Sunday, June 21, 2009

A taste of Wittgenstein...

"Philosophy is not a theory but an activity."

"Nothing is so difficult as not deceiving oneself."

"Logic is not a body of doctrine, but a mirror-image of the world. Logic is transcendental."

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Explaining and Appraising Moral Intuition

I’m fascinated with moral philosophy, and lately it’s really been at the forefront of my thinking. Just recently, on my neglected facebook page, Chris called to my attention a discussion about the basis of our moral judgments, from the point of view of evolutionary psychology. I replied that I thought that there were some problems with the reasoning, but haven’t yet made the time to explore those issues. I mention that because I’ve started an essay on the topic, and hopefully this will motivate me to finish it sooner rather than later.

In the meantime, I would recommend the following discussion. Both men—one at Harvard, the other at Yale—are essentially philosophers of mind with an emphasis on cognitive science. Very informative.

Here’s the link to view the entire diavlog.

Tuesday, June 02, 2009

Presidential Racists

The very concept of race is incoherent: sure, there are superficial differences that can be emphasized among our species, but there are also innumerable shades of gray between black and white…a point which Kenan Malik makes quite eloquently.

While I may disagree with President Obama’s political philosophy—specifically on the economy and the precise size, scope, and role of government—I’m delighted, as a Georgia native, that America (generally speaking) has finally begun to shed its long-held racist mindset.

Historically, it’s not just the archetypical southern bigot that was racist. In fact, two of our most venerated, “freedom-loving” presidents had a rather narrow view of liberty: in America, it was to be reserved for whites.

For example, Jefferson’s 1787 essay, Notes on the state of Virginia, may have been taken as good common sense at the time, but at this point in history, it’s hard for me to imagine how. Here’s an excerpt from p. 155:
To our reproach it must be said, that though for a century and a half we have had under our eyes the races of black and red men, they have never yet been viewed by us as subjects of natural history. I advance it, therefore, as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind. It is not against experience to suppose that different species of the same genus, or varieties of the same species, may possess different qualifications. Will not a lover of natural history then, one who loves the gradations in all the races of animals with the eye of philosophy, excuse an effort to keep those in the department of man as distinct as nature has formed them? This unfortunate difference of color, and perhaps of faculty, is a powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these people. Many of their advocates, while they wish to vindicate the liberty of human nature, are anxious also to preserve its dignity and beauty. Some of these, embarrassed by the question, “What further is to be done with them?” join themselves in opposition with those who are actuated by sordid avarice only. Among the Romans emancipation required but one effort. The slave, when made free, might mix with, without staining the blood of his master. But with us a second is necessary, unknown to history. When freed, he is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture.
Three-quarters of a century later, on the eve of the Civil War, Abe Lincoln, the ex-president whose closest rival for the affection of black folks is Bill Clinton, took the opportunity to share his thoughts on the plight of non-whites in America. In the fourth Lincoln-Douglas debate, on September 18, 1858, Lincoln, as reported in the Press & Tribune, clearly articulated his views on race:
Mr. Lincoln took the stand at a quarter before three, and was greeted with vociferous and protracted applause; after which, he said:

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: It will be very difficult for an audience so large as this to hear distinctly what a speaker says, and consequently it is important that as profound silence be preserved as possible.

While I was at hotel to-day an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. [Great laughter.] While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause] — that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, not to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. [Cheers and laughter.] My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen to my knowledge a man, woman or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. I recollect of but one distinguished instance that I ever heard of so frequently as to be entirely satisfied of its correctness — and that is the case of Judge Douglas' old friend Col. Richard M. Johnson. [Laughter.] I will also add to the remarks I have made, (for I am not going to enter at large upon this subject,) that I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it, [laughter] but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, [roars of laughter] I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes. [Continued laughter and applause.] I will add one further word, which is this, that I do not understand there is any place where an alteration of the social and political relations of the negro and the white man can be made except in the State Legislature — not in the Congress of the United States — and as I do not really apprehend the approach of any such thing myself, and as Judge Douglas seems to be in constant horror that some such danger is rapidly approaching, I propose as the best means to prevent it that the Judge be kept at home and placed in the State Legislature to fight the measure. [Uproarious laughter and applause.] I do not propose dwelling longer at this time on the subject.

In full Bloom

At the risk of overexposing Paul Bloom, I thought I would share this lovely conversation between…Bloom, Yale psych prof, author, etc. and Yale colleague, Tamar Szabo Gendler, a philosopher, Chair of the Cognitive Science Program, etc.

One topic that I found particularly interesting was concerned with epistemology. Specifically, Gendler proposed a new word, “alief”, to describe ideas and concepts that reside in the unconscious mind, as opposed to “belief”, or that to which one consciously assents.

To view the original, click this link

Monday, June 01, 2009

Answering Alice

Alice asked if I think about the existence of God in the same way that Anselm did, and I’m more than happy to respond, as this involves two of my favorite interests: theology and philosophy.

I think that Anselm’s ontological argument
for the existence of God is interesting—if only because it was a more or less novel attempt to use reason and logic to ‘prove’ the existence of God. That said, however, I just re-read one of my old posts in which I characterize Anselm’s ‘proof’ as “rather weak and speculative”.

[Speaking of atheism, Chris Wilson suggested that atheism is actually “non-theism”, but I would argue that atheism has come to have a stronger connotation than non-theism: the former seems to imply that there’s absolutely no God (Dawkins, Hitchens, et al), whereas the latter simply acknowledges disbelief (e.g., my kids…so far). And I would say that agnosticism is distinct from those two, in that it sort of leaves the door open a bit, just in case God turns out to exist after all.]

But back to Anselm: he’s certainly not without his intellectual progeny. One of the leading (living) logic-based theistic philosophers in the Anselm tradition is Alvin Plantinga. Here’s a bit of his Wikipedia article:
Alvin Plantinga has given another descriptive, initial version of the [ontological] argument, one where the conclusion follows from the premises, assuming axiom S5 of modal logic. A version of his argument is as follows:

1. It is proposed that a being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2. It is proposed that a being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3. Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified. That is, it is possible that there be a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4. Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
5. Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. (By S5)
6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
This argument makes a huge leap from possible to necessary, with possibly necessary as the bridge. This is sadly just as weak as Anselm’s original.

So, what’s my view? Well, I suppose I’m committed to (at least) three foundational truths: first, the fact that there’s something rather than nothing presupposes causality; second, the first fact notwithstanding, the existence of a particular God (as opposed to a generic, first cause) simply cannot be demonstrated by reason and logic, because there’s just no empirical evidence (as commonly defined); third, as I’ve tried to show in parts I and II of my series so far, faith is not the same as belief (although belief is a constituent of faith); rather, faith is a type of knowledge that is spiritually imparted, unlike more typical knowledge, which is essentially cognitively acquired.

Having said all that, I’ve resigned myself to the fact that theists and all varieties of non-theist have simply reached a stalemate…but I’m okay with that.