Life in Moo Town
I've discovered I'm having the same midlife crisis that King Solomon had. Problem is I'm 21. Aren't I a little young for this sort of dilemma? At this rate I'll be dead by 40. I guess if my philosophy doesn't change it won't matter much anyway.
Thought for the day...
If I take no enjoyment out of life, I may as well work for the benefit of others.
On the issue of Academic Freedom
As a student who deals with harassment from terrorist sympathizers on a regular basis under the guise of "academic freedom" I think it's abominable that administrations at nearly every campus sit back with their hands folded and refuse to take stands condemning racism and hate speech. It is truly a shame that academic freedom, a principle whose rationale is the pursuit of truth, gets used so often as a carte blanche for the dissemination of blatant lies. Calling terrorists “freedom fighters” and hate mongering murderers “religious leaders” is beyond trying to present a different perspective on the issues. It is nothing better than the propagation of lies to bolster public opinion of the very tyrants and criminals that suppress free speech, expression, and religion in their own dominions. When the pursuit of truth through university study is overwhelmed by fact-obscuring propaganda, academic freedom has failed in its mission and I believe the time has come for such principles to be reevaluated and reformed.
Is the Mind the Brain?
So I was at a philosophy study session late last night and after going over about a dozen essays on various aspects of rationality I got into a totally unrelated argument with another student about whether or not there are souls and whether the mind is in fact non-physical (the student was a dualist). He brought up the classic argument that we can perceive colors and shapes yet there are no such colors or shapes in the brain. For instance since I can see a dog, but there is no dog-shaped part of the brain, some non-physical mind somewhere must be experiencing the dog for me. This is a completely ridiculous argument and it totally misses the point of how perception really works. Below is a brief essay I wrote last year that I think illuminates the absurdity of the students argument. Enjoy.
One argument against mind-brain identity is that when I have a green after-image there is nothing in my brain that is green. The mind–brain identity theorist can best respond to this argument by stating that the brain does not have to be green to experience the sensation of greenness. The fallacy in the dualist's argument is thinking that the after image is an actual object. If the after image was an object in the brain, it would indeed seem to follow that there should be something green in the brain. Of course there is nothing green in the brain, but then the after-image isn’t really an object, it is a sensation. If green is just the sensation we get when we see things that emit light at a certain frequency, it should be possible to have the sensation without the stimulus. If the neural circuit in the brain that causes a green sensation were activated by something other than a green object, a green sensation would still be the result. It is critical to emphasize that the color of the circuit producing the green sensation is irrelevant to the sensation it produces. To say the brain must be green to produce a green sensation would be like saying a picture of a dog must contain a real dog to produce the representation of a dog. Clearly the idea of the dog is a different entity from the actual dog, just as the picture is an entity independent of the dog. In the same sense, the green sensation is not the same as the green object; it is just a representation. The after image is how we experience a sensation; it is not the thing creating the sensation. With these defenses in mind, one can see that the above line of argument against mind-brain identity is flawed.
More Thoughts
It is commonly said that people know the difference right and wrong (normal, sane people anyway and for now we'll ignore the rest). If this is so then why is there disagreement over what the Torah says? Orthodox, conservative, and reform Jews all think there are different things that are right and wrong and the picture gets even more muddled when Christians and Muslims are thrown in the mix. It seems to me that we must either reject the idea that people know what is right and wrong or we must reject the idea that religion is the path to discern the difference. In this case I actually believe we should reject the former since it seems that the only way people have a sense of right and wrong is when they are taught the difference. This whole train of thought is just something to keep in mind the next time some religious fundamentalist appeals to what everybody knows in their heart is right or wrong. Even if we all could agree on issues like murder (and even there we can't) how do we sort out conflicts where one person feels that keeping koshrute is the right thing to do and another feels no moral drive to keep kosher whatsoever? It seems to me that what an individual perceives as right or wrong has far more to do with their upbringing than any metaphysical access they may have to an absolute moral thermometer.
On a related topic (as much as any two thoughts in my brain really relate in an intuitive way), I've realized that there is no point to doing anything. This may seem a rather sweeping generalization and I assure you I intend it that way. There is no advantage to being rich or poor, happy or sad, a lover or a hater. None of these things can have any value unless there is some goal or meaning to life. You may notice that I'm assuming there is no meaning to life which may seem depressing, pessimistic, and wrong to you, but consider this: no one has figured out the meaning of life and been able to defend their answer successfully. The closest that people come usually is some appeal to faith in this or that. If you take away the faith and ask for concrete logical accounts with no holes it can't be done. The argument in support of there being no point to life is fairly compelling. It doesn't seem that a point is necessitated, it's entirely possible and likely that everything is due to random chance. When this is combined with the lack of agreement millennia of scholars have arrived at on any sort of meaning to life the case against meaning truly seems compelling. So why do I bother you ask? Well I'm somewhat directionless right now since no goal seems worth pursuing to me on a personal level so until I find some inspiration or universal truth I'm going to follow the advice of Bismarck who said, "There is someone wiser than anyone and that is everyone." I'm not so cocky that I'm going to go against the entire tide of common sense based solely on my own depressing philosophizing. Until I become more sure of my conclusions I'll just pursue the goals that I thought were worthy before I started thinking too hard about it and those which the general population seems to think are good. As stated in an earlier posting, there is some advantage to being part of a horde. Beyond the discounted prices there is also the ability to suspend reason and logic and just follow the herd without thinking.
Rights to Privacy vs. Security Considerations
In post 9/11 America the classic struggle of libertarians defending citizens’ 4th amendment constitutional rights to privacy against government invasion has been brought to the forefront. The picture painted by the media is black and white. Either we need to let the government spy on every facet of private life so we can live in safety or we need to risk cataclysmic terrorist attacks but preserve civil rights by denying governmental access to any private information. The truth is that neither pole is a viable solution. In reality, privacy and security shouldn’t be viewed as mutually exclusive rivals. The best strategy is to give the government the information it needs to prevent terrorism, if phone tapping and email screening are necessary, so be it. The catch is to require a high level of transparency in government procedures combined with independent regulation and accountability to prevent the sorts of abuses that libertarians fear.
The claims of radical libertarians that any additional government access to private information will drastically reduce personal freedoms amount to nothing less than gross hyperbole. The government has a duty to protect the lives of its citizens and certainly preventing terrorism needs to come before protecting some rights to privacy. Protection against government invasion is useless if one can’t survive long enough to enjoy the freedom. It is quite possible for the government to have all the pertinent information for preventing terrorism without allowing the administration the sort of free reign that people fear. It’s hard to imagine the FBI being able to come up with a reason for why filming people in their showers or recording everyone’s private conversations would be necessary to prevent terrorism. The important thing is keeping the sort of accountability and transparency in place that requires the FBI and similar agencies to justify their actions in the first place.
Currently the inspectors in each cabinet department work for the very people they are supposed to monitor. It isn’t surprising that citizens don’t feel comfortable handing the government greater authority when the people charged with insuring the power isn’t abused are on the pay roles of the very officials they are watching. The solution is an independent inspector general who answers to the people rather than the president and who has the power to cut funding to agencies that become overzealous in their invasive practices. It shouldn’t be difficult for an agency like the FBI to justify a wiretap on a suspected terrorist if they have good evidence to substantiate their claims. If on the other hand the FBI has little or no evidence of an individual’s involvement in illegal activities, an independent regulator would presumably deny the agency’s request for invasions of the individual’s privacy.
The reason why people tend to fear government intrusions on private life is usually the anxiety over Big Brother type scenarios. People are uncomfortable with the idea of a government that can see what books they checked out at the library and what groceries they buy every week. This discomfort seems to stem from the fact that private citizens can be scrutinized but lack the ability to keep an eye on the government. If transparency was bilateral people might feel differently. President Bush’s administration has a tendency to withhold information from the public and demand that citizens take the government’s word for everything ranging from Saddam’s possession of WMDs to the guilt of suspects detained at Guantanamo Bay who are denied legal counsel. This approach fosters distrust of the government, particularly when it later becomes apparent (as in the case of WMDs in Iraq) that there was never sufficient evidence to support the government’s claims. If instead the government were required to present its intelligence information to the public, or at the very least to an independent committee before taking actions, people might fear the gaze of Big Brother less. The solution lies in allowing the watched to watch the watcher.
Comparisons to Nazi Germany are made too often nowadays. The Nazi's make a great example of a morally bankrupt totalitarian regime and a reference to them tends to bring up strong images and emotions. Unfortunately this effect is over used and any organization or person that perpetrates the slightest injustice runs the risk now of being compared to the Nazis. There are several reasons this is a bad thing. First and foremost, this sort of reference is extremely disrespectful to holocaust survivors and others who bear the physical and emotional scars of the true Nazis. For instance calling a professor who refuses to grant a re-grade request a Nazi doesn't just vilify the professor, it also promotes ignorance about how horrible the Nazis really were. When comparisons are drawn they tend to work in both directions. The professor is stained by the gross hyperbole of the analogy but the horrors of the holocaust are somewhat trivialized at the same time since the metaphore implies that the Nazis were just jerks who didn't grant re-grades. This is a ridiculous complement to a group that tortured and murdered over 12 million people. I could go on about several other reasons we shouldn't lightly toss around comparisons with Nazi Germany but I'm more tired than I thought and it's late so I'm going to crash. Lila Tov and Lehitraot.
I know I'm in the doldrums of depression when research in the library starts to look like a welcome sanctuary from the everyday hustle and bustle of the world.
Our topic today is philosophy. That's rather broad. Really we are discussing a philosophical approach or methodology. To be completely fair we aren't really discussing, the truth is closer to me pontificating and you reading but let's ignore that semantic issue for the time being. Back to the point. At UC Davis and most other institutions teaching philosophy, the fundamental message given to students is to go with their gut feeling. When an argument goes against your gut you are supposed to analyze it carefully until you find some fault with it. When you want to assert a new argument on an issue you first assess your gut feeling and then try to craft an argument in support of it. Here's the problem; humans are fundamentally irrational and illogical beings. We have absolutely no evidence to support the idea that our gut instincts are philosophically reliable or that they are likely to lead us to the truth of a matter. It seems to me that the best way to reach truth is to start by erasing all prujudices and heuristics, then start from first principles. Without throwing emotion or bias into the mix it would be possible to craft cold, rational, analytical philosophy arguments without measuring the outcomes against some inherently flawed instinct. This seems to me the ideal that rational beings should aspire to. Only by throwing out prejudgements is it possible to move forward with original ideas and free our minds from the constraints of the familiar.
Back By Popular Demand (Less Popular and More Demanding Really)
Life is fairly depressing without religion. It would seem that fact alone would go far towards justifying belief in religion whether or not the said religion corresponds to actual metaphysical truth. It doesn't really though. I could just end my blog there for another couple months but then you'd pester me as to my reason for shooting the argument down so flippantly. Here's why. In order for the avoidance of depression to be a motivating (or even just normative) reason to accept religion there has to be some value placed on the avoidance of depression. Since depression is fairly similar to general misery, which is fairly similar to pain, I don't think it's much of a stretch to see the above argument as an appeal to hedonism. We should pursue pleasure and the absence of pain and therefore accept religion in so far as it furthers that goal better than rejecting religion. This is a perfectly valid argument, but is it sound? In order to be sound it seems that a requirement is the truth of hedonism. Now don't get me wrong, pleasure is nice and all that, but what reason do we have for believing there is any inherent worth in pleasure or happiness? Without appealing to some sort of divine teaching there doesn't seem to be any way of proving that anything, pleasure or otherwise, has any worth. Why not pursue the deep contemplation of asparagus rather than happiness? Is there anything that logically entails one is better or more rational than the other? Perhaps pursuit of happiness is more rational in that we desire to be happy (I don't know anyone that desires to contemplate asparagus) and it is rational to will the means to our ends. I have no problem accepting this, but it still fails to provide a normative reason for pursuing happiness over asparagus contemplation. In order to generate a normative reason, one must premise there is a deity providing the said reason and that begs the question.
