Ukategorisert

Når man studerer en filosof, er den rette innstillingen hverken heltedyrkelse eller forakt, men en form for hypotetisk sympati, helt til det er mulig å forstå hvordan det føles å tro på hans teorier. Først da skal den kritiske sansen fremtre, og denne skal så godt som mulig ligne på sinnstilstanden til en person som forkaster meninger han har hatt frem til dette tidspunktet. Forakt forstyrrer det første steget i denne prosessen, og heltedyrkelse det andre (Russell 1945).

Spillteori sies ofte å stamme fra von Neumann og Morgenstern – altså fra ca. 1944. Det er imidlertid opplagt at kjernetemaet i spillteori er analyse av strategiske situasjoner og valg av strategier, og disse temaene er på ingen måte nye. I den sammenheng vil jeg gjerne anbefale alle tilhengere av spillteori og strategi å lese Polybius’ The Rise of the Roman Empire.

Mens spillteoretikere ofte begeistrer seg over å finne anvendelser av sine modeller i det daglige liv (som i koordineringsproblemer mellom ektefeller o.l.), er det til avveksling svært givende å lese historie med det formål å anvende spillteoretiske modeller.
Les videre Historisk strategi – anbefalt litteratur

Indeed in this respect he [Polybius omtaler her Timaeus] very much resembles Strato of Lampsacus, the writer on physical science. He, too, is apt to shine most when he sets out to expound and refute the theories of others, but when he puts forward any original proposition or explains his own ideas, he appears to men of science to be far more stupid and dull than they had expected.

– Polybius (1979)

Les videre Kritikk og originalitet

[…] my own view is that the Romans have adopted these practices for the sake of the common people. This approach might not have been necessary had it ever been possible to form a state composed entirely of wise men. But as the masses are always fickle, filled with lawless desire, unreasoning anger and violent passions, they can only be restrained by mysterious terrors or other dramatizations of the subject. For this reason I believe that the ancients were by no means acting foolishly of haphazardly when they introduced to the people various notions concerning the gods and belief in the punishments of Hades, but rather that the moderns are foolish and take great risks in rejecting them.

– Polybius (1979)

Les videre Religion for alle?

When one threatens to fight if attacked or to cut his price if his competitor does, the threat is no more than a communication of one’s own incentives, designed to impress on the other the automatic consequences of his act. And, incidentally, it it succeeds in deterring, it benefits both parties.

But more than communication is involved when one threatens an act that he would have no incentive to perform but that is designed to deter through its promise of mutual harm. To threaten massive retaliation against small encroachments is of this nature, as is the threat to bump a car that does not yield the right of way or to call a costly strike if the wage is not raised a few cents.

– Thomas Schelling (1980)

Les videre Schelling om trusler