Recent Posts
So, it's a bit late, but as promised the pieces on philosophy of mind are now arriving.
Theories about the nature of human mind reach back at least as far as Ancient Greece. Plato wrote about it and so did Aristotle. However, Philosophy of Mind in the modern era begins with René Descartes. Descartes was a French philosopher, mathematician, scientist and writer during the 17th century.
He is also responsible for a skeptical method, sometimes referred to as Cartesian Doubt, where nothing is taken for granted as a given. It was through the employment of this method, in an attempt to prove the immortality of the soul, that we find the meat of his argument for substance dualism and his theory of mind. This exercise in doubt is chronicled in his Meditations on First Philosophy.
Without descending into a full-blown explanation of the Meditations, much of which is off topic, substance dualism can be explained more or less as follows. There are, effectively, two substances which compose a person: material and immaterial substances. Material substances (bodies) are defined by being extensible (having shape and form in 3-dimensional space), having duration through time, and being subject to decay and death. Immaterial substances (minds) are defined primarily by not being extensible, not being subject to decay and death, and also having duration through time.
Descartes came to his conclusion about these immaterial substances by his skeptical method. He posed himself the question, is there anything about which i cannot doubt? His answer to this question was, in the Meditations, "I am a thinking thing." The more famous version, The Cogito ("cogito, ergo, sum") is often mis-attributed to the Mediations. It actually comes from his Discourse on Method and translates to "I think, therefore, I am." In either case, the gist is the same, the immaterial is for Descartes the principle substance.
His argument for the statement that, "I am a thinking thing," essentially goes like this:
While I may be able to doubt the existence of my body, or the entire material world, I cannot doubt the existence of my own mind. When I try to doubt it, I am confronted with the fact that someone must be doubting. That I can doubt my existence proves my existence.
These claims came under fire almost as soon as the work was published and have been receiving criticism since. In Part 2 of Cartesian Substance Dualism, some of the objections that have been raised will be examined.
While this isn't the essay on philosophy of mind I had planned on posting, I do think that it is a topic worth examination.
In recent decades the attendance of traditional Christian churches in the US has been in decline. This has translated into an increase of those practicing (or at least identifying themselves as) Neo-pagans, Wiccans or several other varieties of spirituality. As spiritual practices with more or less defined, but always present, ethical and moral guidelines they can be dismissed from the concerns of this essay. This decline has also, however, translated itself into a growing population of those who identify themselves as atheists. In an increasingly secular age, taken at face value, atheism does not seem problematic. It can be argued that Science, History, Philosophy, Art, Literature and Music can all continue to be produced without any particular belief in God. The only place where atheism is problematic is in the arena of Ethics. Some popular perceptions or misperceptions are that atheists cannot be expected to act morally without the presence of divine mandates, that their ethics will be innately inferior to those of religious origin, and that the only morality left open to an atheist is moral relativism.
It is absurd to think that because someone is not required to act in a certain way due to divine mandate that it precludes them from acting morally. It is a stock either/or fallacy. It is just as absurd to assume that because someone professes to be of a given faith that they can be expected to act morally. If a person happens to be of a given faith they may be more inclined to trust the moral character of another member of their faith, but it is not, nor can it be, a given. In the everyday world, the origin of morality has little to do with our expectations of moral behavior. Our expectations of moral behavior are derived from our observations of moral behavior. We tend to trust those we see behaving morally and to distrust those we see (or have reason to believe are) behaving immorally or amorally. Moreover, our trust may be lesser or greater depending on the particular area of behavior under discussion. For example, a given man may be perfectly willing to let a lawyer that never violates attorney-client privilege, but also engages in affairs, represent him in a lawsuit without introducing the lawyer to his wife.
What drives this misperception stems from the categorical/hypothetical divide. Moral theory tends to be (with the exception of morally relativistic systems) defined by the categorical, or that which is universal. Moral actions are by nature hypothetical, or that which happens situationally. Moral imperatives, Christian or otherwise, tend to be very broad: dont steal, dont kill, and dont lie, to name a few that appear in both religious and non-religious moral systems. While not true categorical imperatives, theyre as close as one can come without becoming vague to the point of irrelevancy. These rules are not contextual. They are meant to define behavior in all instances at all times. Moral behavior, on the other hand, is entirely contextual. Human fallibility in combination with stressors (be they personal or professional) will lead to failures to engage in the universal rules. Heres the crux of the matter, because religious morality is divinely mandated (theoretically), those who accept it make the mistake of assuming that because the rules are divine and universal the behaviors they require will be equally universal, but any rule not both divine and universal will lead to suspect behavior. It is a conclusion that ignores the differentiation between the categorical and the hypothetical. Human beings act in the hypothetical and the rules are broken, whether they are divinely mandated or not. The assumption that those who lack divinely mandated rules are more prone to immoral behavior because of the lack of divine mandate is insupportable. Moral behavior occurs in context and so does moral failure, irregardless of the source of the rules. To assert that atheists are more prone to moral failure than those who embrace religious moral systems is at best an error and at worst an ugly prejudice.
It is equally spurious to assert that an atheists ethic is innately inferior to a divinely mandated ethic. Such claims find their source in an understandable, but nonetheless flawed, line of reasoning. It is a variant on the Cartesian Ontological Proof for God. The argument goes something like this:
1. God is perfect.
2. God has given mankind rules of conduct.
3. As God is perfect, the rules God has given to mankind are equally perfect.
The argument seems sound enough from a logical standpoint; unfortunately, the entire argument rests on three significant assumptions. The first assumption is that there is a God. The second assumption is that God is perfect. The final assumption, which actually hinges on accepting the first two, is that such a God is sufficiently interested in human beings to give us rules. If these assumptions are accepted as irrefutably true (which true believers do accept), then the arguments work. Nevertheless, to accept the first or all of these assumptions is an act of faith and not reason. There is no viable way to demonstrate the existence, nature, or actions of God. As such, there is no way to assert the superiority of divinely mandated moral systems, because such judgments rest on the believed, but ultimately non-demonstrable, nature of Gods perfection.
As to the notion that the only morality available to an atheist is moral relativism, there is nothing to support such a claim. The most significant principle in the various incarnations of moral relativism is that moral positions are, by nature, not absolute positions. As such, those professing contrary moral thinking cannot be condemned for their moral reasoning. Setting aside the numerous examples of how this perception of morality fails, how can an atheist avoid being or being labeled a moral relativist?
The simple answer is that being an atheist does not preclude moral absolutism. It simply isnt divinely mandated moral absolutism. While the existence of God cannot be demonstrated to be a priori, there are principles which have been more or less accepted as a priori true: logical principles. How does one move from logic to morality? A very simple example would be the application of the law of identity and its corollary the law of non-contradiction. If we have a procedure for identifying, for example, a human being, then the law of identity dictates that a human being is a human being and the law of non-contradiction dictates that a human being cannot be other than a human being. Since most moral systems concern themselves primarily with human interaction, this is a fairly important place to begin.
Lets say that our procedure for identifying a human being is a genetic examination. Anyone who has a genetic code within a certain tolerance qualifies for a status as a human being, irregardless of their racial heritage. In one fell swoop, an atheist who accepts the laws of identity and non-contradiction has eliminated all forms of racism, as any morality worth discussing will include all human beings beneath its umbrella and the genetic differences between the various racial groups on this planet are miniscule. Granted, this is a simplistic example and subject to certain criticisms, but it does demonstrate the possibility of establishing an absolute moral position without recourse to a non-demonstrable deity.
It is outside of the scope and purpose of this essay to follow the line of reasoning out to a full-blown moral theory. Nonetheless, it can be said that the assertions that atheists cannot be expected to act morally without divine mandate, that an atheists ethic is innately inferior, and that an atheist is condemned to moral relativism are untenable positions. An atheist is subject to the same moral quality and failure as a theist because they both have moral victories and defeats in the hypothetical. The inferiority of an atheist ethic is based on flawed logic or ill-considered suppositions. The possibility of an absolute morality without recourse to God is entirely conceivable. What is more interesting, and perhaps more worth the time and effort of exploration, would be just why it is that some of those who embrace a divinely mandated morality feel the need to try to undercut and denigrate the moral grounding of those who do not.
Shared on
What is the human mind? Seems like a simple enough question, in form anyways. Also seems as though it would be a question long since answered by now. There are six billion or so of these human minds wandering around on this planet. It would seem that at least one of them would be able to answer that question. Yet, the nature of the mind remains an open question. There are major and minor, secular and religious, theories about the mind and yet, we can't say for sure whether those theories are even on the right track.
That said, there are some things we can say about the mind. First of all, the entire modern discussion regarding the mind has been dictated by Descartes. He claimed, in the first half of the 1600's, that the mind (soul) and the body were separate substances. The argument, as such, has proceeded inevitably from this point and gone no further. Generally, people either come down as being in favor of this idea, the mind is mysterious, defies categorization and study, and will continue to be and do so. The responding side is that the mind is a function of a purely material or an organic mechanical nature. The former tend to be philosophical, free will advocates and the latter tend to be determinists and/or behaviorists.
I'm planning on writing several pieces over the next month exploring the questions and theories of mind and hope that you, the readers, will find it as fascinating to read about as i have.
Shared on
The question of whether or not there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is one that preoccupies the human mind. Rightly so, I think. The vast expanse of the universe almost compels the consideration of the possibility. The idea that in all of that uncharted room we, human beings, alone have the capacity for memory, reasoning, history, art, and relationships (to name but a few) is not only disquieting; it is borderline repulsive. It seems unimaginable that beings so prone to destruction, planetary mutilation, and behaviors more appropriate to an unmonitored playground than a civilization stand triumphant at the very pinnacle of the evolutionary mountain. So we speculate on the possibility of life elsewhere. Some of these visions are distopian: H.G. Wells imagined extra-terrestrial life as genocidal. Some of these visions are more hopeful, Star Trek and Star Wars. However, the possibility of such intelligent life in the universe is a topic of considerable debate.
The most commonly referenced means of determining the possibility of intelligent life in the universe is the Drake Equation: N = R* fp ne fl fi fc L. For an explanation of the equation see setileague. Drake estimates that there are 10,000 communicative civilizations in the Milky Way Galaxy. Very exciting stuff, until you realize that basically every number Drake, or anyone else using the formula, is employing is, in the best case scenario, a best guess. 10,000 is not as compelling when it's a guess. Essentially, it places you back to square one in terms of the possibility.
So, let us dismiss hard math for the time being and think in terms of reason. The universe is, literally, unimaginably vast. We only just begun to breach the outer reaches of our own solar system in the last few decades. That's nothing in terms of the existence of the universe. We are a very primitive species when you get right down to brass tacks. Our technology is supremely limited. The most brilliant physicians in the world don't fully or in many cases partially understand what happens in our bodies. Think about this for a moment. We live in our bodies every day. It is probably the most examined, poked, tested, prodded and experimented on object in the world and we don't even really understand it yet. We cannot manage our toxic output, our waste output, or our population. We don't have a decent theory for the origin of life on earth without descent into wild speculation or religion, neither of which is a good place to begin when discussing the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe. In point of fact, about the only thing at which human beings excel at, as a group, is killing other human beings. This is the height, the great vantage point, from which experts look out into the universe and declare that it's unlikely that there is intelligent life anywhere else. There is a term to describe such a statement from such a group: Hubris
[ Click here to read more ]
Shared on
I have successfully adjusted the things on the page that i felt needed adjustment (mostly categories) and will now be moving forward with this project. One new addition to this blog will be fiction. Strange Horizons as a title simply begs for fiction. Another new addition will be entries that have a more musing air about them, reflections on the possibilities in the universe, and not so much about straight up reporting on the oddness of things. I hope you all like the new additions and, if needs be, I will check into the possibility of sorting the various entries into specific areas of their own. I hope all of those who have been checking back on this blog so faithfully over the last few months will be pleased with the new material and those of you who are new to it will be pleased with what you discover. Until then, be free with your thinking.
Shared on
After a great deal of reflection, I've decided to take this blog in a new direction. The name of the blog itself demands a greater range of material than was being allowed for by the previous incarnation. I'm going to try to tweak the setup for the page a bit and then gallop off into a new, broader arena. Fear not, the UFO, conspiracy, alien stuff will still make it's appearances, just less exclusively. Carry on brave readers.
Shared on
Let me open this by stating, flat out, that I am not a Huckabee supporter. Nonetheless, the recent flurry of media activity surrounding Huckabee's statements from fifteen years ago seems to call for some manner of analysis.
Let us begin with something simple. Huckabee made his statements regarding AIDS patients fifteen years ago. Fifteen years is a very long time. Yet, the media seems to want to treat these statements as though they were made fifteen minutes ago. There are very few people who can honestly say that nothing in their thinking has changed over fifteen years. To offer some manner of example of how ridiculous this all really is consider this.
Let's say that at eighteen years old someone says that they think that marijuana should be legalized because they don't see anything wrong with it. Let's assume that fifteen years later a reporter drags that statement out of the dustbin and confronts the person who said it. It's just possible that in the intervening years that person has read literature that suggests that marijuana use impairs things like reaction time and judgment, that chronic use impairs higher cognitive functions, and so on. They might, with fifteen years of thought and new information, regard that statement with different eyes. They might even stand by the statement, as something said by an eighteen year old, but wish to offer a more reflective statement in it's stead
[ Click here to read more ]
Shared on
In light of my recent absence from blogging for a few weeks, I thought this might be a good time to discuss some of the roles absence plays in philosophy. Surprisingly enough, absence plays a profound role in philosophical discourse. In Existentialism, for example, the presence or absence of another person plays a significant role in how we operate as human beings. In argumentation, negative arguments rely on the opposing position having an absence of proof to support itself. Arguments against the existence of God use this strategy of absence extensively. In social and political philosophy absence is critical to defining freedom. Given the siege on civil liberties in the last few years, this seems to be a valuable topic to explore.
There are, generally speaking, three types of freedom that are discussed in social and political philosophy: absolute freedom, positive freedom, and negative freedom. Absolute freedom is exactly what it sounds like, the complete absence of constraint or, conversely, the complete ability to act. However, as a term, it has very little social or political currency. A social or political structure, no matter how democratic, dictatorial, or totalitarian, effectively begins from the notion that the behavior of the individual members of the group are constrained in some fashion, usually by laws.
Positive freedom is defined as the potential to act or pursue goals within constraints. This is particularly relevant to societies. Every society has laws, legal systems, or methods of constraint. These are not absolute constraints. While an individual or corporation is forbidden from acting in particular ways in the pursuit of making money in business, neither is forbidden from pursuing profit or creating a successful business. They can pursue goals, can act, to achieve their ends within the confines of the constraints established by society or government
[ Click here to read more ]
Shared on
So as you have all certainly heard by now, Sasquatch has been "seen" in the Allegheny National Forest on Sept. 16. More specifically a hunter, Rick Jacobs, had set up an automatic camera that snapped pictures of something. The something has been variously identified as a juvenile sasquatch and a skinny mangy bear. Now, assuming that these pictures are in fact un-doctored images, the likelihood that the animal pictured is a bear seems unlikely. What seems far more likely is that the "mangy bear" theorists are doing what scientists have been doing for the last hundred or so years. Confronted with something that they can't readily fit into a taxonomic category, they're trying very hard to wedge it into one. Because the bigfoot mythos has been relegated to the arena of "crazy people" and folklore, scientists are almost incapable of accepting the potential reality of one. However, it might do the biologists of the world some good to take a lesson from archeology. Until Heinrich Schliemann dug it up, the city of Troy was nothing but a thing of legend. Just because you haven't seen it, dissected it, and decided that it is sufficiently different from anything else to have its own name oh scientists of the world, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Shared on
"God is dead" is one of the most often quoted and misunderstood quotes from Nietzsche's body of work. The stock misinterpretation is that Nietzsche was referring to a literal being "God" as having died. It is profoundly unlikely that he intended that as his meaning, in large part, because he was an atheist. He never believed in the existence of a literal God in the first place. So it is a clear non sequitur to think that he would concede that such a being ever existed at all.
What Nietzsche was trying to say is that the man-made concept of God is dead. In other words, the moral framework that man placed onto the concept of God the creator couldn't do what it was supposed to do any longer. Rather than being what it was supposed to be (moral guide, encouragement) the concept of God had become an inhibition to the development of mankind, or at least the small subset of mankind that interested Nietzsche.
Nietzsche, like many philosophers, was fascinated by the possibility of an ideal man. In the early Nietzsche this was represented by his Master Type or noble man and eventually developed in the more deeply misunderstood concept of the Übermensch. Without going into a lengthy explanation, the conflict nascent in the phrase "God is dead," and on which Nietzsche would spend the bulk of his writing, goes something like this. Mankind is, consciously or not, aiming to create the Übermensch. Along the way, mankind stalled with the concept of God; the external authority figure. The Übermensch cannot accept the concept of God because the Übermensch is a self-ruling being: he gives laws to himself and enforces them onto himself, to paraphrase Nietzsche. It is, ultimately, the Übermensch who will and must overcome the concept of God and expose it for the dead idea it is, if only to himself.
Shared on
|
|
|
Add Comments
Comments (1)
Read More
Comment by Mr. D and Philosophy
on intersubjectivity and interpersonal relationships
Philosophy Philosophy
So, for the purposes of responding, I'll work from the position that what you mean by "properly" is to have a relationship that involves genuine emotional intimacy and personal, non-public knowledge about another person.
In terms of solipsism, if you mean the position that one's mind/mental states is/are the only mind/mental states and that the whole of reality is encompassed within that/those mind/mental states, I would answer your question this way. There is no debate because there are no other people with whom to have relationships of an intersubjective kind (or any other kind for that matter). At that point, the question becomes one of how well do you know yourself since the "other" people you know are simply projections from your own mind. Argument over.
If by solipsism you mean something of a more Cartesian nature, that your mind (inner life) is the only thing that you can know with certainty, then you are dealing with fundamentally the same problem whether you are putting it terms of solipsism or intersubjectivity. The problem you are confronted with is the asymmetry of knowledge and the acceptance of a handful of assumptions about the world.
For there to be relationships with others you must more or less accept that there is a world outside of yourself. You must accept that there are other "people/minds" in that world. You must accept that you can at least minimally communicate in some fashion with those others. Assuming that you accept these assumptions, you would have to address the problem of the asymmetry of knowledge.
You can do this in one of two ways, generally speaking. The first way is to say that you simply cannot know another person because the only thing you can know with certainty is your own inner life. This would go for either existentialists or for your Cartesian solipsist. The other way to handle the problem is to deal with self-established probabilities.
For the existentialist, to have have an intersubjective relationship relies on your treating the other person as a subject, but it also hinges on something they call good faith or bad faith. To act in good faith is essentially to act without deception, to others or self. To act in bad faith is to act with deception of self or others. (The concepts of good faith and bad faith are a bit more complex than I've given here, but this simplified version are functional for the topic.) However, the asymmetry of knowledge forces you to decide how probably you find it that the other is acting in good faith. The problem is identical for the Cartesian solipsist insofar as they have to decide how probable it is that the information that they are getting from another person is accurate.
My answer, to both of these positions on the question of the possibility of knowing another person, at least philosophically, is that you can never really know another person. The asymmetry of knowledge simply precludes any sort of objective knowledge. That said, in personal terms, I think we all do the probability assessment and derive contingent knowledge of others that we take to be more or less objective knowledge. We assume we know others because their behaviors are consistent in given ways and we are able to predict their future behaviors. This creates the belief that we know others, even though that belief is not really objective knowledge because it lacks absolute certainty.
I hope this was helpful.
A good article on solipsism can be found at this web address. Really Long Link