tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-66260988895433209082024-02-20T02:49:28.634-08:00Michael FaulknerEssays, Thoughts and Opinions on Politics, Philosophy, Religion and Culture.Michael Faulknerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557198430260528922noreply@blogger.comBlogger73125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6626098889543320908.post-46570948725341147712010-07-04T06:28:00.000-07:002010-07-04T06:50:34.062-07:00Down is the New Up. The Wrongs of Robert Wright.A response to Robert Wright’s Op-Ed in the New York Times:The Myth of Modern Jihad<br /><br /><a href="http://nyti.ms/ckYgm2">http://nyti.ms/ckYgm2</a><br /><br /><br />This is yet another in a series of confused and naive Op-Eds on Islam from author Robert Wright. The contents of which are not entirely unexpected (see here <a href="http://www.project-reason.org/search/results/?cx=002350531269515734188%3Avmzrilofgwy&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=Robert+Wright#328">religion</a> and in particular here on <a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/the-making-of-a-terrorist/?hp">Islam</a>.) One gets the sense then that everything in Wright’s moral universe is all the opposite of what we think it is: everything is back to front; down is the new up, and black is actually white. Everything would be just fine in the world, Wright seems to think, if we all said to ourselves: “we have met the enemy and he is us<br /><br /><br />Wright, who wrote this article (The myth of modern Jihad) after reviewing the testimony of one Faisal Shahzad: an naturalised American citizen who failed to explode a bomb in Times square on May 1, 2010. Faisal, speaking in his <a href="http://www.project-reason.org/images/uploads/contest/shahzad_transcript.pdf">elocution</a> in Court this week stated that he sees no moral difference between himself and American soldiers or between military personnel and civilian bystanders in a city thousands of miles away from any battle. Rather, in his own words “they are all the same.” Presumably then, every man, woman and child who happens to hold an American or British passport is to his eyes, an open target to any Muslim, anywhere in the world. It is often said that racists and bigots discriminate. However, as Christopher Hitchens points out it is rather a failure to discriminate, to see people as individuals not as the collective swarm of ones feverish imagination. Shahzad, has relegated everyone - all non-Muslims to one monolithic enemy - the infidel, and as such they are without moral concern. Nevermind the fact that the targets of his bomb were of no direct threat to him, his family or any Muslim. Many of them no doubt, actually don’t support the war in Afghanistan, many of them we could expect are quite critical of their own governments. None of this matters however - for they are all Americans and to Shahzad and every fanatic - they are all the same, everyone deserves to be punished by bombs, packed into public places, with the intention of killing and maiming as many infidels as possible.<br /><br /><br />Shahzad was unrepentant (see the above hyperlink for his full testimony) and explicated his reasons ad nauseum. I find it fascinating, as well as disturbing that Shahzad, an American citizen, who, by his own testimony, was helped by America in his efforts to achieve a university degree, would choose to throw away his life for a conflict thousands of miles away, that except for the fact that he is a Muslim, he has no direct connection with. Despite his articulate explication; I would reserve a cautious scepticism that we may ever know precisely why he did what he did - I will venture some possibilities below; nonetheless, what we can say with almost total certainty, that if Shahzad had not happened to be brought up Muslim in the first place, he would not be spending the rest of his adult life in jail. Imagine, if he were Christian, Buddhist or even Jewish - the probability that he would run off to a foreign country to fight a war or try to blow up a bomb in a city is downright slim. Do American Zen Buddhists blow themselves up in Chinese restaurants in San Francisco over Tibet? No. Do Christians go and fight the Chinese government’s state repression of their co-religionists? No. Why then, is Islam different?<br /><br /><br />Wright meanwhile, has fallen for Shahzad’s propaganda, hook line and sinker. On the possibility that Shahzad may simply be grandstanding and attempting to appeal to the disagreements and divisions within the West over the War on Terror. It is after all, a basic strategy in conflict - divide and conquer and how does one do that - by sowing doubt, confusion and division within the enemy camp. Wright however, briefly considers this possibility, then sagely rejects it:<br /><br /><br /><em>Should we really take this testimony seriously? It does, after all, have an air of self-dramatizing grandstanding. Then again, terrorism is a self-dramatizing, grandstanding business, and there’s no reason to think this particular piece of theater isn’t true to Shahzad’s interior monologue.</em><br /><br /><br /><br />No reason? How about the fact that every major media outlet would broadcast his view; this furthermore, was his fifteen minutes - his chance to somehow justify the act by which he threw away the rest of his life. Further, did it not cross Wright’s mind that rather than being a noble defender of Muslims against the infidel, Shahzad was simply out to make a name for himself? Or, he simply enjoyed the idea of playing a solider - a mujahid? This idea is not implausible. Muslim scholar Reza Aslan in his book How to Win a Cosmic War thinks that young Muslim men become warriors for Jihad the same way middle class western children join the peace corps, or Amnesty International. Incidentally, Martin Amis suggested as much a number of years ago, that Jihad is the most attractive and seductive idea of this generation - it’s a licence to kill, it’s a mission from God, one that transforms bored young men into giants - both literally and figuratively (as Hamas propaganda grotesquely presents them.) Finally I suspect that Shahzad is telling him, and countless other left-wing writers just waiting to lap up any confirmation of their preferred narrative - whatever the source; even if it is someone who belongs to a irredentist cult of death. (See the <em>Al Qaeda Reader</em> by Raymond Ibrahim, which shows that Al Qaeda are quite savvy in their propaganda against America by citing for instance left-wing books like <em>Rogue State</em> by William Blum.)<br /><br /><br />Wright then goes on to accuses Daniel Pipes of cognitive dissonance, but perhaps it is himself who needs to look in the mirror. Just consider this fallacious piece of reasoning:<br /><br /><br /><em>“My point is just that, if you take Shahzad at his word, there’s more cause for hope than if Pipes were right, and Shahzad’s testimony were evidence that Jihadists are bent on world conquest.”</em><br /><br /><br />This is a unsound conclusion derived from a dubious premise whose chain of reasoning is wishful thinking. Wright’s hope is that if we accede to everything Muslim extremists demand then everything will be fine - or rather, it hopefully will. The two indubitable facts of the matter however, is that practically, acceding is impossible; secondly, and more importantly, morally we cannot. What would this demand amount to after all? Sharia law in Europe, America and anywhere else large numbers of Muslims happen to reside. Leave Afghanistan back into the hands of Taliban thugs and fanatics, a similar abandonment would have to befall the Iraqi people. Every single, US and allied troop or citizen would have to either vacate the (Dar al Islam) or become a Dhimmi (a second class citizen). Furthermore we would be obliged to forsake Israel to be swallowed up by the seething anger of Palestinians and for Jews to take their “rightful” place - under the lash of every Muslim bigot (as they have done under Islam for much of history - see Bat Ye’ Or’s book The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam and Bernard Lewis’s The Jews of Islam) <br /><br /><br />Wright, I am sure counts himself as a impeccable liberal and tolerant person. A believer in dialogue, understanding and compromise. These are liberal traits, and they are noble ones, traits which, nonetheless, flower as fruits of education and civilization. While I count myself as a liberal, I am also aware, painfully, but undeniably so, that there are countless who would burn the earth to cinders in order to purge the world of any deviation from orthodoxy. Consider then, the second example of Wright’s naivety:<br /><br /><br /><em>Now on to the second cause for hope: Pipes’s confusion itself. For these purposes, it doesn’t matter whether Shahzad was telling the truth, because Pipes certainly thinks he was. Pipes applauds Shahzad’s “forthright statement of purpose,” adding, “However abhorrent, this tirade does have the virtue of truthfulness.<br /><br /><br />So then why doesn’t it bother Pipes that Shahzad’s depiction of Islamic holy war as defensive counter-attack is the opposite of the depiction Pipes has peddled for years? How can he possibly hail Shahzad’s comments as confirming his world view?”</em><br /><br />Wright is arguing that Shahzad is fighting for a defensive reason - and by extension would not have happened if America had not invaded. Again, this only follows if one accepts Shahzad; and why should we? Furthermore, it is simply undeniable that Jihad is inextricably concerned with conquest; that it is both a defensive and offensive notion. Wright disagrees. By way of evidence he provides a hypertext to a chapter in his book (Evolution of God) which amounts to a whitewash of Islamic colonialism and conquest. He cites a single sura, and mentions that it has the virtue of a get out clause, thus supposedly diminishing the external image of unmitigated militancy in Islam. This is what he wrote in his book:<br /><br /><br />Here again, useful guidance could be found in scripture so long as you looked hard enough. The Koranic verse that comes closest to calling for jihad on a global scale also has a crucial loophole. It begins, “Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given as believe not in God, or in the last day, and who forbid not that which God and His Apostle have forbidden,” but then ends, “until they pay tribute out of hand, and they be humbled.” In the end, money would substitute for theological fidelity.<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://evolutionofgod.net/historicaljihad/ ">http://evolutionofgod.net/historicaljihad/ </a><br /><br /> Wright has not looked hard enough or rather has tried hard not to look too hard. His slurring over the concept of Dihmmi -(servitude) - paying the Jizya (a poll tax for unbelievers) as not being all that bad (read on from the link) or done for pragmatic reasons is also suspect. Though to be fair to Wright, what counted most for early Muslims was not theological sophistication or spirituality but success - success in battle and accumulation of booty There are numerous passages in the Koran, and voluminous in the Hadith that call for war, that, can easily be used to support offensive Jihad.. Here is but a flavour:<br /><br /><br />“Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them” 9.5-6<br /><br /><br />“Those who believe fight in the cause of god” 4.76<br /><br /><br />“It is a grave sin for a Muslim to shirk the battle against the unbelievers, those who do will roast in hell.” 2.245<br /><br /><br />“Allah loves those who fight for His cause in ranks as firm as a mighty edifice.” 61.1<br /><br /><br />These are all from the Koran itself, which is, remember, the perfect and immutable word of the creator of the universe. This fact, once accepted by any mind, renders any liberal theological gerrymandering incoherent and dishonest. Consider now, as only a flavour, what the Hadith says:<br /><br /><br />“He who dies without having taken part in a campaign dies in a kind of unbelief “ <br /><br /><br /><br />“A day and a night fighting on the frontier is better than a month of fasting and prayer”<br /><br /><br /><br />“Jihad is your duty under any ruler, be he godly or wicked”<br /><br /><br />Consequently as a result of this militancy virtually every major Muslim thinker from Ibn Taimiya to Ibn Khaldun to Sayyid Qutub has echoed and expounded this notion of Jihad. See for example A Bostom’s <em>The Legacy of Jihad</em> for a definitive, scholarly account. Islam, subsequently, has the honour or dishonour of being the first great civilisation (with the possible exception of China) that can claim to be the first truly colonialist and imperial power. Its geographical extension, cultural and religious penetration of less successful religions and cultures dwarfs the imperialism of ancient Rome, 19th century England or 21st century America. (see the chapter <em>Arab Imperialism, Islamic Colonialism </em>in Ibn Warraq’s book <em>Why I’m not a Muslim</em>) <br /><br /><br /> While it is true that nearly all Muslims are not violent there is simply no question of Islam’s doctrinal, philosophical and historical infatuation with violence. Nevertheless, Wright does not appear to directly deny this. He seems to be saying that it is a purely defensive notion - one perhaps distorted and abused. While the Koran seems to indicate that Jihad is a merit for those who fight for the expansion of the faith, it is however incumbent upon all Muslims to defend Islam once it has been attacked. Defensive of Islam however, can be construed so elastically that there is little to stop one who wishes to justify violence.<br /><br /><br />Given this therefore, and the historical weight of orthodox exegesis of Jihad; the Koran’s evident comfort with violence and apocalyptic imagery; and of course, Muhammad’s warlike example; killing innocent civilians - which are of no direct threat to any Muslim - yes, innocent civilians - let us not euphemise the matter - is, within Islam, simply a non issue.<br /><br /><br />This last point is important. For Wright, appears to be in the fog of moral bewilderment rendering him incapable of making basic moral distinctions. His tone and reporting of Shahzad, suggests that he sees no significant moral difference between American and British troops; soldiers who wear identifiable uniforms and conduct operations against militants - not women and children; who seek to minimize civilian casualties as best possible, though there are of course mistakes. When mistakes occur however, there are inquests, hearings and apologies. Does any of the above, which can be effortlessly expanded, apply to likes of Bin Laden, Zarqawi (remember him?) Muhammad Atta or Faisal Shahzad? No. These men are not even in the same moral universe.<br /><br /><br />No doubt, there are good arguments against the war in Afghanistan; the conduct of that war, or the need for its continuation. It is however a disgrace, that Wright legitimises Faisal Shahzad and his toxic ideology. While it is true that these wars have contributed to Muslim anger and resentment it should be pointed out that until 9/11 most Americas were not remotely aware of Bin Laden, Jihad or even the history and tenets of Islam. It is only after 9/11 -after America was attacked (and not for the first time) with the subsequent US and Western (re)-action that any credence can be given to America waging war on Islam. Justifiably, there is plenty of people in the world who could be angry at America and the West. There are plenty of starving and disposed, which we are either indirectly responsible for or are obligated to help. Little of this appears to apply to Islam. It suffered far less consequences of European colonialism compared to Africa or South America. America meanwhile has participated and supported four armed conflicts in the last thirty years in defence of Muslim people; have furthermore contributed millions in oversees aid and has tirelessly attempted to broker peace in Palestine; don’t forget meanwhile, the millions of Muslim immigrants that were and still are being welcomed in Western countries. <br /><br /><br />Bin Laden, we should remember was a multi-millionaire, he could have lived a life of luxury on the French Riviera, or could have spent his endowment peacefully helping Palestinians with food and medical supplies - or any other charitably endeavours. But no, Bin Laden and countless other men who often possess great intelligence, university educations and with no sign of mental distress or personal malaise - choose to live in caves, fight in wars thousands of miles away or detonate themselves in trains, planes and western nightclubs.<br /><br /><br />Many - political scientists and sociologists, from journalists to politicians to religious moderates will all attempt to resist the obvious yet “reductionist” conclusion - the common denominator that is a set of beliefs laid down in the 7th century and subsequently fossilised into the minds of millions. Beliefs - about the sanctity of violence - the metaphysics of martyrdom and the glory of the Caliphate. As the chapter in Malise Ruthven’s book Islam in the World Shows (see the chapter Spiritual Renewal pp-261) Islamic history is not only littered with Jihads but with individuals and groups who oppose any form of modernity and attempt to restore, usually with violence and intimidation, Islam to its purity. This is not therefore, a 20th century phenomenon. We are only “aware” of it because we are not only more self-aware of our beliefs but of our neighbours. There is, consequently, always going to be a significant group of men ready to do violence for faith - so long as Islamic ideas are held in good stead. It is therefore a totally circular and morally incompetent argument to mount, as Wright does, that the cause of terrorism is the resistance to it:<br /><br /><br /><em>But as a practical matter, taking any of these issues off the table weakens the jihadist recruiting pitch. (Different potential recruits, after all, are sensitive to different issues.) And if we could <strong>take the Afghanistan war off the table, that would be a big one.</strong></em><em>For now my main point is that war-on-terror hawks need to confront the downsides, rather than act as if establishing the role of “jihadi intent” or “jihadist ideology” somehow ends the debate. They need to seriously ask whether the policies they favor have, while killing terrorists abroad, created terrorists both abroad and — more disturbingly — at home.</em><br /><br /><br /><em>It’s a temptation we all have to fight. Maybe if we fought it as hard as we fight other enemies, we’d have fewer of them.</em> (on our tendency to think even in terms of enemies in the first place.) <br /><br /><br />This is his last word, and it is about us and our mistakes. Not only is the thinking that there is some (some?) incompatibility between Western liberalism and Islam in principal mistaken but that the fact that we even conceive of thinking about differences between people and between ideas, and that there may be significant moral differences between them - no - this kind of thinking is itself “the problem”.<br /><br /><br />The sad fact is that there are differences between beliefs and between people. These beliefs, in fact, turn out to be a matter of life and death. Wright, who seems incapable of either believing or conceiving of beliefs and intentions, so radically different from his own, does not appear to be at all worried (then again, why should he, given that he sees no differences.) - subsequently all will end well - just like the end of Communism - which conservatives “demonised” and thumped their chests over. Why did they do this? If we believe Wright - its all down to human cognitive bias and our tendencies to demonise the “other”. If its rooted in evolution, its reasonable to ask, is it not, that emotions like fear, and thoughts of suspicion - did not serve some utility and perhaps, still do? <br /><br /><br />Just so stories aside, we should remember that there was plenty of reasons to worry about Communism, which Wright in the article slurs over; additionally we may laugh now at the “domino theory” of Communist expansion but that is only from the safety of posterity. Finally, Wright’s analogy between the fall of communism as a solution to Islam is embarrassingly superficial - Wright seems to imply that some day in the future - Muslims will spontaneously wake up and shatter the walls of fundamentalism. A moment of brief historical reflection, however, will reveal that compared to the tensions and conflicts between Christianity, the West and Islam, the less than a century spat between Liberalism and Communism - was nothing but a historical footnote. What is desperately needed here is some clear thinking as opposed to wishful thinking if we to understand and resolve the problem with Islam. Wright however, sadly displays much of the latter without showing a correspondent ability for the former.Michael Faulknerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557198430260528922noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6626098889543320908.post-5903339654410657832010-07-03T10:46:00.000-07:002010-07-03T11:03:44.231-07:00What is a philosopher?You would think that we could not define a philosopher before defining the subject itself. This I think, is mistaken, for one can be a philosopher about anything, thus I explain everything and nothing. Yet, paradoxically, many claim, not least philosophers themselves that they have no special subject - that they are parasitic upon others - science, history or law for example. Nonetheless, the kinds of questions that are asked, and answers that are provided - are very different to the answers and concerns of the parent subjects studied. Philosophers of science are not scientists (though many are), they are not engaging in science. So what do they do? <br /><br /><br /><br />Therein lies the clue. Philosophy, I would assert is an activity, an attitude and a method of inquiry. It inquires into the thinking of thinking. So, where science studies objects (animals, chemicals, particles for instance) and seeks to understand how they work or what they do, Philosophers meanwhile think about how scientists think about such objects of inquiry and the assumptions implicit therein and the theories which follow from such inquiry. Subsequently philosophers attempt to determine the validity and soundness of such inquiries. To put it succinctly, philosophy is the questioning of assumptions - the assumptions that others -scientists, historians and theologians function by. Historically, or at least since Descartes, the goal of philosophy seemed to strive for indubitable foundations for the sciences and all knowledge. A perhaps more modern aim is to provide a coherent explanation and justification of our thinking and beliefs. They may suggest therefore, that philosophers are merely engaged in micro trivia, who simply fret about little problems that are of little concern to anyone. This of course overstates the issue -why therefore has philosophy been one of the oldest of intellectual subjects - if not the oldest. One that still grips all minds on some level and engages serious thinkers aswell. <br /><br /><br /><br />Subsequently, others may take a more heroic view, arguing that while in many ways they do rely on other disciplines for input, philosophy does offer substantive truths, and that they do have a particular subject - truth or the overall nature of reality. Traditionally, philosophers were seen with asking three questions: <br /><br /><br /><br />1. What is true?<br /><br /><br />2. What is good?<br /><br /><br />3. What is beauty?<br /><br /><br /><br />The third question seems somewhat effete now, we could replace it with:<br /><br /><br />3. How do we know what is true and good?<br /><br /><br /><br />This question (3) has more of an epistemological flavour to it. While the first two questions should be seeded to other subjects, philosophers should still rightly ask how do they know that, what justifies that. This sounds negative, an attitude that many associate with modern analytic philosophy -that its teaches people “only” to be “bullshit detectors”. Now, when we ask how do they know such and such or is such and such justified - what we are asking for is a rationally coherent answer. This is believe is the answer: philosophy seeks to know truth and the good by rational means, means that any rational or objective person would assent to.<br /><br /><br /><br />This suggest two things: firstly, that philosophers do have a subject - rationality and applying rationality to other disciplines; secondly this would suggest that the fruits of philosophic investigation can affect the epistemic practice and ontological status of other subjects. While it is true, that philosophy does not provide us with ground level facts the way other subjects do, it nonetheless can potentially bracket them, systematise and harmonise them into a rational coherent order or indeed otherwise. Philosophy can draw a line through or place question marks beside the ontological claims of science, history and religion. Many thinkers of these subject at times have tended to react negatively at this conclusion, their superficial dismissal of the subject will not do: to dismiss philosophy by say scientific positivism or religious fideism is itself to make covert philosophic claims and are inherently self-defeating. While this is true, it does not of course extend to the specific metaphysical doctrines of say realism or idealism. <br /><br /><br /><br />What does it all mean? This could be the perennial motto of philosophy. To take two examples one from the philosophy of science the second from the philosophy of religion. Much debate in the philosophy of science, focuses on how we should understand and interpret the scientific endeavour. On what terrain this dispute settles on will affect how we bracket the facts, theories and methods that comprise the sciences. An instrumentalist view, sees science as good for making predictions about things in the world, that it is an indispensable incubator of technology. Posits such as electrons, quarks or neutrinos are simply useful fictions to explain the phenomena. A cousin to this would be to take a constructivist view: the theories we have are empirically adequate, objectively arrived at but only supposing certain background criteria and assumptions which may have more to do with our cognitive capacitates endowed by evolution than with any “real” correspondence with reality. Another view, a kind of realism may state that our theories are indeed corrigible and contingent, but they are the best theories, that purport to describe real phenomena in the world. Furthermore, to state that our scientific theories are useful fictions or construction needs to be seen as a first order claim, and as such may not be a accurate account of the endeavour - which may in fact be incoherent. However we ought to think about this, it does not seem likely that we could science itself to answer such questions (though of course they play a role). The overall structure and coherent account of the endeavour and of the ontological status and epistemic practice of science will have to come from philosophers.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />The second example is to consider a long running dispute in philosophy of religion. In essence it boils down to this: does the fact of evolution disprove or undermine a belief in god. Many religious people claim yes, as do many atheists. Some state no, and quite a few atheist say no either. A philosopher would explore the issue by examining the beliefs of the different parties, exploring the implications of these beliefs and highlighting the conflicts and contradictions of these beliefs when conjoined. However, there are different beliefs (some of which may be more central or important than others) that can be modified or rejected, all resulting in different conclusions - or different epistemic maps of the ontological terrain. This however, is not relativism, for these conclusions themselves are going to have be scrutinised and many may hold unwelcome implications and tensions that may force revision or abandonment. A Christian may accept evolution but only at the cost of making difficult revisions to their religious beliefs. Likewise a Christian may reject evolution, and a lot of science and rational thinking to boot, or may simply reject evolution but a coherent explanation for doing so but one that is so convoluted and implausible that signals to others an embarrassment. In such situations like this one a philosopher is like an economist telling us what capital we have, what is needed for basic running of our business. He then lays out the options for cutting (what beliefs demand revision or abandonment)and the attendant consequences that follow such "cutting and harmonizing". <br /><br /><br /><br />So, as these examples show philosophy can affect, first order disciplines and beliefs but it does so at much higher level. It does so mainly in the application of rational thought. So I would contend that philosophy is largely a matter of method, technique and application of concepts and rules. In true philosophic spirit however, these tools and methods themselves are disputed and critiqued by more basic and fundamental concepts. This endeavour is called the philosophy of philosophy.<br /><br />Philosophy to summarise does thus:<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />1. To criticize: ideas, theories and practices, conceptual confusions and logical mistakes. In particular there is a focus on three areas: logical consistency, evidential superiority and practical efficacy.<br /><br /><br /><br />2. To clarify: redefine questions, pose new ones, reject old ones. Draw distinctions, suggest meaning and significance.<br /><br /><br /><br />3. Coherence: to provide systematic coherence and explanation. To achieve consistency, coherence and rational order.<br /><br /><br /><br />4. Collaborative To learn from and engage with scientists, historians, psychologists and sociologists and all other intellectuals.<br /><br /><br /><br />“ <em>One might, in fact, define philosophy as the rational systematization of our thoughts, on basic issues - of the “basic principles” of our understanding of the world and our place in it. We become involved in philosophy in our endeavour to make systemic sense of the extra philosophical “fact” - when we try to answer those big question by systematizing what we think we know about the world, pushing our “knowledge” to its ultimate conclusions and combining items usually kept in convenient separation. Philosophy polices our thought, as it were, as the agent for maintaining law and order in our cognitive endeavours.” </em>- Nicholas RescherMichael Faulknerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557198430260528922noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6626098889543320908.post-45054327276428669482010-07-02T02:02:00.000-07:002010-07-02T02:06:51.575-07:00To know less and less about more and more.<meta equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 12"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CMichael%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><link rel="themeData" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CMichael%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_themedata.thmx"><link rel="colorSchemeMapping" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CMichael%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:trackmoves/> <w:trackformatting/> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:donotpromoteqf/> <w:lidthemeother>EN-GB</w:LidThemeOther> <w:lidthemeasian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark/> <w:dontvertaligncellwithsp/> <w:dontbreakconstrainedforcedtables/> <w:dontvertalignintxbx/> <w:word11kerningpairs/> <w:cachedcolbalance/> <w:usefelayout/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont val="Cambria Math"> <m:brkbin val="before"> <m:brkbinsub val="--"> <m:smallfrac val="off"> <m:dispdef/> <m:lmargin val="0"> <m:rmargin val="0"> <m:defjc val="centerGroup"> <m:wrapindent val="1440"> <m:intlim val="subSup"> <m:narylim val="undOvr"> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" defunhidewhenused="true" defsemihidden="true" defqformat="false" defpriority="99" latentstylecount="267"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="0" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Normal"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="heading 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 7"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 8"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 9"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 7"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 8"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 9"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="35" qformat="true" name="caption"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="10" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Title"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="1" name="Default Paragraph Font"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="11" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtitle"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="22" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Strong"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="20" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="59" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Table Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Placeholder Text"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="1" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="No Spacing"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Revision"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="34" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="List Paragraph"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="29" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Quote"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="30" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Quote"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="19" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="21" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="31" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Reference"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="32" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Reference"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="33" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Book Title"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="37" name="Bibliography"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" qformat="true" name="TOC Heading"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-charset:1; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:none; mso-layout-grid-align:none; punctuation-wrap:simple; text-autospace:none; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-font-kerning:14.0pt;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoPapDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; margin-bottom:10.0pt; line-height:115%;} @page WordSection1 {size:594.95pt 841.85pt; margin:72.0pt 89.85pt 72.0pt 89.85pt; mso-header-margin:36.0pt; mso-footer-margin:43.2pt; mso-page-numbers:1; mso-paper-source:0;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} </style> <![endif]--><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;">The alternative title of this post was going to be what have your changed your mind about and why? However, within the last year I would have to confess that I have not changed by mind in any great or profound way. This does mean that there has been no enlargement or evolution of what I think or why I think it. No. In fact, it has been a great year. Before going to university, I spent a good deal of time reading and thinking, it was slight in comparison however to what was to come. This is not to say that I found what I was studying large or taxing - most of the time I was off doing my own thing and had great fun doing so.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;">I think the correct assessment of this year is what could be called the Socratic definition of intelligence: that the mark of an educated man is to know the extent of his own ignorance, to know that is: less and less about more and more. Taking in the new five story library at Queens, with its thousands of books on philosophy, history and politics, one simultaneously feels unnerved at how little reading and understanding one possesses - while wishing to read to correct this limitation with all the hours that god sends. An example I fondly remember, was when I pulled Thomas Nagel’s <i>The Last Word</i> from the shelf. I sat down intending only to scan the book. However, so impressed and inspired by Nagel’s thought and elegance in writing that I sat in the chair for the next three hours and finished the book, even re-reading sections of it again to fully capture the message.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;">The lucky irony, is while this year I fully and deeply fell for the questions and problems of philosophy, it was not at first to be so. The degree that I had originally chosen to do was International Studies - similar to Politics (Political Science) with only a more internationalist flavour. Last summer however, after reading and re-reading Russell’s <i>History of Western Philosophy </i>and Durant’s <i>Story of Philosophy</i>, the subject was something of an itch that could not be scratched. The problem was further compounded by reading </span><span style="font-size:12pt;">Julian Baggini’s introductory</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;"> aids to the subject (which I thoroughly recommend) - <i>The Philosophers Toolkit </i>and <i>The Ethics Toolkit</i>. These books, while designed to explain the conceptual tools, methods and arguments a philosopher uses, and as such might be considered dry and uninteresting - to me, on the contrary - it is rather the quest for precision, clarity and exactness that this book purports to help instil in the beginner that makes me value philosophy so.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;"><span style=""> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;">Subsequently then, a week before term began I switched to a joint honours between politics and philosophy. By Christmas, my desire to pursue philosophy near full time was almost complete. By the years end I had decided to change my degree: major in philosophy and a minor in politics. The minor subjects of politics can be made up by studying political theory, so I still remain within the bounds of philosophy generally. Thus, I was lucky to have changed when I did, for it made all the difference between fully engaging in what I was doing instead of slowly losing the will to live. Indeed, as luck would have it, I more or less did (in subject material terms) a major/minor instead of a joint this year anyway. I have only had to do two full blown political science courses (instead of say three). One subject included in the politics course - Perspectives on Politics was political philosophy. This module, I enjoyed the most. It was charismatically taught by the lecturer - which always helps; the module was put together in a coherent and systematic fashion, unlike unfortunately, some others. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;"><span style=""> </span>As you would expect the module introduced the key disputes within the subject. However, one in particular gripped me. It was the dispute namely between what can be called communitarian and liberal theories of justice. Though in fact, this does not really do justice (as it were) to the issue, as it is a debate that crosses over several interdisciplinary lines, never mind several distinct and overlapping areas in moral and political philosophy - not to mention the metaphysics of identity.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;">Initially, my first reaction to communitarian thought was one of indifference and dislike. I saw it as an apologists work for authoritarianism and obscurantism. However, I knew that this attitude was unjustified without careful consideration of the argument. So I pressed ahead and read twice Alistair Macintyre’s <i>After Justice</i>. Though I disagree much with what he thinks, I came to believe that something had been missed from debates within moral philosophy about the role of character, virtue and dispositions. Though I should stress, that this interest was stimulated by moral psychologists as much as by philosophers. The modern Liberal view - encapsulated by John Rawls is not necessarily opposed to communitarian thought in fact there are many points of agreement. The real disagreement is between what could be considered the extremes of libertarian thinking both the left and the right. Much of the year I spent thinking about a rapprochement between the two positions. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;">While I think that Rawls basic paradigm of distributive justice is sound, it builds a foundation upon which many questions remain, which could be asked and answered by number of different systems of thought - some of which might not be considered liberal. There is however some evidence to suggest that in terms of wellbeing and human flourishing - the communitarians may be right. This however needs to be cashed out in ways that avoid the standard criticisms that could dog it - its potential illiberalness, its insularity and obfuscation. I hope to develop some of my views on this over the summer in order to deliver a talk next year, as I happened to become vice president of Queens Philosophy Society. So I should say a few words about that.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;">The society intends to do a number of things, not least interviews with the staff modelled on the interviews that Bryan Magee undertook with several key contemporary philosophers concerning the greats. We also plan to do a medieval style dispute, which I think will be enormous fun, along with conferences and other things. The good thing about this is that it allows for the opportunity to meet people and argue and develop and refine ones views - something which is a necessary factor to this subject.<span style=""> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;">A lot of philosophy in my first semester was taken up by continental thought. It is this style of philosophy next to the Greeks that people probably most associate (negatively) philosophy with. This style of thought was well described by one lecturer (quoting </span><span style="font-size:12pt;">Ricœur</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;">) that it was the “philosophy of suspicion”. We looked at Nietzsche and the Existentialists, a little Hegel and some Marx - thankfully no Freud (he was cancelled).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;">While I have to admit that I expected to intensely dislike this, it was not all bad, Nietzsche in particular, while I do not agree with him, he is worthy of study and refutation - he is one of those philosophers who will always be a challenge. As for the rest, some of what thinkers like Nietzsche, Sartre and Foucault thought - are, surprising interesting, I think however that it has been said better, earlier and with less pretence and obfuscation.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;">The subject of ethics has only really be considered in the last few months. Namely in the way of practical ethics (the subject and the book by Peter Singer).<span style=""> </span>Much of this, I have to confess is a straightforward refutation of (which Singer himself admits) religious dogma that had been preserved into a secular context by the help of Kant and some other unthinking human prejudices. Much of my interest in ethics either stems from thinking about political problems or engaging with the information flowing from the mind and life sciences, much of contemporary philosophical ethics in comparison seems vapid, though I suspect this will change.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;">A far greater interest and itch that I developed was over epistemology. I have always been interested in procedures, methods and what counts as evidence. So, it was to be expected that I would find the subject interesting. Again ironically, or perhaps because of this I have tried to explore epistemology in ways that are socially relevant. My term for this - <i>everyday epistemology</i> is concerned with rational rules of belief acceptance. How to assess, judge, accept or reject<span style=""> </span>sources and the reliable rules and methods which govern this, all in the field of religion, politics and ethics. Three subjects that generate great conflict and division. Much of which I believe, as Russell said - require clarity and coolness and clear thinking.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;">Early on I seemed to gravitate away from the concerns of traditional epistemology which perhaps have been characterised nearly all epistemologists since Descartes. I did not find the Cartesian project interesting, nor much of the work of Ayer or Russell. Popper has some very interesting things to say but is more engaged with philosophy of science (a topic I have tried to steer clear from this year) but, I became almost by accident very much interested in the ideas of one Nicholas Rescher. A prolific American philosopher (over nearly a hundred books) a truly systematic thinker (pragmatic idealism) and someone who has seems to have thought about everything and in in the process has built up a truly comprehensive system of rational inquiry and thought. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;">The ideas of Quine and one of his students (Penelope Maddy Second Philosophy) were and still are being absorbed and thought about. This, together with Rescher is an epistemology that is rational and objective; empiricist and practical; confident and realist while still fallible - willing to role up the sleeves as it were and get down to work. It is this truly pragmatic character - an epistemology friendly to science and interested in real problems -not the airy, abstract and effete worries of the problems of scepticism that trouble so many. Though, one must ask - how much of this is a temperamental thing rather than philosophic?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;">Then, finally, we come to religion. That subject that has engaged me these last three years, and whose study and consideration lead me to university in the first place. Well on one level, it was its swan song -its philosophic one anyway. Well, what do you expect when you read David Hume?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;">Hume who the spoof philosophical lexicon has as meaning: “</span><i><span style="font-size:12pt;">To commit to the flames, bury, or otherwise destroy a philosophical position, as in "That theory was humed in the 1920s." <o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;"><span style=""> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;">Hume the great infidel has probably mounted the most severest assault on the intellectual foundations of religion. While I was quite familiar (from other writers) about his arguments against design and miracles, I found when reading him directly that many ideas I had about the subjects (criticising the design argument) that I thought original - no chance - Hume had it down first. However, what was most striking this year surprising was his argument from evil. This argument, which I have long considered a theological problem and thus not especially interesting, was in the hands of Hume to prove devastating to the theistic project.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;">The further irony, a happy one, was that I had the good fortune to have as tutor not only a deeply religious observer but a deeply serious philosopher. A fine example that you should never judge by appearances. My first impression - a lazy metaller PHD student - turned out to be something quite different. Indefatigable in argument, prodigious in output, almost preternaturally self-assured and seems to have read and considered everything from early Christian history to German philosophy (in German) as comfortable talking about Russell’s Principia Mathmatica to Chomsky’s assault on the behaviourist language thesis, to questions about the idea that non-human animals do not have natural languages.<span style=""> </span>The long hours of dispute and conversation provided ample proof of Hitchens’ notion that one of the conditions of light is heat - that argument and disagreement are necessarily for progress and insight. But I have an insight of my own, in order to learn, you should learn not only learn from people you disagree with but spend as much time as possible with them. The great thing about having a tutor like that is that your own ignorance and inconsistency is quickly exposed. You quickly learn two vital things - <i>know</i> what you going to say and <i>why</i> before you say it; secondly, admit to owning up to things you know nothing about.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;">As of now, I am taking a break from philosophy (kind of) looking at Islamic history, the brain, and philosophy of history as well as history in general. I will have a few months of reading, and summer indulgences before starting my second year, where I hope to redouble my efforts in politics and philosophy. While acknowledging that people have their own project and passions many of which are more worthy of respect than mine - I can agree with Aristotle that the good life (for me) is the philosophic life, the life of reflection and inquiry.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;"><span style=""> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> Michael Faulknerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557198430260528922noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6626098889543320908.post-30968996120950897792010-06-30T09:17:00.000-07:002010-06-30T09:46:19.251-07:00Strange Cases.Within a day of each other I have seen two very silly and misinformed pieces: one an essay from Slate’s Ron Rosenbaum the other from Guardian blogger Andrew Brown.<br /><br />I will begin with Brown first. I struggle to see why the guardian lets him write anything, not least religion, atheism or science, for anything the man seems to write is nothing but tendentious tosh bordering on slander. For those of you who are interested this was the blog I posted when he severely misrepresented Sam Harris and his position on Torture. As such we should not take him seriously on anything again:<br /><br />http://theyoungcontrarian.blogspot.com/2009/08/strange-quote-mining-case-of-andrew.html<br /><br />He appears to be back at it, this time on another attack on Richard Dawkins.<br /><br />http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/jun/29/richard-dawkins-atheism-schools<br /><br />Here is a question that Brown quotes from a website, a mother asking Dawkins for his view:<br /><br />"What would you say to parents of children who attend quite orthodox state-funded schools who are very anxious that their child be educated within that context? I am thinking specifically of the ortho-Jewish schools around my way (north London). I know for a fact a lot of these parents cannot countenance the idea of their child being educated within a non-Jewish school. What do you think they should do?"<br /><br />To which he responded<br /><br />"That's a good point. I believe this is putting parental rights above children's rights.”<br /><br />To this Brown has this to say:<br /><br /><br />“It is impossible to read this as meaning anything but that children have a right to be educated as Richard Dawkins thinks fit, but not as their parents do. He alluded several times in the threat to the sufferings of atheist parents forced to send their children to faith schools:”<br /><br />Furthermore:<br /><br />“But apparently this doesn't apply if your principles are religious ones, because then your children have a right to be educated as atheists.”<br /><br />It hard to read to this and not see how wayward Brown’s thinking is. I’m starting to believe that Brown has nothing but inexplicable animosity toward Dawkins and the “new Atheists”. Brown portrays Dawkins as the grand inquisitor, a ogre wishing to snatch children away from their parents and brainwash them into science and clear thinking. Is Brown not aware that Dawkins actually advocates teaching religion. Teaching it however, in way that best allows children to make up their own minds. Now as Brown rightly points out critical thinking (something he should learn about) does take time and may only be able to be learned by older children. This however does not mean that 1. Children and young as six can understand the multitude of religions both present and past, the fact that what religion people happen to belong to is contingent upon geography and accidents of birth. 2. They can understand the basic tenets and incompatibility between them.<br /><br />Later on as children are older, they can approach religion critically, in a secular school, they are more likely to be in contact with pupils who hold a plurality of views, thus providing a environment for criticism and debate. Furthermore, lets imagine how such a class may be structured. Dan Dennett, Dawkins’s ally has stated something like lets teach all religions, their history, good and bad; their doctrines, the criticisms made against them and the defence of them. He states that if people teach their children this, then they should be able to teach them whatever they want.<br /><br />Hardly a dogmatic absurd proposal?<br /><br />Brown then goes on to talk about Dawkins starting with the Axiom that religion has no evidence for god. Eh? Is this not the same man who spent the first half of the God Delusion criticizing the arguments for God’s existence?<br /><br />Brown here makes a very basic error. An Axiom is something that is either self-evident or absurd to deny - a belief or proposition that cannot itself be proved. Dawkins does not hold this position, rather he operates on a presumption that there is (no good) evidence for the existence of god. This presumption is entirely warranted on his part as he wrote a rather large book on the subject, debated several theologians and religious scientists. Whatever you think of him, he has earned his views.<br /><br /><br />Ron Rosenbaum has written a essay so fallacious one consider that it must be some kind of hoax. However, when one here that he recently been to a Templeton meeting one considers that he may off been obliged to something nasty about atheists if not something nice about religion. This nonsense just requires a straightforward case of fisking.<br /><br /><br />http://www.slate.com/id/2258484<br /><br /><br />1. “It is radical skepticism, doubt in the possibility of certainty, opposition to the unwarranted certainties that atheism and theism offer.”<br /><br />Firstly, Atheism - or the “new atheists” do not proclaim certainty in the denial of god or indeed the gods of Olympus. Name me one who does? If anyone does and I had any money I would give them every cent I had.<br /><br />The second issue here, is that he himself takes up would could be construed as a dogmatic position. Similar to the scepticism seen in Sextus Empiricus. The problem here is that this form of radical scepticism is likely, if undefended, to be just as dogmatic as the positions he attempts to criticise unlike the radical Sceptics who did know a thing or two about arguments.<br /><br />Thirdly. There are two kinds of agnosticism, that he neglects to mention. Permanent agnosticism in Principle( PAP). Or Temporary Agnosticism in Principle TAP. The second position is entirely reasonable, one that any inquirer should hold at the start of inquiry “I don’t know what to think as there is quite a bit of disagreement in this area - come back in a year and ill give you my view”.<br /><br />The first position PAP. Is actually giving what can be called a no argument argument. Here he is (apparently) claiming that there is no argument, that could settle the issue either way, so therefore we must be agnostics. This position seems incoherent on its face with the assertion that he is a radical sceptic (does he doubt gravity as well?) furthermore this is a rather strong and extraordinary argument that needs a good deal of support? So, where is his evidence for such a claim?<br /><br />2. “I would not go so far as to argue that there's a "new agnosticism" on the rise. But I think it's time for a new agnosticism, one that takes on the New Atheists. Indeed agnostics see atheism as "a theism"—as much a faith-based creed as the most orthodox of the religious variety.”<br /><br />If they do then it would appear that they deserve the title the “new idiots”. Again, another canard, where is the holy book, the profession of faith, the church to be attended every day (or every other day) where is this religion then?<br /><br /><br />3. Faith-based atheism? Yes, alas. Atheists display a credulous and childlike faith, worship a certainty as yet unsupported by evidence—the certainty that they can or will be able to explain how and why the universe came into existence. (And some of them can behave as intolerantly to heretics who deviate from their unproven orthodoxy as the most unbending religious Inquisitor.)<br /><br /><br />I have disposed of the certainty and faith canard? Can he name a single scientist who claims, for absolute certainty that they know all the answers to the mysteries of the universe? While it is true that there are some scientist who do think we can, in the future will be able to answer most of our questions, none of them appear to offer certainty in their answers. However, many scientists and secular philosophers believe there are many answers we will never get, that gaps in our knowledge is something we will all have to live with. Hardly an orthodoxy then.<br /><br /><br />4. Atheists have no evidence—and certainly no proof!—that science will ever solve the question of why there is something rather than nothing. Just because other difficult-seeming problems have been solved does not mean all difficult problems will always be solved. And so atheists really exist on the same superstitious plane as Aquinas.<br /><br />This is a mistake a school boy would not even make. He is conflating Atheism and science, and certain answers given by scientists to this question as representing some kind of atheist orthodoxy.<br /><br />5. In fact, I challenge any atheist, New or old, to send me their answer to the question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" I can't wait for the evasions to pour forth. Or even the evidence that this question ever could be answered by science and logic.<br /><br /><br />PZ Meyers has given answers to what scientist think of this question. I suspect the question itself is incoherent. Well here is what I think: why does there have to be anything in the first place? Why not nothing rather than something? Any framing of the question will never lead a priori to the self-evident conclusion that there is a god, with a plan and a purpose.<br /><br />Will you can read the rest for yourself - air headed nonsense - all of it. If I ever met this man I would ask him if he is agnostics about Zeus or about Witchcraft or about Creationism<br /><br />Best<br /><br />Mike.Michael Faulknerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557198430260528922noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6626098889543320908.post-595481459729268232010-06-29T11:52:00.000-07:002010-06-29T11:53:42.676-07:00The moral bankruptcy of religionOne of my very first posts on this blog involved the odious and equally idiotic Iris Robinson: former member of the fundamentalist and fundamentally noxious Democratic Unionist Party. I wrote about her views on homosexuality - arguing that, while being perfectly compatible with scripture there were other biblical recommendations she might have liked to mention - slavery for one, killing heretics another, or even - alas - the punishment for adultery - yep death again. In fairness, we could acquit her of bigotry only on the conviction of idiocy. Developments in the time since, however, force me to revise this assessment: not only is Iris guilty of moral midgetry but also of breathtaking moral hypocrisy.<br /><br />Her “sin” was to seduce and sleep with a teenager; a boy, old enough to be her grandson. Now, I would contend that this tryst is not especially interesting, nor indeed, seriously wrong. Though the affair would have received similar attention had it happened to any politician or public figure; it was, however, her earlier actions - as a votary of God’s good works that made this revelation something of a schadenfreude moment. While her affair was a straightforward case of hypocrisy, from what I gather, she was fucking him around the same time as she was calling homosexuality “vile” “immoral” and in need of medical intervention. When the story broke, it was Iris however who needed the psychiatrist; though if one were not overly cynical, one would think that all that was needed was “forgiveness” and the grace of god.<br /><br />What is more dubious, and more important is the possibility that Iris had manipulated the young man in order to obtain money for her own private purposes. This would elevate the affair and Iris Robinson from a woman brought down by earthly passion, to more sinister case of sexual predation for financial gain. Not only has Iris suffered the political consequences - psychological ones as well, her husband, Peter Robinson, has been made to feel the electoral lash as well for he too has some questions to answer over possible financial malfeasance. It seems no surprise to learn meanwhile, that the people of Northern Ireland have dubbed them: “Swish family Robinson”.<br /><br />The lessons from this are obvious when we regard religion: it does not make people better, but in invariably makes them worse; in this case - quick to persecute, fulminate and pontificate, while ignoring the large specks in their own discriminating, deluded and woefully myopic Iris. That religion, in order to avoid embarrassingly displays of emptiness, shrillness and hypocrisy should shun politics and public life and tend its own garden - that is, it should preach and practice in quiet.<br /><br />Even this last thought may need to be revised - that we should aim to shunt religion off into some quiet corner when we come to consider what is surely one of the greatest scandals in history. A scandal - one intensified in the last year - a disgrace, institutionalised and subsequently covered up by a religious organisation; occurring not just in one country or even one continent - but a truly worldwide phenomenon - a grizzly testament to religion’s claim and indeed - proof of its boastful universality. I am of course, speaking of the Catholic child rape scandal.<br /><br />While it should not be necessary to point out that nothing in the Church’s teaching or its doctrines could ever justify such actions (the same alas cannot be claimed for another monotheism which I’m coming to shortly), it is impossible however to deny that this decades long racket of paedophilia and corruption is a direct consequence of the Church’s cleaving to power; its enforced secrecy; its belief that it is a law onto itself. Even the current Pope - Herr Ratzinger, has himself been implicated in the cover up of Priests guilty of abuse. The reason seems, to be nothing so “gross” or material - so human and man made as the need to protect its earthly power and prestige, to prevent the disfiguring of good name of the Church, to maintain its craven desire to survive at any cost - and of course - not to give ammunition to its enemies: the “Jews and atheists”.<br /><br />The Church’s record on human rights - or if you like - its record breaking success in promotion and propagation of human suffering - forces upon us the conclusion, that there is no other organisation, religion or institution whose sole purpose self-evidently seems to be the accumulation of power, the retention of authority in all aspects of life with the purpose of propagating abject misery, delusion and division - especially to the poorest and the most venerable. <br /><br />As parlous as the Catholic Church is, it appears to be in a running battle and indeed, what ever its misdeeds, appears to be losing the title of greatest enemy of civilization to Islam. The problem with Islam does not need to be stated in terms of the clash with the west. No. The first thing to say is that it is Muslims men and women themselves who suffer most under the totalitarian shadow of the Koran. Hardly a day passes, when another Mosque has been bombed with a fresh score (at least) of dead Muslims littering the prayers halls. Last Christmas, to take one example from many - it would appear that a fanatic was so incensed by a volleyball match that he unmade himself and fellow co-religionists with a bomb strapped to his body. Not to mention the persistent and flagrant abuse of its women with the constant trickle of reports of beatings, honour killings and rapes.<br /><br />All of this, is Muslim on Muslim violence. While there is much made of Western humiliation of Islam, or the damage done to Muslim minds and Muslim societies by for instance the civilian death toll from Iraq or the pictures of Abu Graib. This is, of course, true and important. This thesis however (that pain and anger have been caused by the West) can be swallowed whole, while simultaneously admitting that the biggest cause of humiliation and the greatest damage done to Islamic societies is the contents of the Koran and the details of Sharia law itself.<br /><br />The depressing and absurd conclusion however is that much of this is simply slurred over, denied or explained away. Blandishments like “all religion has its fanatics” “ we need to address the educational and economic factors of this malaise” “we should not blame an entire religion on the actions of a small minority of its members” “ we need to remember all the good that religion does”. All of the these statements could apply equally to the Catholic Church as well as Islam, though I could modify the first statement by saying: “all religions have its paedophiles” - though in the case of Islam following the example of its beloved prophet - thinks it perfectly acceptable that grown men should marry and enjoy full “conjugal” relations with girls as young as nine. Maybe the only difference is that Catholicism keeps its child rapes secret - while Islam boasts of it - that you tell you something at least about the “clash of civilisations.”<br /><br />It is time we ended the dogma that there is such a thing as freedom of belief or respect for beliefs that have nothing supporting them but ignorance and tradition, either a belief is supported by the evidence or it is not, if it is not then it should be abandoned. Religious belief has the same ontological status as fairies, ghosts and goblins. Its books belong to the same shelf as the Odyssey; Arabian Nights; or the Lord of the Rings. People are killing and dying in the name of nothing. Organizing their lives around a fiction. Religious moderates, condescending secularists and liberals are all engaged in the ponzi scheme that religion is useful and necessary for the uneducated and the unwell. The results of this Faustian bargain with faith meanwhile are bodies piled higher than the sun, the slavery of many millions of women, the relentless demonising of Jews and homosexuals and the abandonment of children to religious demagoguery and sexual predation. <br /><br />Truly, God loves his children.Michael Faulknerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557198430260528922noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6626098889543320908.post-51746200059606052332009-09-10T06:05:00.000-07:002009-09-13T11:57:48.270-07:00Rational IncrementalismIn my last post I was considering scepticism and the certainty of knowledge. I signalled at end that I would discuss a term I had coined: <span style="font-style: italic;">Rational Incrementalism</span>. Though what I propose here is nothing new, nor is it some new way of thinking about knowledge and certainty, it is rather, a organising structure - a kind of conceptual map. A map that we can compare theories and propositions to. I am, mostly, considering scientific theories here, however in a later post, I will consider its application outside of the sciences.<br /><br />Modern science as opposed to theology or certain non empirical strands of philosophy acquires knowledge in piecemeal form. It builds up a picture of the world in fits and starts, gradually or - incrementally. Theology, makes grand claims to knowledge on the basis of a few dogmatically held positions; it can then happily and whimsically build elaborate and ornate systems of belief based on these suppositions; should though, one supposed foundation be found wrong or invalid - then the whole edifice comes crashing down. Some might argue that science is similar: “a ugly fact can kill a theory”, indeed, but science in making more piecemeal claims seeks to find a number of coherent, mutually supportable beliefs (or theories) with attendant facts and evidence. Though a fact can kill a theory, more often than not it is assimilated into the existing paradigm or theory, thereby enriching, expanding or modifying our understanding.<br /><br />What I will outline is the conceptual terrain that a theory <span style="font-style: italic;">may </span>pass through before we can say, with <span style="font-style: italic;">sufficient certainty</span>, that it can count as knowledge, or, at the very least, having a high probabilty of being correct.To capture the progress in a metaphor - our understanding of the world according to this paradigm - progress like a person on a escalator. They start out at the bottom -yet gradually, incrementally, they get lifted higher and higher - they “see” more, they understand more, as their experience of the world increases. Furthermore, by proceeding cautiously and methodically they do not greatly risk falling over, or the ground giving way under them. They do not make one big improbable “leap” to knowledge - loudly proclaiming truth - no; whatever claims a scientist, generally makes, are the result of careful laborious research and painstaking years of study. The theory progress via six stages: 1. Idea. 2. Speculation. 3. Hypothesis. 4. Theory. 5. Error theory. 6. Scientific explanation or scientifically established theory.<br /><br />1. Idea<br /><br />Firstly, before there is any theory, before any hypothesis can be tested, there must first be ideas or possibilities. This is perhaps, where a creative aspect to science and philosophy comes in. I should define an idea as merely a possibility: that, which does not have any evidence for it either way. Ideas can be conceived in two main ways. Firstly, they can be conceived in what could be termed an “<span style="font-style: italic;">a priori</span>” position. Thus, the thinker knows no important facts or circumstances upon which he is thinking about - he thinks up ideas and thereby seeks evidence to confirm or disconfirm his idea. The second kind of idea - one studies a body of evidence or set of circumstances - after which the thinker/scientist/philosopher attempts to conceive a theory which explains these facts - this, is post facto style of explanation; one needs to be careful however - that they do not yarn a JUST SO STORY. There first kind of idea is, what I shall term <span style="font-style: italic;">hypothetical ideas</span>, the latter being <span style="font-style: italic;">explainer ideas.</span><br /><br /><br />2. Speculation.<br /><br />Now we have our idea. We either have an idea that will attempt to explain what we have seen or experienced (explainer ideas) or we will attempt to make the evidence fit our burgeoning theory (hypothetical ideas). Either way, what we must do now is test our idea or concept. Except in some cases, perhaps in the nitty gritty sciences of molecular biology or astrophysics -we can do a lot of preliminary testing from our armchairs. We look to see if there are any reasons or evidence in support of our supposition, or indeed, reasons that would seriously count against it. If we can see something that could drastically kill the idea (falsify - make highly improbable, or indeed if it’s highly improbable in the first place -thus not worth pursuing) - then we are back to the drawing board, if not then we advance to step three<br /><br />3. Hypothesis.<br /><br />We now have tested our concept in a purely informal and largely unscientific way, indeed a lot of the work up until now concerns language and concepts and armchair reasoning. Questons like, what do we mean? What would prove or disprove it? What kinds of evidence am I looking for? Is what I am talking about coherent with what we already know? Is it internally consistent? Now however, it is time for philosophy to give way to science. We have hammered out a concept or proposition to test; the aim, being either to provide verification of our hypothesis, or falsification. If our experiment goes well, and it is repeated with success - peer reviewed satisfactorily and so on - then we are on to stage four.<br /><br />4. Theory.<br /><br />We now have a theory, perhaps a new one, or a competing one or new alternate theory which explains some phenomena. The important thing however to note, is that the new theory is only one among many; subsequently, it will have to compete against these other theories, and at the same time answer any potential criticisms before it can be respected as an established theory. The reason being, that, for any body of data we can have multiple interpretations or theories. Our new theory then, is just a new kid on the block: out to “prove itself” - why it’s a better theory than the others on the “free-market of ideas”. Though the new theory has some empirical support - it is far from conclusive; the next goal then, is to point out why the alternate explanations are wrong or that the objections are misguided or misinformed.<br /><br />5. Error Theory.<br /><br />Strictly speaking, a new theory does not always call for an error theory. It’s possible that something original has been discovered that does not appear to supersede or refute an existing theory. This is not always so however, as the case of Darwin and Einstein showed. What an error theory purports to show, is why we were wrong to think the former theory was correct. It many ways, this is a powerful and important philosophical tool; it, in effect, performs a Ju-Jitsu move on the opposition - using the force of the opponents argument against them. An Error theory, then, needs to explain coherently why the originally theory or belief was mistakenly held in the first place. I should note, though, that an error theory needs to be deployed <span style="font-style: italic;">after</span> some positive evidence has been produced for a new theory which explains the facts; as anyone can do an error theory for anything established - but its useless if they do not provide in the old theory’s place an explanation of the phenomena.<br /><br />6. Scientific theory or established theory.<br /><br />Finally, the theory is ready to be considered a fully established, scientific theory. It has considerable explanatory power - better than any other theory. It demonstrates a high degree of consistency with the evidence; it leaves no ambiguities or unexplained problems; additionally, it coheres with what we already know to be true; furthermore, it is simple: it does not rely on obscure, largely unproven, or implausible assumptions; lastly, and perhaps, most importantly - it is testable - with a large body of experimental data to back up its claims.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Putting theory into practice - where the rubber meets the road.</span><br /><br />Lets now compare this conceptual map to say - Darwin’s theory of evolution by means of natural selection. Darwin it should be noted, was not the first person to conceive of evolution: a number of Greek philosophers noted its possibility - they did not, however, test it or provide evidence for it - so it remained merely an idea. Darwin’s Grandfather, Erasmus, understood its possibility. There was, in addition, a small number of other thinkers, who, before Charles Darwin, explored the possibility - with some references to artificial selection . It could be said however, that their ideas were speculation - they had some evidential support, but it lacked scope and sufficient rigour.<br /><br />Darwin provided the hypothesis and the theory - alongside Alfred Russell Wallace. Darwin, after years of thinking and amassing evidence provided testable hypotheses, and a mechanism or means by which evolution unfolds: natural selection. Darwin could point to the fossil record and argue that lower forms evolve into more complex forms (by way of transitional fossils) - over great expanses of time. Indeed, the artificial selection, and hence - evolution - of dogs, pigeons and livestock; which subsequently, though well know, provided additional and highly persuasive evidence for the burgeoning and highly controversial theory of evolution.<br /><br />Darwin and Wallace then, developed the theory ( evolution by natural selection) which promised enormous explanatory power, it was in its day - highly plausible and consistent with the evidence that was available. However, it could be argued that it was not until relatively recent times - that the last two features of our schema were provided for: an error theory and that Darwin’s theory became a fully established, and secure, scientific theory.<br /><br />Many thinkers have provided reasons as to why we did not conceive of evolution sooner and why many have trouble grasping it, or rather - accepting it. If we set aside religious propaganda, and examine the factors which gave rise to movements like creationism - we will find - intuitively attractive, or seductive “reasons”, though entirely unsound, - why some “think” design so convincing and evolution so absurd.<br /><br />Firstly, evolution requires a vast amount of time to work - the earth being only a few thousand years old - hence not enough time for the theory to work. This objection, which is still made today, was solved in Darwin’s own time, where the age of the earth was shown to be very old indeed. Humans who only live, if at best, for a few decades, subsequently - many cannot grasp deep geological time.<br /><br />The second reason we have trouble with evolution is that we are a tool making species. Darwin’s theory, as Daniel Dennett notes: “is a strange inversion of reason…. You never see a pot making a pot maker, never see a spear making a spear maker…. Never see a car making a carmaker.” Darwin’s theory when presented to our common-sense intuitions - flat out nonsensical - it has it the wrong way round. It is only complex things which can create or design less complex things; but Darwin and scientists ever since, have shown time and again why, this is wrong.<br /><br />Since Darwin wrote Origin of Species, there has been a number of scientific breakthroughs that have supported and extended his theory. Firstly, there was the discovery of genes - this solved the problem that vexed Darwin as to how the information from parent to child was passed, thus ensuring the preservation of information which allowed superior organisms to survive and reproduce. Secondly, with the advent of computer technology and complex mathematical algorithms - the theory of natural selection as a mechanism - can be tested, abit theoretically. Furthermore, after more than a hundred years of investigations, in biology, in palaeontology, bacteriology, epidemiology - Darwin’s theory, is, as Richard Dawkins affirms: “the only game in town”.<br /><br />Conclusion<br /><br />To sum up then, we can use this conceptual map or schema to assess on what point of the scale a theory or hypothesis rests on. Furthermore, we can see what work lies in front of us if we wish to establish an idea or theory as knowledge. Finally, this paradigm allows us to independently assess what degree of support a theory or explanation has in the scientific community - we can seek out and examine studies, experiments, books and experts - in order to determine how well established and respected a theory is.Michael Faulknerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557198430260528922noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6626098889543320908.post-40179660944960519722009-09-05T06:53:00.000-07:002009-09-12T07:14:24.221-07:00On ScepticismRecently, I have been considering the uses, values and applications of scepticism. I will try to distinguish firstly, what I mean by the term scepticism. We ought to bare in mind the sharp and frequently misunderstood distinction between academic, philosophical or theoretical scepticism or Scepticism, and “applied” or “practical” scepticism. I shall briefly sketch the differing forms of this position, Finally, I will recommend some practical recommendations when applying sceptical thought to real life problems.<br /><br />Consider academic scepticism: this can be taken to be either one of two positions. The first being that all knowledge claims are of equal merit: we cannot rationally distinguish any claims to knowledge - we hold all claims, or pretensions to certainty, as being equally probable. The second, is a more moderate position: any inference between fact and theory - then there is always a underdetermination of evidence. This means for example, that when I throw an apple up in the air - the established and empirically backed theory of gravity explains - why the apple falls to earth. It is possible however, to construct a consistent (though implausible) theory of why the scientists are wrong - that it is, instead, a invisible demon pushing the apple down.<br /><br />I shall now outline the problems with this form of Scepticism (this will apply both to the stronger and weaker forms.) Given however, the persuasiveness of arguments produced by philosophers such as Hume, Russell and Quine, it would be reasonable to say that we can never be absolutely sure of any claims to knowledge, even gravity or claims involving mathematics (Quine). Though I broadly accept this argument; while subsequently rejecting however, the idea that all knowledge claims are equally probable or likely; I find, in the end, that this sort of Scepticism is next to useless; moreover, it allows people to be lazy, or worse, insincere - “you believe what you believe and I believe what I believe - in the end its all just opinion.”<br /><br />This kind of Scepticism is useless, for, like Pyrrho - you end up with your head stuck in the ground, not knowing whether or not it’s a good idea to try and remove it. Secondly, this form of scepticism is self-defeating. Like the Marxist argument concerning super-structure or false consciousness - it can be boomeranged back against the opponent and vice versa - without any address to the substance of each other’s argument. Each person take up a position of complete scepticism against the other, thus - no progress is made. Next, the claim that one knows nothing or cannot know anything - is contradictory - for one cannot claim to know even that. Finally, the claim, though sound - that we can never have absolute certainty, leads moreover, to a non-sequitur if we say that there does not exist probabilistic degrees of certainty or rational expectation - that any claim to knowledge has a 50/50 probability. Bertrand Russell closed the door to this fallacy forever when he came up with the argument from ignorance: the celestial teapot. We can never be sure that there is a teapot orbiting the sun, or that there are fairies in the bottom of the garden - though we cannot disprove such things, there is scarcely a reason to believe that a china white teapots currently orbits space or that there are pixies playing in the garden.<br /><br />Turing now to the more profitable uses of scepticism then, - keep in mind how one could, potentially, be wrong. Seek out then, alternative explanations and other possibilities, indeed, invite criticism and debate - to ensure that you have not fallen for the first explanation you have been presented or came up with. Be careful when judging claims that are outside of your field of expertise; furthermore, be mindful of the emotional reactions when you comes across an argument that contrasts with your position - that “extraordinary claims require extraordinarily evidence”; finally, beware the claims that seek to bolster self-esteem or attempt to flatter one sense of self.<br /><br />Here are a few useful rules of thumb when using positive or practical scepticism. I draw some of them from Bertrand Russell’s essay on the values of scepticism.<br /><br />1. When experts are agreed, the opposite claim cannot be held to be certain. 2. When they (the experts) are not certain - no opinion cannot be held to be certain by a non-expert. 3. When they hold that no sufficient ground exist for a view - the non-expert suspends judgment.<br /><br />In addition to these guidelines, I would add the metaphor of a juror considering evidence in a court case. Imagine what would, in the circumstances of the case, consist of reasonable doubt - has, then, those doubts been met? Consider what evidence or arguments would force you to revise or abandon your conclusion? Attempt then, to seek these alternate explanations, possibilities and doubts out - if you do not find them, or if they are not persuasive - then maintain your position. Finally, ask yourself, are you being objective and dispassionate in your analysis and evaluation, or, are you being driven by emotion and prejudice.<br /><br />This short primer then, should help us keep in mind the important and often forgotten distinction between philosophical and practical scepticism. Furthermore, the maxims outlined are useful rules to keep in mind when encountering strange and extraordinary claims - especially if they lie outside our normal range of experience and expertise. In addition to this short missive on rational thought, in my next blog, I will consider a gradient or structure where we can track our ever increasing certainty when considering a theory - the process I call <span style="font-style: italic;">Rational Incrementalism.</span><br /><br />best<br /><br />Michael.Michael Faulknerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557198430260528922noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6626098889543320908.post-7718980102174434952009-08-25T02:41:00.000-07:002009-09-10T06:17:28.317-07:00In Defence Of The New Atheists.Since 9/11 there has been a growing body of literature testifying to the detrimental effects of religious faith; equally, there is now an ever increasing chorus of voices devoted to saying - that it aint so: that religion is rather benign; that it isn’t a wellspring of human ignorance, superstition and intolerance; furthermore, these defenders of dogma charge the “New Atheists” of “intolerance”, “damaging science” and, incredibly, fuelling religious mania.<br /><br />Religious apologists generally come in two stripes: the deeply religious themselves; and the religious/agnostic or “woolly minded, secular liberals”. An example of the first kind would be someone like William Lane Craig or Dinesh De Souza; the latter, consisting of: Terry Eagleton, Karen Armstrong, Madeline Bunting, Robert Winston, and, finally, the new kids on the block - Sheril Kirshenbaum and Chris Mooney. It is, this latter “troupe” that I will be reviewing here. Admittedly, among the people I mentioned, there is diversity of opinion, but I would argue that we can safely ignore this. The criticism they make generally pertain to three lines of thinking: that the New Atheists have caricatured religious faith; that they misuse science for their own ideological purposes; and that they are every bit as fundamentalist as they people they criticise.<br /><br />Firstly, lets take this charge of caricaturing religion. This comes down to two specific charges: that they widely misrepresent the texts of the Bible and the Koran; that they exaggerate the numbers of people who believe in things like virgin births, angels, and the belief in the sacredness of martyrdom. There can be little doubt that the God of the Old Testament or the Koran is not a moderate- self described as a “jealous” “wrathful” male - yes male - who engages in a fair bit of “ethic cleansing”, advocates slavery when not smiting people for heresy, who floods the world in anger when his new toy displeases him. In the two thousands years or so since these barbarism were first set down - many, it would seem, think that God has somehow evolved - tracking, rather suspiciously, the moral progress we have made in the time say - since we thought it was acceptable to stone a woman on her fathers doorstep for not being a virgin on her wedding night. Many, mistakenly, have thought that Jesus did away with all this absurdity and cruelty; nothing, however, could be further from the truth, early on Jesus “states” that every “jot” of the law shall be fulfilled. Indeed, on many occasions Jesus preaches that unbelievers are heading for hell “the burning lake of fire”, the sinfulness of adultery and divorce - yes, divorce, a decree that almost everyone - including Catholics (in their moral “backsliding” ignores. ) Finally, the latter books of the bible prophesy a angry Jesus - returned to judge the living and the dead - raining down wrath on the unbelievers and unrighteous.<br /><br />One could go on with such examples - Paul railing against homosexuality, endorsing slavery, telling women to obey their husbands and keep quiet at the back of the church. If we were to listen though to religious apologists like Eagleton, all this does not matter: “God created the world for “love and delight”; Karen Armstrong, presumably after endorsing the “apophatic” tradition would state that we can say “nothing” on religious questions - that we practice “negative theology”. This now, is where theory meets practice, where religious obscurantism meets intellectual dishonesty. How many American Christians believe the statement: “we cannot say anything of God”. How many Muslims, at the very least, don’t believe that the Koran and the Hadith are best guide we have to living through this veil of tears? How many Christians - <span style="font-style: italic;">don’t </span>think that faith in Jesus will someone save them and <span style="font-style: italic;">not</span> others - lifting them up to a celestial paradise after death? Not many, not many at all, and that is the only honest answer that one can give.<br /><br />Let me be charitable. Lets say, for the sake of argument, that the theologians are right, that God is some disinterested “entity” the “ground of all being”, that the Bible and the Koran has been greatly, vastly misinterpreted, it would not subtract - not a “jot” - from the fact that millions of our credulous neighbours believe the preposterous. A Harris poll taken in 2007 showed that “79 percent of Americans believed in miracles”, belief in hell and the devil got a confident 62 percent, belief in the theory of evolution limped in at 42 percent. A few years ago, the British newspaper <span style="font-style: italic;">The Telegraph</span> conducted an ICM poll which found that four out of ten British Muslims wish to see Sharia Law in the UK, a footnote to this cheery finding was that twenty percent had “sympathy” with the July 7 bombers. Consider, finally, this nugget from a Pew poll on Islamic extremism, while it reported that support for terrorism and violence had decreased, many still had love in their hearts for Bin Laden and the aspirations of Al Qaeda:<br /><br /> <span style="font-style: italic;"> In Indonesia, the public is now about evenly split with 35% saying they place at least some confidence in bin Laden and 37% saying they have little or none, a major loss of confidence from the 58% to 36% split recorded in May 2003. Among Indonesians, confidence in the Al Qaeda leader is lower among older citizens but <span style="font-weight: bold;">is higher among the more affluent. </span>Among those ages 18-34, 39% express a lot or some confidence in bin Laden compared with less than a third of those 35 and over. However, while only 32% of people in the bottom income tier have confidence in bin Laden, 37% of middle-income and 42% of higher-income people do so.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">In only two countries, Pakistan and Jordan, has support for the Al Qaeda leader increased. In Pakistan, slightly more than half now place a lot or some confidence in bin Laden, an increase from the 45% who said so in 2003. Among Pakistanis, gender is a significant dividing line with nearly two-in-three men (65%) reporting a lot or some confidence in bin Laden, compared with 36% of women. </span><br /><br /><br />While this does show an improvement, and is encouraging, it is hardly grounds for stable optimism nor benign international relations; moreover, it does attest well to the fallacious notion that Islam is a religion hijacked by a few oddball Jihadists. It may even - be plausibly argued that, except in the countries were conflict takes place, the willingness to use force as a counter-measure to terrorism may lead to falling levels of support for terror in worldwide Muslim communities.<br /><br />The ability to criticise bad ideas - about ethics, about beliefs about the world, about the nature and order of human relationships, using robust intellectual argument, is, when applied to religion - considered disrespectful, coarse and unproductive. In particular, critics of religion has been accused of prostituting science in conducting a holy war against fundamentalists. The most recent advocates are Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum in their book: <span style="font-style: italic;">Unscientific America</span>. Mooney and Kirshenbaum accuse the New Atheists of unnecessary confrontation; asking “must science conduct a holy war against religion” appearing to endorse NOMA and the National Academy of Sciences position who believe that “science and religion can be perfectly compatible”. Many others, have over the years endorsed this position: that religion and science ask and answer different questions, that science cannot say nothing on matters religious, that scientists are wedded to an a priori naturalism and so will not, in principle, consider things like raising the dead, walking on water or transforming water into wine under the purview of scientific rationality.<br /><br />These positions, while philosophically, scientifically and intellectually indefensible, are held, though somewhat naively - for laudable reasons. I doubt the likes of Moony and Kirshenbaum are pleased (as their book shows) with the abysmal state of ignorance that Americans are languishing in; but the mistake they make, is thinking that science is just another belief system - that simply contains a body of facts about the world we live in. Though it is surely this, science is much much more. Mooney’s goal seems to be thus: lets try and be nice and persuade a few moderate folk to accept Darwin; lets also say nothing too bad or offensive - case the ignorant mob get together and start burning down science laboratories.<br /><br />Religion and science is however, intrinsically opposed to one another. It is opposed for three chief reasons: religion relies on authority and science rejects authority in favour of questioning assumptions; religion relies on private feelings, geographical and subjective particularity, science however is universal and committed to objectivity; religion holds beliefs on the basis of faith and dogma, science will test and test again its hypothesises and will invite criticism and comment and adjusts itself accordingly. While Moony might be forgiven for trying to play nice with religious folk -as urgent action is needed on the question of climate charge (which they vehemently deny), it is, however, intellectually dishonest and morally negligible to simply lie to these people; to condescend to them and treat them as children. As Sam Harris recently pointed out, the New Atheists take their beliefs seriously; and yes, the baby will have to be thrown out with the bathwater: faith will need to go the way of slavery, torture, belief in witches, and a flat earth before we can begin to make moral and social progress on the ever growing litany of problems that our species face.<br /><br />The silliest criticism that has been levelled at the New Atheists is that they are every bit as intolerant, fundamentalist and militant as the people they criticize. As one columnist for the FT wrote recently - this charge ought to be laughed out of existence. Firstly, lets deal with the charge of dogmatism. To hold beliefs dogmatically, means that you hold them - whatever happens - regardless of the reasons or evidence that goes against it. How many times have we all heard religious people say something like “I am absolutely certain and there is nothing that would change my mind” - if anyone can produce a similar statement made by the New Atheists - I will happily eat their books.<br /><br />As to the charge to militancy: I cannot better Timothy Garton Ash, who also found the phrase amusing and mistaken - When someone like Richard Dawkins begins to brew bombs from an Oxford lab - then yes, the charge sticks. When was the last time their was an atheist riot over a insult or perceived slight? When was the last time an atheist blew himself up in the cause of spreading atheism? Indeed, when was the last time a secular humanist wanted to burn people to death over such a serious problem as theological disagreement?<br /><br />The Philosopher AC Grayling, in a brilliantly concise and elegant passages, sums up the position of science; the New Atheists position; and as well, shoots down one or two spurious positions that I have been covering here.<br /><br />“…any view of the world (atheism/methodological naturalism) which does not premise such belief. Any view of the world which does not premise the existence of something super-natural is a philosophy, or a theory, or at worst an ideology. If it is either of the two first, at its best it proportions what it accepts to the evidence for accepting it, knows what would refute it, and stands ready to revise itself in the light of new evidence. This is the essence of science. It comes as no surprise that no wars have been fought, pogroms carried out, or burnings conducted at the stake, over rival theories in biology or astrophysics.”<br /><br />And in a final flourish-<br /><br />“And one can grant the word “fundamental” does after all apply to this: in the phrase “fundamentally sensible”.”<br /><br />It is not the New Atheists then, who are doing a disservice to science or civil society by drawing attention to superstition, bigotry, and bronze age stupidity. Rather, it is the religious apologists themselves - by providing a cloak of respectability, by obfuscating on the historical and philosophical antagonisms between religion and science; it is they who are offering a patently false and misleading picture of what religion is and how it is practiced by the faithful. They are dangerously mistaken. It is time we put our cards on the table; it is time we acknowledged, that yes, we are still hugely ignorant of all the mysteries that this universe contains, that a proper scientific and rational approach to ethics is only beginning; that there is a place for such things as mysticism and spiritual practice, as well as such human basics as community, co-operation and fraternity. These insights, into the moral and scientific landscape however, will be gained in the present, through the fruits of experiment, philosophy and personal reflection. There is no reason, no reason what so ever, to think that scripture written thousands of years ago - by men - ignorant of such basic knowledge that would make an eight year old blush - contain - the great and ultimate truths; the best way to live; and the best way to develop a global, interconnected hyper-community. The sooner we all realise this grotesque marriage of fear, ignorance, dishonesty and credulity that is religion, that cheapens and diminishes human life, the better.<br /><br />Best<br /><br />Mike.Michael Faulknerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557198430260528922noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6626098889543320908.post-71861759239683197702009-08-21T07:19:00.000-07:002009-08-21T07:36:03.387-07:00Study the Self to know the self to forget the self.“To study the Self is to Forget the self”<br /><br /> - Dogen<br /><br />“Gnothi seauton - know thyself”<br /><br /> - Ancient Greek motto<br /><br />A while back I had a kind of epiphany: not an intellectual one - it was intuitive - like getting a joke. I had been re-reading some Bertrand Russell, and was thinking to myself that one of the main themes in his Conquest Of Happiness, is to lose the sense of self. Russell was a philosopher: a professional thinker; someone who suffered at times from prison that is the self or the Ego. Quite a few times in his book he stresses the importance of letting go of one’s anxieties, one’s ego, one’s obsession with thinking. As I was contemplating this I remembered a phrase I had read in Zen Mind beginner’s Mind: “to study the self is to forget the self”. I saw that, in many ways, both men’s projects for happiness: abit very different as to means; are, in their ends, rather similar.<br /><br />It is something of a paradox: the paradox of individualism. Both Russell: representing Humanism; the Stoics such as Epictetus and Aurelius; Zen Buddhism such as Dogen, Suzuki; all, doctrinally stress the importance of individual development, restraining the ego, and promoting wellbeing. I recognise of course that this is a somewhat broad and idiosyncratic representation<br />of all these systems of thought; they, however, contrast markedly with Islam, Christianity or Communism and Fascism - all laying stress on the individual conforming to the group and submitting their interests to it - to the collective.<br /><br />Individualism in this sense differs from what can be called Egoism. I had this distinction clarified for me by Karl Popper in his book: <span style="font-style: italic;">Open Society and its Enemies</span>. Egoism - can best be grasped by example - the kind of “Aristocratic” selfish, cruel, and violent individualism of a Nietzsche or a Byron. Altruistic individualism on the other hand sees the individual as a free agent, who keeps his independent mind, yet helps others, and integrates himself as part of a larger whole. The example of the Buddha, Socrates and Jesus attest to this altruistic individualism.<br /><br />“Find something greater than you are and surrender yourself to it”<br /><br /> - Dan Dennett<br /><br />In meditation practice you sit and notice the Self; you notice all the vain, useless and selfish thoughts that whirl into focus then drift out. Meditation practice, as I have wrote, is a kind of mental discipline, its also like mental weeding: a process by which you break down all the barriers and barricades that separate you from other people, that keep you wrapped up in the prison of the self. Joko Beck has a illuminating analogy were she compares the gradual practice of meditation to melting ice cubes. The cube, at first, is cold, sharp and impenetrable. It keeps people from connecting; when two people (or cubes) collide - chaos and anger ensures. Meditation then, is a heat that melts the cube, that frees people - this is why perhaps, contemplative practice is often called a liberating experience. Indeed, the vow of the Bodhisattva: “I vow to liberate all beings, without number”, express this sentiment well. Bertrand Russell, who did have a admiration for certain aspects of Mysticism, did not meditate of course; but he sought similar states of attention through love; through work; through hill climbing and many other activities. He ends his gem of a book: Conquest of Happiness, with this, marvellous little peroration.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">“In fact the whole antithesis between self and the rest of the world, which is implied in the doctrine of self-denial, disappears as soon as we have any genuine interest in persons or things outside ourselves. Through such interests a man comes to feel himself part of the stream, of life, not a hard separate entity like a billiard-ball, which can have no relation with other such entities except that of collocation. All unhappiness depends upon some kind of disintegration or lack or integration; there is disintegration within the self through lack of co-ordination between the conscious and the unconscious mind; there is lack of integration between the self and society where the two are not knit together by the force of objective interests and affections. The happy man is the man who does not suffer from either of these failures of unity, whose personality is neither divides against itself nor pitted against the world. Such a man feels himself a citizen of the universe, enjoying freely the spectacle that it offers and the joys that if affords, untroubled by the thought of death because he feels himself not really <span style="font-weight: bold;">separate </span>from those who will come after him. It is in such profound instinctive union with the stream of life that the greatest joy is to be found.”</span><br /><br />Best<br /><br />Mike.Michael Faulknerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557198430260528922noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6626098889543320908.post-90360602288506755862009-08-20T04:04:00.000-07:002009-08-25T16:34:19.068-07:00Bigotry, Stupidity and Superstition in the Age of the Internet.Last night, my friend and I, after sitting through Dune: David Lynch’s beautiful mess of a film; we traversed into the dark heart of America - via the omniscient power of the internet. My friend, perhaps a little naïve, was shocked to discover that the Prophet Muhammad had sex with a nine year old girl (this came up after the discovery that Dune has many allusions and parallels to Islam and the oil situation in the Middle East.) He was dumbfounded when he saw the Conservapedia site; laughed outright at the sheer verbal and intellectual incompetence of Sarah Palin; and, was thoroughly disgusted by a evangelical propaganda video.<br /><br />The omnipresent question one always has to ask oneself: how can anyone believe this? You can have perfectly sound explanations of course, indeed, you can even have deep and penetrating psychological and scientific accounts of why people believe the “darndest” things, But still, despite someone like myself, (who is oddly familiar with quite a bit of human credulity), I find myself - adrift in sea of apoplexy and confusion, which, finally, waves into amused apathy and despondent futility.<br /><br />Why are so many Americans, from the point of view of everyone else - so seemingly ridiculous? Now I am no crude despiser of America; on the contrary rather - it is a great country. Nevertheless, the Republican cum Christian right cum paranoid maniacs are - a menace to society. It seems miraculous, that in the age of the internet, space exploration and instant global communication, people, indeed, “high ranking” politicians can still believe in something like witches. Somewhere close to fifty percent of the American electorate believe in the actual existence of Satan; a higher number almost certainly believe that all living organisms were created in their present form by some kind of celestial creator - the same people believe that Man was created in a special act of creation, thus making him, indeed HIM, the centre of a cosmic sit-com. It generally goes unmentioned that many of the same people, who’s beliefs are of the sheerest ignorance - even to a reasonably educated six year old, are the same "loons" who are stymieing, what is perhaps the most important piece of legislation that the US government has attempted to pass in a generation: healthcare reform. It also goes without saying - literally - that many of the same group, believe that Obama - a confection of so many fears: liberal, black, educated; moderately religious (if religious at all); these fearful facts that are, on their own, shocking to the “average American” are married to a perception of Obama as a avatar of Satan; a messiah of Marxism; a closet Muslim; and a “figure” from the book of revelations.<br /><br /><br />Consider the lies that has been perpetuated concerning healthcare. The irony tapers ever upwards towards astronomical heights of surrealism when one considers that many on the Republican wing would benefit from reform. Johann Hari from the Independent, pointed this out recently with poker faced hilarity - recounting that a Republican “activist” was injured fighting in a town hall meeting concerning healthcare -only to waill later that he had no insurance. Never-mind also, the fact that America already has “socialised” medicine. Ponder over some of these examples, drawn from factcheck.org; if one did not know better one would think these are taken from the spoof political website: the Onion.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/false-euthanasia-claims/"><br />http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/false-euthanasia-claims/</a><br /><a href="http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/surgery-for-seniors-vs-abortions/"><br />http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/surgery-for-seniors-vs-abortions/</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/more-senior-scare/">http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/more-senior-scare/</a><br /><br /><br />How could anyone fall for this? We need to remember, that right from the cradle many of them were brought up to believe in Jesus, the virtues of carrying firearms and the sinfulness of Homosexuality; that anyone you ever knew believed this; you parents believed this and expected you to believe this, moreover, demanded that you believe it. It would then, take a exceptional individual to overcome such a social pressure and maladaptive upbringing. The problems of individual autonomy and clear thinking are further sabotaged by the fact that the majority of evangelicals are home schooled - thus prevented from coming into contact with other children - other ways of thinking - other ways of seeing the world. Evangelicals, live in a sequestered world, they live in a closed society; despite all the technology of the 21st century, most Americas are as ignorant of the world as a Afghan peasant. This brings me to my next exhibit: Conservapedia.<br /><br /><br />Could anything be more forlorn when you read “An encyclopaedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint.” - “the trustworthy encyclopaedia”. Edited and maintained by a posse of creationist wing-nuts; the purpose of the site: counter Wikipedia’s “bias” and provide “material” for “homeschooled children” - we should abandon this euphemism and simply call a spade a spade - this is, and always was - indoctrination.<br /><br />Check out the hilarity -<br /><br /><a href="http://www.conservapedia.com/Obama">http://www.conservapedia.com/Obama</a><br /><br />(my friend was puzzled when I wondered whether the site would indulge the “birther” conspiracy - it does - (“Barack Hussein Obama II (allegedly[1][2][3][4][5] born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961)”<br /><br />Accuses Obama of mind control: “Obama used techniques of mind control in his campaign, as in this speech: "a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, 'I have to vote for Barack.'"<br /><br />The icing on the cake: Obama is the “first Muslim President” and possibly an atheist!?? Where is the epistemology people!<br /><br />If you thought that it was bad enough that half the American electorate hold beliefs that were first developed at a time, when a bicycle would appear as a masterpiece of technological creativity - it is not, just “regular folk” but Governors, Senators and, yes, Presidents. Enter stage right - Sarah Palin, or “Sarah Barracuda” former beauty queen, hockey mom and mayor of a little town no bigger than the hamlet out of Last of the Summer Wine. Palin: almost certainly will run for President in the next election. A President who is a believer in witches;<br /><br /><a href="http://www.blogger.com/Last%20night,%20my%20friend%20and%20I,%20after%20sitting%20through%20Dune:%20David%20Lynch%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%99s%20beautiful%20mess%20of%20a%20film;%20we%20traversed%20into%20the%20dark%20heart%20of%20America%20-%20via%20the%20omniscient%20power%20of%20the%20internet.%20My%20friend,%20perhaps%20a%20little%20na%C3%83%C2%AFve,%20was%20shocked%20to%20discover%20that%20the%20Prophet%20Muhammad%20had%20sex%20with%20a%20nine%20year%20old%20girl%20%28this%20came%20up%20after%20the%20discovery%20that%20Dune%20has%20many%20allusions%20and%20parallels%20to%20Islam%20and%20the%20oil%20situation%20in%20the%20middle%20east.%29%20He%20was%20dumbfounded%20when%20he%20saw%20the%20Conservapedia%20site;%20laughing%20outright%20at%20the%20sheer%20verbal%20and%20intellectual%20incompetence%20of%20Sarah%20Palin;%20and,%20was%20thoroughly%20disgusted%20by%20a%20evangelical%20propaganda%20video.%20%20The%20omnipresent%20question%20one%20always%20has%20to%20ask%20oneself:%20how%20can%20anyone%20believe%20this?%20You%20can%20have%20perfectly%20sound%20explanations%20of%20course,%20indeed,%20you%20can%20even%20have%20deep%20and%20penetrating%20psychological%20and%20scientific%20accounts%20of%20why%20people%20believe%20the%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9Cdarndest%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20things,%20But%20still,%20despite%20someone%20like%20myself,%20%28who%20is%20oddly%20familiar%20with%20quite%20a%20bit%20of%20human%20credulity%29,%20I%20find%20myself%20-%20adrift%20in%20sea%20of%20apoplexy%20and%20confusion,%20which,%20finally,%20waves%20into%20amused%20apathy%20and%20despondent%20futility.%20%20Why%20are%20so%20many%20Americans,%20from%20the%20point%20of%20view%20of%20everyone%20else%20-%20so%20seemingly%20ridiculous?%20Now%20I%20am%20no%20crude%20despiser%20of%20America;%20on%20the%20contrary%20rather%20-%20it%20is%20a%20great%20country.%20Nevertheless,%20the%20Republican%20cum%20Christian%20right%20cum%20paranoid%20maniacs%20are%20-%20a%20menace%20to%20society.%20It%20seems%20miraculous,%20that%20in%20the%20age%20of%20the%20internet,%20space%20exploration%20and%20instant%20global%20communication,%20people,%20indeed,%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9Chigh%20ranking%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20politicians%20can%20still%20believe%20in%20something%20like%20witches.%20Somewhere%20close%20to%20fifty%20percent%20of%20the%20American%20electorate%20believe%20in%20the%20actual%20existence%20of%20Satan;%20a%20higher%20number%20almost%20certainly%20believe%20that%20all%20living%20organisms%20were%20created%20in%20their%20present%20form%20by%20some%20kind%20of%20celestial%20creator%20-%20the%20same%20people%20believe%20that%20man%20was%20created%20in%20a%20special%20act%20of%20creation,%20thus%20making%20him,%20indeed%20HIM,%20the%20centre%20of%20a%20cosmic%20sit-com.%20It%20generally%20goes%20unmentioned%20that%20many%20of%20the%20same%20people,%20who%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%99s%20beliefs%20are%20of%20the%20sheerest%20ignorance%20-%20even%20to%20a%20reasonably%20educated%20six%20year%20old,%20are%20the%20same%20loons%20who%20are%20stymieing,%20what%20is%20perhaps%20the%20most%20important%20piece%20of%20legislation%20that%20the%20US%20government%20has%20attempted%20to%20pass%20in%20a%20generation:%20healthcare%20reform.%20It%20also%20goes%20without%20saying%20-%20literally%20-%20that%20many%20of%20the%20same%20group,%20believe%20that%20Obama%20-%20a%20confection%20of%20so%20many%20fears:%20liberal,%20black,%20educated;%20moderately%20religious%20%28if%20religious%20at%20all%29;%20these%20fearful%20facts%20that%20are,%20on%20their%20own%20shocking%20to%20the%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9Caverage%20American%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20are%20married%20to%20a%20perception%20of%20Obama%20as%20a%20avatar%20of%20Satan;%20a%20messiah%20of%20Marxism;%20a%20closet%20Muslim;%20and%20a%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9Cfigure%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20from%20the%20book%20of%20revelations.%20%20%20Consider%20the%20lies%20that%20has%20been%20perpetuated%20concerning%20healthcare.%20The%20irony%20tapers%20ever%20upwards%20towards%20astronomical%20heights%20of%20surrealism%20when%20one%20considers%20that%20many%20on%20Republican%20wing%20would%20benefit%20from%20reform.%20Johann%20Hari%20from%20the%20Independent,%20pointed%20this%20out%20recently%20with%20poker%20faced%20hilarity%20-%20recounting%20that%20a%20Republican%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9Cactivist%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20was%20injured%20fighting%20in%20town%20hall%20meeting%20concerning%20healthcare%20-only%20to%20wail%20that%20he%20had%20no%20insurance.%20%20Never-mind%20also,%20the%20fact%20that%20America%20already%20has%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9Csocialised%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20medicine.%20%20Ponder%20over%20some%20of%20these%20examples,%20drawn%20from%20factcheck.org;%20if%20one%20did%20not%20know%20better%20one%20would%20think%20these%20are%20taken%20from%20the%20spoof%20political%20website:%20the%20Onion.%20%20%20%20%20http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/false-euthanasia-claims/%20%20http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/surgery-for-seniors-vs-abortions/%20%20http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/more-senior-scare/%20%20%20How%20could%20anyone%20fall%20for%20this?%20We%20need%20to%20remember,%20that%20right%20from%20the%20cradle%20many%20of%20them%20were%20brought%20up%20to%20believe%20in%20Jesus,%20the%20virtues%20of%20carrying%20firearms%20and%20the%20sinfulness%20of%20Homosexuality;%20that%20anyone%20you%20ever%20knew%20believed%20this;%20you%20parents%20believed%20this%20and%20expected%20you%20to%20believe%20this,%20moreover,%20demanded%20that%20you%20believe%20it.%20It%20would%20then,%20take%20a%20exceptional%20individual%20to%20overcome%20such%20a%20social%20pressure%20and%20maladaptive%20upbringing.%20The%20problems%20of%20individual%20autonomy%20and%20clear%20thinking%20are%20further%20sabotaged%20by%20the%20fact%20that%20the%20majority%20of%20evangelicals%20are%20home%20schooled%20-%20thus%20prevented%20from%20coming%20into%20contact%20with%20other%20children%20-%20other%20ways%20of%20thinking%20-%20other%20ways%20of%20seeing%20the%20world.%20Evangelicals,%20live%20in%20a%20sequestered%20world,%20they%20live%20in%20a%20closed%20society;%20despite%20all%20the%20technology%20of%20the%2021st%20century,%20most%20Americas%20are%20as%20ignorant%20of%20the%20world%20as%20a%20Afghan%20peasant.%20This%20brings%20me%20to%20my%20next%20exhibit:%20Conservapedia.%20%20%20Could%20anything%20be%20more%20forlorn%20when%20you%20read%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9CAn%20encyclopaedia%20with%20articles%20written%20from%20a%20conservative%20viewpoint.%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20-%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9Cthe%20trustworthy%20encyclopaedia%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D.%20Edited%20and%20maintained%20by%20a%20posse%20of%20creationist%20wing-nuts;%20the%20purpose%20of%20the%20site:%20counter%20Wikipedia%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%99s%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9Cbias%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20and%20provide%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9Cmaterial%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20for%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9Chomeschooled%20children%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20-%20we%20should%20abandon%20this%20euphemism%20and%20simply%20call%20a%20spade%20a%20spade%20-%20this%20is,%20and%20always%20was%20-%20indoctrination.%20%20%20Check%20out%20the%20hilarity%20-%20%20http://www.conservapedia.com/Obama%20%20%28my%20friend%20was%20puzzled%20when%20I%20wondered%20whether%20the%20site%20would%20indulge%20the%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9Cbirther%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20conspiracy%20-%20it%20does%20-%20%20%28%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9CBarack%20Hussein%20Obama%20II%20%28allegedly%5B1%5D%5B2%5D%5B3%5D%5B4%5D%5B5%5D%20born%20in%20Honolulu%20Aug.%204,%201961%29%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20%20Accuses%20Obama%20of%20mind%20control:%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9CObama%20used%20techniques%20of%20mind%20control%20in%20his%20campaign,%20as%20in%20this%20speech:%20%22a%20light%20will%20shine%20down%20from%20somewhere,%20it%20will%20light%20upon%20you,%20you%20will%20experience%20an%20epiphany,%20and%20you%20will%20say%20to%20yourself,%20%27I%20have%20to%20vote%20for%20Barack.%27%22%20%20The%20icing%20on%20the%20cake:%20Obama%20is%20the%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9Cfirst%20Muslim%20President%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20and%20possibly%20an%20atheist%21??%20Where%20is%20the%20epistemology%20people%21%20%20If%20you%20thought%20that%20it%20was%20bad%20enough%20that%20half%20the%20American%20electorate%20hold%20beliefs%20that%20were%20first%20developed%20at%20a%20time,%20when%20a%20bicycle%20would%20appear%20as%20a%20masterpiece%20of%20technological%20creativity%20-%20it%20is%20not,%20just%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9Cregular%20folk%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20but%20Governors,%20Senators%20and,%20yes,%20Presidents.%20Enter%20stage%20right%20-%20Sarah%20Palin,%20or%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9CSarah%20Barracuda%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20%20former%20beauty%20queen,%20hockey%20mom%20and%20mayor%20of%20a%20little%20town%20no%20bigger%20than%20the%20hamlet%20out%20of%20Last%20of%20the%20Summer%20Wine.%20Palin:%20almost%20certainly%20will%20run%20for%20President%20in%20the%20next%20election.%20A%20President%20who%20is%20a%20believer%20in%20witches;%20%20%20%20http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIOD5X68lIs%20%20A%20liar:%20http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biD1Eh69lb8&feature=channel%20%20A%20fool:%20http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nokTjEdaUGg%20%20%20Over%20the%20last%20couple%20of%20days,%20I%20have%20repeated%20to%20myself%20the%20infamous%20and%20rather%20ambiguous%20line%20of%20Thomas%20Jefferson:%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9CI%20tremble%20for%20my%20country%20when%20I%20remember%20that%20God%20is%20Just%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D.%20that,%20is%20more%20than%20I%20can%20say%20of%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9CGod%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20as%20conceived%20from%20this%20video%20http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kq2xbMHcOw&feature=PlayList&p=41F7E500317FA3D3&index=0&playnext=1%20%20%20Let%20me%20quote%20another%20famous,%20and%20somewhat%20abused%20line%20of%20Jefferson:%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9CThe%20tree%20of%20liberty%20must%20be%20refreshed%20from%20time%20to%20time%20with%20the%20blood%20of%20patriots%20and%20tyrants.%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20perhaps,%20in%20place%20of%20patriots%20and%20tyrants,%20we%20should%20have%20idiots%20and%20creationists%20-%20only%20joking.%20%20Best%20%20Mike.">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIOD5X68lIs<br /></a><br /><a href="http://www.blogger.com/Last%20night,%20my%20friend%20and%20I,%20after%20sitting%20through%20Dune:%20David%20Lynch%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%99s%20beautiful%20mess%20of%20a%20film;%20we%20traversed%20into%20the%20dark%20heart%20of%20America%20-%20via%20the%20omniscient%20power%20of%20the%20internet.%20My%20friend,%20perhaps%20a%20little%20na%C3%83%C2%AFve,%20was%20shocked%20to%20discover%20that%20the%20Prophet%20Muhammad%20had%20sex%20with%20a%20nine%20year%20old%20girl%20%28this%20came%20up%20after%20the%20discovery%20that%20Dune%20has%20many%20allusions%20and%20parallels%20to%20Islam%20and%20the%20oil%20situation%20in%20the%20middle%20east.%29%20He%20was%20dumbfounded%20when%20he%20saw%20the%20Conservapedia%20site;%20laughing%20outright%20at%20the%20sheer%20verbal%20and%20intellectual%20incompetence%20of%20Sarah%20Palin;%20and,%20was%20thoroughly%20disgusted%20by%20a%20evangelical%20propaganda%20video.%20%20The%20omnipresent%20question%20one%20always%20has%20to%20ask%20oneself:%20how%20can%20anyone%20believe%20this?%20You%20can%20have%20perfectly%20sound%20explanations%20of%20course,%20indeed,%20you%20can%20even%20have%20deep%20and%20penetrating%20psychological%20and%20scientific%20accounts%20of%20why%20people%20believe%20the%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9Cdarndest%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20things,%20But%20still,%20despite%20someone%20like%20myself,%20%28who%20is%20oddly%20familiar%20with%20quite%20a%20bit%20of%20human%20credulity%29,%20I%20find%20myself%20-%20adrift%20in%20sea%20of%20apoplexy%20and%20confusion,%20which,%20finally,%20waves%20into%20amused%20apathy%20and%20despondent%20futility.%20%20Why%20are%20so%20many%20Americans,%20from%20the%20point%20of%20view%20of%20everyone%20else%20-%20so%20seemingly%20ridiculous?%20Now%20I%20am%20no%20crude%20despiser%20of%20America;%20on%20the%20contrary%20rather%20-%20it%20is%20a%20great%20country.%20Nevertheless,%20the%20Republican%20cum%20Christian%20right%20cum%20paranoid%20maniacs%20are%20-%20a%20menace%20to%20society.%20It%20seems%20miraculous,%20that%20in%20the%20age%20of%20the%20internet,%20space%20exploration%20and%20instant%20global%20communication,%20people,%20indeed,%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9Chigh%20ranking%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20politicians%20can%20still%20believe%20in%20something%20like%20witches.%20Somewhere%20close%20to%20fifty%20percent%20of%20the%20American%20electorate%20believe%20in%20the%20actual%20existence%20of%20Satan;%20a%20higher%20number%20almost%20certainly%20believe%20that%20all%20living%20organisms%20were%20created%20in%20their%20present%20form%20by%20some%20kind%20of%20celestial%20creator%20-%20the%20same%20people%20believe%20that%20man%20was%20created%20in%20a%20special%20act%20of%20creation,%20thus%20making%20him,%20indeed%20HIM,%20the%20centre%20of%20a%20cosmic%20sit-com.%20It%20generally%20goes%20unmentioned%20that%20many%20of%20the%20same%20people,%20who%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%99s%20beliefs%20are%20of%20the%20sheerest%20ignorance%20-%20even%20to%20a%20reasonably%20educated%20six%20year%20old,%20are%20the%20same%20loons%20who%20are%20stymieing,%20what%20is%20perhaps%20the%20most%20important%20piece%20of%20legislation%20that%20the%20US%20government%20has%20attempted%20to%20pass%20in%20a%20generation:%20healthcare%20reform.%20It%20also%20goes%20without%20saying%20-%20literally%20-%20that%20many%20of%20the%20same%20group,%20believe%20that%20Obama%20-%20a%20confection%20of%20so%20many%20fears:%20liberal,%20black,%20educated;%20moderately%20religious%20%28if%20religious%20at%20all%29;%20these%20fearful%20facts%20that%20are,%20on%20their%20own%20shocking%20to%20the%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9Caverage%20American%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20are%20married%20to%20a%20perception%20of%20Obama%20as%20a%20avatar%20of%20Satan;%20a%20messiah%20of%20Marxism;%20a%20closet%20Muslim;%20and%20a%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9Cfigure%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20from%20the%20book%20of%20revelations.%20%20%20Consider%20the%20lies%20that%20has%20been%20perpetuated%20concerning%20healthcare.%20The%20irony%20tapers%20ever%20upwards%20towards%20astronomical%20heights%20of%20surrealism%20when%20one%20considers%20that%20many%20on%20Republican%20wing%20would%20benefit%20from%20reform.%20Johann%20Hari%20from%20the%20Independent,%20pointed%20this%20out%20recently%20with%20poker%20faced%20hilarity%20-%20recounting%20that%20a%20Republican%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9Cactivist%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20was%20injured%20fighting%20in%20town%20hall%20meeting%20concerning%20healthcare%20-only%20to%20wail%20that%20he%20had%20no%20insurance.%20%20Never-mind%20also,%20the%20fact%20that%20America%20already%20has%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9Csocialised%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20medicine.%20%20Ponder%20over%20some%20of%20these%20examples,%20drawn%20from%20factcheck.org;%20if%20one%20did%20not%20know%20better%20one%20would%20think%20these%20are%20taken%20from%20the%20spoof%20political%20website:%20the%20Onion.%20%20%20%20%20http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/false-euthanasia-claims/%20%20http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/surgery-for-seniors-vs-abortions/%20%20http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/more-senior-scare/%20%20%20How%20could%20anyone%20fall%20for%20this?%20We%20need%20to%20remember,%20that%20right%20from%20the%20cradle%20many%20of%20them%20were%20brought%20up%20to%20believe%20in%20Jesus,%20the%20virtues%20of%20carrying%20firearms%20and%20the%20sinfulness%20of%20Homosexuality;%20that%20anyone%20you%20ever%20knew%20believed%20this;%20you%20parents%20believed%20this%20and%20expected%20you%20to%20believe%20this,%20moreover,%20demanded%20that%20you%20believe%20it.%20It%20would%20then,%20take%20a%20exceptional%20individual%20to%20overcome%20such%20a%20social%20pressure%20and%20maladaptive%20upbringing.%20The%20problems%20of%20individual%20autonomy%20and%20clear%20thinking%20are%20further%20sabotaged%20by%20the%20fact%20that%20the%20majority%20of%20evangelicals%20are%20home%20schooled%20-%20thus%20prevented%20from%20coming%20into%20contact%20with%20other%20children%20-%20other%20ways%20of%20thinking%20-%20other%20ways%20of%20seeing%20the%20world.%20Evangelicals,%20live%20in%20a%20sequestered%20world,%20they%20live%20in%20a%20closed%20society;%20despite%20all%20the%20technology%20of%20the%2021st%20century,%20most%20Americas%20are%20as%20ignorant%20of%20the%20world%20as%20a%20Afghan%20peasant.%20This%20brings%20me%20to%20my%20next%20exhibit:%20Conservapedia.%20%20%20Could%20anything%20be%20more%20forlorn%20when%20you%20read%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9CAn%20encyclopaedia%20with%20articles%20written%20from%20a%20conservative%20viewpoint.%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20-%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9Cthe%20trustworthy%20encyclopaedia%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D.%20Edited%20and%20maintained%20by%20a%20posse%20of%20creationist%20wing-nuts;%20the%20purpose%20of%20the%20site:%20counter%20Wikipedia%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%99s%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9Cbias%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20and%20provide%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9Cmaterial%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20for%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9Chomeschooled%20children%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20-%20we%20should%20abandon%20this%20euphemism%20and%20simply%20call%20a%20spade%20a%20spade%20-%20this%20is,%20and%20always%20was%20-%20indoctrination.%20%20%20Check%20out%20the%20hilarity%20-%20%20http://www.conservapedia.com/Obama%20%20%28my%20friend%20was%20puzzled%20when%20I%20wondered%20whether%20the%20site%20would%20indulge%20the%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9Cbirther%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20conspiracy%20-%20it%20does%20-%20%20%28%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9CBarack%20Hussein%20Obama%20II%20%28allegedly%5B1%5D%5B2%5D%5B3%5D%5B4%5D%5B5%5D%20born%20in%20Honolulu%20Aug.%204,%201961%29%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20%20Accuses%20Obama%20of%20mind%20control:%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9CObama%20used%20techniques%20of%20mind%20control%20in%20his%20campaign,%20as%20in%20this%20speech:%20%22a%20light%20will%20shine%20down%20from%20somewhere,%20it%20will%20light%20upon%20you,%20you%20will%20experience%20an%20epiphany,%20and%20you%20will%20say%20to%20yourself,%20%27I%20have%20to%20vote%20for%20Barack.%27%22%20%20The%20icing%20on%20the%20cake:%20Obama%20is%20the%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9Cfirst%20Muslim%20President%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20and%20possibly%20an%20atheist%21??%20Where%20is%20the%20epistemology%20people%21%20%20If%20you%20thought%20that%20it%20was%20bad%20enough%20that%20half%20the%20American%20electorate%20hold%20beliefs%20that%20were%20first%20developed%20at%20a%20time,%20when%20a%20bicycle%20would%20appear%20as%20a%20masterpiece%20of%20technological%20creativity%20-%20it%20is%20not,%20just%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9Cregular%20folk%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20but%20Governors,%20Senators%20and,%20yes,%20Presidents.%20Enter%20stage%20right%20-%20Sarah%20Palin,%20or%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9CSarah%20Barracuda%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20%20former%20beauty%20queen,%20hockey%20mom%20and%20mayor%20of%20a%20little%20town%20no%20bigger%20than%20the%20hamlet%20out%20of%20Last%20of%20the%20Summer%20Wine.%20Palin:%20almost%20certainly%20will%20run%20for%20President%20in%20the%20next%20election.%20A%20President%20who%20is%20a%20believer%20in%20witches;%20%20%20%20http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIOD5X68lIs%20%20A%20liar:%20http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biD1Eh69lb8&feature=channel%20%20A%20fool:%20http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nokTjEdaUGg%20%20%20Over%20the%20last%20couple%20of%20days,%20I%20have%20repeated%20to%20myself%20the%20infamous%20and%20rather%20ambiguous%20line%20of%20Thomas%20Jefferson:%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9CI%20tremble%20for%20my%20country%20when%20I%20remember%20that%20God%20is%20Just%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D.%20that,%20is%20more%20than%20I%20can%20say%20of%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9CGod%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20as%20conceived%20from%20this%20video%20http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kq2xbMHcOw&feature=PlayList&p=41F7E500317FA3D3&index=0&playnext=1%20%20%20Let%20me%20quote%20another%20famous,%20and%20somewhat%20abused%20line%20of%20Jefferson:%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9CThe%20tree%20of%20liberty%20must%20be%20refreshed%20from%20time%20to%20time%20with%20the%20blood%20of%20patriots%20and%20tyrants.%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20perhaps,%20in%20place%20of%20patriots%20and%20tyrants,%20we%20should%20have%20idiots%20and%20creationists%20-%20only%20joking.%20%20Best%20%20Mike.">A liar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biD1Eh69lb8&feature=channel</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.blogger.com/Last%20night,%20my%20friend%20and%20I,%20after%20sitting%20through%20Dune:%20David%20Lynch%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%99s%20beautiful%20mess%20of%20a%20film;%20we%20traversed%20into%20the%20dark%20heart%20of%20America%20-%20via%20the%20omniscient%20power%20of%20the%20internet.%20My%20friend,%20perhaps%20a%20little%20na%C3%83%C2%AFve,%20was%20shocked%20to%20discover%20that%20the%20Prophet%20Muhammad%20had%20sex%20with%20a%20nine%20year%20old%20girl%20%28this%20came%20up%20after%20the%20discovery%20that%20Dune%20has%20many%20allusions%20and%20parallels%20to%20Islam%20and%20the%20oil%20situation%20in%20the%20middle%20east.%29%20He%20was%20dumbfounded%20when%20he%20saw%20the%20Conservapedia%20site;%20laughing%20outright%20at%20the%20sheer%20verbal%20and%20intellectual%20incompetence%20of%20Sarah%20Palin;%20and,%20was%20thoroughly%20disgusted%20by%20a%20evangelical%20propaganda%20video.%20%20The%20omnipresent%20question%20one%20always%20has%20to%20ask%20oneself:%20how%20can%20anyone%20believe%20this?%20You%20can%20have%20perfectly%20sound%20explanations%20of%20course,%20indeed,%20you%20can%20even%20have%20deep%20and%20penetrating%20psychological%20and%20scientific%20accounts%20of%20why%20people%20believe%20the%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9Cdarndest%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20things,%20But%20still,%20despite%20someone%20like%20myself,%20%28who%20is%20oddly%20familiar%20with%20quite%20a%20bit%20of%20human%20credulity%29,%20I%20find%20myself%20-%20adrift%20in%20sea%20of%20apoplexy%20and%20confusion,%20which,%20finally,%20waves%20into%20amused%20apathy%20and%20despondent%20futility.%20%20Why%20are%20so%20many%20Americans,%20from%20the%20point%20of%20view%20of%20everyone%20else%20-%20so%20seemingly%20ridiculous?%20Now%20I%20am%20no%20crude%20despiser%20of%20America;%20on%20the%20contrary%20rather%20-%20it%20is%20a%20great%20country.%20Nevertheless,%20the%20Republican%20cum%20Christian%20right%20cum%20paranoid%20maniacs%20are%20-%20a%20menace%20to%20society.%20It%20seems%20miraculous,%20that%20in%20the%20age%20of%20the%20internet,%20space%20exploration%20and%20instant%20global%20communication,%20people,%20indeed,%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9Chigh%20ranking%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20politicians%20can%20still%20believe%20in%20something%20like%20witches.%20Somewhere%20close%20to%20fifty%20percent%20of%20the%20American%20electorate%20believe%20in%20the%20actual%20existence%20of%20Satan;%20a%20higher%20number%20almost%20certainly%20believe%20that%20all%20living%20organisms%20were%20created%20in%20their%20present%20form%20by%20some%20kind%20of%20celestial%20creator%20-%20the%20same%20people%20believe%20that%20man%20was%20created%20in%20a%20special%20act%20of%20creation,%20thus%20making%20him,%20indeed%20HIM,%20the%20centre%20of%20a%20cosmic%20sit-com.%20It%20generally%20goes%20unmentioned%20that%20many%20of%20the%20same%20people,%20who%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%99s%20beliefs%20are%20of%20the%20sheerest%20ignorance%20-%20even%20to%20a%20reasonably%20educated%20six%20year%20old,%20are%20the%20same%20loons%20who%20are%20stymieing,%20what%20is%20perhaps%20the%20most%20important%20piece%20of%20legislation%20that%20the%20US%20government%20has%20attempted%20to%20pass%20in%20a%20generation:%20healthcare%20reform.%20It%20also%20goes%20without%20saying%20-%20literally%20-%20that%20many%20of%20the%20same%20group,%20believe%20that%20Obama%20-%20a%20confection%20of%20so%20many%20fears:%20liberal,%20black,%20educated;%20moderately%20religious%20%28if%20religious%20at%20all%29;%20these%20fearful%20facts%20that%20are,%20on%20their%20own%20shocking%20to%20the%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9Caverage%20American%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20are%20married%20to%20a%20perception%20of%20Obama%20as%20a%20avatar%20of%20Satan;%20a%20messiah%20of%20Marxism;%20a%20closet%20Muslim;%20and%20a%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9Cfigure%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20from%20the%20book%20of%20revelations.%20%20%20Consider%20the%20lies%20that%20has%20been%20perpetuated%20concerning%20healthcare.%20The%20irony%20tapers%20ever%20upwards%20towards%20astronomical%20heights%20of%20surrealism%20when%20one%20considers%20that%20many%20on%20Republican%20wing%20would%20benefit%20from%20reform.%20Johann%20Hari%20from%20the%20Independent,%20pointed%20this%20out%20recently%20with%20poker%20faced%20hilarity%20-%20recounting%20that%20a%20Republican%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9Cactivist%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20was%20injured%20fighting%20in%20town%20hall%20meeting%20concerning%20healthcare%20-only%20to%20wail%20that%20he%20had%20no%20insurance.%20%20Never-mind%20also,%20the%20fact%20that%20America%20already%20has%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9Csocialised%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20medicine.%20%20Ponder%20over%20some%20of%20these%20examples,%20drawn%20from%20factcheck.org;%20if%20one%20did%20not%20know%20better%20one%20would%20think%20these%20are%20taken%20from%20the%20spoof%20political%20website:%20the%20Onion.%20%20%20%20%20http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/false-euthanasia-claims/%20%20http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/surgery-for-seniors-vs-abortions/%20%20http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/more-senior-scare/%20%20%20How%20could%20anyone%20fall%20for%20this?%20We%20need%20to%20remember,%20that%20right%20from%20the%20cradle%20many%20of%20them%20were%20brought%20up%20to%20believe%20in%20Jesus,%20the%20virtues%20of%20carrying%20firearms%20and%20the%20sinfulness%20of%20Homosexuality;%20that%20anyone%20you%20ever%20knew%20believed%20this;%20you%20parents%20believed%20this%20and%20expected%20you%20to%20believe%20this,%20moreover,%20demanded%20that%20you%20believe%20it.%20It%20would%20then,%20take%20a%20exceptional%20individual%20to%20overcome%20such%20a%20social%20pressure%20and%20maladaptive%20upbringing.%20The%20problems%20of%20individual%20autonomy%20and%20clear%20thinking%20are%20further%20sabotaged%20by%20the%20fact%20that%20the%20majority%20of%20evangelicals%20are%20home%20schooled%20-%20thus%20prevented%20from%20coming%20into%20contact%20with%20other%20children%20-%20other%20ways%20of%20thinking%20-%20other%20ways%20of%20seeing%20the%20world.%20Evangelicals,%20live%20in%20a%20sequestered%20world,%20they%20live%20in%20a%20closed%20society;%20despite%20all%20the%20technology%20of%20the%2021st%20century,%20most%20Americas%20are%20as%20ignorant%20of%20the%20world%20as%20a%20Afghan%20peasant.%20This%20brings%20me%20to%20my%20next%20exhibit:%20Conservapedia.%20%20%20Could%20anything%20be%20more%20forlorn%20when%20you%20read%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9CAn%20encyclopaedia%20with%20articles%20written%20from%20a%20conservative%20viewpoint.%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20-%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9Cthe%20trustworthy%20encyclopaedia%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D.%20Edited%20and%20maintained%20by%20a%20posse%20of%20creationist%20wing-nuts;%20the%20purpose%20of%20the%20site:%20counter%20Wikipedia%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%99s%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9Cbias%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20and%20provide%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9Cmaterial%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20for%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9Chomeschooled%20children%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20-%20we%20should%20abandon%20this%20euphemism%20and%20simply%20call%20a%20spade%20a%20spade%20-%20this%20is,%20and%20always%20was%20-%20indoctrination.%20%20%20Check%20out%20the%20hilarity%20-%20%20http://www.conservapedia.com/Obama%20%20%28my%20friend%20was%20puzzled%20when%20I%20wondered%20whether%20the%20site%20would%20indulge%20the%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9Cbirther%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20conspiracy%20-%20it%20does%20-%20%20%28%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9CBarack%20Hussein%20Obama%20II%20%28allegedly%5B1%5D%5B2%5D%5B3%5D%5B4%5D%5B5%5D%20born%20in%20Honolulu%20Aug.%204,%201961%29%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20%20Accuses%20Obama%20of%20mind%20control:%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9CObama%20used%20techniques%20of%20mind%20control%20in%20his%20campaign,%20as%20in%20this%20speech:%20%22a%20light%20will%20shine%20down%20from%20somewhere,%20it%20will%20light%20upon%20you,%20you%20will%20experience%20an%20epiphany,%20and%20you%20will%20say%20to%20yourself,%20%27I%20have%20to%20vote%20for%20Barack.%27%22%20%20The%20icing%20on%20the%20cake:%20Obama%20is%20the%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9Cfirst%20Muslim%20President%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20and%20possibly%20an%20atheist%21??%20Where%20is%20the%20epistemology%20people%21%20%20If%20you%20thought%20that%20it%20was%20bad%20enough%20that%20half%20the%20American%20electorate%20hold%20beliefs%20that%20were%20first%20developed%20at%20a%20time,%20when%20a%20bicycle%20would%20appear%20as%20a%20masterpiece%20of%20technological%20creativity%20-%20it%20is%20not,%20just%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9Cregular%20folk%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20but%20Governors,%20Senators%20and,%20yes,%20Presidents.%20Enter%20stage%20right%20-%20Sarah%20Palin,%20or%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9CSarah%20Barracuda%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20%20former%20beauty%20queen,%20hockey%20mom%20and%20mayor%20of%20a%20little%20town%20no%20bigger%20than%20the%20hamlet%20out%20of%20Last%20of%20the%20Summer%20Wine.%20Palin:%20almost%20certainly%20will%20run%20for%20President%20in%20the%20next%20election.%20A%20President%20who%20is%20a%20believer%20in%20witches;%20%20%20%20http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIOD5X68lIs%20%20A%20liar:%20http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biD1Eh69lb8&feature=channel%20%20A%20fool:%20http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nokTjEdaUGg%20%20%20Over%20the%20last%20couple%20of%20days,%20I%20have%20repeated%20to%20myself%20the%20infamous%20and%20rather%20ambiguous%20line%20of%20Thomas%20Jefferson:%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9CI%20tremble%20for%20my%20country%20when%20I%20remember%20that%20God%20is%20Just%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D.%20that,%20is%20more%20than%20I%20can%20say%20of%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9CGod%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20as%20conceived%20from%20this%20video%20http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kq2xbMHcOw&feature=PlayList&p=41F7E500317FA3D3&index=0&playnext=1%20%20%20Let%20me%20quote%20another%20famous,%20and%20somewhat%20abused%20line%20of%20Jefferson:%20%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9CThe%20tree%20of%20liberty%20must%20be%20refreshed%20from%20time%20to%20time%20with%20the%20blood%20of%20patriots%20and%20tyrants.%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%9D%20perhaps,%20in%20place%20of%20patriots%20and%20tyrants,%20we%20should%20have%20idiots%20and%20creationists%20-%20only%20joking.%20%20Best%20%20Mike.">A fool: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nokTjEdaUGg</a><br /><br /><br />Over the last couple of days, I have repeated to myself the infamous and rather ambiguous line of Thomas Jefferson: “I tremble for my country when I remember that God is Just”. that, is more than I can say of “God” as conceived from this<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kq2xbMHcOw&feature=PlayList&p=41F7E500317FA3D3&index=0&playnext=1"> video</a><br /><br />Let me quote another famous, and somewhat abused line of Jefferson: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” perhaps, in place of patriots and tyrants, we should have idiots and creationists - only joking.<br /><br />Best<br /><br />Mike.Michael Faulknerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557198430260528922noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6626098889543320908.post-24852308483291752242009-08-19T07:17:00.000-07:002009-08-19T07:38:33.654-07:00Think Practically; Do Not Worry Unnecessarily.“<span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Of things some are in or power, and others are not</span>. In our power are opinion, movement toward a thing, desire, aversion and in a word, whatever are our own acts: not in our power are the body, property, reputation, offices, and in a word, whatever are not our own acts…… remember then, that if you think the things which are by nature slavish to be free, and the things which are in the power of others to be you own, you will be hindered, you will lament, you will be disturbed……examine it……. <span style="font-weight: bold;">If it relates to anything which is not in our power, be ready to say, that it does not concern you. </span></span><br /><br /> - Epictetus.<br /><br />“<span style="font-style: italic;">To a great extent fatigue in such cases is due to worry, and worry could be prevented by a better philosophy of life and a little more mental discipline</span>.” I think we could all benefit from this pity observation every now and then. An interesting exercise for the persistent worrier to undertake would be to try and calculate how much hours of his life were wasted by unnecessarily thinking and worrying. It would, no doubt, run into thousands of useless hours; hours that cannot be returned to you.<br /><br />“<span style="font-style: italic;">Nothing is so exhausting as indecision and nothing is so futile</span>” indeed, I would add that life seems to unfold by itself, irregardless of what we wish to see, or how we want it to be. Mostly it turns out for the better, only rarely, does it seem, to go bad (I’m talking about our ordinary daily wants and needs and desires) Another exercise, then, to carry out, is to reflect on all the times you worried about a possible, impending problem, as opposed to actually dealing with it, when or if, indeed, it emerged at all? So much of our time is spent in fantasy, WHAT IF, IF-THEN WHAT WILL I DO?…… We become angry and upset over things that have not happened yet; Epictetus then, was correct: he said that some things are in our power, and some things are not; concerning things under our control - we can simply do our best; think things through with the best evidence available to us - as to all else, we will just have to wait till we get more knowledge - it is beyond our power; out of our hands.<br /><br />“<span style="font-style: italic;">The wise man thinks about his troubles only when there is some purpose in doing so; at other times he thinks about other things, or, if it is night, about nothing at all</span>.” Thinking practically then, and knowing when to abandon thinking, is, I believe, a skill and a mental discipline, that can be learned. Purposeful thinking consists of: ends and goals; possibilities and opportunities; doubts and certainties; means and methods. A good person to consult on this is <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bonos-Thinking-Course-Powerful-Transform/dp/1406612022/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250691581&sr=8-1">Edward De Bono</a>. De Bono, who coined the phrase: “ Lateral Thinker”, offers a range of practical thinking tools to help one make decisions and think creatively. A few of his tools are: PMI, Positives, Minuses, and Interesting; EBS, Examine Both Sides; TEC, Task and Target, Expand and Explore, Contract and Conclude. <br /><br />Its useful, perhaps then, to familiarize oneself with these tools; moreover, mind maps, lists, and clearly formulating the problem in writing, are skilful techinques of dealing with problems, whatever they may be. It is certainly an improvement, as opposed, to simply going round and round in unending circles of discursive thought. There are, however, a few positions we can reach by such disciplined thinking. 1. We can have sufficient reason for acting. 2 sufficient reason for believing. 3. Sufficient reason for not acting. 4. Sufficient reason for not believing. 5. Suspending judgement or action pending further information. Once, though, we have made our decision, we ought to stick with it until shown to be wrong, or so demonstrated that there is a better way of doing something. Once we have solved our problem, or done our best with it; we should then, simply retire from the thinking process.<br /><br />Absorption into something helps dissipate the self: painting; exercise; long walks in the hills; golf - whatever takes you fancy. For me, I find the practice of insight mediation, enormously useful and relaxing. It many ways it can provide a template of mental discipline, and a access to serenity. This, I will be discussing in my next blog.<br /><br /><br />Best<br /><br />Mike.Michael Faulknerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557198430260528922noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6626098889543320908.post-25190943072992243812009-08-17T14:19:00.000-07:002009-08-17T14:29:54.625-07:00The Strange “Quote Mining” Case of Andrew Brown.Andrew Brown, a free lance journalist who regularly writes for the Guardian, under his “Free To Believe” blog, has perpetrated the finest (or worst) offence of quote mining I have ever seen. Quote mining: the process where you selectively quote an author or speaker for the intention of drawing a fallacious, spurious and highly tendentious conclusion. Brown has been guilty before of failing to meet basic standards of intellectual integrity and journalistic standards. He has, in particular, a real hatred for the new atheists, indeed he “despises” Sam Harris; - an example of his “writing” was when he attacked the “New Atheists” as shallow and intellectually feeble - for not containing a philosopher.<br /><br />http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2008/dec/29/religion-new-atheism-defined<br /><br />This, is extraordinarily misinformed - or an attempt at wilful obfuscation. Even a general reader, who is relatively aware of the “New Atheists”, would know that Daniel C Dennett - one of the four horsemen, is a trained philosopher, likewise Sam Harris, although prior to completing a PhD in Neuroscience, gained a masters from Stanford in philosophy no less, who studied under Richard Rorty no less. Just to kick a few more stilts from under Brown’s, now preciously perched argument - AC Grayling, another prominent critic of religion, is also a trained philosopher, who writes in the same paper as Brown, he must also have forgot, or neglected to mention Michel Onfray, the French philosopher, who, a number of years ago published, An Atheist Manifesto: the Case against Christianity Islam and Judaism.<br /><br />I now turn to my reason for writing - Mr Brown has been up to no good again: accusing Sam Harris of “unambiguously” advocating torture. His blog is stunning for how clearly it argues (yet completely missing the point) that Harris is nothing more, than a fully signed up supporter of Dick Cheney and the War on Terror. I decided to respond; underneath I provide the comments that I posted. Judging by the amount of criticism Brown received and the amount of recommendations that my post and others like it garnered, it would seem that the majority of readers are aware of his shenanigans. It does, however, make you wonder: why do the Guardian let this kind of thing go on?<br /><br />Firstly: let me quote what Mr Brown had to say; you can read his full post here -<br /><br />http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/aug/08/religion-atheism<br /><br /><br />The By-line reads<br /><br />“<span style="font-weight: bold;">Sam Harris, in his book the End of Faith, argues unambiguously for the use of torture. Why pretend otherwise?”</span><br /><br />Now from the body of the piece -<br /><br />“But Sam Harris is not a writer as gifted as Richard Dawkins. He has no talent for thought-provoking ambiguity. When I accuse him of advocating torture, <span style="font-weight: bold;">I meant this as the literal interpretation of his actual words</span>. Here are the relevant passages, from The End of Faith, with page numbers drawn from the British paperback.”<br /><br />And<br /><br />“So Harris believes that there are scientific ("neurological") grounds for supposing that his moral reasoning is correct and that we ought to be torturing people.”<br /><br />Finally<br /><br />“So, yes. I do rather think that Sam Harris can reasonably be described as a defender and advocate of torture as an instrument of policy.”<br /><br />To which I responded with - (note I have requited Brown, along with a few other incriminating passages.)<br /><br /><br />To Mr Brown and to the editors of CIF (I subsequently complained to the editors of the paper)<br /><br />“I Believe, indeed, I will prove, that MR Brown is engaging in intellectual dishonesty, and, perhaps, libellous activity by accusing Sam Harris of being a straightforward and “literal” advocate of torture.<br /><br />He asserts that Sam Harris can reasonably be construed is a defender of Torture and an advocate of it.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">So, yes. I do rather think that Sam Harris can reasonably be described as a defender and advocate of torture as an instrument of policy.</span><br /><br />- From Mr Brown.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">But Sam Harris is not a writer as gifted as Richard Dawkins. He has no talent for thought-provoking ambiguity. TheEnd of Faith , with page numbers drawn from the British paperback.</span><br /><br />( again this would seem to imply that Sam Harris is unambiguously arguing for Torture)<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">So Harris believes that there are scientific ("neurological") grounds for supposing that his moral reasoning is correct and that we ought to be torturing people.</span><br /><br />Now anyone reading this post, will, conclude that Sam Harris is calling for torture -<br /><br />However<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Mr Brown has neglected to quote some key conclusions that Sam Harris makes in regard torture.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">….we can take refuge in the fact the paradigmatic case will almost never arise. From this perspective,</span><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;"> adorning the machinery of our justice system with a torture provision seems both unnecessary and dangerous</span><span style="font-style: italic;">, as the law of unintended consequences may one day find it throwing the whole works into disarray. Because I believe the account offered above is basically sound, I believe that I have successfully argued for the use of torture in any circumstance in which we would be willing to cause collateral damage. </span><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Paradoxically, this equivalence has not made the practice of torture seem any more acceptable to me; nor has it, I trust for most readers.</span><br /><br />Page 198 - End of Faith.<br /><br />Finally on page 199 Harris has this to say.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Still, it does not seem any more acceptable (torture) in ethical terms than it did before</span><br /><br />What are we to make of this? Mr Brown has quoted Harris at length, yet he has clearly left out the key passages and conclusions where, despite a long philosophical argument - Harris comes out against torture.<br /><br />I, can only conclude that MR Brown is guilty of a very grave offence against journalistic standards and intellectual integrity. I hope to see an apology and a statement repudiating the misinformation that has be peddled here.<br /><br /><br />To finally put this to bed here is a long quote from Sam Harris himself, taken from his website - a response to controversy.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">While I think that torture should remain illegal</span>, it is not clear that having a torture provision in our laws would create as slippery a slope as many people imagine. We have a capital punishment provision, for instance, but this has not led to our killing prisoners at random because we cant control ourselves. While I am strongly opposed to capital punishment, I can readily admit that we are not suffering a total moral chaos in our society because we execute about five people every month. It is not immediately obvious that a rule about torture could not be applied with equal restraint.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">It seems probable, however, that any legal use of torture would have unacceptable consequences.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">In light of this concern, the best strategy I have heard comes from Mark Bowden in his Atlantic Monthly article, The Dark Art of Interrogation. Bowden recommends that we keep torture illegal, and maintain a policy of not torturing anybody for any reason. But our interrogators should know that there are certain circumstances in which it will be ethical to break the law. Indeed, there are circumstances in which you would have to be a monster not to break the law. If an interrogator finds himself in such a circumstance, and he breaks the law, there will not be much of a will to prosecute him (and interrogators will know this). If he breaks the law Abu Ghraib-style, he will go to jail for a very long time (and interrogators will know this too). At the moment, this seems like the most reasonable policy to me, given the realities of our world.</span>"<br /><br />Best<br /><br />Michael Faulkner.<br />Recommended (62)<br /><br /><br />What is curious, perhaps to avoid libel, Andrew Brown trotted this, though, somewhat ambiguous, statement out later in a post<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">“In the totally trivial sense that he thinks we ought to do it. Apart from that, no, he's not argung for it at all.”</span><br /><br />Posted at 8th of August 4.57 PM by Andrew Brown.<br /><br />He would appear to be disowning his previous statement, where he argues that Harris unambiguously argues for torture; so i guess we can add inconsistency into the sorry mix.<br /><br />I am not going to speculate on Brown’s motives, he has already stated that he loathes the “New Atheists” and “despises” Sam Harris in particular; he has, also, been a recipient of the Templeton prize - a rather notorious institution that “attempts” to reconcile religion and Science. In any case, I shall not be considering anything that Mr Brown has to say in the future, given his dishonesty or intellectual incompetence - take you pick: its either/or - or both.<br /><br />Best<br /><br />Michael.Michael Faulknerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557198430260528922noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6626098889543320908.post-19247284489008554512009-08-17T07:46:00.000-07:002009-08-17T07:52:22.715-07:00Neuroscience, meditation and mind.Check out this interesting podcast from Upaya Zen centre, on the mind, neuroscience, meditation and relationships. It is described thus-<br /><br />“Psychiatrist, researcher, therapist and author Dan Siegel says there is a deep truth to the question, “Who are we?” If the brain is a social organ, as Dan’s research and clinical experience show, then what does “I” mean? It takes the practice of mindfulness to dissolve the delusion of the “I” that separates and makes disharmony out of our experience. We can use the mind to change the brain.”<br /><br /><br />http://www.upaya.org/dharma/mindsight-and-personal-transformation/Michael Faulknerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557198430260528922noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6626098889543320908.post-1224347625621501462009-07-11T07:01:00.000-07:002009-07-17T08:38:57.375-07:00Conclusion to How We are Wrong. Trying to be Right.What I will propose here is a simple mnemonic to use as a general guide. It might not get us to the truth, but it will help us on the road to it, indeed, it is especially useful in seeing our views and beliefs in context. The tool, more or less comes from Socrates himself, as it is largely based on his Socratic Method.<br /><br />SEPAR<br /><br />S - State your position.<br /><br />E - Evidence<br /><br />P - Process (how did you come to your conclusion)<br /><br />A - Alternatives<br /><br />R - Recap and Review.<br /><br /><br />1. State you position<br /><br />What is your belief? What is it you propose? Boil your belief, thoughts or views down to the fundamentals. Come to terms (understanding precisely the use of words and language) not only with yourself but with others. This is another source of value concening this tool - it can be directed at other people. For example, rather than engage someone in an argument where you are not sure that they believe what you think they believe (the epistemic fallacy) - the use of SEPAR, then, wil make youl more likely to find out the real grounds of dispute (if there is real dispute at all).<br /><br /> 2.E for evidence.<br /><br />What evidence do you have for your views? There is, of course, a number of additional questions- what kind of evidence is required to establish such and such? What would verify or falsify the belief? How reliable is the evidence? What source did I get the evidence from? Did I uncover it myself, or did I get it from a source? How reliable then, is the source? Do they (the source) have agendas?<br /><br />One final note, once again, without going into modal logic, facts should never be disputed unless for very good reason, opinions are opinions and should be treated as such. This is fundamental, but it is something that can get missed. If debate turns on the question of facts - the best thing to do is consult an expert authority or a encyclopaedia or expert text.<br /><br />3. P for Process.<br /><br />How did you arrive at your conclusions? Was it a long process of inquiry and discovery, or did it come in a dream say, or a spark of inspiration? Have you, though, spent considerable time pondering the issue at hand? Do you have any recognised expertise on the topic? Have you read the “required” reading in the field? Was your inquiry open-ended or did you already know the answer before you began? Did you start out with an opposite view to that which you ended with?<br /><br />4. A for Alternatives.<br /><br />Who opposes you views or beliefs and why? Name two authorities who disagree with you and why they do. Do you believe that you have an accurate and fair understanding of their position? Why then, do you believe they are wrong? Have you got a persuasive "<span style="font-style: italic;">error theory</span>" as to why they are wrong? What evidence would change you mind?<br /><br />5. R for Recap, Review and Recapitulate.<br /><br />Pretty much says it all. Review and check your beliefs regularly. Test them and make sure they are up to snuff like a man kicking his tyres. “Seek out argument and disputation for its own sake” and as a means of testing and strengthening your position. Always ask yourself “how can I be wrong?”. Try and be as sure as you can why you think you are right.<br /><br />Best<br /><br />Mike.Michael Faulknerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557198430260528922noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6626098889543320908.post-3916715406051260512009-07-10T07:00:00.000-07:002009-07-17T09:03:54.150-07:00Project Eudemonia: Accept Your Limitations and Appreciate Your Strengths<span style="font-style: italic;">“A mans gots to know his limitations”</span><br /><br /> <br /> - Harry Callahan, <span style="font-style: italic;">Magnum Force</span><br /><br /><br /><br />On of they key commandments that Gretchen Rubin has on her happiness blog, is - <span style="font-style: italic;">to be Gretchen -</span><br /><br />“<span style="font-style: italic;">But being Gretchen, and accepting my true likes and dislikes, also means that I have to face the fact that I will never visit a jazz club at midnight, or hang out in artists’ studios, or jet off to Paris for the weekend, or pack up to go fly-fishing on a spring dawn. I won’t be admired for my chic wardrobe or be appointed to a high government office. I love fortune cookies and refuse to try foie gras.”</span><br /><br />Coming to terms with our lives, coming to terms with our fundamental dissatisfaction, our sense of dis-ease, our limitations and disappointments is, I believe, absolutely essential if we are to have clear picture, and a sound purpose of our lives. Gretchen Rubin asks herself why she is sad when she admits to herself that life will be <span style="font-style: italic;">as it is, </span>not, necessarily as she<span style="font-style: italic;"> wants it to be -</span><br /><br />“<span style="font-style: italic;">It makes me sad for two reasons. First, it makes me sad to realize my limitations. The world offers so much!--and I am too small to appreciate it. The joke in law school was: "The curse of Yale Law School is to try to die with your options open." Which means -- at some point, you have to pursue one option, which means foreclosing other options, and to try to avoid that is crazy. Similarly, to be Gretchen means to let go of all the things that I am not -- to acknowledge what I don't encompass.”</span><br /><br />“die with your options open”. I like that quip, it is very revealing. Living with doubt and uncertainty is a hard thing to do; likewise, having to make a decision and hence being indecisive is also hard. As my recounting of the story of Buridan's ass shows, we agonise over decisions, because we fear making mistakes, in losing out, in failing. In many ways, our lives aspire to the ideal of NPD -<span style="font-style: italic;"> Non Binding Decisions</span>. If something goes wrong we can just press the reset button, we can change ourselves, we can reverse mistakes we made in the past. We can endlessly self improve. We can change, we can attain perfection. Our lives are not perfect and we want them to be perfect. All this, I believe, is a mistake. A corrective, or a way out of this mire is to come to terms: with a sound and realistic understanding of our strengths and weaknesses - our limitations, our lives.<br /><br />“<span style="font-style: italic;">But it also makes me sad because, in many ways, I wish I were different. One of my Secrets of Adulthood is “<span style="font-weight: bold;">You can choose what you do, but you can’t choose what you like to do</span>.” I have a lot of notions about what I wish I liked to do, of the subjects and occupations that I wish interested me. But it doesn’t matter what I wish I were like. I am Gretchen. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Once I realized this, I saw that this problem is quite more widespread. A person wants to teach high school, but wishes he wanted to be a banker. Or vice versa. A person has a service heart but doesn’t want to put it to use. Someone wants to be a stay-at-home mother but wishes she wanted to work; another person wants to work but wishes she wanted to be a stay-at-home mother. And it’s possible -- in fact quite easy -- to construct a life quite unrelated to our nature.”</span><br /><br />The philosopher AC Grayling notes that human life is less than a thousand months long - so it is imperative that we live life as wisely, and as productively as possible. Productively, as in the cultivation of our strengths, skilfully pursuing our ends, enjoying life and helping other people to enjoy theirs. In many ways, this is intimately tied to my third principle: <a href="http://theyoungcontrarian.blogspot.com/2009/06/project-eudemonia-principle-three-live.html">living with purpose</a>. As Gretchen points out - a life were one does what one loves and doing what one is good at - is going to be a life more likely to be happy. “Rejoice in what you are” she advises. There is only one life, and it is the only one you are living, so live it.<br /><br />There is one further proposition I wish to offer. Both Aristotle and the Buddha thought that for a happy life a person needs to cultivate excellence in what he or she does. The Buddha prescribed this for lay people wishing to lead the good life, thinking that it was important for a person to cultivate excellence in whatever his living was, both as means to feeding himself, but also for the intrinsic enjoyment of his efforts and skill. Aristotle wrote about <span style="font-style: italic;">arete </span>or excellence. That cultivating our, and especially, harmonising our various abilities, virtues, and excellences, are central to achieving <span style="font-style: italic;">eudemonia. </span><br /><br />I think it is, then, important to have a certain pride. Not a pride in the sense of being better than others, but a pride of overcoming weakness and acquiring skill and excellence in one or more of our endeavours. A undertaking of this kind is something that will encompass our entire lives. So I guess we should be more easier on our selves, we are only human after all - we cant do everything, and we cant get everything overnight.<br /><br />So perhaps then, we should have a “downsized self”. We should be prepared to reject our delusions, our fantasies, even - many of our hopes. Coming to a clear and realistic understanding of ourselves is one of the necessary conditions for appreciating the life that we have, for we are not lost in mental thought, either cursing the present state of affairs, or engaged in some fantasy of what the future might hopefully be. This, no doubt, is not easy, living mindfully is something I try to do, not always successfully, but I try, and I’m getting better at it - and that is the main thing. Gretchen Rubin captures this sentiment well - accepting who we are in this present moment yet striving to improve - “That’s another paradox of happiness: I want to “Be Gretchen,” yet I also want to change myself for the better.”<br /><br />Quotes from Gretchen at -<br /><br /><a href="http://www.happiness-project.com/happiness_project/2008/10/paradoxes-of-ha.html"> http://www.happiness-project.com/happiness_project/2008/10/paradoxes-of-ha.html<br /><br /></a><br />Best<br /><br />Mike.Michael Faulknerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557198430260528922noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6626098889543320908.post-26406088369966500332009-07-09T16:35:00.000-07:002009-07-17T09:29:59.971-07:00How we are Wrong: Part Five - The Shaming Principle.The origins of this term lie with the author Lee Harris - <span style="font-style: italic;">"the shaming code"</span>. When I first encountered this term“from the Suicide of Reason”, I must admit that I misunderstood it. I was skimming through his book on a pre-reading and read some remarks on this term, it was not the full definition however. Nevertheless, it is the misreading of it that I will be offering here; it has only a slight resemblance to the original term. It was, if you will, a serendipitous mistake.<br /><br />I will now define what I mean by <span style="font-style: italic;">shaming principle</span>. I intend this to be a psychological term that covers a spectrum of cognitive phenomena relating to experiences we have with our parents, friends and loved ones. A full understanding of this, can, perhaps, be best grasped by an example. First though, let me explore the outer edges of this issue - how people are “wrong” and how it relates to the shaming principle.<br /><br />I think it can be said with some confidence, that modern education has produced a generation of men and women who are well aware of political correctness. For example, if a teenage boy were to stand up in class and say that black people are all violent or stupid, or that a womans place is in the home; he would almost certainly meet with opposition, both from teachers and fellow pupils. More importantly though, he would be well aware that he would be voicing unpopular views. It would, be fair to say that every person knows the problems with, and general repugnance, of such views. Why then, does racism and sexism continue to exist? There are many factors of course, too many to go into here, however, as I mentioned in my last post, the role that parents and social groups play in determining ones social, political and religious outlook is a very large factor indeed - one that I will be discussing here.<br /><br />Many times, humanists, liberals and moderates ask themselves this question - how can people believe such nonsense? How can people hold beliefs that are without credible evidence, that are deeply immoral or, are held in the teeth of contradictory evidence? Though there are many factors that we can use to explain these misadventures; I intend to offer an specific <span style="font-style: italic;">error theory</span>.<br /><br />So, how then can children, who later grow to be adults, hold exactly the same beliefs as their parents, which, to other people seem ridiculous? I believe one of the reasons for this is <span style="font-style: italic;">shame</span>: they do not want to feel ashamed of their parents. For example, we all love our parents, and we, to some degree value their insights and wisdom. Some of us, its true, value our parents wisdom more than others. It should also be said that there is a range of experience that our parents have a greater hold over us, some more so than others. For example, our parents are not likely to greatly influence our thinking when it comes to mathematics or musical taste, however, they are likely to exert influence, directly or indirectly, over politics, ethics and religion. These things, I should not need to say, produce very deep and powerful emotions in people. They are to many, much, much more important than, for example, what subjects one likes at school, or what music one listens to, they are, sometimes, <span style="font-style: italic;">life and death. </span><br /><br />Here is my hypothesis: for people to admit to themselves that ones parents are wrong, or even worse, that they hold ridiculous or immoral views, would be to experience feelings of shame and guilt. Doubly so, for they experience shame, both for the fact that their parents hold beliefs that are contrary to reason or majority opinion; and, secondly, they experience shame, for the sole reason that they recognise the <span style="font-style: italic;">shame as shameful</span>. We don’t want to think ill of our parents, and when we do (even slightly or unconsciously), its doubly troubling because that is what we are feeling - and we are not <span style="font-style: italic;">supposed</span> to feel that.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Loyalty</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">love,</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">shame</span>, then, are what motivates people to hold outlandish beliefs. In order to avoid the cognitive dissonance of having racist or credulous parents - we practice a method of self deception, and bad faith. There can, also, be a third way that shame operates on us: we don’t want our parents to feel ashamed of us. For example, imagine the shame of Catholic parents, in good standing with their community, having a lesbian daughter, or an atheist son. This leads to people becoming hypocrites and self deceivers, presenting one face to the world and one to themselves. Such a situation, needless to say, is not likely to make for happy men and women.<br /><br />Daniel Dennett, talks about a similar "shaming" process in relation to people believing in God. Love for ones family and fear of letting loved ones down, can make people outwardly and even inwardly “believe” what is contrary to reason. Family can be a comforting and supportive institution, it can, however, be a oppressing and stultifying one. How then can we overcome this problem?<br /><br />I would offer similar advice to what I gave in my last post. Namely, that the fact that we can recognise this process, that we spot this happening to us, is - liberating. Being aware of the ways that we can be manipulated (even if, in many cases its unintentional and undirected) into believing things that are ridiculous. When our consciousness is raised, when we see the conjuring tricks laid bare, when the cloak is ripped away - it is a very powerful and liberating insight. But, how do we deal with the painful experiences once we see that we do not share our parents or our friends beliefs?<br /><br />What I recommend is courage and perseverance. Do not go out of your way to be deliberately provocative and hand waving, but at the same time you must be principled and steadfast in your views and opinions. Do not let anyone tell you otherwise. This of course, does not mean you should be obstinate, or dogmatic, be, however, confident in what you believe, and be prepared to defend you views if necessary. This of course, offers little support for people in difficult situations. All I can offer besides sympathy is that, in the long run, it is better to live life according to ones own chosen principles than live a life that was handed down to you by your family or community. In order for a happy, honest and purposeful life, our convictions and principles must be our own. We should develop them by a long process of education and inquiry. Living a life according to ones own principles, is, in the end, refreshing and vital for ones sense of self and ones self respect. For it is impossible to have any respect for oneself if one does not believe, really believe, what one has to profess in public and pretend to believe in private.<br /><br />Best<br /><br />Michael.Michael Faulknerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557198430260528922noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6626098889543320908.post-17195635595245996342009-07-07T08:50:00.000-07:002009-07-17T09:58:17.905-07:00How can we be Wrong?: Part Four - Moral Paradoxes and Cognitive Illusions.Here is a infamous thought experiment: a brother and sister decide to sleep together. They agree to do it only once, they practice safe sex; no pregnancy; and crucially, no psychological harm results from the action. They do not do it again, and no one else ever learns what they did. In what sense, then, are they morally at fault? Saying that it is legally wrong and therefore morally wrong is a fallacy. Claiming that because it’s illegal this provides a sufficient reason to oppose it, is also weak; for we can ask, why is it fundamentally wrong? Providing a religious reason, faces many of the similar problems, given the well documented problems that divine authority has faced from moral philosophers: this approach is a dead end. Deontological ethics could provide reasons, reasons, that are not substantial. Utilitarianism then, faces a huge problem: namely that no harm occurred, therefore, it falls outside its abilty to condemn it. How then, can we say this is wrong?<br /><br />It disgusts us? Though this is a powerful emotion, it does not really provide a convincing reason, namely that this <span style="font-style: italic;">particular action was wrong</span>. Here is, I think, the rub. On a more general level, the reasons why we should not practice incest are strong. However, when we get to particular cases (in this case a fictional incident) we find it hard to<span style="font-style: italic;"> specifically justify</span> it being wrong. This gap however, is not one I intend to focus on for present purposes. What I intend to discuss here, is the way our moral intuitions and initial built in “biases” can lead us astray. How - they make us go wrong. How, we just know it <span style="font-style: italic;">feels </span>wrong but cant provide a<span style="font-style: italic;"> reason</span> as to why.<br /><br />Nothing I have said or will say however, should lead you to think that moral intuitions are unimportant. They are important, vital even, but they are just that - intuitions. In the example of the incest thought experiment, there is a very sound biological reason as to why we should not engage in the practice of incest. Furthermore, it makes sense that nature would have selected for organisms who did not engage in the practice. It would also, have weeded out the beings who did engage in it. Though there are lots of examples that I could site of our intuitions going astray;(our ability to easily succumb to authority figures, social pressure, deluded by a person's likeability, our sense indebtedness to favours and so on) I will focus on just one. Namely the tribal trap: in group/out group hostility.<br /><br />Forty years of scientific research and the long history of human conflict attest to the ease of which humans can be divided against each other. The problem is not just with other groups, but bullying of outsiders, and picking on the lonely individual who is different. Just recently, in my own country, we had the sad example of raciest attacks on Romanians by white supremacists. Just today, as I read the Guardian online, there was reports of ethnic and religious violence in China between two groups. The problem of the tribe and the group will be with us for a long time. What factors however, can help reduce it?<br /><br />to take a micro approach, I think an enormous importance lies in the upbringing of a child, in curbing tribalism, though it is not an iron cast law: - raciest parents beget raciest children, non raciest parents beget non- raciest children. This is something I will tackle however, in my next post. So what other factors can we discuss? Firstly, as with everything, we should ask ourselves what are the facts? Do we have any reason to be frightened? Do they, the group or set of people have any reason to wish harm to me? If so, what are the options of resolving the problem? Secondly, as a general rule: we should view people as sympathetically and compassionately as possible. Imagine, if we can, circumstances from their standpoint. Thirdly: There may be real problems and disputes, however, we should ask ourselves what is the best time and place for attempting to resolve such things. We should exhaust every other avenue before attempting to resolve things by force.<br /><br />Though there is many macro or societal level recommendations I could offer, I wish to stick firmly in the micro or personal. Some further recommendations I would offer, would be to become aware and vigilant when tribal or hostile feelings emerge. Bertrand Russell cautioned people, that, when they felt themselves getting angry or upset by reading or encountering something that they disagree with - they should, pay careful attention for it may expose or reveal a flaw in our thinking. Even if this is not so, we should pay careful attention, for if the emotion gets a hold on us, we may be liable to make mistakes in our ability to reason, as a fog of emotions has clouded our eyes. We should closely examine, then, every time we feel threatened and challenged, and ask ourselves - is it reasonable to feel like this?<br /><br />The final recommendation I would offer: is that we learn and draw from as many sources as possible about the differences and varieties of human life. This is not an endorsement of mindless multiculturalism, far from it, for I think learning about other cultures can actually help us see what is vital and important about our culture. However, what this openness to learning and investigating can do, is leave us with a sense of the universalism of human nature. That many of the same problems and irritations that we face in our own countries are present elsewhere. That, travel and literature and foreign films, can give us a much more realistic picture of our place in the world and In the universe. That we are not <span style="font-style: italic;">special </span>or inherently <span style="font-style: italic;">superior</span>, and in a lot of ways, we are incredibly lucky.<br /><br />Best<br /><br />Mike.Michael Faulknerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557198430260528922noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6626098889543320908.post-74062809975777308652009-07-02T15:58:00.000-07:002009-07-17T10:05:34.754-07:00Do Not Dwell or Be Introverted. Project Eudemonia, Principle Five.The famous story of Buridan's Ass- a poor old donkey, who starved to death because he could not decide which bale of straw to eat as they were both identical. I have a friend, who can on a whim, spend hundreds of pounds on electronic equipment, yet frets over which bar of chocolate to buy in the local shop. I, myself, spend far too much time attempting to decide what to have for dinner, rather than attend to the more important matters, such as the eternally pressing questions of philosophy or what to do at the weekend.<br /><br />The relevance here of this fable to the topic I am currently discussing, is how wasteful, and unproductive much of our thinking is, especially when it takes the form of brooding, worrying, introspection. While my above examples are somewhat comical, there is nothing funny about being wracked with chronic indecision and worry about the more existential topics, such as death, love, money, purpose, family, friends, etc etc. Yet, even more for an obsessive thinker like myself, I would have to seriously question the value of applying all the rigour and laser like critical attention to myself and my problems. In my view, I think it is not only wasteful, but harmful, in that one is left in a worse state of mind than before.<br /><br />What is to be done then? I will be discussing practical thinking in a later blog. In the meantime, however, I would like to mention two things that I have learned from Zen practice. In many ways the spirit of Zen could be neatly described as “just do it”. Charlotte Joko Beck states that “practice” (mindful attention) “is simply maintaining awareness of our activities and also of the thoughts that separate us from them.” The result of such mindfulness, would be a mind liberated from the paralyzing effects of obsessive thinking. You live in the Zen way, you live your live like making the "Zen cup of tea.” You are present in your experience, you observe and notice all the sensations and perceptions, internal and external, that arise, but, you do not become mired, caught, and lost in thought. Your activities become effortless, there is no worry, it’s as simple, as making, a cup of tea.<br /><br />Best<br /><br />MikeMichael Faulknerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557198430260528922noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6626098889543320908.post-48701541079358379582009-06-30T15:38:00.000-07:002009-07-17T10:24:13.136-07:00How can we be Wrong? Part Three. Beliefs.“If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.”<br /><br />-Bertrand Russell.<br /><br />Beliefs control behaviour. What we believe about the world, determines not only our actions, but our emotions, they are operative, cognitively, socially, politically and scientifically. What we believe about the world, then, is immensely important. The corollary to this then, is the importance of where we get our beliefs from, and how we form them, finally, perhaps, crucially how we change or modify beliefs. I intend to deal with where we get our beliefs from during the discussion of the Shaming Code, here I will discuss only the latter two: forming beliefs and changing them.<br /><br />Beliefs, if they are to be useful or informative must, as best possible, accurately reflect reality. This would entail that one attempts to get as clear and accurate a picture of reality as possible. This means that evidence is crucial to beliefs. It should be said, that even people who harbour the craziest views and occupy the lunatic fringe of political or religious discourse, still view their beliefs as eminently rational. For example, if you were to find yourself in discussion with a 9/11 “truther” he would, no doubt, have a plethora of reasons for why it was the CIA and not Al Qaeda that flew the planes into the twin towers.<br /><br />Nevertheless, we find that a good deal of our neighbours believe the preposterous. How is this so? Following on from what I wrote in the last paragraph, the idea that people always look for reasons and justifications for what they believe, would suggest, that there has been a misfiring or mistake in their attempt to ascertain reality. Robert B. Cialdini in his book <span style="font-style: italic;">Influence The Psychology of Persuasion</span>, documents all the cognitive defects and misfirings of reason that humans are susceptive too. In short, we have a complex and vast suite of cognitive abilities and procedures that we deploy to make our way in the world. For example, we are susceptible to authority figures. Now, there is plenty of good reasons why authority is important, and why it is useful to follow experts and authorities, however, we are at risk to charlatans and hucksters, or even people who are themselves deceived of their own authority.<br /><br />How then can we overcome these problems? There has probably been no other human endeavour other than science, that has systematically tried, as best possible, to eliminate bias and woolly thinking. I remember, my initial reaction when reading Richard Dawkins on the difference between the thinking styles in science and politics. Dawkins, gave the warming story of a professor who had been shown to be wrong in a theory he had held in biology by a visiting American professor. Rather than being angry or critical, he said to his young challenger “my dear fellow I have been wrong all these years.” Dawkins asks us to consider what would be the likely outcome of something like this in politics. Even if, miraculously, a politician did admit to being wrong on some policy, he would be pounced on as weak (the refuted professor’s colleagues and students clapped their hands in admiration for being magnanimous.) This was to me, a truly “consciousness raising” moment, to use a favourite phrase of Dawkins.<br /><br />Tools scientists use such as experimental bias, peer review, abduction, verification and falsification, meta analyses - represent our best attempts to get a clear and untainted a picture of what’s real as possiable.<br /><br />In our everyday formations and modifications of beliefs, what is important is that we keep the critical mindset, that we hold our beliefs tentatively, that they are always open to the possiabilty of change. We should, furthermore, welcome every opportunity to challenge and have challenged our beliefs, so we should as Christopher Hitchens proscribes “seek out conflict and argument”.<br /><br />Following on from my last post, where I linked a video of the ten questions of Michael Shermer’s baloney detection kit, they are.<br /><br />1. How reliable is the source of the claim.<br /><br />2. Does the source often make similar claims? Ie lots of extraordinary, unproven, miraculous claims? Or just one or two extraordinary ones alongside perfectly ordinary ones. <br /><br />3. Have the claims been verified by someone else?<br /><br />4. Does the claim fit with the way the world works?<br /><br />5. Has anyone tried to disprove the claim?<br /><br />6. Where does the preponderance of evidence point.<br /><br />7. Is the claimant playing by the rules of science?<br /><br />8 Is the claimant providing positive evidence? Ie not just criticizing a position or explaining away why there is no positive evidence.<br /><br />9. Does the new theory account for as much phenomena as the old theory?<br /><br />10. Are personal beliefs driving the claim.<br /><br />See<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU<br /><br />Best<br /><br />Michael.Michael Faulknerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557198430260528922noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6626098889543320908.post-40538870612381132672009-06-29T13:33:00.000-07:002009-06-29T13:37:07.723-07:00The Baloney Detection Kit From Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins.Check out this <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU">video</a> from RDFS<br /><br />Pretty good stuff when coming to judge claims and evidence and sources.Michael Faulknerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557198430260528922noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6626098889543320908.post-34677873401625392972009-06-29T13:11:00.000-07:002009-07-17T10:38:43.726-07:00How can we be wrong? Part Two2. Prejudicial emotions. <br /><br />We are continually beset by emotions that, if unchecked would make us all monsters and tyrants. Ask yourself this simple question. Whenever you encounter a stranger, someone say, who is very different to you, dresses different, talks different and acts different. What is your initial reaction? The ideal reaction from the point of view of say Buddhism and Christianity is that we love the stranger. This might be a tall order (consider a group of cracked, young teenage malcontents stumbling towards you with quizzical malevolence on their face) Liberalism, would preach a more pragmatic doctrine of tolerance or cheery indifference. So are you on this side of the equation? Or when seeing these people does your heart start to beat a little harder, your jaw tightens and cold hatred appears on your face? Malice then, runs through your veins, and the language of damnation unspools in your mind. In short, do you feel a sense of connection with people or separation?<br /><br />Consequences might not seem to clearly follow from this, but consequences there are. I think it would be true to say that, many of the worlds problems is a consequence of this feeling of separation. “Some people and not others” as Jonathan Glover writes in <span style="font-style: italic;">Humanity A Moral History of the 20th Century</span>. Some people are worthy of our respect and moral concern, and some, are not. We show an alarming disposition to divide ourselves along class, country, race, religion, politics and sexuality. For present purposes, the argument I am making - is that these emotions, visceral and sometimes subliminal and unconscious, can and do, influence and control our actions towards others, influence, and sometimes determine how we reason through abstract socio/political problems. Psychologists talk about each of us having an innate folk psychology, I would argue that we have an innate folk philosophy. It is an extension of our psychology and it influences how we think, how we deal with empirical questions, how we respond to evidence and how we decided the notorious question - <span style="font-style: italic;">What Ought to Be Done?</span><br /><br />Consider what is (or at least appears a basic question), the answers offered, however, determines an entire philosophical and political outlook - <span style="font-style: italic;">How good are we?</span> Do we, have for example, a natural disposition for kindness or are we inherently bad? Do social ills come from institutions and economics or human nature? Conservatism's (broadly defined) view of human nature is the<span style="font-style: italic;"> tragic vision</span>; in its more religious guise it is embodied in the doctrine of original sin. Man is inherently sinful-therefore bad. Any attempt at reforming say, institutions, economics and society is foolish and dangerous. Dangerous, for the walls that keep order(which also oppress and seperate), when torn down will unleash all the selfish, atavistic ugliness that our species is uniquely capable off. In secular conservatism, the basis, would, ironically, be Darwin’s Natural Selection. There is also another irony here, if it were not for the literalist religious folk, then Natural Selection would be seen as almost scientific proof for the doctrine of original sin or if you will, the first noble truth of Buddhism, for what, in a single word is the consequence of greed, selfishness, struggle and enmity-<span style="font-style: italic;">suffering</span>.<br /><br />Liberalism however, takes the opposite view. We are Rousseau’s noble savage. It is the institutions, it is society that has made a mess of our lives. Since the enlightenment, many of liberalisms attempts at reform and its philosophical offshoots have attempted to reform society--with consequences that are not always pretty to say the least.<br /><br />There are two problems here. If the recent investigations as to how we acquire our beliefs-are being shown to be more influenced by heritability than was once thought - that conservatism and liberalism are not just political philosophies but are temperaments, and as such deeply emotional and intuitive. This indicates the problems we have of attempting rational discourse, and even claming objectivity. The second problem is really the crux: what happens when the evidence and reasons go to support one particular view and not another?<br /><br />For our purposes however, what we need to do is notice whenever we are feeling hatred and anger towards people, notice it, and ask ourselves have we any good reason for it? If not, then let it pass. Even if we do, we should not let the emotion get a hold of us, we ought to examine every political and philosophical question dispassionately, as if we were counting pennies. There is plenty of opportunity to let the emotions roar, but in dealing with people we don’t like or disagree with, we ought to deal with them with the greatest care and with dispassionate, objective mindset. We, especially, ought not to allow our provincial emotions and experiences to inform how we deal with social questions. In short, we ought to think <span style="font-style: italic;">clearly</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">compassionately,</span> and ask ourselves what are the <span style="font-style: italic;">facts</span>.<br /><br />Our emotions are like our muscles, we should value them, we may even think them beautiful and that life would not be worth living without them (it would, of course, not be possible either way). However, without the proper use of ones faculties we could just as easily smash someone in the face as help carry them on our backs, so to with the way we think and feel, in that our emotions and thinking can be used wisely or foolishly and hence, harmfully.<br /><br />Best<br /><br />Mike.Michael Faulknerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557198430260528922noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6626098889543320908.post-30390034575941349642009-06-27T09:14:00.000-07:002009-07-18T09:40:59.607-07:00How can we be wrong? Part one.I am beginning new section on my blog, I am going to call it critical thinking. Firstly, here is something I was working on last month but never completed, its long, so I have decided to post it in sections. It comes in five parts, so I intend to put the rest up whenever I complete it.<br /><br />Also for this category, I intend in the future to select OP-Eds, books, and arguments and point out the spurious and fallacious thinking behind them.<br /><br />How we go wrong.<br /><br />I was reading recently a short primer on Socrates, the great Athenian philosopher, or troublemaker, or intellectual messiah, and came across his famous dictum, “All I know is that I know nothing”. It got me thinking - Socrates mission, in many ways, was to expose pretenders to “Wisdom” or expertise. He did this in two ways. 1. Asking for a definition of the thing in question, backed up with appropriate examples and evidence. If this was not forthcoming, then Socrates would reject the person’s knowledge as insufficient to count as wisdom or expertise. 2. He would, by questioning and prying (unleashing the "dogs of philosophic war", as Will Durant puts it) to find contradictions or paradoxes in a person’s argument. The statement “all I know is that I know nothing” is an apparent contradiction, for he professes to know that he knows nothing. Still, this apparent flaw is explained away, which I will not go into for present purposes- Socrates challenge - is how can we acquire wisdom, and to know that we have acquired it. What is, perhaps, more important, rather, than say positive knowledge, is that knowing when we are wrong, and to know when we are likely to be making mistakes in our thinking.<br /><br />So, when I woke up this morning, before trooping off to sweat it out at the gym, while still in semi-conscious awareness-these five rules of thumb came to me. So, I apologize in advance, if my thoughts seem somewhat woolly. I believe that the following five items are what commonly lead us astray in our thinking. What I will say, is, I believe, common sense. Good sense rather, as opposed to "<span style="font-style: italic;">common sense</span>", however is what is needed, for many times, our common modes of thinking is what leads us into the misty, deceiving, smoke of unreason. I will also propose a tool, or mnemonic, to help us organize and clarify our thinking, at the end. The five ways we can be wrong are 1. Failure of understanding. 2. Prejudicial emotions, the trivium of evil- greed, hatred and fear. 3. Beliefs. 4. Moral Paradoxes. 5. The Shaming code.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Coming to terms and Common Understanding.</span><br /><br />In my experience, the most common forms of being wrong is simply a failure of understanding. Humans uses language to convey information, both oral and written, however, because of the well known complexity of language, words and terms, (never mind the deliberate obfuscations at times of philosophers, theologians and critics.) People will dispute for no other reason other than a confusion of language and meaning. This is expressed in a simple example. Jay thinks football is the best sport, John thinks football is the best sport. Jay lives in New York and supports the Jets, and really thinks American Football is the best sport. John lives in Newcastle and supports-who else? Newcastle United and really thinks Soccer is the best sport. If this seems piddling, then consider the arguments that break out over words like- Freedom, Privacy, Government, Faith, Belief, God, Drugs, Justice, Equality, Human-Rights, Evolution, Creationism, Science, Morality. Entire books can be written, articles offered in rebuttal, and OP-Eds trotted out over, what is, or at times what can be, a confusion over meaning, terms and words. Of course, there really is at times dissent and disagreement, but real dissent can only take place when each party fully understands the other party and vice versa. This sounds simple, but the difficulty of achieving it in practice and enforcing it in principle is consistently challenging.<br /><br />The consequence of this, is that, we should simply suspend judgment when we fail to understand something or don’t understand it yet. How then, can we judge competency in understanding? Mortimer J. Adler has offered three criteria for this. We can say that you are, or an author, speaker etc is informed if there is no facts, evidence or information that either contradicts what he believes or falsifies (proves to be wrong) what he holds to be true. If the obverse of this is true then you are uninformed. Of course, the facts that you do use, and the theories by which you explain the facts have to be elegant, consistent, and compelling. Now, Secondly, the author or speaker along with ourselves can either be misinformed. This is to say, that your are wrong in principle, for example, someone who believes the sun circles the earth is misinformed and uninformed. That is to say, they are wrong in principle and have not been instructed correctly. A final way of being misinformed about a subject - can also be understood as commiting the "straw man fallacy" that is, that the picture they have of an argument or position is wildly inaccurate. Thirdly, our understanding or the author, speaker etc, is not insufficient or incomplete. Strictly speaking, this is not being wrong per se, but it is a form of epistemic fallacy. I have a limited understanding of Greek history, but this knowledge would be insufficient for me to grade a paper by an undergraduate in Ancient History. Many, most, or all of my assertions and views, would likely be wrong.<br /><br />So to recap, firstly, to check the soundness of our beliefs we must ask - is there any facts or information which contradict what we hold to be the case. Secondly, we must ensure that we have, as best possible, the most accurate understanding of, not only what we are contending, but also, other peoples’ positions. We must then, be sure of our facts and resources. Finally, we must ensure that our understanding is both comprehensive and sufficiently complete, in other words, our argument or analysis we must not leave out factors with are essential to the matter at hand. <br /><br />It can also be in art or entertainment that we can also be <span style="font-style: italic;">wrong</span>. I have a friend who, with me, has watched a few David Lynch films. He comments that Lynch’s films are “erratic” and “disjointed”-I view I would share. However, is this not just analysis? A descriptive comment not an evaluative judgment - I believe so. Does analytic descriptions imply evaluative judgment? My friend was using the words “erratic” and disjointed” in a negative, critical way, though I believe they are an accurate description of the use of narrative in Lynch’s films, however, it is possible for me to use the same words, and conclude, paradoxically, with a positive appraisal of Lynch’s films. Is this is a problem? No. Consider this statement. “James told Martha she was ugly and overweight”. Lets agree that Martha is ugly. Lets also agree (for the sake of argument) that James was wrong to say this. Does the fact that he said these things, imply(remember just sticking with the language itself - not the social/cultural implications of it) that he is a nasty man and was wrong to do so? No. For the reason that we could say that James is being truthful, or funny, or even that he is nasty, but so what? Our judgment,however, of James being nasty has to rely on reasons <span style="font-style: italic;">outside </span>of the analysis which form the judgment. So for example, we may say that we don’t believe we should be nasty to people, or that we were brought up to be kind etc. (note these reasons can, too, be examined thus instigating a infinite regress, any terminator, however, we wish to use-God, Law, Expert Opinion runs into the same problem - regress.)<br /><br />So, when we form opinions on art, music, novels, games, films, stories, we ought to understand the emotional and intellectual impression that the artist is trying to convey to us. Take the HBO TV drama, The Wire for example, a female culture critic watched one episode, (the pilot) and concluded that the show was sexist and derogatory to women. Has the woman even tried to come to terms of what the show was trying to convey? Did she not understand that the few depictions of women in the Pilot were not chauvinistic but realistic? (what are female strippers supposed to do in a strip club after all?) Did she not think of showing a little humility in light of the fact that she had only seen one episode-and only watched it to see what all her male colleagues were up to? Calling it great TV etc? Should she not have watched a few more episodes before writing her piece? Take anouther case - It is a cliché for example, to call Radiohead depressing. Is it really? And if it is, is this a bad thing? Perhaps ist not depressing but reflective and soulful, perhaps we should attend to the ideas the music and lyrics ponders over, before being dismissive. To appreciate, whether or not the execution of the project was skilful, incomplete, innovative, creative or not.<br /><br />To sum up, we should ask ourselves-what is being said and how is it being said. What is its meaning and do I understand it? What are the reasons supplied for it? And finally, it is not uniformed, misinformed or incomplete in any key particular.<br /><br />Best<br /><br />Michael.Michael Faulknerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557198430260528922noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6626098889543320908.post-26746650251888967622009-06-24T15:56:00.000-07:002009-07-30T14:26:50.732-07:00Project Eudemonia: Principle Four, Cultivate Zestful Joy.What does it mean to culivate zestful joy? Joy or happiness or eudemonia does not fall into our laps, indeed, like anything worthwhile it must be attained, effort must be expended in the conquering of it. This is the reason why Bertrand Russell called his book on the subject, The Conquest of Happiness.<br /><br />Firstly though, a definition of zest. Russell, from whom I take this word, described Zest as “the most universal and distinctive mark of happy men,”. Zest, one would think, follows naturally from my last principle, living life with purpose; if for example, one has purpose, a purpose that one finds agreeable, then it is easier to have enthusiasm for it, to engage in it with a sense of enjoyment and energy. Russell gave an analogy by what he meant by the world zest, namely by describing various types of eaters, and how they have a similarity to people who view life the same way: as someone who views meals. “There are those who begin with a sound appetite, are glad of their food, eat until they have had enough, and then stop. Those who are set down before the feast of life have similar attitudes towards the good things which it offers.” this account: the healthy eater, corresponds to the man who has zest.<br /><br />Zest for life can take many forms, just like life can afford many different purposes. Zest however, cannot be generated by reflection or reason, it is an emotion, a state of being, a will. How then can it be sought and maintained? The feeling of being loved, in particular sexual love, is, as Russell notes one of the chief sources of zest. The esteem of ones friends and colleagues along with a sense of self respect in the activities that one is doing is important. Having projects, aims and values are also indispensable in cultivating Zest. A further analogy to help demonstrate, is to liken zest to a engine that gives power and hence motion to a vehicle, we are the vehicle, zest is the engine, figuring out, personally, what fuel we need is like finding our purpose, one of the tasks of life.<br /><br />Joy can be seen then, as the consequence of zest. In Buddhism, it is considered one of the seven factors of enlightenment. It does not take an enlightened being however, to recognise the intrinsic and extrinsic importance of this state. Not only is our attitude to life healthier, indeed, there is plenty of good evidence to think that a happy life has adaptive functions for us: namely success and wellbeing. Joy or happiness, or indeed, eudemonia - makes us shine, we are better at forming and cementing relationships, and better at deepening the ones we have already, we are better equipped, mentally and emotionally, to deal with life’s vicissitudes. I should say that joy is not some temporary, somewhat effete or vulgar experience a “joy joy click your heals” kind of happiness, it is a strength of mind. It is almost like an attitude of unconquerable hope or optimism; and an awareness of everything (all your experience) that is placed before you, and finding peace by accepting it. Joy, then, is something that is developed and deepened throughout life. The state of ecstasy, in contrast, is a high, it is a temporary from of bliss. Joy is much more stable and steady. In a marvellous book, <span style="font-style: italic;">The Experience of Insight</span>, Joseph Goldstein writes that joy as a state can be compared to “a person walking many days in the desert, very hot and tired, dirty and thirsty. Not too far in the distance, he sees a great lake of clear water, the joy he will feel, that’s like the enlightenment factor of rapture”. Russell concludes his chapter on zest, the key chapter, perhaps, in his book, The Conquest Of Happiness, by saying “ zest is the secret of happiness and wellbeing.”<br /><br />Best<br /><br />Michael.Michael Faulknerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557198430260528922noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6626098889543320908.post-4340902361318565832009-06-23T15:19:00.000-07:002009-07-30T14:32:14.070-07:00Project Eudemonia. Principle Three: Live Your Life With Purpose.“The unexamined life is not worth living” the kernel of this maxim, from Socrates, is that we choose values and principles that premise our lives, that gives us a purpose and a reason for living. Our life should, as Bertrand Russell noted “ spring from our own deep impulses and not from the accidental tastes and desires of those who happen to be our neighbours, or even our relations.” Putting it anouther way, the French philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre, identified, what he believed the key philosophical question: should one commit suicide? If the answer is no, then it implies that one has a reason to live. A life then, without some hope or reason for living, or some guiding purpose, would be one so open to chance, so open to the manipulations and coercions of others, that it would be a existence - “flying by the seat of its pants.” - a tumbleweed being blown by the wind.<br /><br />It cannot be overestimated, then, how important it is that we find something that we love, something we are good at, and something that we can sink hours or years of our lives into. We can find purpose and pleasure in many things; figuring out what is one of them(purpose in finding purpose alas). The result then, is a stable, purposeful and worthwhile existence. Ends are important however, we should ask whether or not our lives contribute to the over all good, and that the consequences that we create do not bring about unnecessary suffering to others and to ourselves. It would also need to be stressed, that we place a not to great an emphasis on achieving specific goals; we should take pleasure in the doing more than the achieving. Finally, via Sartre, we should have as many reasons for living as possible, so, if one happens to fail us, we will not lapse into despair or futility.<br /><br /><br />Best<br /><br />Michael.Michael Faulknerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557198430260528922noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6626098889543320908.post-91365499057165879642009-06-22T05:41:00.000-07:002009-06-22T05:55:44.106-07:00The Ethics Of Rape.Introduction.<br /><br />Last Sunday I happened to catch the topical debate show, The Big Questions on BBC. One of the issues being discussed was the contentious issue of whether or not a woman could be responsible for being raped. I enjoy watching a lot of these shows, not generally for their informed debate, but, for their ability to give me a good metal work out. Many times, around contentious issues, there is a real lack of clarity, important distinctions, and a inability to come to a clear understanding of words and meanings. In short, a lot of heat is generated without the corresponding benefit of light.<br /><br />So I will attempt to clarify the issue, and make firm distinctions between the many confusions that people on the show made. It cannot, of course, be overestimated how much emotion and feeling entered into the debate, here I will attempt to reason as coolly and dispassionately as possible.<br /><br />Here is the link to the programme.<br /><br />http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00l94bm<br /><br />Here is the question;<br /><br />Can date rape be a woman's fault?<br /><br />I intend to analyse this question through two categories. 1. Risk and Responsibility. 2 Legality. After discussing the issue through these two categories I will be able to make important definitions and distinctions in regard to the word “fault”<br /><br />Risk and Responsibility<br /><br />Firstly, let me ask two questions and see what answers we get. “can a woman’s behaviour or actions contribute to a greater risk of being raped?” and “are there ways of behaving responsibly that, all things being equal, limit the possibility of being raped?” Before answering these questions let me give an analogy that will prove instructive. Lets consider a scenario that is used many times in these debates. Suppose you are a man, well dressed, walking in a poor, crime ridden, unfamiliar neighbourhood, perhaps even, in a neighbourhood that is ethnically different. You are walking with an expensive phone, talking imperviously to your friend. Now ask the question: Is his behaviour contributing to a greater risk of being mugged? Is he acting responsibly? Now, I want you to hang on a moment, I think I might know what your thinking and feeling about what this seems to imply, wait, I am not implying that at all.<br /><br /><br /><br />So, now I turn to the issue and ask, can a woman’s behaviour contribute to a greater risk of being raped? And are there ways of acting that would, as best as possible limit the chance of being raped? The answer is of course yes, one would only have to consider the amount of stay safe advertising and material promoted to raise awareness in women to stay vigilant and be safe.<br /><br />Now, there is a gigantic fallacy that people fall into when seeing this conclusion. The fallacy is this, if a woman acts irresponsibly then this means that the rapist is absolved of the legal and moral consequences of the crime, or that it somehow mitigates the crime. This is TOTALLY false. Even if a well dressed man with an expensive phone is mugged in a crime ridden area, the legal and largely the moral responsibility lies with the perpetrator.<br /><br />Legality<br /><br />I think the source of this problem is twofold. The historical injustice around women and rape in particular, and the fallacy of equating morality with legality. I should not need to say anything on the first problem. I will say a few things on the second. Simply put, in legal proceedings there is either the reality that a crime has taken place or it has not. This is for a jury to decide. The legal consequences or to put it another way the agency lies with the accused, the causal reasons for the rape or murder or theft are in legal proceedings irrelevant.<br /><br />What this means, is that legally, a woman can act as irresponsibly as she wishes and should not expect to be raped or abused, it does not diminish the criminal culpability of the offender, it gives a man no right to take advantage of a drunken woman. This naturally, should go without saying.<br /><br />However, legal rights are one thing, safety and security in the real world are another.<br />In a perfect world, everyone should be able to act as they please provided they do harm to no one. However, this is not a perfect world, and there are many inconvenient things we have to do to ensure that we are safe.<br /><br />Now I come to one final important distinction. Lets now consider fault. Legally, as I have noted, the rapist bares total legal responsibility for the crime committed. Now what about morally? Morally, once again the rapist bares the majority of the moral responsibility, but I believe the woman does, in some, but not all or most circumstances bares some moral responsibility.<br /><br />Let me qualify this. Morality is not the same as legality. I believe telling lies to hurt someone immoral but it is not illegal. Some people consider sex outside of marriage immoral but again it is not illegal. The standard secular liberal definition of morality would be actions concerning the health and wellbeing of sentient creatures, hence, moral actions result in a increase or preservation of health and wellbeing while decreasing or avoiding the bringing about of harm and suffering. Two conclusions would follow from this. 1. That, as I have said the majority of the moral responsibility would rest with the rapist, as he is bringing about a huge increase in suffering and harm to someone. 2. That, in some way, if the woman has put herself at risk and behaved irresponsibly, then she has acted, in some way, immorally, in that she has brought about a unnecessary and unwelcome state of suffering through her actions. <br /><br /><br />Though I believe, these conclusions are sound, I understand that the use of the term immoral has connotations that are very much open to misinterpretation, so I think that using such words are unhelpful. To conclude, even though this has tidied up a few confusions, there is still many practical problems (ensuring more rape convictions for example) that I cannot explore fully here. In short, what is needed is greater public awareness, both among men and women, especially when it comes to the murky issue of date rape. The issue of whether or not a person is competent to give consent is a ambiguous issue, one that really needs explored with sound information disseminated to the public.<br /><br />Best<br /><br />Michael.Michael Faulknerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00557198430260528922noreply@blogger.com0