I was linked today to a very amusing article by Denis Dutton. Dutton, for a few years in the late 1990's, held an absolutely brilliant bad writing contest. And who were these bad writers whom Mr. Dutton was honoring for their dense, meaningless prose? Why, his very own colleagues -- college professors, mostly English professors, but some philosophy professors make it there, too.
Conveniently, Dutton wrote an essay explaining why he held this contest, an essay aptly named "Language Crimes." It is perhaps fitting that he targets English professors in particular, for these are the people who are supposed to be teaching students how to write -- while their own prose is sorely lacking in both style and, at times, real substance.
I should perhaps take offense at this (as some scholars certainly did). While I admit, there may be some need for technical language, is jargon really a requirement for everything? Is there truly a need for all of this obtuse prose? Do these theories really lose their power if explained in simpler, more accessible language?
To end with a couple of question: Do you think the winners of Dutton's Bad Writing Contest are samples of truly bad writing? Is bad writing a problem in academic writing?
Saturday, May 8, 2010
What Have We Learned?
Sarah asked "What have you learned?"
This is, of course, a rather loaded question, and doubtless one would have a different answer right at the end of the course than they might five, ten, twenty or more years down the line, so answering now could certainly provide an insight to my future self of how I once was (and in a public forum, no less! How delightfully narcissitic!).
I think I'll leave this in the form of a list.
1) I like eating meat, and will continue to do so, though I will certainly try to cut down on my consumption, and try to be more conscious of where it came from.
2) Socialists are not merely envious of those who excel.
3) Naturalism and supernaturalism will never find middle ground.
4) Time is real.
5) Radical constructivism, as it has so far been presented, is inherently unphilosophical, perhaps even anti-philosophical, because of its stubborn refusal to acknowledge the possibility of criticism.
6) I started this course as a constructive realist (or however we choose to name the philosophy). I now have a name for it, and the ability to explain and rationalize it.
To end with a very broad question that doubtless no one will tackle: What does it mean "to learn?"
This is, of course, a rather loaded question, and doubtless one would have a different answer right at the end of the course than they might five, ten, twenty or more years down the line, so answering now could certainly provide an insight to my future self of how I once was (and in a public forum, no less! How delightfully narcissitic!).
I think I'll leave this in the form of a list.
1) I like eating meat, and will continue to do so, though I will certainly try to cut down on my consumption, and try to be more conscious of where it came from.
2) Socialists are not merely envious of those who excel.
3) Naturalism and supernaturalism will never find middle ground.
4) Time is real.
5) Radical constructivism, as it has so far been presented, is inherently unphilosophical, perhaps even anti-philosophical, because of its stubborn refusal to acknowledge the possibility of criticism.
6) I started this course as a constructive realist (or however we choose to name the philosophy). I now have a name for it, and the ability to explain and rationalize it.
To end with a very broad question that doubtless no one will tackle: What does it mean "to learn?"
On Experience
"Every Experience is an experience of something." This seems so obvious that it would seem to be a truism, as "everything that is said is said by someone." And yet, it would seem to present quite a challenge to the metaphysical agnostic.
If this statement is true, that every experience is an experience of something, then would it not necessitate a world beyond our own consciousness to experience? And if it is false, well... radical constructivism implodes into solipsism. This seems fairly important for a philosophy whose basic tenet is a focus on "experience" rather than "reality."
This would seem, at first, to perhaps be a false dichotomy. Without something to experience, there can be no experience (unless you're a solipsist, in which case you're the only thing around -- and we can all agree that this idea is absurd). Why, then, is the radical constructivist so intent on denying the real world? Perhaps denying is too strong a word, but given how radical constructivists so love to attack realism as dogmatic and absurd, it seems ingenuous to try to maintain this agnosticism while constantly attacking and mocking one side of the equation, and ignoring the other.
I can already see how the radical constructivist might respond. "I simply do not understand constructivism." And thus, it falls into the trap of hypocrisy. This statement implies that anyone who "fully understands" radical constructivism would accept it dogmatically, unquestioningly. And on this ground I reject it. A philosophy that is so quick to act exactly as the system which it proposes to reject and offer an alternative to, particularly when it brushes off its criticism as being simply "misunderstood," is both academically dishonest, and frankly uninteresting for discussion.
To end with a question: is the above rejection of radical constructivism justified? Why or why not?
If this statement is true, that every experience is an experience of something, then would it not necessitate a world beyond our own consciousness to experience? And if it is false, well... radical constructivism implodes into solipsism. This seems fairly important for a philosophy whose basic tenet is a focus on "experience" rather than "reality."
This would seem, at first, to perhaps be a false dichotomy. Without something to experience, there can be no experience (unless you're a solipsist, in which case you're the only thing around -- and we can all agree that this idea is absurd). Why, then, is the radical constructivist so intent on denying the real world? Perhaps denying is too strong a word, but given how radical constructivists so love to attack realism as dogmatic and absurd, it seems ingenuous to try to maintain this agnosticism while constantly attacking and mocking one side of the equation, and ignoring the other.
I can already see how the radical constructivist might respond. "I simply do not understand constructivism." And thus, it falls into the trap of hypocrisy. This statement implies that anyone who "fully understands" radical constructivism would accept it dogmatically, unquestioningly. And on this ground I reject it. A philosophy that is so quick to act exactly as the system which it proposes to reject and offer an alternative to, particularly when it brushes off its criticism as being simply "misunderstood," is both academically dishonest, and frankly uninteresting for discussion.
To end with a question: is the above rejection of radical constructivism justified? Why or why not?
Friday, April 30, 2010
On the Usefulness of Quantum Physics
I have been giving some thought to quantum physics of late, and I would like to share my thoughts on the subject here.
Quantum physics studies the absolute smallest particles possible. There is no reason, therefore, that the properties of these subatomic particles would apply at the macro level. Why? Take, for example, table salt, sodium chloride. This molecule has neither the properties of sodium nor chlorine. It may well share some properties, but it lacks many others, and has its own unique properties. The same can be said of any molecule -- the whole does not equal the sum of its parts. Therefore, what works for a single atom may not work for a molecule or a collection of highly complex molecules.
Furthermore, quantum mechanics are still a relatively new science, and poorly understood. We do not yet know what exactly the smallest particles look like, or what they do, or if the properties we have currently identified CAN be applied on higher levels. This does not discount the usefulness of quantum mechanics. It is simply to suggest that, until we have a better understanding of them, a wider body of evidence, and experiments on a higher level, it is not useful to our considerations as philosophers.
To end with a question: is this analysis of quantum physics fair? Can we disregard this as-yet poorly understood field of science, and suspend our judgement until further research has been completed, or do we have an obligation to consider it, even if it is very likely to change as more data is collected and more experiments run?
Quantum physics studies the absolute smallest particles possible. There is no reason, therefore, that the properties of these subatomic particles would apply at the macro level. Why? Take, for example, table salt, sodium chloride. This molecule has neither the properties of sodium nor chlorine. It may well share some properties, but it lacks many others, and has its own unique properties. The same can be said of any molecule -- the whole does not equal the sum of its parts. Therefore, what works for a single atom may not work for a molecule or a collection of highly complex molecules.
Furthermore, quantum mechanics are still a relatively new science, and poorly understood. We do not yet know what exactly the smallest particles look like, or what they do, or if the properties we have currently identified CAN be applied on higher levels. This does not discount the usefulness of quantum mechanics. It is simply to suggest that, until we have a better understanding of them, a wider body of evidence, and experiments on a higher level, it is not useful to our considerations as philosophers.
To end with a question: is this analysis of quantum physics fair? Can we disregard this as-yet poorly understood field of science, and suspend our judgement until further research has been completed, or do we have an obligation to consider it, even if it is very likely to change as more data is collected and more experiments run?
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
The "Problem" of Unexperienced Rocks
Radical constructivism criticizes realism for its insistence on the existence of an unexperienced world. To the radical constructivist, at least as I understand it, the unexperienced rock, say on the bottom of the ocean, or the moon, is not relevant to our understanding of the world.
I would like to challenge that. Let us explore the concept of this unexperienced rock. Just because we have not experienced the rocks, say, on the moon, does not mean that we lack the POTENTIAL to experience them. If we act upon this potential, then this rock becomes part of our experience. It seems to me rather absurd to reject those objects which can potentially be experienced merely on the grounds that we have not yet experienced them.
I propose the following syllogism:
1) All rocks that are relevant to our understanding are those objects we have experienced.
2) All rocks must first have the potential to be experienced before they can be experienced.
3) Potential for experience remains unchanged regardless of whether that potential is acted upon.
4) All rocks that we have experienced can be potentially experienced.
5) All rocks must have the potential to be experienced.
6) Therefore, all rocks, both experienced and unexperienced (or, put another way, potentially, but not yet experienced) are relevant to our understanding of the concept of "rock."
Given this, it would be quite relevant that there is an unexperienced world, which calls in to question the metaphysical agnosticism the radical constructivist so clings to.
To end with a question: How might a radical constructivist respond to the syllogism above?
I would like to challenge that. Let us explore the concept of this unexperienced rock. Just because we have not experienced the rocks, say, on the moon, does not mean that we lack the POTENTIAL to experience them. If we act upon this potential, then this rock becomes part of our experience. It seems to me rather absurd to reject those objects which can potentially be experienced merely on the grounds that we have not yet experienced them.
I propose the following syllogism:
1) All rocks that are relevant to our understanding are those objects we have experienced.
2) All rocks must first have the potential to be experienced before they can be experienced.
3) Potential for experience remains unchanged regardless of whether that potential is acted upon.
4) All rocks that we have experienced can be potentially experienced.
5) All rocks must have the potential to be experienced.
6) Therefore, all rocks, both experienced and unexperienced (or, put another way, potentially, but not yet experienced) are relevant to our understanding of the concept of "rock."
Given this, it would be quite relevant that there is an unexperienced world, which calls in to question the metaphysical agnosticism the radical constructivist so clings to.
To end with a question: How might a radical constructivist respond to the syllogism above?
Monday, April 19, 2010
The "Problem" of "Unconceptualized Apples."
Over the last week, we have been grappling with the "problem" von Glasersfeld presents of the "unexperienced world." I do not see this as a problem at all, and that von Glasersfeld has misconstrued the entire question.
The "problem," as von Glasersfeld puts it, is that "we cannot possibly (rationally) conceive of an unexperienced world." I do not think that this statement is correct. We, as a species, possess an unlimited ability to conceive of things, to conceptualize, to rationalize. It is how our species has gotten to where it is today -- through advancements of conceptualizations, a process of developing theories, testing them, refining them, combining them, and generating ever more knowledge. It is how we have brought our understanding of the world to where it is today, how we have created the very words we are using to communicate and explain these concepts, the computers through which I am typing and you are reading, the electricity that powers the computer, the refinement of the materials to produce it, etc.
To reference the argument that Professor Johnson has been attempting to reconstruct, I hit a snag on premise 9, "An “unconceptualized apple” is not a concept." This is, I think, a false statement, because of the phrase "unconceptualized apple." There cannot exist an "unconceptualized apple." Simply the word "apple" contains the concept of apple, which we necessarily conceptualized, experienced or not. By invoking the very concept of apple in the use of the term, the "unconceptualized" qualifier has been negated.
One might argue that the terms "unexperienced" and "unconceptualized" are synonymous, thus negating my argument above. I think this is false, a misuse of terms. We can have concepts of things we have never experienced -- concepts of loss without ever having lost, concepts of unicorns without ever having experienced a unicorn. Though perhaps most damning is that of faith, of belief in a god without evidence (or despite evidence to the contrary). The mere fact that we have a concept of a thing like a god, and that some people can accept it as real despite the utter lack of evidence or experience to back up the belief in the concept, represents perhaps the most prevalent example of the conceptualization of the unexperienced, reflecting the gulf between our experiences and our concepts.
To end with a question: Is there, in fact, a difference between experience and conceptualization?
The "problem," as von Glasersfeld puts it, is that "we cannot possibly (rationally) conceive of an unexperienced world." I do not think that this statement is correct. We, as a species, possess an unlimited ability to conceive of things, to conceptualize, to rationalize. It is how our species has gotten to where it is today -- through advancements of conceptualizations, a process of developing theories, testing them, refining them, combining them, and generating ever more knowledge. It is how we have brought our understanding of the world to where it is today, how we have created the very words we are using to communicate and explain these concepts, the computers through which I am typing and you are reading, the electricity that powers the computer, the refinement of the materials to produce it, etc.
To reference the argument that Professor Johnson has been attempting to reconstruct, I hit a snag on premise 9, "An “unconceptualized apple” is not a concept." This is, I think, a false statement, because of the phrase "unconceptualized apple." There cannot exist an "unconceptualized apple." Simply the word "apple" contains the concept of apple, which we necessarily conceptualized, experienced or not. By invoking the very concept of apple in the use of the term, the "unconceptualized" qualifier has been negated.
One might argue that the terms "unexperienced" and "unconceptualized" are synonymous, thus negating my argument above. I think this is false, a misuse of terms. We can have concepts of things we have never experienced -- concepts of loss without ever having lost, concepts of unicorns without ever having experienced a unicorn. Though perhaps most damning is that of faith, of belief in a god without evidence (or despite evidence to the contrary). The mere fact that we have a concept of a thing like a god, and that some people can accept it as real despite the utter lack of evidence or experience to back up the belief in the concept, represents perhaps the most prevalent example of the conceptualization of the unexperienced, reflecting the gulf between our experiences and our concepts.
To end with a question: Is there, in fact, a difference between experience and conceptualization?
Social Construction
Emily asked, "What is the relationship between social constructs and cognitive constructs of knowledge?"
I would argue that social constructs are the result of cognitive constructs. As we, as a species, began to create these sorts of cognitive constructs that we currently hold, one of the natural uses of this ordering was to create a system to organize communities. As our species developed in terms of cognitive ability and began to build more complex systems of knowledge by which to understand the world around us, we built increasingly complex systems of organization, chief among them being the written word, which enabled the development of our complex systems of language, a requisite for mathematics, science, philosophy, government, religion, etc, etc, etc.
These systems became widely accepted (the precursors of our society today) through the appeal of the mental processes that went in to their creation. It is a human universal, the creation of communities and societies, for while each society, culture, community, what have you, looks different, and has its own rules and regulations, all of them were generated by the same cognitive processes.
To end with a question: How might a radical constructivist explain social constructions like governments, religion, etc?
I would argue that social constructs are the result of cognitive constructs. As we, as a species, began to create these sorts of cognitive constructs that we currently hold, one of the natural uses of this ordering was to create a system to organize communities. As our species developed in terms of cognitive ability and began to build more complex systems of knowledge by which to understand the world around us, we built increasingly complex systems of organization, chief among them being the written word, which enabled the development of our complex systems of language, a requisite for mathematics, science, philosophy, government, religion, etc, etc, etc.
These systems became widely accepted (the precursors of our society today) through the appeal of the mental processes that went in to their creation. It is a human universal, the creation of communities and societies, for while each society, culture, community, what have you, looks different, and has its own rules and regulations, all of them were generated by the same cognitive processes.
To end with a question: How might a radical constructivist explain social constructions like governments, religion, etc?
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Political Opposition, and the US War Effort
I'm not sure how many of you have heard, but it would appear that a violent uprising in Kyrgyzstan has overthrown the government.
Another example of a repressive regime falling when they tried to push too hard on their population. Of course, this repressive regime happened to have the blessing of the US government. Lovely how we can support a government whose people get so fed up that they take to the streets in opposition, engaging in open warfare with government troops.
And what was the final straw that broke the camel's back, the last insult that put people over the edge? Doubling the cost of power and heating. Is it just me, or do commodities like heat and electricity seem like things that should be rights rather than privileges? Rather like, oh... health care and higher education. But I digress.
What does this event say about the conduct of our wars abroad? Our support for regimes that have proved time and again to be wildly unpopular by the people who they rule, yet get the support of our government in our "war to spread democracy," even when these governments try their damnedest to stifle democracy within their own nations?
Another example of a repressive regime falling when they tried to push too hard on their population. Of course, this repressive regime happened to have the blessing of the US government. Lovely how we can support a government whose people get so fed up that they take to the streets in opposition, engaging in open warfare with government troops.
And what was the final straw that broke the camel's back, the last insult that put people over the edge? Doubling the cost of power and heating. Is it just me, or do commodities like heat and electricity seem like things that should be rights rather than privileges? Rather like, oh... health care and higher education. But I digress.
What does this event say about the conduct of our wars abroad? Our support for regimes that have proved time and again to be wildly unpopular by the people who they rule, yet get the support of our government in our "war to spread democracy," even when these governments try their damnedest to stifle democracy within their own nations?
Friday, April 9, 2010
Time As A Unit of Measurement
From my reading, I didn't find a precedent for this (if I missed it, please enlighten me), but I would like to explore, for a moment, this thought I've been bouncing around my mind: time is a unit of measurement.
What does this mean? Time, as a unit of measurement, is a system by which we measure the duration of events. It has no independent entity of its own, and does not "flow," as it is merely a framework in which we measure events.
To draw an analogy, let us take distance. Does a meter or a mile "exist?" Of course it does, but the discussion of a meter or a mile is useless without reference to some object being measured. A mile does not exist independently of our application of that unit to indicate a certain length within the world. Similarly, time does not exist independent of events to measure. Just as we can divide distance by large and small sums (meters, kilometers, inches, yards, miles, light years, etc.), time, too, can be divided and examined in varying units (seconds, minutes, hours, days, years, centuries, millenia, etc.).
What might this say of time's existence absent an observer to measure it? It continues to be, just not as TIME. Time, distance, weight, all units of measurement, EXIST regardless of the presence of a being to measure such. The universe continues to exist absent an observer. These units of measurement, such as distance and time, are merely constructed systems of knowledge from which we can seek to understand the universe around us. While the universe (or, to be fair, the multiverse) exists independent of our measurements and knowledge of it, our knowledge comes from constructing the frame work to understand it.
To end with a question: is the concept of time as a unit of measuring duration of events a useful conception of time? Or does it miss something fundamental to our understanding of "time?"
What does this mean? Time, as a unit of measurement, is a system by which we measure the duration of events. It has no independent entity of its own, and does not "flow," as it is merely a framework in which we measure events.
To draw an analogy, let us take distance. Does a meter or a mile "exist?" Of course it does, but the discussion of a meter or a mile is useless without reference to some object being measured. A mile does not exist independently of our application of that unit to indicate a certain length within the world. Similarly, time does not exist independent of events to measure. Just as we can divide distance by large and small sums (meters, kilometers, inches, yards, miles, light years, etc.), time, too, can be divided and examined in varying units (seconds, minutes, hours, days, years, centuries, millenia, etc.).
What might this say of time's existence absent an observer to measure it? It continues to be, just not as TIME. Time, distance, weight, all units of measurement, EXIST regardless of the presence of a being to measure such. The universe continues to exist absent an observer. These units of measurement, such as distance and time, are merely constructed systems of knowledge from which we can seek to understand the universe around us. While the universe (or, to be fair, the multiverse) exists independent of our measurements and knowledge of it, our knowledge comes from constructing the frame work to understand it.
To end with a question: is the concept of time as a unit of measuring duration of events a useful conception of time? Or does it miss something fundamental to our understanding of "time?"
Saturday, March 27, 2010
The Origins of Feminism
Sarah asked: "What do you think the feminist movement sprung from? Could it have been envy or jealous, or something else?"
This question is much more complex than it may seem, and requires a complex answer to do it justice.
As a political movement, feminism traces its roots back to the late 19th century. In the changing, industrializing world, there was less of a need for women to be dedicated solely to the raising of their children. Industrialization, coupled with the development of the public school system, meant that women had less duties at home. They were no longer required to produce everything the household needed and educate the children. As a result, women began to receive an education, and with that growing education came an awareness of their status as second-class citizens.
The original feminist movement, the suffragette movement of the late 19th and early 20th century, was, I believe, based not so much on envy or jealousy, but on righteous outrage in the face of a clear injustice. As barriers fell, and women proved themselves to be just as intelligent and capable of men, given the opportunity to do so, it came as a natural consequence that they would be given the right to vote.
The 1960's saw a resurgence of the feminist movement. African Americans stood up to the continued injustices inflicted upon them 100 years after their supposed freeing of slavery, and women joined their ranks to press for the removal of institutional biases against them. Again, this is not envy, but a reaction to oppression of a historically underprivileged group of people by the (predominantly white male) group that was in power.
And so we come to the feminism today. It is, I think, hard to truly define what "feminism" means, as it has blossomed into a very wide-ranging movement, fighting, among other things, against workplace discrimination against women, sexual assault and harassment of women, discrimination against minorities (and minority women in particular), discrimination against homosexuals, etc. The key here is that it the fight has its same roots -- to win for an underprivileged group of people the right of equal access to resources (government involvement, education, etc) so that these groups are given equal opportunity to succeed.
To end with a question: In what ways might questions of civil rights be questions of envy or jealousy, and are these legitimate positions to put forward?
This question is much more complex than it may seem, and requires a complex answer to do it justice.
As a political movement, feminism traces its roots back to the late 19th century. In the changing, industrializing world, there was less of a need for women to be dedicated solely to the raising of their children. Industrialization, coupled with the development of the public school system, meant that women had less duties at home. They were no longer required to produce everything the household needed and educate the children. As a result, women began to receive an education, and with that growing education came an awareness of their status as second-class citizens.
The original feminist movement, the suffragette movement of the late 19th and early 20th century, was, I believe, based not so much on envy or jealousy, but on righteous outrage in the face of a clear injustice. As barriers fell, and women proved themselves to be just as intelligent and capable of men, given the opportunity to do so, it came as a natural consequence that they would be given the right to vote.
The 1960's saw a resurgence of the feminist movement. African Americans stood up to the continued injustices inflicted upon them 100 years after their supposed freeing of slavery, and women joined their ranks to press for the removal of institutional biases against them. Again, this is not envy, but a reaction to oppression of a historically underprivileged group of people by the (predominantly white male) group that was in power.
And so we come to the feminism today. It is, I think, hard to truly define what "feminism" means, as it has blossomed into a very wide-ranging movement, fighting, among other things, against workplace discrimination against women, sexual assault and harassment of women, discrimination against minorities (and minority women in particular), discrimination against homosexuals, etc. The key here is that it the fight has its same roots -- to win for an underprivileged group of people the right of equal access to resources (government involvement, education, etc) so that these groups are given equal opportunity to succeed.
To end with a question: In what ways might questions of civil rights be questions of envy or jealousy, and are these legitimate positions to put forward?
Government and Egalitarianism
Joel asked: "can government exist in an egalitarian society?"
Government can absolutely exist in an egalitarian society, though it would likely be quite different from the current government we have. It would be, I suspect, much closer to a true democracy.
How would such a government work? It may well be rather like the minimalist government that the libertarians seem so fond of envisioning. In an ideal egalitarian society (and please bear with me, as an ideal can form a starting point and give us direction to real world applications), the people governed would gather whenever the situation required, and debate until a consensus was formed about how to best address a particular issue. Compromise has, of course, never been a particular strong suit of humanity, but it is necessary for our species to learn such if we ever want to have a truly egalitarian society.
In this theoretical egalitarian society, "government" involvement would be minimal. There would be little need for a government outside of maintaining fair relationships between communities, and perhaps some minimal amount of law enforcement for grievous offenses. Beyond this, the community would be more or less self-sufficient, producing what it can, trading for what it needs but cannot produce, itself. Such would necessitate a move toward communal thinking versus individualism, a shift from our Western mindset towards a more "primitive" way of thinking that puts value on the survival of the community as a whole over any particular individual. This does not negate the value of the individual. It simply relegates the individual to one part of an interconnected whole, performing a valuable service for the community in return for the mutual support of the community.
Given this theoretical model, what aspects of it may be applicable to the "real world," and how might we go about instituting them?
Government can absolutely exist in an egalitarian society, though it would likely be quite different from the current government we have. It would be, I suspect, much closer to a true democracy.
How would such a government work? It may well be rather like the minimalist government that the libertarians seem so fond of envisioning. In an ideal egalitarian society (and please bear with me, as an ideal can form a starting point and give us direction to real world applications), the people governed would gather whenever the situation required, and debate until a consensus was formed about how to best address a particular issue. Compromise has, of course, never been a particular strong suit of humanity, but it is necessary for our species to learn such if we ever want to have a truly egalitarian society.
In this theoretical egalitarian society, "government" involvement would be minimal. There would be little need for a government outside of maintaining fair relationships between communities, and perhaps some minimal amount of law enforcement for grievous offenses. Beyond this, the community would be more or less self-sufficient, producing what it can, trading for what it needs but cannot produce, itself. Such would necessitate a move toward communal thinking versus individualism, a shift from our Western mindset towards a more "primitive" way of thinking that puts value on the survival of the community as a whole over any particular individual. This does not negate the value of the individual. It simply relegates the individual to one part of an interconnected whole, performing a valuable service for the community in return for the mutual support of the community.
Given this theoretical model, what aspects of it may be applicable to the "real world," and how might we go about instituting them?
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Some Light Reading
As promised, here are the links I mentioned in class. First, a possible moral argument for providing meat to children: http://www.healthylivingnyc.com/article/117
Second, a link exploring the pros and cons of meat in terms of health: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/is-meat-good-or-bad-for-us-425192.html
Finally, an article on the evolution of our diet: http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes/conferences/wburg/posters/sboydeaton/eaton.htm (I'm not sure how relevant this might be, but it is an interesting read, to be sure, once you've spent a bit of time translating the scientific terms.)
Second, a link exploring the pros and cons of meat in terms of health: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/is-meat-good-or-bad-for-us-425192.html
Finally, an article on the evolution of our diet: http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes/conferences/wburg/posters/sboydeaton/eaton.htm (I'm not sure how relevant this might be, but it is an interesting read, to be sure, once you've spent a bit of time translating the scientific terms.)
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
On Oppression (of Animals)
Emily asked: "Why do so many people only care about the issues of one oppressed group, instead of all of them?"
There is a simple answer to this question. To put it bluntly: if you try to do everything, you will accomplish nothing. It is far more efficient to work on one thing at a time, rather than to work at everything all at once. Hence, we have separate groups (and separate battles) to combat racism, sexism, classism, etc. I do have to question, however, whether "speciesism" is a legitimate form of oppression that needs to be addressed.
Humans certainly have a preference for their (our) own species. This is, I think, morally justifiable. We, unlike every other species, have developed highly complex languages, social structures, tools, systems of knowledge, etc, etc, etc. We have tamed the earth, fought the elements, and against all odds, we have come to dominate the earth. We alone are rational beings, we alone are moral beings, we alone rule this planet. And we have not been entirely unjust to other species. Cats, dogs, and horses have gotten a pretty nice deal -- medical care, food, comfortable shelter, companionship, all at the price of merely providing some entertainment and companionship to their human masters. How evil is that?
Have we made mistakes? Naturally. We are only human. We are not gods (though we come closer to this status every day). But, we can improve. Just because we have done cruel things to the animals we eat does not mean we must therefore swear off meat entirely. We can change our systems, put tight regulations on the meat industry, and boycott the industry if they refuse to acquiesce. But should we fundamentally change our relationship with animals as masters? I think not.
To end with a question: Considering the relative fluidity of moral values, what is the purpose of trying to argue against meat from a moral perspective?
There is a simple answer to this question. To put it bluntly: if you try to do everything, you will accomplish nothing. It is far more efficient to work on one thing at a time, rather than to work at everything all at once. Hence, we have separate groups (and separate battles) to combat racism, sexism, classism, etc. I do have to question, however, whether "speciesism" is a legitimate form of oppression that needs to be addressed.
Humans certainly have a preference for their (our) own species. This is, I think, morally justifiable. We, unlike every other species, have developed highly complex languages, social structures, tools, systems of knowledge, etc, etc, etc. We have tamed the earth, fought the elements, and against all odds, we have come to dominate the earth. We alone are rational beings, we alone are moral beings, we alone rule this planet. And we have not been entirely unjust to other species. Cats, dogs, and horses have gotten a pretty nice deal -- medical care, food, comfortable shelter, companionship, all at the price of merely providing some entertainment and companionship to their human masters. How evil is that?
Have we made mistakes? Naturally. We are only human. We are not gods (though we come closer to this status every day). But, we can improve. Just because we have done cruel things to the animals we eat does not mean we must therefore swear off meat entirely. We can change our systems, put tight regulations on the meat industry, and boycott the industry if they refuse to acquiesce. But should we fundamentally change our relationship with animals as masters? I think not.
To end with a question: Considering the relative fluidity of moral values, what is the purpose of trying to argue against meat from a moral perspective?
Monday, March 8, 2010
The Executive Coup Against the Constitution
http://www.grittv.org/2010/03/05/the-most-dangerous-man-in-america/
This video lays out a wonderful explanation of what essentially is the situation we find ourselves in now -- an executive branch given virtually-monarchical powers to run and expand the American Empire, rubber-stamped by a complacent and corrupt congress, and supported by the courts.
To end with a question: What are your thoughts on the policies of the last eight years? Was it an executive coup against the constitution, as Mr. Ellsberg suggests, or perhaps something else?
This video lays out a wonderful explanation of what essentially is the situation we find ourselves in now -- an executive branch given virtually-monarchical powers to run and expand the American Empire, rubber-stamped by a complacent and corrupt congress, and supported by the courts.
To end with a question: What are your thoughts on the policies of the last eight years? Was it an executive coup against the constitution, as Mr. Ellsberg suggests, or perhaps something else?
Sunday, March 7, 2010
The Meaning of Life (For Animals)
Becky asked, "what is the meaning of live for animals?"
I think this is the wrong question to ask. It's a very anthropocentric question, tied in to our species' fetish for having meaning and purpose. If something has no meaning or purpose, then it is useless. The question of the meaning of life may have some bearing on humans, who have the ability to understand and contemplate such things, but it is inappropriate to ask of animals.
Take, for example, cows. They eat grass. All day. (How this is a sad truth is beyond me.) What is the meaning of their lives? Simply, to exist. Do animals really need a meaning beyond that? Is an animal's life unfulfilled if it does not live up to some sort of "meaning?" I do not think so. Survival and perpetuation of the species. That is the purpose of an animal. But to try to apply some romanticized, human notion of a meaning of life is absurd.
Perhaps cows are not the best example, then. Let us look at wolves. Wolves have a sort of basic society. The pack is led by the alphas, who get first pick of the food, and prioritized breeding. The rest of the pack is subordinate to the alphas, who attain their position by means of their being the biggest, strongest animals in the pack. In a way, they are not all that unlike primitive human society. So what is the meaning of life for these animals? The same as the cows above -- to exist, to survive and perpetuate their species. They certainly have more complex mechanisms to do so than cows, but that does not change their basic nature.
To end with an (unrelated) question: Is "meaning" a necessity for life?
I think this is the wrong question to ask. It's a very anthropocentric question, tied in to our species' fetish for having meaning and purpose. If something has no meaning or purpose, then it is useless. The question of the meaning of life may have some bearing on humans, who have the ability to understand and contemplate such things, but it is inappropriate to ask of animals.
Take, for example, cows. They eat grass. All day. (How this is a sad truth is beyond me.) What is the meaning of their lives? Simply, to exist. Do animals really need a meaning beyond that? Is an animal's life unfulfilled if it does not live up to some sort of "meaning?" I do not think so. Survival and perpetuation of the species. That is the purpose of an animal. But to try to apply some romanticized, human notion of a meaning of life is absurd.
Perhaps cows are not the best example, then. Let us look at wolves. Wolves have a sort of basic society. The pack is led by the alphas, who get first pick of the food, and prioritized breeding. The rest of the pack is subordinate to the alphas, who attain their position by means of their being the biggest, strongest animals in the pack. In a way, they are not all that unlike primitive human society. So what is the meaning of life for these animals? The same as the cows above -- to exist, to survive and perpetuate their species. They certainly have more complex mechanisms to do so than cows, but that does not change their basic nature.
To end with an (unrelated) question: Is "meaning" a necessity for life?
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Animals as Pets (and Food)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/dining/03rabbit.html
I stumbled across this article on the New York Times this evening. Since we are currently discussing the morality of eating meat, I thought this was highly appropriate (and the timing couldn't be better).
The article, in brief, touches on the history of using rabbits as a source of food. While they are generally considered a food source of last resort (except among the French), there has apparently been a recent surge in interest in the animals as food, particularly among those who may not have the room to raise other livestock animals, such as those living in the suburbs.
It does touch on an interesting bit of history. As stated in the article: "Ever since the Victorians began keeping them as pets, the relationship between the rabbit and the table has been uneasy."
It is interesting to consider the view of animals as pets that makes viewing them as food uneasy. To throw in another example (unrelated to the above article), in some Asian cultures (China most famously), dogs are cooked and eaten, a practice that many (primarily Westerners) view as cruel and inhumane.
So I pose to all of you a question: Why is it that, once we consider an animal a pet (a creature whose sole purpose is enslavement by our species for, primarily, our own amusement), that we become uneasy at the thought of using that animal as a source of food?
I stumbled across this article on the New York Times this evening. Since we are currently discussing the morality of eating meat, I thought this was highly appropriate (and the timing couldn't be better).
The article, in brief, touches on the history of using rabbits as a source of food. While they are generally considered a food source of last resort (except among the French), there has apparently been a recent surge in interest in the animals as food, particularly among those who may not have the room to raise other livestock animals, such as those living in the suburbs.
It does touch on an interesting bit of history. As stated in the article: "Ever since the Victorians began keeping them as pets, the relationship between the rabbit and the table has been uneasy."
It is interesting to consider the view of animals as pets that makes viewing them as food uneasy. To throw in another example (unrelated to the above article), in some Asian cultures (China most famously), dogs are cooked and eaten, a practice that many (primarily Westerners) view as cruel and inhumane.
So I pose to all of you a question: Why is it that, once we consider an animal a pet (a creature whose sole purpose is enslavement by our species for, primarily, our own amusement), that we become uneasy at the thought of using that animal as a source of food?
Sunday, February 28, 2010
On Rebels, Rebellion, and Patriotism
To preface this post, I consider myself a patriot of a particular kind, so it may be worthwhile to take everything I say with a grain of salt.
It is my view that the rebel is often the sincerest patriot. The rebel often has a vision for the country -- of what it is, of what it could be, and a willingness to do whatever it takes to push the country to live up to its true potential. The rebel is the person with the fortitude, the courage, and the conviction to not only stand up for his or her vision of the country, but take action, regardless of the hardship, to make that vision a reality. It is a nobility that is sorely lacking in American society today.
What, then, is patriotism, if its truest manifestation is in the rebel? Patriotism, then, is twofold. The first aspect is having a vision for the country -- an ideal version of the country that is equitable for all people involved. It is an unfortunate fact that this vision can be mistaken -- blinded by a particular ideaology or other firmly held belief that is neither based on reason, nor truly in the best interest of the country -- but those who hold such deeply flawed views can be at best a false patriot, and at worst a true danger to the real patriot, a person who is so blinded by their own perceived moral superiority that it is the obligation of the true patriot to reveal the true intentions of such person and work as hard as they can to ensure the security of the freedoms of the people against such scoundrels and charlatans.
The second, far more important aspect, is that patriotism is part of a relationship. The patriot only supports one's country as far as that country supports the patriot. When the government of the country does not meet the needs of the people, it is the responsibility, nay, the OBLIGATION of the patriot to work to correct that injustice. All potential avenues to right this injustice must be explored, and if it is found to be irreconcilable, the patriot has a duty to either out the current government by political means (voting in a new government), or by violent means (casting aside the shackles of the old regime by force to institute a new, more equitable government).
I'll throw in a few quotes, then leave this to the hounds for critique.
"A little rebellion now and then... is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government." -- Thomas Jefferson, rebel and politician
"Intelligent discontent is the mainspring of civilization. Progress is born of agitation. It is agitation or stagnation." -- Eugene V. Debs, labor activist and socialist
"No matter that patriotism is too often the refuge of scoundrels. Dissent, rebellion, and all-around hell-raising remain the true duty of patriots." -- Barbara Ehrenreich, author, activist, and Democratic Socialist
"The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never allow us to bring about genuine change." -- Audre Lorde, poet and political activist
To end with a question: How might we distinguish the true patriots from those who simply spread hatred, fear, and/or indifference in the name of patriotism?
It is my view that the rebel is often the sincerest patriot. The rebel often has a vision for the country -- of what it is, of what it could be, and a willingness to do whatever it takes to push the country to live up to its true potential. The rebel is the person with the fortitude, the courage, and the conviction to not only stand up for his or her vision of the country, but take action, regardless of the hardship, to make that vision a reality. It is a nobility that is sorely lacking in American society today.
What, then, is patriotism, if its truest manifestation is in the rebel? Patriotism, then, is twofold. The first aspect is having a vision for the country -- an ideal version of the country that is equitable for all people involved. It is an unfortunate fact that this vision can be mistaken -- blinded by a particular ideaology or other firmly held belief that is neither based on reason, nor truly in the best interest of the country -- but those who hold such deeply flawed views can be at best a false patriot, and at worst a true danger to the real patriot, a person who is so blinded by their own perceived moral superiority that it is the obligation of the true patriot to reveal the true intentions of such person and work as hard as they can to ensure the security of the freedoms of the people against such scoundrels and charlatans.
The second, far more important aspect, is that patriotism is part of a relationship. The patriot only supports one's country as far as that country supports the patriot. When the government of the country does not meet the needs of the people, it is the responsibility, nay, the OBLIGATION of the patriot to work to correct that injustice. All potential avenues to right this injustice must be explored, and if it is found to be irreconcilable, the patriot has a duty to either out the current government by political means (voting in a new government), or by violent means (casting aside the shackles of the old regime by force to institute a new, more equitable government).
I'll throw in a few quotes, then leave this to the hounds for critique.
"A little rebellion now and then... is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government." -- Thomas Jefferson, rebel and politician
"Intelligent discontent is the mainspring of civilization. Progress is born of agitation. It is agitation or stagnation." -- Eugene V. Debs, labor activist and socialist
"No matter that patriotism is too often the refuge of scoundrels. Dissent, rebellion, and all-around hell-raising remain the true duty of patriots." -- Barbara Ehrenreich, author, activist, and Democratic Socialist
"The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never allow us to bring about genuine change." -- Audre Lorde, poet and political activist
To end with a question: How might we distinguish the true patriots from those who simply spread hatred, fear, and/or indifference in the name of patriotism?
A Response to "The Easy Way Out"
Sarah asked: "If there is such a need for shortcuts in society, how can we help allievate them? Are there any other things in our life that are decreasing our quality of health because of these shortcuts?"
I think one of the fundamental problems our society has that makes these sorts of short-cuts so tempting is the heavy emphasis we put on high productivity. We only have so much time in our days, so we, as a culture, want to get as much done as possible, lest we be seen as lazy and weak. This makes all sorts of short-cuts tempting to increase efficiency. Why sit at home and make yourself a nice, healthy breakfast when you can just drive through McDonald's and get a breakfast sandwich and a coffee? Why go to a library and read a book when you're a few clicks away to a summary of it on the internet? You can get more done by multitasking, or using these short cuts, and this is (wrongly, in my view) seen as virtuous.
These sorts of short-cuts, these easy ways out, are ultimately cheapening the value of our time and of our existence as human beings, and there are no quick or easy solutions to it. Nothing short of a major cultural shift will help to alleviate this powerful desire for ultra-efficiency, and as we have seen in our own society, it's usually the wealthy, the powerful and privileged individuals, who get to drive the cultural shift (there are too many examples to count on this -- heavy deregulation of industry, the Christian Right's take-over of conservatism, the Supreme Court ruling that corporations are people).
The only way to overcome these forces is to try to bring about a cultural shift in the opposite direction -- perhaps a campaign of civil disobedience, organized resistance to the unjust laws spewing forth from Congress and the Supreme Court, peaceful protests, sit-ins, strikes, and boycotts of corporations that violate international law and buy politicians to bend over to their will. Though I still insist that the option of armed resistance remain on the table -- as written in the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." (Emphasis added)
Given the great many factors that would stand in opposition to such a grass-roots attempt at shifting the "mainstream" cultural values, and the general spirit of ignorance and complacency that has descended upon America and (most) Americans, while there is certainly virtue and value in attempting to resist these sorts of cultural forces, for any sort of campaign of this nature to be effective, it must be on a massive scale. I must admit, I have little hope of such a shift occurring until the number of people bracketed out of the system, alienated, used, abused, and ultimately cast aside by the corporations, becomes so great that the people have no choice but to rebel. For it is the poor who have nothing to lose (save their lives) and everything to gain (most importantly their dignity) from a revolution.
To end with a question: Given the cultural factors that push so many people in to these sorts of shortcuts, how likely is it that we, as a culture, will be able to overcome these forces before we have damaged the earth, and our government, beyond repair?
I think one of the fundamental problems our society has that makes these sorts of short-cuts so tempting is the heavy emphasis we put on high productivity. We only have so much time in our days, so we, as a culture, want to get as much done as possible, lest we be seen as lazy and weak. This makes all sorts of short-cuts tempting to increase efficiency. Why sit at home and make yourself a nice, healthy breakfast when you can just drive through McDonald's and get a breakfast sandwich and a coffee? Why go to a library and read a book when you're a few clicks away to a summary of it on the internet? You can get more done by multitasking, or using these short cuts, and this is (wrongly, in my view) seen as virtuous.
These sorts of short-cuts, these easy ways out, are ultimately cheapening the value of our time and of our existence as human beings, and there are no quick or easy solutions to it. Nothing short of a major cultural shift will help to alleviate this powerful desire for ultra-efficiency, and as we have seen in our own society, it's usually the wealthy, the powerful and privileged individuals, who get to drive the cultural shift (there are too many examples to count on this -- heavy deregulation of industry, the Christian Right's take-over of conservatism, the Supreme Court ruling that corporations are people).
The only way to overcome these forces is to try to bring about a cultural shift in the opposite direction -- perhaps a campaign of civil disobedience, organized resistance to the unjust laws spewing forth from Congress and the Supreme Court, peaceful protests, sit-ins, strikes, and boycotts of corporations that violate international law and buy politicians to bend over to their will. Though I still insist that the option of armed resistance remain on the table -- as written in the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." (Emphasis added)
Given the great many factors that would stand in opposition to such a grass-roots attempt at shifting the "mainstream" cultural values, and the general spirit of ignorance and complacency that has descended upon America and (most) Americans, while there is certainly virtue and value in attempting to resist these sorts of cultural forces, for any sort of campaign of this nature to be effective, it must be on a massive scale. I must admit, I have little hope of such a shift occurring until the number of people bracketed out of the system, alienated, used, abused, and ultimately cast aside by the corporations, becomes so great that the people have no choice but to rebel. For it is the poor who have nothing to lose (save their lives) and everything to gain (most importantly their dignity) from a revolution.
To end with a question: Given the cultural factors that push so many people in to these sorts of shortcuts, how likely is it that we, as a culture, will be able to overcome these forces before we have damaged the earth, and our government, beyond repair?
Sunday, February 21, 2010
On the Morality of Revolution
I shall, in this post, put forward a radical proposition for the critique of my peers. Specifically, that a violent revolution is both a morally justified cause, and a necessity for the continued viability of the United States.
Why would a violent revolution ever be a morally justified cause? This is simple: there are times when government gets to the point that it is so corrupt, and the corruption is so ingrained into the system, that the only way to repair the damage is to dissolve the current government by means of force. There is a long history of violent rebellions against corrupt governments. Indeed, this very nation is the product of a violent rebellion. Revolution has long been the only choice left to people so oppressed by their governments that only by arms could the people seek to rectify the various injustices hefted upon them by their own government.
And what of the idea of revolution being our only choice? Like in Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, the British Empire, the Soviet Union, and countless others, corruption has become ingrained into the very political system. Politics have become less about what is beneficial to the people and more about creating cults of personality around leaders, and a competition between liberals and conservatives to paint each other as the source of all the people's ills, even as politicians of both sides play the system and deny the people basic rights, such as health care, a decent living wage, and access to education, rights that other industrialized democracies (notably in Western and Northern Europe) recognized decades ago.
The system, as it currently exists, forces corruption. There is no way to get anywhere in the system without playing by their rules. It silences and marginalizes all opposition as "unpatriotic," "unAmerican." It has divided this country, and seeks to suck its very lifeblood out of the masses of people, for the benefit of the super-rich. It is unheeding of the will of the people, and must therefore be dissolved and replaced with a government that is responsive to the needs of the people, and works for the benefit of the governed, NOT the governors.
To end with a question: Is this idea, the idea of a violent revolution, morally justifiable? Or is it the choice of disillusioned and possibly delusional radicals, an option best left aside and never touched?
Why would a violent revolution ever be a morally justified cause? This is simple: there are times when government gets to the point that it is so corrupt, and the corruption is so ingrained into the system, that the only way to repair the damage is to dissolve the current government by means of force. There is a long history of violent rebellions against corrupt governments. Indeed, this very nation is the product of a violent rebellion. Revolution has long been the only choice left to people so oppressed by their governments that only by arms could the people seek to rectify the various injustices hefted upon them by their own government.
And what of the idea of revolution being our only choice? Like in Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, the British Empire, the Soviet Union, and countless others, corruption has become ingrained into the very political system. Politics have become less about what is beneficial to the people and more about creating cults of personality around leaders, and a competition between liberals and conservatives to paint each other as the source of all the people's ills, even as politicians of both sides play the system and deny the people basic rights, such as health care, a decent living wage, and access to education, rights that other industrialized democracies (notably in Western and Northern Europe) recognized decades ago.
The system, as it currently exists, forces corruption. There is no way to get anywhere in the system without playing by their rules. It silences and marginalizes all opposition as "unpatriotic," "unAmerican." It has divided this country, and seeks to suck its very lifeblood out of the masses of people, for the benefit of the super-rich. It is unheeding of the will of the people, and must therefore be dissolved and replaced with a government that is responsive to the needs of the people, and works for the benefit of the governed, NOT the governors.
To end with a question: Is this idea, the idea of a violent revolution, morally justifiable? Or is it the choice of disillusioned and possibly delusional radicals, an option best left aside and never touched?
Supernaturalism and Morality
Shelby asked: "As Emily, and Professor Johnson, and Aristotle mentioned, sources of morality are never empirical. Therefore, aren't all of our world-views somewhat supernatural?"
I do not think this is the case. As I mentioned in class, it is very easy to argue that morality can in fact have an empirical basis. We consider murder to be wrong because we do not want a stranger to walk up to us and kill us. We consider lying to be wrong because, in order to make informed, rational decisions, we need to have accurate data, and lies give us incomplete or false data, and thus hinder our ability to make rational decisions. Even a pro-life versus pro-choice stance in terms of the abortion issue can have an empirical basis. Do we consider the fetus itself to be a new life? It's living tissue, to be sure, and genetically unique, but is it a human until it can survive on its own? That question could go either way, and there's certainly scientific evidence that could be drawn for both camps.
While I am drawing on examples, they illustrate a key point: morality can, in fact, have a purely naturalistic basis. This is not meant to imply that they DO, but it merely makes the case that it CAN, and that both naturalists and supernaturalists can have the same moral principles, and merely draw from a different body of evidence to back them up.
To end with a question: Can there be such a thing as a universal moral principle?
I do not think this is the case. As I mentioned in class, it is very easy to argue that morality can in fact have an empirical basis. We consider murder to be wrong because we do not want a stranger to walk up to us and kill us. We consider lying to be wrong because, in order to make informed, rational decisions, we need to have accurate data, and lies give us incomplete or false data, and thus hinder our ability to make rational decisions. Even a pro-life versus pro-choice stance in terms of the abortion issue can have an empirical basis. Do we consider the fetus itself to be a new life? It's living tissue, to be sure, and genetically unique, but is it a human until it can survive on its own? That question could go either way, and there's certainly scientific evidence that could be drawn for both camps.
While I am drawing on examples, they illustrate a key point: morality can, in fact, have a purely naturalistic basis. This is not meant to imply that they DO, but it merely makes the case that it CAN, and that both naturalists and supernaturalists can have the same moral principles, and merely draw from a different body of evidence to back them up.
To end with a question: Can there be such a thing as a universal moral principle?
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
In Defense of Idealism
In the Philosophy Toolkit, the claim is put forward that, in the debate of realism vs idealism, "the burden of proof rests with idealism." I would therefore like to begin a defense of idealism.
What is idealism? I think the debate might have been misframed in the toolkit. Idealists would not "outright reject the notion that we can know something about a world external to our own minds." Well, perhaps some would, but certainly not ALL. Idealism, as I understand it (and it may be wrong) would simply be the concept that there is some spiritual or otherwise otherworldly force that guides the world we know, be it a God, an all-consuming consciousness, or even a world of forms, as Plato suggested.
It would seem to me that idealism serves as a necessary counterbalance to claims of realists. Idealism gives us a necessary feeling of purpose, a reason to suppose that perhaps there is some larger guiding principle to our lives, be it a God or a collective unconscious that connects us in ways that we may not ever be consciously aware of. Realistic examination of the world can explain HOW it works, but it cannot offer an answer to WHY. Idealism serves this purpose.
Perhaps the greatest advantage to idealism is that it can serve as a guide to realism. With an ideal form, an ideal system of government, we can take the ideal and attempt to implement what we can in the real world. And would it not be just a tad idealistic to purpose theories on how the world functions, even if we then temper these ideas with comparisons to the real world?
Further, the claim that "common sense ... favor[s] a fallibilist version of realism" is, I think, an extremely tenuous claim. The very concept of "common sense" is steeped in sociocultural understandings that render the term practically useless in philosophical debate. What may be "common sense" to one philosopher may be utter rubbish to another. The claim would seem to only support a further implication of the weakness of idealism without any sort of substance to be made for the claim.
To end with a question: can the debate between two seemingly contradictory concepts, like realism vs idealism, ever be brought to a definitive victory for one side?
What is idealism? I think the debate might have been misframed in the toolkit. Idealists would not "outright reject the notion that we can know something about a world external to our own minds." Well, perhaps some would, but certainly not ALL. Idealism, as I understand it (and it may be wrong) would simply be the concept that there is some spiritual or otherwise otherworldly force that guides the world we know, be it a God, an all-consuming consciousness, or even a world of forms, as Plato suggested.
It would seem to me that idealism serves as a necessary counterbalance to claims of realists. Idealism gives us a necessary feeling of purpose, a reason to suppose that perhaps there is some larger guiding principle to our lives, be it a God or a collective unconscious that connects us in ways that we may not ever be consciously aware of. Realistic examination of the world can explain HOW it works, but it cannot offer an answer to WHY. Idealism serves this purpose.
Perhaps the greatest advantage to idealism is that it can serve as a guide to realism. With an ideal form, an ideal system of government, we can take the ideal and attempt to implement what we can in the real world. And would it not be just a tad idealistic to purpose theories on how the world functions, even if we then temper these ideas with comparisons to the real world?
Further, the claim that "common sense ... favor[s] a fallibilist version of realism" is, I think, an extremely tenuous claim. The very concept of "common sense" is steeped in sociocultural understandings that render the term practically useless in philosophical debate. What may be "common sense" to one philosopher may be utter rubbish to another. The claim would seem to only support a further implication of the weakness of idealism without any sort of substance to be made for the claim.
To end with a question: can the debate between two seemingly contradictory concepts, like realism vs idealism, ever be brought to a definitive victory for one side?
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Is Beauty Skin Deep?
Michelle asked, "What do you think about the saying Beauty is skin deep and do you believe it?" I absolutely do not believe it.
When we say that "beauty is skin deep," we are usually referring to someone's outward appearance, and silently judging them. Implicit in the claim that beauty is skin deep is a critique: "this person spends all their time looking good, so they must be stupid, or shallow, or lack *insert character trait that I clearly possess*." It is a defense mechanism, and it confuses what beauty truly means.
True beauty is about more than outward appearances. If it were not, we could not say that a novel, a poem, a figure of speech, a song, is beautiful. We clearly say that all of these can be beautiful, and thus beauty must mean more than simply outward appearances. In my humble estimation, true beauty, at least in terms of the evaluation of other humans, comes not from their outward appearance, but their inward experience. Beauty is not in the clothes that we wear, but in the things that we do, the way we feel, the way we act, the way we treat others. THAT is true beauty. It comes from those traits, as mentioned in my previous post, that speak to us in some way, and fill us with the joy and pleasure that we get from no other experience.
To end with a question: Is this a legitimate view on the nature of (human) beauty, or is it an overly-romanticized view on the subject that disconnects from reality?
When we say that "beauty is skin deep," we are usually referring to someone's outward appearance, and silently judging them. Implicit in the claim that beauty is skin deep is a critique: "this person spends all their time looking good, so they must be stupid, or shallow, or lack *insert character trait that I clearly possess*." It is a defense mechanism, and it confuses what beauty truly means.
True beauty is about more than outward appearances. If it were not, we could not say that a novel, a poem, a figure of speech, a song, is beautiful. We clearly say that all of these can be beautiful, and thus beauty must mean more than simply outward appearances. In my humble estimation, true beauty, at least in terms of the evaluation of other humans, comes not from their outward appearance, but their inward experience. Beauty is not in the clothes that we wear, but in the things that we do, the way we feel, the way we act, the way we treat others. THAT is true beauty. It comes from those traits, as mentioned in my previous post, that speak to us in some way, and fill us with the joy and pleasure that we get from no other experience.
To end with a question: Is this a legitimate view on the nature of (human) beauty, or is it an overly-romanticized view on the subject that disconnects from reality?
Beauty and the Aesthetic
Beauty has often been a hotly debated topic in philosophical discussions. What is the nature of beauty? How does it relate to the aesthetics? Does it all simply come down to taste? I would like to put forward the radical proposition that there are, in fact, objective standards of beauty, and that these standards are closely related to our aesthetic understanding.
First, what do I mean by the aesthetic understanding? No, I am not referring to Roger Scruton's book in any way. Rather, I refer to that emotion that we feel when we are presented with something we consider beautiful, that feeling of pleasure at the work, be it a song, a good book, a painting, or a sunset. I hate to use the term aesthetic emotion, but I feel it serves well here, as, unlike Bell, I am not suggesting that only certain "sensitive people" experience this emotion, but rather that it is a human universal, even if we do not have the precise words to describe it. It is a term of convenience to compensate for our language's lack.
What, then, are these standards of beauty? I could hardly dare to venture into such a topic in a mere blog post and with such a feeble mind as my own, though I shall attempt to find a starting point. Beauty is a trait of an object, be it sensory (as in auditory or visual) or mental (such as comes from reading a book), that connects with the viewer in some way. It is at once a universal and deeply personal experience, combining our individual likes and dislikes (inherent character traits) with our life experiences (learned character traits).
This may not, at first glance, seem to be a universal definition, as it does not point to any specific quality in a thing that makes it beautiful. But I believe it is the only FAIR way to account for beauty in a way that does not discount the individual, that allows two different people to see an object, and for one to say it is beautiful, and the other to say it is not (which is, itself, I believe, an incorrect usage. We SAY something IS beautiful, when what we really mean is that something is beautiful TO ME, this is beautiful according to MY perceptions and MY experience.). It is up to the individual, then, to define what these aspects may be. Or, to put it another way... beauty truly IS in the eye of the beholder.
To end with a question: Is it possible for a term, such as beauty, to have a definition that is both universal and subjective, as I have attempted to show?
First, what do I mean by the aesthetic understanding? No, I am not referring to Roger Scruton's book in any way. Rather, I refer to that emotion that we feel when we are presented with something we consider beautiful, that feeling of pleasure at the work, be it a song, a good book, a painting, or a sunset. I hate to use the term aesthetic emotion, but I feel it serves well here, as, unlike Bell, I am not suggesting that only certain "sensitive people" experience this emotion, but rather that it is a human universal, even if we do not have the precise words to describe it. It is a term of convenience to compensate for our language's lack.
What, then, are these standards of beauty? I could hardly dare to venture into such a topic in a mere blog post and with such a feeble mind as my own, though I shall attempt to find a starting point. Beauty is a trait of an object, be it sensory (as in auditory or visual) or mental (such as comes from reading a book), that connects with the viewer in some way. It is at once a universal and deeply personal experience, combining our individual likes and dislikes (inherent character traits) with our life experiences (learned character traits).
This may not, at first glance, seem to be a universal definition, as it does not point to any specific quality in a thing that makes it beautiful. But I believe it is the only FAIR way to account for beauty in a way that does not discount the individual, that allows two different people to see an object, and for one to say it is beautiful, and the other to say it is not (which is, itself, I believe, an incorrect usage. We SAY something IS beautiful, when what we really mean is that something is beautiful TO ME, this is beautiful according to MY perceptions and MY experience.). It is up to the individual, then, to define what these aspects may be. Or, to put it another way... beauty truly IS in the eye of the beholder.
To end with a question: Is it possible for a term, such as beauty, to have a definition that is both universal and subjective, as I have attempted to show?
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
The Nature of the War on Terror
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/its-the-economy-undergraduate/
I read this article today, and found it rather disheartening. Perhaps I hold a personal bias, knowing not one, but two men who, in a few short months, will be deployed to these wars that have seemed to have dropped completely from our radar as we stress over the economy and health care reform. It is not that these domestic causes are unworthy of our attention. It is merely that we forget that we are at war at our peril.
I won't be counting this as an official blog post for the week, though I will end with a question: how often do you, personally, think about, or talk about, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and should we be having a louder, bigger public dialogue about them?
I read this article today, and found it rather disheartening. Perhaps I hold a personal bias, knowing not one, but two men who, in a few short months, will be deployed to these wars that have seemed to have dropped completely from our radar as we stress over the economy and health care reform. It is not that these domestic causes are unworthy of our attention. It is merely that we forget that we are at war at our peril.
I won't be counting this as an official blog post for the week, though I will end with a question: how often do you, personally, think about, or talk about, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and should we be having a louder, bigger public dialogue about them?
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Moral Implications of the Sheep and the Wolf
I saw this video yesterday, and decided, after watching it about a dozen times, to briefly examine the moral ambiguities present in the video.
At first, it seems to be more or less black and white (chuckle chuckle) -- the wolf and sheep, classic tropes in fairy tales, the wolf, in this case, seducing the sheep. The wolf sharpens his teeth, the clerk glares at the couple as they head to their room. Towards the end, the wolf licks his lips as he looks at the babies he made with the sheep (odd that they're mostly sheep if the wolf is the father, but I won't go in to that here), and even in the picture on the dresser, the wolf is looking at other women.
But it is not as simple as that. The sheep also apparently slept with the donkey, and at the end, she smiles at the wolf even as he aims a shotgun at her. The wolf is unable to fire.
It brings up many questions. Was the wolf really evil, or was he simply being himself? Was his miscast as the seducer and cheater, or was it his own love that was pure and finds him unable to shoot the sheep who had hurt him so? Was the sheep merely an innocent victim, or a cruel seductress who took advantage of the wolf's feelings, feelings only she saw? I cannot say for sure. What do you think?
Who is the villian: the sheep, or the wolf? Or can we even make that distinction?
Saturday, January 30, 2010
What is Real/True? A Response
In her post, Emily explored the "reality" of math and science. I would like to illustrate the construction of these fields.
1+2=3. 4x5=20. 8-5=3. 0+1=1 These statements are mathematical facts, but they have no inherent meaning outside of the meaning that we construct for the numbers. The very concept of 0 was a construction that took mathematicians hundreds of years to create. Indeed, even simple maths, not even moving into advanced mathematical theories, have a very heavy base in human construction and human reason. Much of today's cutting edge math, as well as its applications, are human constructions (including the math at work bringing us this forum of discussion, the internet).
Science becomes a bit more blurry. In one sense, it could be called discovery. After all, it is an exploration of how the world functions. However, our collected knowledge, the language we use to share it and describe it, is itself a human construction. In fact, science has met with its own battles with "flawed" human intellect. For example, it was an accepted scientific fact for hundreds of years that the earth was flat, and that the sun and stars were all above our stationary earth. It is now accepted scientific fact that the earth is round and revolves around the sun.
I do not claim to be able to give a more in-depth analysis than that. I admit, I know little of advanced math or science, and the history of these fields, and someone with more knowledge than I could easily do a better job at explaining this point. I hope to merely serve as a starting point.
To end with a question: Is there any way to escape the construction of any of our systems of knowledge, be it language, history, math, or science?
1+2=3. 4x5=20. 8-5=3. 0+1=1 These statements are mathematical facts, but they have no inherent meaning outside of the meaning that we construct for the numbers. The very concept of 0 was a construction that took mathematicians hundreds of years to create. Indeed, even simple maths, not even moving into advanced mathematical theories, have a very heavy base in human construction and human reason. Much of today's cutting edge math, as well as its applications, are human constructions (including the math at work bringing us this forum of discussion, the internet).
Science becomes a bit more blurry. In one sense, it could be called discovery. After all, it is an exploration of how the world functions. However, our collected knowledge, the language we use to share it and describe it, is itself a human construction. In fact, science has met with its own battles with "flawed" human intellect. For example, it was an accepted scientific fact for hundreds of years that the earth was flat, and that the sun and stars were all above our stationary earth. It is now accepted scientific fact that the earth is round and revolves around the sun.
I do not claim to be able to give a more in-depth analysis than that. I admit, I know little of advanced math or science, and the history of these fields, and someone with more knowledge than I could easily do a better job at explaining this point. I hope to merely serve as a starting point.
To end with a question: Is there any way to escape the construction of any of our systems of knowledge, be it language, history, math, or science?
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Demonology and Coherence Theory of Truth
After Monday's class, a thought occurred to me about coherence theory of truth. Allow me to play it out in a sort of thought experiment.
Let's say I want to make a completely outlandish claim, say, for example, that I can perform magics such as summoning demons from an outer plane of existence. I can build up an entire system of theory around this that would be perfectly coherent, and has no connection to the real world (or perhaps I should say the "apparently real world"). Would this then be truth?
Perhaps I should be more clear. I could certainly create this system and then use it as the basis of, say, a fantasy story (something that is quite common in that genre). However, as this system is only workable on paper, and flies in direct contradiction to the laws and principles governing our plane of existence, it would be truth in the story, but not truth in our plane of existence.
Or would it?
This may be further complicated by possibility. Nothing can exist without the possibility of it existing. The possibility exists that I could summon a demon to do my bidding and enslave the earth, but the method by which I may do this may or may not exist in our plane of being. So is it truth, then, or fabrication?
As a final note, I will likely continue to post on my aesthetics blog as I find interesting news articles related to art (as I have today). If you have an interest, I encourage you to check it out.
Let's say I want to make a completely outlandish claim, say, for example, that I can perform magics such as summoning demons from an outer plane of existence. I can build up an entire system of theory around this that would be perfectly coherent, and has no connection to the real world (or perhaps I should say the "apparently real world"). Would this then be truth?
Perhaps I should be more clear. I could certainly create this system and then use it as the basis of, say, a fantasy story (something that is quite common in that genre). However, as this system is only workable on paper, and flies in direct contradiction to the laws and principles governing our plane of existence, it would be truth in the story, but not truth in our plane of existence.
Or would it?
This may be further complicated by possibility. Nothing can exist without the possibility of it existing. The possibility exists that I could summon a demon to do my bidding and enslave the earth, but the method by which I may do this may or may not exist in our plane of being. So is it truth, then, or fabrication?
As a final note, I will likely continue to post on my aesthetics blog as I find interesting news articles related to art (as I have today). If you have an interest, I encourage you to check it out.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Greetings, Constructing Reality
Hello, all! Unofficial first post on my Constructing Reality blog. Looking forward to diving in to the material and blogging.
I've opted to begin a fresh blog for this course. I have included a link to my blog from Art & Philosophy and Aesthetics for those who may be interested in reading through my old posts there.
Best of luck to my follow bloggers!
I've opted to begin a fresh blog for this course. I have included a link to my blog from Art & Philosophy and Aesthetics for those who may be interested in reading through my old posts there.
Best of luck to my follow bloggers!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)