. However, such arbitrary claims still harm the credibility of the book. and are irrelevant to its main theme.
February 22, 2022
A sacred cause that got easily lost in ranting
This is the 3rd book in the political series by the PI. This book provides a deeper case into the system of Meritocracy and the various arguments that can be raised by the opposers of Meritocracy and how such points are proven wrong, irrational and in fact stand as blocks and support for the old corrupt way of running the world rather than getting on with the program and embracing a New World Order under a Meritocratic system led by the brightest and wisest of what Humanity can offer for the benefit of all people. One for all, all for one.
However, the book quickly lost its case since the author succumbed to what the trolls he speaks about half the book, aimed to achieve, and that is to take something beautiful, sacred and turn it into ugly, profane, full of ranting, arguments with people on facebook and then publishing all that crap in a book that dares to see the light of day. Without being aware of it, the author fell right into the trap of the trolls. He drank that poison all the way to publish and I am saddened by it because I understand exactly where the author is coming from and how sacred is the cause, hos strong is the passion and how late is the hour.
But a 3000 years organization should surely know what it means to be divine and not allow some pests online to bring you out of your values and virtues.
If anyone is interested in the actual material outside of the rants, it's gold. I highly recommend it just careful with the rants.
This is the 3rd book in the political series by the PI. This book provides a deeper case into the system of Meritocracy and the various arguments that can be raised by the opposers of Meritocracy and how such points are proven wrong, irrational and in fact stand as blocks and support for the old corrupt way of running the world rather than getting on with the program and embracing a New World Order under a Meritocratic system led by the brightest and wisest of what Humanity can offer for the benefit of all people. One for all, all for one.
However, the book quickly lost its case since the author succumbed to what the trolls he speaks about half the book, aimed to achieve, and that is to take something beautiful, sacred and turn it into ugly, profane, full of ranting, arguments with people on facebook and then publishing all that crap in a book that dares to see the light of day. Without being aware of it, the author fell right into the trap of the trolls. He drank that poison all the way to publish and I am saddened by it because I understand exactly where the author is coming from and how sacred is the cause, hos strong is the passion and how late is the hour.
But a 3000 years organization should surely know what it means to be divine and not allow some pests online to bring you out of your values and virtues.
If anyone is interested in the actual material outside of the rants, it's gold. I highly recommend it just careful with the rants.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews