Taiwan and the US Election II

As you may see from the news stories to which I linked you yesterday: the former President is open about the fact that he would not use US forces to protect Taiwan from an invasion from the Chinese mainland.

He has allowed for the possibility that Taiwan could pay the US enough to change his mind: but I doubt that deal would ever get done. The business of lending out an army for mercenary use didn't end well for Yevgeny Prigozhin. [In case you have forgotten the name, you'll probably remember the face, here.]

One fascinating fact about this situation: Taiwan is the center

of the world's semiconductor industry. Somewhere at the back of the Orange Guy's alleged mind is the thought, "If the PRC takes them over, the fighting will likely destroy their semiconductor industry, allowing the US to re-assert its dominance in that matter."

That is insane, but no more so that his babbling about sharks.

Anyway, there are lots of industries in the United States that have long-established relations with the Taiwanese industry. It is a critical part of their supply ecosystem. I speak in particular not only of computer manufacturers but of all those industries that work within what is called the "Internet of Things." They are surely worried about a trashing of that island by an invasion. They are also surely aware that the removal of the deterrent force of implicit US support of Taiwan makes such a trashing very likely.

So ... what will happen? First, surely, the affected industries will contribute to a gung ho effort to create a Harris presidency.

If, God forbid, Trump does win in November [and I want to make it clear if it is not already that this semiconductor issue is NOT the main, or one of the top ten, reasons why I ask God to forbid that result], we can expect that the industries involved will seek to buy him. I am not disposed to think Trump immune to such an agreement.

How would it work? "We will pay you to pretend to be ready to commit US forces to the defense of Taiwan in order to restore the deterrent effect. We want to know your price." "Do I have to sound convincing?" "As convincing as when you say that TikTok is a menace, or that it is a wonderful thing, depending on who is paying." "What kind of whore do you think I am?" "We've already established that. Now we are just dickering about price."

They ought to be careful in the negotiations though. Not because Trump is the master of the art of the deal that he thinks he is but just because history shows politicians who get bought don't always stay bought.

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge. We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave. First, Plato is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability. I only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere. At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak

Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Search This Blog