onegoodmove

We have all the rituals we need, counters AC Grayling My son sent me this link. He writes: Interesting article on what humanism is and is not. Grayling is wrong about Buddhism though. Buddhism posits Karma, which I would call a supernatural process though I admit this is debatable. Some forms of Buddhism include reincarnation over multiple lifetimes, I would say that is a supernatural posit. It is possible to read Buddhism in a supernatural free way though. But Graylings blanket conclusion that Buddhism does not posit the supernatural and therefore is not a religion is mistaken.  A rose might indeed smell as sweet by any other name, but names matter nevertheless, and it especially matters that the terms ‘humanism’ and ‘religion’ should have clear definitions so that temptations to describe the former as a species of the latter can be avoided. Some succumb to such temptation because they would like humanism to be a movement with a credo that would sustain communities of like-minded folk, making it a substitute version of church membership. But humanism is not such a thing, and religion is a quite different thing. Humanism is a general outlook based on two allied premises, which allow...

Continue reading "Humanism" »

Posted by Norm at 9:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (32)

Worth a listen they provide both streaming and mp3 download. BBC - Radio 4 In Our Time - Pragmatism: "'A pragmatist ... turns away from abstraction and insufficiency, from verbal solutions, from bad a priori reasons, from fixed principles, closed systems, and pretended absolutes and origins. He turns towards concreteness and adequacy, towards facts, towards action and towards power'. A quote from William James' 1907 treatise Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking. William James, along with John Dewey and Charles Sanders Peirce, was the founder of an American philosophical movement which flowered during the last thirty years of the nineteenth century and the first twenty years of the twentieth century. It purported that knowledge is only meaningful when coupled with action. Nothing is true or false - it either works or it doesn't. It was a philosophy which was deeply embedded in the reality of life, concerned firstly with the individual's direct experience of the world he inhabited. In essence, practical application was all. "...

Continue reading "Pragmatism" »

Posted by Norm at 3:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (12)

"You may decry some of these scruples and protest that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in my philosophy. I am concerned, rather, that there should not be more things dreamt of in my philosophy than there are in heaven or earth."—N. Goodman...

Continue reading "Dreams" »

Posted by Norm at 12:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

An irreverent look at the problem of evil. The question is if God is all-loving, all-knowing, all powerful then how do you explain all the horrible things in the world? The list is long disease, hunger, starvation, painful fucking deaths, to name just a few. Is this God just a bit retarded? The suffering goes on and he does nothing. Is it because he can't, then he's not all-powerful, is it because he doesn't want to, then he is not all loving, is it because he doesn't see the problems, then he's not all knowing. So how is it the believer reconciles the problem? The standard answer is that if God eliminated the hardships we wouldn't have the freedom to grow. But surely a tweak here and there could be made without jeopardizing the freedom thing. The atheist would say God could have designed us to feel less pain, or made us more empathetic so we weren't such nasty bastards, or made the process of learning a bit easier to help us avoid some of the common pitfalls. Natural disasters could be made less disastrous. No category 2,3,4, or 5 hurricanes would be a good start, I'm sure Louisiana wouldn't...

Continue reading "Evil" »

Posted by Norm at 12:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (53)

An Answer to the Question: "What is Enlightenment?", by Immanuel Kant Königsberg in Prussia, 30th September, 1784. Enlightenment is man's release from his self-incurred tutelage. Tutelage s man's inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another. Self-incurred is this tutelage when its cause lies not in lack of reason but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another. Sapere aude! "Have courage to use your own reason!"- that is the motto of enlightenment. Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so great a portion of mankind, after nature has long since discharged them from external direction (naturaliter maiorennes), nevertheless remains under lifelong tutelage, and why it is so easy for others to set themselves up as their guardians. It is so easy not to be of age. If I have a book which understands for me, a pastor who has a conscience for me, a physician who decides my diet, and so forth, I need not trouble myself. I need not think, if I can only pay - others will easily undertake the irksome work for me. That the step to competence is held to be very dangerous by the far greater...

Continue reading "What is Enlightenment ?" »

Posted by Norm at 2:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

Patricia Churchland Reviews Michael Gazzaniga book The Ethical Brain Envision this scene: Socrates sits in prison, calmly awaiting execution, passing the time in philosophical discussions with students and friends, taking the occasion to inquire into the fundamentals of ethics: Where do moral laws come from? What is the root of moral motivation? What is the relation between power and morality? What is good? What is just? Ever modest, Socrates confesses ignorance of the answers. The pattern of questioning strongly hints, however, that whatever it is that makes something good or just is rooted in the nature of humans and the society we make, not in the nature of the gods we invent. This does not make moral rules mere conventions, like using a fork or covering one's breasts. There is something about the facts concerning human needs that entails that some laws are better than others. From the time of Socrates to the present, people have sought to give a natural basis for morals—that is, to understand how a moral statement about what ought to be done can rest on hard facts, albeit facts about conditions for civility and peace in social groups. How can ethical claims be more than...

Continue reading "Brain Based Values" »

Posted by Norm at 12:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The fourth of July is a perfect time to rededicate ourselves to the 'philosophical' attitude our founders exhibited, and to avoid the "dodgy reasoning and stupid assumption-making that the unwashed masses" often use. Julian Baginni put it well in a recent BBC Night Waves program discussing his book The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten: And Ninety Nine Other Thought Experiments I think it's possible to read a hell of a lot of philosophy, it's possible to be a professional philosopher, and not have a philosophical attitude. I think the philophical attitude is this kind of constant questioning, and I think that sometimes people find philosophy, they love it, and they latch onto a few of their favourite philosophers, and they become as entrenched in a particular form of philosophy as any unphilosophical person becomes entrenched in their assumptions; philosophers are actually subject to the delusion in fact because their subject is officially the 'queen of the sciences,' the discipline which questions assumptions more than any other, they kind of feel that they themselves are immune to the kind of dodgy reasoning and stupid assumption-making that the unwashed masses do, and I think that's a terrible risk of doing philosophy...

Continue reading "Dodgy Reasoning and Stupid Assumptions" »

Posted by Norm at 1:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

All of today's links are related to philosophical issues or the study of philosophy. There is no better preparation for life than a grounding in philosophical concepts and methods. The Philosopher's Tookit is an excellent book on the both concepts and methods. I recommend this to anyone with an interest in philosophy. It is a great introduction for someone new to the subject, and is a great reference for those with more experience with philosophical ideas. DHS grad spreads philosophy to teens Bio ethics, death, existentialism, dreams — they weren't regular topics for some D.C. high school students until a Danbury High School graduate introduced them. David Backer, a senior at George Washington University, developed a philosophy seminar that he ran with 10 philosophy majors. They chose topics and led discussions so the high school juniors and seniors could learn to think more broadly about ideas at a deeper level than what is typical in high school course work. Students went to the university weekly for the two-hour seminar. Thinking Straight A Logical Vacation The Basis or Morality...

Continue reading "Links With Your Coffee - Sunday" »

Posted by Norm at 6:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

ob at Butterfiles and Wheels notes and comments has been on a tear recently here are three on the subject of religion that I think you'll enjoy. First Things In other words, why do we talk about whether or not religion is useful for social cohesion, or provides a sense of meaning, or is necessary for a sense of wonder, before we ask whether or not there's a shred of truth in it? Isn't that slightly back to front? It is, you know. Because if it's just a load of nonsense, then what good is it to say it's good for social cohesion? Lots of things would be good for social cohesion if they were true, but they're not, so what good does that do? Next time social cohesion breaks down in your neighbourhood, tell everyone 'We wouldn't be having this quarrel if Bugs Bunny were here, we'd be too busy asking him how Elmer Fudd is doing.' See if that helps. No. The first question to ask about religion is, surely, whether or not its truth claims are true, whether there is any evidence for them or not, whether they are anything more than a human invention. If the...

Continue reading "Religion What is it Good For?" »

Posted by Norm at 10:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (27)

Bad Moves: Contorting to balance By Julian Baggini "Evan Harris, Lib Dem MP and Honorary Associate of National Secular Society and Dr Jasdev Rai, Director of the Sikh Human Rights Group, discuss whether the play 'Behzti' in Birmingham should continue." The Today Programme, BBC Radio Four, 20th December 2004 I quite often get contacted by researchers for radio or television programmes as a potential contributor to some kind of topical debate. It’s common for nothing to come of the initial discussion, but on more than one occasion the reason for my unsuitability has left me concerned. As one researcher explicitly said, and others have implied, I am not extreme enough in my views. This woke me up to the fact that all too often, “balance” in a debate is interpreted to mean, first, giving both sides of the argument equal opportunity to present their views, and second, to represent both sides at their most trenchant. But does this really present a balanced picture? In one sense, of course it does: there is balance because there are two equal and opposite opinions. But the point of striving for balance is surely to represent the debate fairly. And I’m not sure...

Continue reading "The Problem With Balanced Debates" »

Posted by Norm at 9:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)

It is very popular in the academy today to understand life, politics, etc. in terms of stories we tell. Postmodern philosopher Lyotard tells us there are no "Grand Narratives," meaning there cannot be one story that dominates all whether it be the Christian story or the Enlightenment story. We are also told that we understand ourselves through stories we tell about ourselves. Galen Strawson, a well-known British philosopher, has decided to criticise this popular view in a very interesting paper. Here is the link. You can read the abstract and, if you wish, download the PDF of the whole article. Here is a passage I particularly liked. I also suspect that those who are drawn to write on the subject of 'narrativity' tend to have strongly diachronic and Narrative outlooks or personalities, and generalize from their own case with that special, fabulously misplaced confidence that people feel when, considering elements of their own experience that are existentially fundamental for them, they take it that they must also be fundamental for everyone else. The footnote to this reads "I think this may be the greatest single source of unhappiness in human intercourse." I think this insight also applies to many religious...

Continue reading "Against Narrativity" »

Posted by Chris Jenson at 12:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (10)

I'm not sure what the solution is to the problem of the vacuous sloganeering that passes for political debate both in our country and the U.K. The dangers are many. Wars waged on false evidence, economic policies that benefit only the few, are the most obvious, the list is long. Julian Baggini in his latest Bad Moves column describes the problem perfectly, what he doesn't offer is a solution. Do good arguments count? The answer would seem to be, not much. Bad Moves: Mood music By Julian Baggini “Are you thinking what we’re thinking? UK Conservative Party election manifesto slogan 2005 Elections are a sobering time for people who like to think that arguments count, and that opinions can be shifted by reasoned arguments about the various positions held. For as the present general election in the United Kingdom is once again demonstrating, sound arguments have little to do with the success or failure of campaigns. What seems to matter most of all is the overall impression given by the various candidates. This is why all the main parties are quite justifiably very concerned with image. We might prefer it if the election campaign were a vigorous intellectual debate, but...

Continue reading "Do Arguments Count?" »

Posted by Norm at 9:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

When one turns to the magnificent edifice of the physical sciences, and sees how it was reared; what thousands of interested moral lives of men lie buried in its mere foundations; what patience and postponement, what choking down of preference, what submission to the icy laws of outer fact are wrought into its very stones and mortar; how absolutely impersonal it stands in its vast augustness—then how besotted and contemptible seems every sentimentalist who comes blowing his smoke-wreaths, and pretending to decide things from out of his private dream—William James, "The Will to Believe"...

Continue reading "William James on Science" »

Posted by Norm at 1:05 AM | Permalink

When OB at Notes and Comments read this article by David Aaronovitch she took issue with one of his arguments and in true philosophical fashion, shreded it. I don't know if David has picked himself up off the floor, but if David knows what is good for him he'll stay down. David's argument is really quite feeble, and one that I've seen recently in one form or another, namely that since the Africans haven't obeyed all of Rome's edicts how can one argue that they have magically obeyed this one (the prohibition on the use of condoms) and so it follows, at least for David, that the Pope and Catholic Church can't be held responsible. Here is a taste of OB's response: Wait. One, Aaronovitch doesn't know (or if he does he certainly doesn't say) how many people in Africa do 'magically' obey the church on condoms. Two, is it likely that the number of people obeying the church on condoms is actually zero? None at all? Surely not. If not, doesn't that dismissal seem a little quick? A tad hasty? It does to me. Three, the stakes are high - a horrible lingering early death that often leaves destitute...

Continue reading "Ouch" »

Posted by Norm at 4:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (21)

This post is taken from the onegoodmove archives, and serves as an excellent introduction for the pragmatic eithics piece that follows. Stephen Covey author of the widely read, "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Annoying People" has a metaphysics nearly identical to Kant. It describes the nature of the "real world" Covey argues that he knows this real world becuase multiple cultures throughout time have come to the same conclusions he has about that world. Nietzsche attacked the idea of this real world in Twilight of the Idols in the section How the Real World at last Became a Myth Chris has annotated it to address Covey's metaphysics. Pragmatic Ethics A nice essay by Hugh LaFollette on Pragmatic Ethics. It does a good job of explaining how pragmatists such as Dewey, James and Pierce devolop their own ethical systems. It is one I share. This is a pdf file 35 pages. Pragmatism Hillary Putnam, James Conant, Richard Rorty on Chicago Public Radio (real audio) 50min "Relativism is what people call pragmatism who don't like it. Noboday ever calls himself a relativist, nobody defends a veiw called relativisim."—Richard Rorty...

Continue reading "Pragmatism" »

Posted by Norm at 10:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Reader J.R. of New York writes, Greetings Norm, It seems that you are in some sort of search for truth like many of us with "less dust in our eyes," and there is a lot of writing about "reason" in your blog, but today the first thing I saw was a Nietzsche quote! Nietzsche, a philosopher who basically opposed rational thought and science, is directly responsible for laying the emotional (I refuse to say "intellectual")ground for the rise of Nazism in Germany, and its eventual philosophical migration to the New World. I certainly hope that one day we can see these intellectual impostures for what they truly are, deranged psycho-babble, and we start catching on to the abuse and misuse of science by postmodernism. I (Chris) would resist this "postmodern" reading of Nietzsche. Far from opposing science, I would argue that Nietzsche is a naturalistic philosopher, meaning he wants his views to be continuous with the methods of the best science of his day. Nietzsche observes how much "useful work to be done" there is in the sciences and adds, "I delight in their [scientists] work" (GM III: 23). He remarks, "the ideal scholar in whom the scientific instinct, after...

Continue reading "From the Mailbag" »

Posted by Chris Jenson at 4:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (7)

My son Chris will be transferring from the University of Oregon's Masters Program to the University of Utah's PhD program in Philosophy beginning this fall 2005....

Continue reading "Good News" »

Posted by Norm at 5:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (14)

Targeted by Conservatives for Teaching Philosophy House bill aimed to restrain academic scholars with legal threats by Jacqueline Marcus Of what use is a philosopher who doesn’t hurt anybody’s feelings?—Diogenes One may view the history of philosophy as a history of heresy.—Walter Kaufmann In the Florida legislature, House Republicans, on the Choice and Innovation Committee, recently voted to pass a bill that threatens to restrain academic scholars. The law would allow students to sue teachers for beliefs that do not concur with conservative perspectives. If, for example, professors argue that evolution is a scientific fact instead of a theory, and if they don’t devote equal time to creationism, under this bill, initiated by conservative David Horowitz’s campaign, students can sue the professor for being biased. Although the bill has two more committees to pass before it can be considered by the full House, it represents a growing threat against the very foundation of scholarly research. The intended goal of this bill is to portray professors as tyrannical monsters who terrorize Republican-conservative students, rendering them into poor, helpless victims under the authority of those, ah yes, Brutal Liberal Dictators! Indeed, the phrasing of the bill is comical. It turns the essential...

Continue reading "The New Brown Shirts" »

Posted by Norm at 4:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (52)

Respecting Religious Belief from Philosophy Talk via Strange Doctrines ...assuming  that religious beliefs are in some sense less than fully rational,  what follows for how they ought or ought not to be respected and acknowledge in private and public life?... [snip]  As long as there is no attempt to impose religious belief  on me, especially as long as religion is divorced from state power, then it's no skin off my back.  Let people have their  superstitions, let them define their life projects and find their deepest values in any way they want.  Just don't bother me.  [snip] many believers experience through their traditions and theology a felt entitlement to hold the world to the strictures of their religion in one way or another. [snip] Of course, the religiously  committed  would probably  say back to the religiously uncommitted that their positions are exactly equal.  We atheistic worshipers of the canons of secular rationality feel an entitlement to hold the world to our standards of belief.  The means we adopt to bring that about range from the benign to the truly destructive.   So what's really the difference? [snip] the big difference has to do with what I'll call responsiveness to rational pressure...

Continue reading "What's The Difference?" »

Posted by Norm at 2:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (17)

One of the most interesting logical fallacies is the counterfactual also known as "Hypothesis Contrary to Fact" After the 2000 election many made the argument that if Ralph Nader hadn't run then Al Gore would have been elected president. This is an example of a counterfactual, and it cannot be proven. Recently we have heard the neo-cons making claims that had we not invaded Iraq the movements for peace in the area would not be taking place. This is also a counterfactual. In both of these examples there are many other causes to consider. it is true that one of the possible causes for Gore's loss was Nader's participation in the race, but that is not proof that he would have been elected sans Nader. Likewise the war in Iraq is one of the possible causes for the democratic stirrings in the Middle East, but neither is it proof that the results wouldn't have been the same or similar had the war not occured. In the Nader case those who voted for Nader may not have voted or voted for another third party candidate. Had Nader not run other candidates may have entered the race. Gore may have campaigned differently...

Continue reading "Counterfactuals" »

Posted by Norm at 7:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

You can't be a Sweet Cucumber in a Vinegar Barrel "When you put that set of horrendous work conditions and external factors together, it creates an evil barrel,"writes the eminent situationist psychologist Philip Zimbardo, known for his famous Stanford Prison Experiment in the early 70s. "You could put virtually anybody in it and you're going to get this kind of evil behavior," he continued. "The Pentagon and the military say that the Abu Ghraib scandal is the result of a few bad apples in an otherwise good barrel. That's the dispositional analysis. The social psychologist in me, and the consensus among many of my colleagues in experimental social psychology, says that's the wrong analysis. It's not the bad apples, it's the bad barrels that corrupt good people. Understanding the abuses at this Iraqi prison starts with an analysis of both the situational and systematic forces operating on those soldiers working the night shift in that 'little shop of horrors.'" YOU CAN'T BE A SWEET CUCUMBER IN A VINEGAR BARREL (PHILIP ZIMBARDO:) For years I've been interested in a fundamental question concerning what I call the psychology of evil: Why is it that good people do evil deeds? I've been interested...

Continue reading "A Few Bad Apples" »

Posted by Norm at 4:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Do we have free will. What is its nature. How does the question of free will relate to the death penalty. Crime and Causality: Do Killers Deserve to Die? ...But the most fundamental justification for supposing that killers deserve to die, and that executions are morally permissible, still remains. It is that killers have free will, the capacity to have chosen otherwise in the exact situation in which the murders took place. Such freedom means that choices and actions are, in some basic, metaphysical sense, the human agent’s alone. Whatever the causal antecedents of character, motive, and behavior, we are not simply the working out of such factors. At the moment of choice, we originate something independent of natural causality, something that makes us ultimately responsible and thus deeply deserving of praise or punishment. Susan Smith, whom the prosecution argued killed her two young sons to advance a love affair, was not fully caused to act precisely as she did but instead let her car roll into a South Carolina lake of her own free will, her children strapped inside. Likewise, Gary Lee Sampson, sentenced in 2003 under federal law in Massachusetts to die for multiple murders, chose to kill,...

Continue reading "Free Will" »

Posted by Norm at 1:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (34)