Voltaire Wednesday, Feb 27 2008

“A witty saying proves nothing.”

~Voltaire

 

Are we inclined to agree with the Frenchman? Remember, back in his day, the French didn’t suck . . . as much. Anyway, one need not look far to see the absurdity in what poor old Voltaire is trying to say here. Either he is correct or he isn’t. If he isn’t correct, than a witty saying does prove something, in which case his own witty saying would have proven something, namely that a witty saying proves nothing! On the other hand, if he is correct in that a witty saying proves nothing, he has just proved something therefore disproving himself! If you’re wondering what the fuck is going on here, that’s good, because if we want to figure out what Voltaire is trying to get at here, we’ve gotta dig a little deeper. His statement, as we have seen, is ridiculously self-defeating and absurd. However, by producing this ridiculously absurd statement Voltaire shows rather than says how a witty saying “proves nothing.” Indeed, by following the logic of the statement, we see how we are led into paradox and contradiction. Thus Voltaire uses the “Power of the Paradox” to make a very sublime point. But in making said sublime point, has he ultimately disproven himself? In the end, isn’t saying “nothing” still saying something? Even if one proves “nothing”, hasn’t one still proven something? So then, what are we to make of this enigmatic quotation? At the end of the day, it would seem, this statement is utterly farcical, and as Voltaire would have been fully aware of the farce he created, he is most likely laughing in his grave as we poor idiots have been completely suckered by him.

Leave a Response »

 

Writing Sunday, Jan 27 2008

I really enjoy writing. I can even tolerate writing trivial and mundane shit, and I’ve long wondered why. I used to “write it off” (ok, no more terrible puns) as a factor of just being naturally good at it, and consequently its natural to enjoy what comes easy to oneself. But of course this explanation didn’t hold, because as in most worthwhile and enjoyable endeavors it is the challenge and difficulty that makes success all the more gratifying. So, returning to my enquiry, I realized that writing is inherently a creative process. Now I don’t mean exclusively fiction here. ALL  forms of writing are creative. Otherwise it is plagiarism, not writing. Now, on this next point one could argue at length with me, but I feel a good many people would agree that the act of creation is fundamentally divine. Whether it be the traditional Judeo-Christian God, or a complex subatomic process, creation itself is a divine process, and of this I feel fairly certain. Naturally then, writing, inasmuch as it is a creative process is a divine process. Does this mean that writing makes one god-like? I think so!

Now I must admit, I am teasing this idea out a bit, but still, does not writing grant one god-like powers? Writers can create and destroy worlds in an instant. A writer can make anything conceivably happen with their words. They can be completely omniscient, they can see the future, they can give life and take it away. You may be thinking, “well thats all well and good for a fiction writer, but your stance hardly applies to all writing!” and to a certain extent I’m inclined to agree with you. However, I never said that writing makes you a god, it just gets you a bit closer to divinity (if it in fact exists–interesting digression for another time: I have a background assumption here that the universe was created, and that creation is therefore divine. If, however, the universe has always existed, then the divinity of creation is seriously called into question. As I am no astrophysicist, I will leave that question to the proper authorities, and adjust my thinking accordingly as new evidence presents itself, but for the time being I feel safe in my claim that creation is fundamentally divine) via the creative process. Even a non-fiction writer creates, and even in its most limited sense, that creative power is still god-like. For the Philosopher, and more importantly, the philosophically inclined, if one can create some understanding, even in a small degree, one could be fully justified in claiming a minor miracle. Divine? I certainly think so. Were some sort of divine entity to exist, the creation of understanding would certainly be a power.

However, there is a problem. If writing is this wonderfully divine process, as I’ve tried to portray it, then why doesn’t everyone write to be more divine, more god-like? This problem, fortunately, is easily resolved. Writing is not the only outlet for creation! I will not venture down the road I am tempted to go, but from what I’ve said, it is reasonable to suppose that all creative acts have some elements of the divine, but as my goal was to justify writing and writing alone, I will not fully pursue the implications of this line of enquiry . . . yet. Still, I do feel a bit of the divine. Whether or not you concur with my reasoning, I can say with confidence I now understand my own love of writing better, and I can only hope this minor miracle has had an influence on more than just my immediate person.

2 Responses »

 

Happiness, a dialogue Monday, Jan 14 2008

Recently I found myself engaged in a heated debate with a friend on the subject of happiness. In the course of our discourse, I realized that we drew some philosophical conclusions about happiness, and what better place that to reveal them than here? Furthermore, I’ve decided to preserve the original dialogue as best I can, both because it’s highly entertaining, and displays philosophy in action, which I think is pretty cool. I’ve also gone with the dialogue format as a tribute to Plato; you can consider this post a “throwback”, if you will. I deserve only partial credit for this work, this dialogue IS NOT my own invention, it is a conversation that actually happened between myself and another person, however, the other person has declined credit and wishes to remain anonymous. Thus, I will give this person a fitting Greek alias, Protagoras of Lye, while I shall remains DemonDeekan. One final note: I have edited the spelling and grammar so that it reads easier, but the content is untouched.

 

 

DemonDeekan: So I saw an awesome TNG the other night, “Tapestry”, it’s the one where Picard gets killed, only to find Q waiting for him there in the afterlife.

Protagoras of Lye: I love that episode, because he totally plays god.

Protagoras of Lye: I see you’re working on your blog again. Just how bored are you?

DemonDeekan: You know, I was reflecting on my so-called “boredom” and I realized, I’m not so much bored as I just don’t know what to do with myself.

Protagoras of Lye: I have a solution, BLAST FROM THE PAST: track down your former paramours and engage in relations over break, then escape back to the safety of campus.

DemonDeekan: That’s a terrible idea! Besides, you’re the one with lots of former females floating around. And we both know ripping off scabs is one of your specialities. Remember Wanda? You should see if you can get her to leave her current guy for you.

Protagoras of Lye: My current relationships may be in a self-imposed tailspin, but even I’m not going to go that far!

DemonDeekan: HAHAHA, but you could totally do it, and as some eloquent philosopher once said, you gotta go ballz thru the wall

Protagoras of Lye: I told you my recent realization didn’t I? Actually, it’s really more of a paradigm shift for me.

DemonDeekan: Ooohhh, you know how much I “dig” paradigms!

Protagoras of Lye: . . . .

Protagoras of Lye: Anyways, the reason I had that horrible sex drought for 3 weeks after Jill was self-imposed, and although I realized at the time it was self-imposed I didn’t quite realize the thought process behind it.

DemonDeekan: WARNING: Your mention of “thought processes” has riled up the Philosopher in me. Proceed at your own risk.

Protagoras of Lye: I now understand that when I hunt for girls is that I’m unconsciously searching for girls to make relationships with. The only problem is that I’ve been searching for the very thing I hate once I’m in.

DemonDeekan: hahaha

Protagoras of Lye: The drought occurred because I had exhausted all nearby reserves of ‘relationship’ girls, and it was only because of this that I was able to realize that I had been pursuing girls that I would only grow to hate.

DemonDeekan: Ok, TIMEOUT, back up a sec. First of all, three weeks does NOT constitute a “horrible” sex drought. I believe I can attest to that myself.

Protagoras of Lye: Fair enough

DemonDeekan: Secondly, am I to infer from this that you legitimately grew to hate Victoria as well? Or is she the exception that proves the rule?

Protagoras of Lye: I wouldn’t say I grew to ‘hate’ her in the sense that I hated many of the others, but I believe that had I stuck around a bit longer I would have; ergo paradigm shift.

DemonDeekan: Very nice, kudos to you on increasing your self-awareness

Protagoras of Lye: The awareness is important, but awareness alone does not lead one to make a shift in thought to action. Rather, it’s my current actions that prove I’ve changed my thoughts

DemonDeekan: Explain

Protagoras of Lye: Well, after breaking up with Victoria, I am now pursuing her once again, which at first seems to counter my claims of not wanting a ‘relationship’ girl. However, my motives are now radically different. Whereas I once thought the relationship was a necessary means to the end of sex, I see sex now as an end in itself. So now instead of thinking “I must be in a relationship to obtain sex” I now think “I just need to obtain sex, screw relationships, they will make me unhappy”

DemonDeekan: Alright, I see the shift in thought, but what is it that enabled you to turn that thought into action? I can think of a great many things I’d like to do, but I never do them. Hell, New Year’s is coming up, how many goddamn resolutions do you think will go unfulfilled? Fucking billions!!! If you could isolate the mechanism whereby you were able to shift from thought to action, you could gain amazing control and power over yourself and achieve great things.

Protagoras of Lye: It wasn’t so much a shift from thought to action, so much as it was a shift from thought to thought to action

DemonDeekan: Still, almost anyone can shift from thought to thought, that’s easy, its that second shift where people fuck up, a la New Years. So what is it that prevents people from changing their actions after they’ve shifted thoughts?

DemonDeekan: I argue the conception of your shift is flawed, you have it backwards. Rather than making a thought-thought-action shift, you already had the action, and changed your thoughts to suit it. Psychologists have demonstrated that in cases of cognitive dissonance, most often people will chance their thoughts to suit their actions, rather than actually changing their actions. This is exemplified by the smoker who comes up with irrational excuses for why he continues to smoke.

Protagoras of Lye: I see then . . . I guess the driving force, or “mechanism” that you were looking for is that my motives are now radically different

DemonDeekan: But that doesn’t solve anything! Now we just have the question of how did your motives change? Are we doomed for an infinite regress here?

Protagoras of Lye: No, you’re missing my point here. What I’m saying is that this paradigm shift, whatever its causes, has resulted in my thoughts being more accurate, thus giving me greater personal freedom and power

DemonDeekan: Well, that’s fortuitous for you, but it leaves unsolved the question of whether or not we can ever really change our thoughts/motives, or is our best hope for happiness merely to make our thoughts more “accurate” by making them correspond to our actions and motives?

Protagoras of Lye: That sounds to me like you’ve found a new article for your blog?

DemonDeekan: I’ll be damned. That is one hell of a question to ponder, but I have to complete my epic ethics trilogy first.

Protagoras of Lye: Wait, happiness? Where’d that come from? I’m not saying I’m any happier. Perhaps, to use your terminology, I have more understanding of myself, but I wouldn’t say I’m happy.

DemonDeekan: You’re claiming that greater personal freedom and power doesn’t lead to happiness?

Protagoras of Lye: You believe it does? I would argue the opposite

DemonDeekan: Well, before we go too far, we need to establish what happiness is, namely, whether its self-defined, or externally defined, otherwise we have no chance of figuring out whether or not greater personal freedom and power leads to happiness.

Protagoras of Lye: Good luck with that

DemonDeekan: haha, oh no, you’re not getting off the hook that easily. You’ve got the Philosopher in me all riled up, we’ve gotta see this baby through.

Protagoras of Lye: Don’t waste your time on me, I couldn’t tell you what happiness is, other than I don’t have it

DemonDeekan: Bullshit! Socrates would say then at least you have a start. If you know you don’t have it, you can begin to look for it. C’mon, I need your help. I know neither if I do or do not have it, I need your expertise on what happiness isn’t if we’re to find what it is.

Protagoras of Lye: haha, looks like you’ve got me there Socrates. I feel if you can’t tell if you are happy, than you aren’t. I mean, there is relief, excitement, anticipation, pleasure . . . but is any of that happiness? Quantify it.

DemonDeekan: Whoa whoa, we’re totally not even there yet. We’ve gotta establish whether or not the fucker even exists before we can run around quantifying it. Forget what it is, or even if we have it, that’s irrelevant at this stage. The first step in a sound philosophical method is to establish whether it exists, otherwise, we could come up with a beautiful depication of happiness, but if we haven’t shown it to exist, we’re just wasting our time, doing little more than describing leprechauns and unicorns.

Protagoras of Lye: Well define it for me first. You can’t argue for its existence if you have no idea what it is.

DemonDeekan: hahaha, au contraire, trying to define it first is what leads you to get stuck in Meno’s Paradox. If you try to define it first, then you either know what it is or you don’t. If you do, then there is no need for inquiry, because you know what it is, and if you don’t know what it is, then as you so eloquently pointed out, we can’t say anything about it, existence or otherwise. Thus Meno argued, learning is impossible. However, one can slip this cleverly lain trap by first determining if something exists. You may encounter a fearsome predator deep in the African jungle . . . you may not know what it is, but you sure as hell know it exists. So learning isn’t an all-or nothing proposition, which is the background assumption Meno uses to give his paradox some teeth. We however, can take a piecemeal approach to assemble a picture of happiness.

Protagoras of Lye: Mmmmm sophistry, my favorite. I think I am a sophist in most respects, they were pretty much on the money.

DemonDeekan: Well than, what do you, as a Sophist say to this: I claim happiness does exist, and your earlier remark, about jubilation, excitement, relief, anticipation, etc not being happiness is inaccurate in much the same way as saying that the human body does not exist, all there is is a collection of organs, heart, lungs, kidney, etc. There may be some larger thing that exists, and your breaking it down into its component parts has done nothing to disprove its existence.

Protagoras of Lye: So what if you experienced jubiliation and relief. You have no justification with which to classify this as happiness. What if those things are like stars in a constellation? The constellation does not really exist, just a human mind sees something in the stars and gives it a name, like Orion or something. The same could be true that these feelings exist, but we’ve just made up something, happiness, that we think we see in these emotions. Is this feeling of happiness you purport to have lasting? Will it fade away in a few hours?

DemonDeekan: Now look who’s quantifying happiness! I told you we’re not there yet. Now you’ve gone and introduced another assumption into the mix, that happiness is some sort of semi-permanent state. Screw the details, all we wanna know is if it exists or not. And you’ve tacitly conceded that it does exist, even if its just a construct in our heads. Does “freedom” or “liberty” exist tangibly? No, but they are still crucial concepts in our lives. Even though we may find no tangible basis for happiness, it still may be a critical concept to get a grasp of.

Protagoras of Lye: Ok, so I concede happiness exists, at least in some form. But look, I’m assuming that if happiness must be desirable, or else it would not be worth pursuing. So if any of those ‘feelings’ you submitted as ‘happiness’ doesn’t last more than momentarily, then it would not be worth pursuing, and consequently not happiness, so we can eliminate those things as qualities of happiness.

DemonDeekan: Hold up!!! That’s not a basic assumption I can accept, because it comes with all sorts of hidden baggage about desirability of happiness and associated temporal correlations. Besides, even if it had no hidden baggage, the premise itself is faulty. We desire many things that exist only momentarily. Sex does not last that long and yet we work feverishly hard trying to procure it.

Protagoras of Lye: thats genetic

DemonDeekan: So what, you’re saying happiness can’t be genetic as well? Plenty of people are depressed because of genetic factors. What the fuck do you think Prozac is for?

Protagoras of Lye: First of all, as I’ve stated previously, I find no happiness in these girls’ company. And second, are you saying happiness is just an orgasm away? Then why not masturbate all day?

DemonDeekan: Don’t be ridiculous; you and I both know damn well that there is an emotional and physical void that for a heterosexual male can only be fulfilled by physical contact with a woman. Don’t bring those weak-ass objections in here, you’re better than that.

Protagoras of Lye: Hold on there, if you grant me that that happiness is desirable, which I think you have to given that you haven’t really refuted it yet, then it seems to me you’re implying that there are levels of happiness.

DemonDeekan: So? Why should that be problematic? There are many shades (levels) of the color red, why couldn’t there also be “shades” of happiness?

Protagoras of Lye: Yes, but I feel your definition of happiness is still lacking. Rather than giving me a description of what is unique to happiness that makes it happiness, you seem to make it an umbrella term for a variety of feelings, rather than a distinct state. If only “exists” as an umbrella term, what good is that? For happiness to really exist as something, even as abstract as “liberty”, it must be a distinct state

DemonDeekan: Hmmm, a fair accusation. Let me think a moment.

DemonDeekan: Alright, I think you have a point here. I agree that happiness must be a distinct state, and my efforts to characterize it as an umbrella term were misguided, but in my defense, I was only trying to establish the existence of happiness at the most basic level, and then build from there. So yes, if happiness is to be desirable, which I also agree that it must be, then it must exist as a unique state. If happiness did not exist as a unique state, but rather as an umbrella term, than happiness itself would not be desirable, but those terms under the umbrella must be? Are we agreed then, that happiness exists, and that it must be a distinct thing because it’s desired?

Protagoras of Lye: I’ll agree to the desirability of happiness if not its feasibility

DemonDeekan: Stop bringing in new concepts!!!!!

Protagoras of Lye: sorry

DemonDeekan: haha, its ok, but when you throw too many concepts in the mix at once, it’s difficult to analyze them and figure out what’s really going on. One of my professors once told me that the key to successful philosophy was “to think in slow motion.” If you rush through, you’re going to miss something.

Protagoras of Lye: Ok then, whats next in “slow motion”?

DemonDeekan: Hahaha, well, looking at what we have so far, I feel “existence” and “desire” are concepts we have a good enough grasp on, so we need to look at what it means for happiness to be a “distinct state.” But first, we also agree it is a distinct state?

Protagoras of Lye: yes

DemonDeekan: Does being a distinct state prevent it from having degrees, like we mentioned earlier? Degrees can be of force, vivacity, duration, etc

Protagoras of Lye: I dont think it does, I can believe that happiness occurs in degrees

DemonDeekan: OK then, on your toes. I am about to engage in some metaphysical trickery. Given that happiness is a distinct state, but that there can also be multiple degrees of happiness, I argue that there is a BEST state of happiness, a highest degree, if you will, and what’s more, this highest degree is also the most desirable. This resolves the problem of “umbrella terms” from before. Now one could legitimately say that all those terms like jubilation and excitement really exist as different names for different degrees of happiness, and your objection is that you are searching for the best degree of happiness, while I keep suggesting inferior degrees of happiness.

Protagoras of Lye: I’ll be damned. I think you may be on to something. That is indeed where our problem lies. I can agree with this, HOWEVER, I do wish to maintain that we need a distinction between happiness as such, and these other states of being. We can’t run around calling every pleasurable feeling happiness, that doesn’t jive with the way things work, and will just lead to more problems and confusion.

DemonDeekan: That’s fair. I propose then, that we name “happiness” only that which is the highest degree of happiness, and not any of the other terms. So from now on, when we speak of happiness, we are specifically speaking of happiness in the highest degree, whatever that may be.

Protagoras of Lye: Agreed

DemonDeekan: I think one component of happiness in the highest degree must be the absence of pain and presence of pleasure

Protagoras of Lye: Unless you like a little pain . . .

DemonDeekan: But if you like it, then its pleasurable

Protagoras of Lye: I feel we’re getting sidetracked on a tangent that won’t end well

DemonDeekan: yeah . . .

DemonDeekan: So some of your earlier comments would seem to indicate that you feel that the highest degree of happiness must be lasting?

Protagoras of Lye: Hmmm, I don’t know if you can quantify the time requirements for the highest degree of happiness

DemonDeekan: More is better is my basic premise, with longer time leading to more happiness, unless you think there is some Aristotelian “golden mean” of happiness?

Protagoras of Lye: hmmm . . . I find the entire concept of applying temporal standards to degrees of happiness to be sketchy

DemonDeekan: Hold up, I think we can add something to our definition without necessarily worrying about temporal shit. I do not thing happiness is subject to the rule of “too much of a good thing” I submit one cannot have too much happiness.

Protagoras of Lye: Perhaps, but I think you’re glossing over an important problem with time and degrees of happiness. The problem lies in equating a long period of a lower degree of happiness with a short period of high happiness

DemonDeekan: hahaha, nice try. You raise a damn good point there, one that would pose problems for a general account of happiness, but I think I can escape your trap. You’ve forgotten our earlier stipulation. We’ve restricted our discourse to happiness in the highest degree. Consequently, your problem is not a threat to our current endeavor.

I concede it may be indeterminate whether low happiness for a long time is better than high happiness for a short time, but do you agree that for equal amounts of happiness, especially of the highest degree, more time is better?

Protagoras of Lye: Tentatively, but I object to the increasingly subjective nature of these questions

DemonDeekan: Great so do I. So let’s regroup a minute. So far, our rough sketch of happiness depicts it as a unique and distinct state, of which there can be many degrees and components, but there is a highest degree, which is the best and most desirable state of happiness, no?

Protagoras of Lye: Rough indeed. I’m really glad we really cleared some stuff up in these past few hours

DemonDeekan: Now now, lets not sell ourselves short. I think this rough outline will be enough to suit our purposes.

Protagoras of Lye: Bullshit, we barely know what the fuck it is.

DemonDeekan: Hey, hear me out, let’s revisit some of our earlier comments and I bet our sketch will show that we have in fact increased our understanding and our ability to answer some questions.

Protagoras of Lye: I’m listening.

DemonDeekan: So you said “i do not have happiness.” Is it possible that you have happiness, but not the highest state of happiness? Or are you claiming you have absolutely zero happiness?

Protagoras of Lye: As happiness is a distinct state, regardless of degree, i would say that i have no happiness

DemonDeekan: But you’re ignoring what we’ve uncovered! We just established happiness does have degrees, you can’t turn around now and say “regardless of degree”, that’s not being faithful to all the hard work we put in here. So now we’re able to reflect on prior experiences as well. Have you ever had happiness, of any degree?

Protagoras of Lye: Who knows, we never defined what these states and degrees entail. All we know is that they exist. We never defined their parameter, that’s the essence of the problem. I’m taking the intellectual high ground as a sophist and arguing that your philosophical endeavors have come to naught.

DemonDeekan: Not true, Mr. Sophist. You’re forgetting one other quality,and this one was at your insistence too! Desirability. Clearly you have, do and will continue to desire things. Further you have satisfied at least some of these desires. Therefore, it is at least possible that at some point you satisfied a desire that resulted in happiness. It is extremely unlikely then that you’ve been without any degree of happiness your entire life, and to maintain that you’ve never experienced the slightest degree of happiness would be unrealistic, and unfair to what we’re trying to do here, and more importantly, unfair to yourself.

Protagoras of Lye: Fine. I agree that it is unlikely that I have been completely without happiness my entire life, and to maintain that position would be irrational. BUT I amend my previous statement to say that I’m not happy currently, and even if its logically probable that I had been happy in the past, that does not mean that I would know when or if I was happy at any specific point.

DemonDeekan: Not true, I don’t think you’ve followed your logic all the way through. So you may not know of a specific point when you had happiness, you can still find a candidate experience when it was highly likely that you experienced happiness. Or are you going to seriously maintain that you cant think of at least one example when you could have possibly been happy?

Protagoras of Lye: How do I know it wasn’t some other emotional state?

DemonDeekan: The bottom line is you don’t know, but that applies to everything, not just happiness, so it’s not consistent to use lack of knowledge to deny happiness unless you’re willing to engage in total skepticism and deny the existence of anything.

Protagoras of Lye: I’m a sophist remember?

DemonDeekan: Even so, you’ve already conceded the metaphysical possibility of your own happiness, so therefore, technically ANY experience at all would be a possible candidate for happiness. Lack of knowledge goes the other way too. You can’t use lack of knowledge to deny the possibility of your own happiness, because that very same lack of knowledge gives you no justifiable basis with which to refute the claim that its possible you do have knowledge, and you just do not know it.

Protagoras of Lye: You keep emphasizing the word ‘possibly’, which indicates that the probability exists hat there is no possible candidate for happiness

DemonDeekan: No, you know that’s bullshit. Cut the crap here. Look at your own logic, you’re contradicting yourself left and right. Gimmie a goddamn example, ANY example, otherwise you’re just refusing to be rational and there is no point in continuing this discussion, which would be a goddamn shame.

Protagoras of Lye: Fine: case example

Protagoras of Lye: I discover I received an A on my physics exam after I was sure that I had bombed it. I experienced emotions like relief, excitement, and joy, but can you classify this as happiness?

DemonDeekan: Yes, I think I see what you’re hung up on. I fear you may have fallen victim to the Reductionist Trap. Now let us assume for a moment IF, and I stress the IF, if happiness is a fundamental, or “atomic” concept, then it is therefore irreducible. Yet it seems like when you ask for a definition, you want happiness reduced to something else, something perhaps more readily identifiable, and that may not be possible with happiness.

DemonDeekan: In fact, I think that is just the case. I submit to you that happiness is not divisible or reducible, and you do in fact experience happiness, but lose sight of it in your efforts to reduce your feeling to some further state.

Protagoras of Lye: question

DemonDeekan: shoot

Protagoras of Lye: Is knowledge of one’s state of happiness impossible in relation to their actual state?

DemonDeekan: No, it would seem intuitively plausible to me that one of the criteria for happiness must be awareness that you’re happy

Protagoras of Lye: counterpoint:

DemonDeekan: If you say ignorance is bliss

DemonDeekan: I will kill you

Protagoras of Lye: Many people are deluded into thinking they are happy when they are actually quite miserable. So why can’t the reverse be true?

DemonDeekan: Damn, lemme think on this one. Well, it would only be true, or even possible, if happiness is an objective condition. I think you’ve made a brilliant point here. If happiness can be objectively determined, which I think it must be, then it would seem probable that one could be happy and be unaware of it . . . however I’m not sure we can just invert one situation and get the reverse to hold as well. I counterargue that while you may be unaware that you’re unhappy, even if it is plain to everyone else, the same cannot be said of happiness. I maintain that self-awareness is essential to happiness, and it is precisely the lack of self-awareness in the deluded person that makes them ultimately unhappy even if they do not realize it.

Protagoras of Lye: So then I think I have the solution to our dilemma. I profess to be unhappy, but what I am really professing is the ignorance of my component parts of happiness. Were I to stop making the ‘Reductionist’ objections to my own emotions, I would be aware of my happiness, and thus, I would be happy.

DemonDeekan: It’s a plausible solution . . . maybe not the perfect solution though. Still, I think its enough to answer our question that launched us into this crusade? You claimed greater personal freedom and power does not lead to happiness. Do we have an answer to this question?

Protagoras of Lye: I don’t think so

DemonDeekan: haha, I think so. Paradigm shift remember? You said that it made your thoughts more accurate, right?

Protagoras of Lye: yes

DemonDeekan: Well it seems to me “more accuracy” means “less ignorance.” And you said that this “more accuracy” is what led you to greater personal freedom and power. And since we’ve shown the link between reducing ignorance and gaining happiness, is it not extremely likely that by gaining more power, you will continue to have less ignorance, and if you’re lucky, that path might ultimately lead to happiness?

Protagoras of Lye: Perhaps, but I think I’ll need to do some serious thinking if I ever want to believe in my own happiness.

DemonDeekan: We’re right back where we started. You need another paradigm shift, to turn thought into thought into action so you can believe in your own happiness. Whether or not you choose to realize it, you’ve found your solution to happiness.

Protagoras of Lye: I still don’t have to accept it, I don’t buy it 100%. Besides, even if I did, we still don’t know how one turns thought into thought into action. There’s no guarantee I could realize my own happiness even if I tried.

DemonDeekan: True, but still, let’s not slight our own accomplishment. Kudos to you on pushing me philosophically to arrive at an actual conclusion that may have some worth to it.

Protagoras of Lye: woot

DemonDeekan: w00t

Protagoras of Lye: I sense a blog journal in the making. You need to get on the thought-thought-action thing.

DemonDeekan: Dear lord, gimmie a break! Its not every day you give an account of happiness!!! Let’s at least be aware enough to be happy of what we accomplished tonight (and into this morning), eh?

Protagoras of Lye: hahaha, agreed

One Response »

 

A Pithy Rejoinder Wednesday, Jan 2 2008

Many times people question the value of Philosophy. Philosophy is accused of being worthless and no good, Philosophers are criticized as arguing endlessly about nothing and coming to no real conclusions. There are many other negative stereotypes floating around, but the bottom line seems to be a general accusation that Philosophy has little or no practical value. An on its face, this accusation seems to have some merit. There are little obvious tangible benefits to Philosophy, nor does knowing it seem to have any practical, or “real world” application. The doing of Philosophy itself  is not like practicing Law or Medicine, both of which serve a purpose and are profitable to the individual engaging the action. Nor does Philosophy lead to any great ends, like Science, which has arguable improved the health and well being of the human race more than any other discipline the past few hundred years. Paint your own bleak picture of Philosophy, I don’t care. My purpose here is to simply come up with a “pithy rejoinder” in defense of Philosophy. Obviously I do not belive Philosophy is worthless, not do most people who seriously consider the subject for more than a few moments. The problem, however, is most people do not consider the subject for more than a few moments. Hell, to even reach my purpose here it has taken several hundered words and a great deal of (much appreciated) patience by the reader. Few, if any significant points can be distilled to a sentece or two. Yet I feel compelled to give it a shot.

From its roots, Philosophy, as the term was coined by Plato, meant “love of learning.” Now then, it seems apparent to me that sucess of any sort, be it spiritual, emotional, academic, intellectual, financial, athlectic, etc, is dependent on learning. We are not born knowing what we need to know, we must learn it, or in some way shape or form develop our capacities to think. Without a refined capacity to think, the human race is utterly unimpressive. Now, is studying the field or Philosophy necessary to obtaining a refined capacity to think? FUCK NO. One needs only the desire to learn to obtain that. But here comes the magic: that desire to learn is what drives not just Philosophy, but the search for all human knowledge. I grant that there are many people who do not want to learn for learning’s sake, they seek to use learning for some other end. Philosophy is learning for its own sake, learning because one loves to do so, but this is not to say Philosophy has the market cornered on learning for its own sake. I merely use it to point out the distinction between learning for the sake or learning, and learning for the sake of something else. Regardless of why one wants to learn, one will not be sucessful in doing so unless one has the desire (philosophy) to do so.

Now I am finally capable of countering charges of Philosophy’s supposed worthlessness. Philosophy is necessary for every human endeavor. One must love learning to be sucessful, period. Whatever one’s ends may be, one must have the proper philosophy, or desire, as the means to reach them. It just so happens that for many Philosophers that philosophy is the end itself, and no further tangible end is sought. But for many lawyers, scientists, doctors, politicians, buisnessmen, etc, their love of learning is a means to another end. So the next time someone criticizes Philosophy, we can now retort with a pity rejoinder defending the proper worth of Philosophy:

“I say Philosophy is quite useless. What is it good for?”

“One’s philosophy is the underlying means to their every end, you ignorant asshole! It just so happens that for those who study it as such, their contemplation of Philosophy is the end in question!”

One Response »

 

Good and Bad Sunday, Dec 30 2007

The terms “good” and “bad” are tossed around too carelessly and frequently for my liking. Philosophically speaking, I’d try and stay away from these terms, unless one is extremely explicit as to the context for the goodness or badness. In general, I feel using “corrrect” in place of “good” and “incorrect” in place of “bad” would ultimately lead to clearer discourse, better communication, and a greater understanding of ideas, not just in Philosophy, but in everyday life.

 I got started on this line of thinking as a result of hypersaturating myself in sports. Often times, an announcer will say “Well Bob, that was one hell of a bad call by the ref there” and then Bob will turn around a bit later and say “Gosh Jim, that was a bad call by the coach to go for it.” First of all, most sports announcers are full of shit and not worth listening to in the first place, with the lone exception being, of course, John Madden. But secondly, and more importantly, I realized these announcers were especially full of shit. In both cases, Jim and Bob are trying to underscore the wrongness of the respective calls by the ref and the coach, but in doing so they only underscore their linguistic inadequacy and home-town bias. (The latter was more obvious if you were actually watching the game, like I was). However, by using “bad” they have not succeded in doing so, because bad is a normative and subjective term that leads directly to ambiguity and confusion. Consider the following: What makes a ref’s ruling “bad”? What makes a car “bad”? What makes a zebra ”bad”? In each case, a different quality makes each thing “bad”. A bad coaching decision may lead directly to the team losing, while a bad car might be one that breaks down all the time, and a bad zebra might be one that cannot run fast enough to escape predators.  By contrast, consider a less ambiguous and objective term, like striped. What makes a ref, a car, and a zebra striped? The exact same quality, that of alternating lines of different colors. So right off the bat, we see a problem with “bad”. It gives us very little information. Unless you know what a coach, car, or zebra is, telling you that its “bad” won’t help you very much. Granted, this usually is not a problem, but that’s why this loose terminology has persisted so far. However, there is an even greater problem with using “bad.”

 Let’s return to our ref, car and zebra. Suppose that the ref’s makes the same ruling, except, this time its in favor of your team. Bob and Jim, our clueless Homers will praise the exact same call as good. What’s more, even if Bob and Jim privately acknowledge the ref made the wrong call, they will no doubt still be thrilled that their team won. Now suppose the “bad” car is a racecar, and it happens to break down during the final lap of the Daytona 500 while in first place. If you’re in the car, it’s certainly bad, but if you’re the car in second place, it’s a very good thing! Finally, if you’re a slow-ass zebra, (think you know where this is going by now?) getting caught and killed by a cheetah is bad for you, but damn good for the cheetah. So here is the greatest problem with “bad.” (Oh by the way, these same arguments apply to “good”, but I feel I’ve repeated myself enough already. But if you want to see why “good” is subject to the exact same problems as “bad”, I will gladly elaborate) Bad is not universal, not is it absolute. Bad for one person (or creature) is almost always good for someone else. Thus, when Bob and Jim are complaining about “bad” calls, you can now “call” them out for the idiotic homers that they are. You can also accuse them of being unclear and ambiguous about what they actually mean.

Instead of “good” and “bad” then, we should in most cases use “correct” and “incorrect”. The reason is, that “correct” and “incorrect” while not as clear as say, “striped” in their meaning, do have the virtue of being unquestionably objective. You may rightly feel that its bad (for you) if your team loses, but if the refs made the correct calls, you ought to focus your outrage at the players and coaches, not the refs. One can argue if it was a “good call” to go for it on 4th down, but there is no debate over whether it was the correct call. The team either got the first or they didn’t.  I do not think we should remove “good” and “bad” from our vocabulary, I just think we need to be more aware of the situations when it is appropriate to use them. If you use “bad” or “good”, be sure to specify why “bad” or “good” is being used, and who it is “bad” or “good” for. With correct/incorrect, in most cases, you do not even need to explain why it is so, the correctness, or lack thereof, is usually apparent. If not, then one can clarify to reduce the degree of ambiguity. All of which goes to say, I can’t get philosophy out of my head even when I’m trying to relax and watch some sports!

Hopefully I did make an interesting philosophical point here, or failing that, I at least got in a good rant about jackass announcers . . .

Leave a Response »

 

Ethics vs Morality: Return of the Eudaimonia Friday, Dec 28 2007

When I first began writing this series, I made two claims, one, that confusion over Ethics and Morality was pissing me off, and two, confusion over these two ideas could be detrimental to one’s health and well being. After what I hope was a moderately effective (albeit lengthy) elucidation of the two concepts in question, I now find myself finally in a position to address the claims I had initially intended to discuss. Sorry to keep you waiting so long for the gripping conclusion, but I promise, no Ewoks here.

The reason why I get pissed off when people confuse Ethics and Morality is that it dilutes and corrupts the terms. Although I do belive Ethics is superior to Morality, I also belive both are necessary. Ethics is essential to the health and well-being of the individual, whereas Morality is crucial for the health and well being of a society. Remember, Ethics is concerened with individual conduct, specifically, of the individual making the correct choices and taking the correct actions. Morality, however, is concerned with the rightness or wrongness of said decisions and actions in an absolutistic sense, and it is only upon such a basis of absolutistic rights and wrongs that any people could build a society.  Man is both a social creature and an individual, so to be the best that we can be, we need to balance our social duties with our individual duties, and to do so, one needs a firm grasp of both Ethics and Morality.

As a central principle of my Philosophy, I hold that the individual matters. This is no doubt at least partially a result of the influences of the individualistic culture I was raised in,  but I think there is also some objective basis to believe this is the case. Society first came about because it was beneficial for individuals to cooperate than to live alone. Consider the Hobbesian “State of Nature” here. People are social creatures because it is in our own best interest to do so. Society was formed then, for the benefit of the individual. Therefore, it is in the individual’s best interest to help maintain society, even at a short term loss, because there will be many long term benefits to being in a society. Thus, one could say that it is a correct Ethical decision for someone to be Moral, ie, following the guidelines for social conduct. Quite similar to this is following the Laws; again, it seems to be the case that quite often it is the correct Ethical decision to follow the Law. In both cases then, the ultimate decision to be lawful or moral is not  a Legal or Moral decision at all, its an Ethical decision. This then, is another crucial point to my Philosophy: All decisions are Ethical decisions. We are constantly forced to make decisions throughout our conscious lives, and ultimately, all these decisions are Ethical decisions. Some Ethical decisions specifically correlate to the maintenance of society, and we label this subset of Ethical decisions Morals and Laws.

Now then, it is time to show how understanding Ethics can ultimately lead to a better life. But first, a belated word about my title. Eudaimonia is an ancient Greek word that means “good guardian spirit.” It is also loosely translated to mean “happiness”; however I do not like this translation. For us, happiness can often be subjective, whether or not I’m happy depends on whether or not I feel happy. Thus a billionaire can be as happy or unhappy as a bum out on the street. For the Greeks, however, eudaimonia was not a subjective state. Rather, it was “living the good life”, but with the condition that the “good life” was objectively determined. You either are living the good life or you aren’t. This pertains to Ethics, because the ancient Greeks believed that Ethical knowledge would allow them to make the necessary decisions to have eudaimonia.

As it pertains to us, 2500 years later, eudaimonia is still something we seek. I plead ignorance as to what exactly “happiness” or “the good life” is, but I do believe most, if not all people seek to be happy, or seek to live a good life. And here is where Ethics comes in. One cannot be happy, nor can one live a good life if they make incorrect decisions. In order to make the correct decisions, one must know that all decisions are in fact Ethical decisions. Ultimately, all decisions must be make by the individual. Ultimate responsibility for the conduct and result of one’s life rests (unsurprisingly) with oneself. Where problems arise is when people lose sight of Ethics. When people put Morality and Law on the same plane as Ethics, or even worse, think Morality is the same thing as Ethics, they lose the capacity to think and act for themselves. Once one believes “I must obey this law” or “I must be moral”, then one’s capacity to be happy, or to live the good life diminishes. I think that there is a life unique for each of us, a eudaimonia, if you will, and we must find it. If one becomes a slave to Law or Morality, then it becomes extremely difficult to live the good life, because although the “good life” is objective, the object upon which it is based is ourselves. Thus, the “good life” for each one of us is what we make it to be. Two things here. One, I am not arguing determinism or predestination. The “good life” for each of us is not preordained, but rather, it is something we create. What’s more, it is up to us to realize this eudaimonia. Two, I am not saying that people should be unlawful or immoral. As I said earlier, Laws and Morals are necessary and beneficial for the individual, and in the vast, vast, majority of cases they should be followed. But society exists to serve the individual, and if it does not do so, one must be courageous and brave enough to make the correct Ethical decision to be immoral or unlawful. If your best friend was severely injured, would you be lawful and observe the speed limit, or would you drive him to the hospital as quickly as you could? I argue in this case, and many others, you would break the law, or act immorally, and it would be the right Ethical decision.

Now suppose a person did not understand Ethical supremacy. Suppose this person’s friend had a heart attack and needed to be rushed to the nearest hospital. Suppose that this person refused to break any law, and as a result of driving the speed limit, this person’s friend died before he could get to the hospital. Would this not be an unwanted outcome? Would not the grief and sadness be detrimental to the person? I say it would. This is a dramatic example, intended to show a clear picture of why people must understand the doctrine of Ethical Supremacy, but each day, we encounter situations where we act in a manner contrary to our own best interest because we have been indoctrinated since youth to be Moral and Lawful. I realize such indoctrination is necessary to the maintenance of a society that is beneficial for individuals, but I also believe that at a certain point one comes of age and no longer needs to be subjected to the whims of Morality and Law. At that point, when one has become able to decide one’s own fate, then one can be said to be Ethical and finally capable of “living the good life.”

I did not intend for this account to be exhaustive, and I still feel as though there are many more things I can, and will say. But for now I can only hope that I have done an adequate job of laying the groundwork for my views on Ethics, so that when I inevitably return to this topic, I can continue to build towards a better understanding of the subject. Still, I feel my endeavors have provided me with some footing with which to support the claim that confusion over Ethics and Morals is detrimental to people. In order to have a good life, in order to be happy, in order to posses eudaimonia, we must realize that all our decisions are Ethical, and that to live our lives correctly, and to live so that others may live their lives correctly, we must occasionally rise above Morality or Legality. I feel that not being trapped by Laws or Morals ultimately enables people to live better lives by placing the responsibility for a good life exactly where it belongs: with the individual.

3 Responses »

 

Ethics vs Morality: The Morality Strikes Back! Friday, Dec 21 2007

So I’m continuing my epic trilogy of discourse on the topic of Ethics vs Morality. To recap my previous endeavors, I detailed what I consider to be my account of Ethics by using two examples, one of crossing the street, and the other of committing suicide. I shall now use those same views to give an account of morality, and then explain how the two concepts differ. Better yet, I will do it without having my hand severed by a Sith Lord . . .

I have previously said that Ethics deals with specifics, and Morality with absolutes. To prove this, and whats more, to show the limitations of morality, we need to go no further than to revisit our favorite crosswalk. Maybe it’s across from a really nice pizza joint, I dunno. Whatever the case, you made the right Ethical decision last time and you’re back for more, only when you decide to cross the street this time, we shall evaluate crossing the street from a Moral Standpoint. Once again, you’ve sucessfully crossed the street, but unlike the last time with Ethics, this time you haven’t really done anything, Morally speaking. There are no absolute rules for street crossing, there is nothing intrinsically right or wrong about crossing the street, and thus there is no street-crossing Morality. Were you to fail and be splattered by a passing 18 wheeler, there would likewise be no moral judgement of your action.

However, when we examine suicide, we do see that Morality has something to say, unfortunately, this is where the true complexity of Morality rears its ugly head. I have three case scenarios for suicide, from before, they are the “Life is Good” scenario, the “Tragic Hero” scenario, and the “Life is Shitty” scenario. See my previous post for more on these scenarios. The problem with Morality when examining these scenarios is that religious authorities have absconded with the orininal meaning of the word. Morality as a word descended from the Latin mores, which meant a society’s rules of conduct. They were not the same as laws, but you can see their original influence in the slightly archaic phrase “social mores,” which is to say that you were expected, but not mandated, to observe certain social conventions. Covering your mouth when you cough would be a good example of social mores/morality in its purest sense. As an absolute rule, when you cough, cover your goddamn mouth, ’cause that shit’s nasty and it can spread diseases. But in its present usage, “moral” has come to take on a religious connotation, for a number of reasons. DIGRESSION ALRET: Primarily, the language of the medieval Catholic Church was Latin, so mores was used in Biblical translations and other religious texts, so it grew into a role as a religious guideline. But also, mores are more general and absolute than ethics, so even today we see Morality used by religious figures in connection with what should more properly be called “religious law.” But I’ve digressed enough. Morality today is inextricably linked with a religious connotation, and it must be treated as such. Unfortunately, given that there are multiple religions with more-or-less equal truth claims, there are multiple “Moralities” floating around out there. The problem is complicated even further when you consider societal and cultural influences. For example, the Catholic Church holds that suicide is immoral (and sinful) no matter what the scenario. Absolutely, 100% bad idea. Sorry America, you’re fucked if you need a Tragic Hero to save you from the Russians. However, a different religion, like Islam, may consider suicide absolutely good in some scenarios, like the “Tragic Hero.” Or a culture, like the Japanese may consider suicide the only honorable course of action in the “Life is Shitty” scenario. So now we’ve hit upon the fundamental moral problem. It is a concept that claims to have absolute guidance (the proverbial “moral compass”), yet there is no universal moral code. Furthermore, even if such a code were to exist, Morality comes up painfully short in the types of activities it can regulate. Morality is essentially rigid and inflexible, a doctrine of generalization that is difficult to reconcile with specific situations.

In my last post, I wrote simple Ethics>Morality. Now I can finally tell you why. Morality is a limited, general conception of the world that does not take in consideration individual circumstances, thus reducing the individual’s ability to make decisions for him or herself. What’s more, it’s often liable to be confused with religious law, thus taking decision-making power even further out of the individual’s control. Ethics, however, demands personal accountability and individual responsibility. To be Ethical, one must be flexible and adaptive, able to adjust to circumstances as the individual finds them. Furthermore, Ethics is concerned with how one should live, namely, correctly. In an Ethical system, one would take care of one’s own needs to live correctly, while respecting the needs of others to live correctly as well. In a Moral system, one is concerned with righteousness alone, and when religion is added, it can be a dangerous and combustible mix. Furthermore, the Moral system cannot be fully relied upon. There are some decisions one must make that have no moral value judgement. Likewise, the system of Law cannot be fully relied upon either. At one point, the laws in America said that only white male property owners were citizens. Ethics, and Ethics alone is a complete system, capable of providing guidance to an individual, and Ethics is capable of providing this guidance precisely because it places the decision making power in the hands of the individual. However, I’m not at all saying that laws and morals are useless, or should not be obeyed, in fact, laws and morals are essential components to a functioning society. That being said, they are ultimately subservient to the individual’s Ethics. As an individual, if you decide that a law is unjust or that something “immoral” must be done anyway, then you accept responsibility for your decision. But now I’m starting to cross over into territory that I will fully enter in the third installment of the trilogy.

For now, it’s enough to emphasize the differences between Ethics and Morality. Apologies for any lack of clarity on my part, the essential differences I sought to establish are as follows: Ethics is a distinctive, individualistic system concerened with living one’s life correctly. (Defining “correctly” is a task for another time) Morality is an absolutistic system that seeks to establish right and wrong value judgements. Ethics is superior to Morality in that it gives the power to decide to the individual, and with that power comes responsibility. Ethics is also a complete system, for every decision that we make can be evaluated Ethically, whereas only certain decisions can be evaluated Morally or Legally. I also want to re-empahsize that although Ethics gives decision-making power to the individual, this does not mean I endorse subjectivism. There are objectively correct and incorrect Ethical decisions, however, the responsibility rests in the individual to make the correct decision. Now that we (hopefully) understand the distinctions between these two concepts, it is time for my final task, which will be to show how one can use understanding of this distinction to live a better life in the final installment of Ethics vs Morality: The Return of the Eudaimonia!

Leave a Response »

 

Ethics and Morality: A NEW HOPE? Thursday, Dec 20 2007

So, I’ve been hearing a lot about Ethics and Morality lately, and the terrible misuse of these concepts is starting to piss me off, and what’s more, I feel confusion over these two concepts can be detrimental to one’s health and well being. Thus, it is time for a Philosopher to save the day! To blow up the proverbial “Death Star” of Ignorance, if you will, with a few well-placed proton torpedoes of truth?

Ethics>Morality. That’s my own opinion, but I think its pretty accurate. I think a lot of people mix up these two terms, and use them as synonyms. This is a bit of a philosophical pet peeve of mine, so allow me to make myself clear: ETHICS AND MORALITY ARE NOT THE SAME THING PEOPLE!!!! Seriously, get it together. Oh what, you want me to elaborate? Sure thing!

Now, let me preface this by saying a good many people will disagree with me, and they can make many fine arguments for why they’re right. That being said, they’re wrong. So then, time to set the record straight! Ok, ethics, going way back in philosophical history, back to the days of ancient Greece (when the young boys were beautiful and hemlock poisoning was an accepted form of capital punishment) used to mean the study of good and fine living, and frankly, the Greeks had it right. Ethics was, and is, the study of how to live. Many people think Ethics has to do with right and wrong–and they’re correct, but for the wrong reasons. Ethics is incredibly specific, it has to do with right and wrong decisions and actions in individual cases, not absolutes. For example, Ethics can be as deep as trying to decide whether or not suicide is a good decision, or as quotidian (yes, thats a badass vocab word!) as deciding whether or not to cross the street. Let’s start with the simple example, then work our way up to suicide, then compare it to morality and see what we’ve learned.

So, you’re at a cross walk–do you stay or go? Well, normally, you’d look around, and if there are no cars, or if you have the little man sign, then you’re good to fucking go! You walk across the street to your destination safely. Congratulations! You’ve just made a “right” Ethical decision. I prefer “correct” because it takes the nasty value-judgement connotation away. Your decision is correct because you accomplished your goal of crossing the street, not because there is any inherent righteousness in street-crossing. Now suppose you do not pay attention and try and cross the street during rush hour. Next thing you know, you’re lying on flat on your ass in a rapidly expanding pool of your own blood. Ooops. Looks like you made a “wrong”, or incorrect, Ethical decision. If only it were that simple. Obviously, there are many more complex situations where the consequences are far-reaching, and it is much more difficult to tell whether your decision was right or wrong, like, oh, I don’t know, suicide? That being said, before we move on, I want to highlight the important point to take away here, which is that in Ethics, nothing is inherently right or wrong. It all depends on the situation, and what makes you ethical is your ability to make the correct decision given the specific situation. Now then, let’s get suicidal! (Why the hell did I add an exclamation point there?)

Suicide from an Ethical standpoint, as I’ve mentioned, must depend on the situation. Unfortunately, the situations will be a teensy bit more complex than crossing the street. Lets start with an easy one. Suppose you’re affluent, healthy, sound of mind, in a loving relationship, etc. This is the “life is pretty damn good” scenario. Killing yourself would be a bad Ethical decision, because there are lots of good reasons to stick around. One could certainly make a case for suicide, even when life is good, but that only serves to prove my point about the complexity of the issue. But in general, and especially in relation to the example of crossing the street, if you were to committ suicide when “life is good”, you’re most likely making a horribly incorrect Ethical decision.  Time for my next scenario, which I call “The Tragic Hero.” As the name suggests, this time, you’re a tragic hero. Suppose any one of the myriad situations in which one may have to sacrifice one’s life to be a hero. Again, one could debate whether or not that is really suicide, which, as I’ve said, underscores my point about the complexity of the issue. Since Ethics is involved with specific situations, I will get specific to destroy as much ambiguity as I can and make my point clear. Suppose you’re a spy, and you’ve been captured by “the enemey.” Since I said I would be specific, I’ll go ahead and make “the enemey” the Russians. So you’ve been captured by the Russians, and they have a truth serum that will force you to divulge national secrets, secrets which if divulged, will allow them to destroy America. But, being a good spy, you have a cyanide capsule under your tongue. Do you break it and become the tragic hero, saving all your loved ones back in the good old U. S. of A.? One can make a very convincing argument that you do indeed break that capsule and save the day, thus making the correct Ethical decision. I think those two examples are about as clear as one can get with an issue as sticky as suicide. My third, and final example, however, is about as murky as you can get, which is good, because that’s when being philosophical is at its best.

For our third scenario, we shall call it “Life is Shitty.” Sorry pal, things haven’t quite worked out the way you wanted them to.  Life sucks, but there’s still a chance things could change, or even if you’re terminally ill, you could inspire people and help others. Now then, shall we off ourselves, or bravely hang in there? This right here is the very essence of what it means to be Ethical. Hypothetically, the Ethical person would know exactly what to do. As for myself, I don’t know. Sorry, you’re gonna have to answer this one for yourself. However, I do think this example is very important. It shows that it is the situation that matters. I left it purposefully vague. Fill in the details as you see fit. Can you construct a scenario within the general “Life is Shitty” framework that makes suicide the correct Ethical decision? Can you tweak that same scenario a bit, so that the correct Ethical decision is to stay alive? You bet your ass you can, and what’s more, you can also tweak the “Life is Good” and “Tragic Hero” scenarios as well. Thats the point of Ethics. Situations matter. If you wanna know how to lead a good life, you have to make the individual, specific decsions correctly and for yourself. A final word on this topic. I am not a subjectivist. My previous comments do not mean I think that “anything goes.” Rather, I belive that there is an objective correct and incorrect decision (though not necessarily just one)  for each scenario. But more on subjectivity/objectivity later. In the meantime, on to morality!

[Insert Cliffhanger here]

Hahaha, gotcha! You’re gonna have to wait to see morality in Part II: Morality Strikes Back whever the hell I get around to writing it.

Leave a Response »

 

Understanding Tuesday, Dec 18 2007

Understanding may be the most important concept in my entire philosophy. I do not yet know if “knowledge” exists, or if it is even possible for humans to have it; nor have I much certainty about a great many “truths.” Whether or not there is an objective Truth or a mere collection of subjective truths is also a mystery to me. Perhaps you can enlighten me, for I am in the dark. There is a shining beacon, however, one that guides me, and given my feeble capacities, the best name I can apply to it is Understanding. I hope you have all had the feeling of understanding; it is a rare moment when words are not necessary, or even possible, it is a moment when you understand. Whether or not this understanding is a subjective and personal experience, or whether it is a universal Truth that all humans are capable of understanding is unknown to me, and what’s more, the basis for this understanding is likewise unclear to me. However, I am convinced such a state exists, and more importantly, is possible to attain, for I have experienced it myself. Is my experience anecdotal, or something more. Decide for yourself:

Here is a possible scenario for understanding, but there are many others, some mundane, some sublime. I have strived to seek the middle ground in this case, but please, refer to your own experience or construct your own scenario for understanding to further your grasp of the concept. Anyway, here goes: Your best friend is acting strangely. You question him/her but the answers are evasive and dodgy. So you get irritated and upset, because you are used to having a good time and pleaseant experiences with your friend. Before you can say anything, your friend tells you that his/her father just died, and that he/she is sorry for acting so oddly. Suddenly, your exasperation evaporates. You understand, do you not? No words are necessary, you know where your friend is coming from, and you completely understand why your friend was acting so unusual. So, is this understanding? Clearly, I think it is. And furthermore, I think understanding is the fundamental core of philosophical endeavors, and what’s more, it is what every human is ultimately striving for. Perhaps I am wrong. If so, please correct me, I do not wish to be ignorant. Perhaps I’m right. If so, join me, and let’s continue to understand.

Leave a Response »

 

Philosophy vs. philosophical Tuesday, Dec 18 2007

I think before I can really indulge myself in my philosophizing, I need to be clear about the distinction I touched upon earlier, namely, that of doing Philosophy (note the capital P, thats important!) as opposed to being philosophical. As I see it, the practice of Philosophy is a rigorous study that is part of a rich intellectual tradition, and it’s certainly not for everyone. Being a Philosopher means following certain rules of discourse, and being aware of the giants in the field and their stances on the major philosophical problems (if indeed we do actually have philosophical problems.) Being philosophical, on the other hand, is a much broader description of intellectual activity. Under my broad defininition, “being philosophical” means any intellectual undertaking in service of understanding. As many good philosophers have done, I will now attempt to clarify my position via analogy: Philosophy is to Religion as philosophical is to spiritual. By now, I’ve probably offended quite a few people, so let me attempt to clarify.

I AM NOT saying Philosophy is a religion, nor am I saying it is equal to a religion. The two are utterly seperate endeavors. My point is rather that they are both formal systems. For example, you can be a bad Philosopher or be impious by virtue of not following the rules of the system. But philosophical/spiritual, on the other hand, is nearly impossible to screw up. If you’re trying to be philosophical, or trying to be spiritual, even if you aren’t succeeding, then merely by virtue of engaging in the activity in question (philosophical or spiritual activity) you are being philosophical or spiritual. In the case of being a Philosopher, or being religious, you can try, and fail, and in some cases, burn for all eternity. Yikes.

 A few parting remarks. First, the two categories are not mututally exclusive. To be a good Philosopher, you must be philosophical. Second, I do not intend any negative connotation to be conferred upon Philosophy, however, I do intend to point out the limitations of Philosophy. It is a very useful formal system, and I myself study Philosophy and enjoy it very much. That being said, once one enters Philosophy, one is inevitably forced to accept certain “truths” that may obscure or hinder efforts to understand. It is a risk inherent in any formal system. You must always be prepared to “think outside the box,” or become inextricably trapped in it. Finally, and most importantly, you do NOT have to be a Philosopher to be philosophical, and espcially not in this blog. In fact, if the names Hume, Kant, Plato, and Aristotle mean nothing to you, you might even be better off, although I almost certainly will reference them and I am deeply indebted to their philosophical contributions. As long as you want to understand, you’re philosophical, and that’s what really matters.

Leave a Response »