The Deity Dillemma

We've been discussing a lot lately, (in class and on the blogs) about the aspect of philosophers who incorporate a deity to answer questions which seem to lead to no logical answer.  Obviously, for those who rigorously and logically analyze theories, this can be problematic.  My question is this; what should be done? I would like to think that some of the greatest philosophers that used God, or some kind of metaphysical mystery to convey an idea (Kant, or Aristotle's unmoved mover, etc) could not possibly conceive a better way in which to explain their theory.

Should theories that reach this point be thrown out?  Published for further criticism and advancement?  Or can their be a silver lining of truth in a theory that takes this form?

Kant on Perspective

As we discussed in class this week, Kant took the classic view of the world around us- namely, that we perceive what is around us- and posed the converse idea, that what we perceive is what the world is entirely.  
How does this seemingly subjective claim (everyone's mind is different) fit in with his objective theory of morality?

Response to Deven's Post, "A Question On Social Darwinism."

I would like to tentatively say that one of your main points was this:  The fact that Social Darwinism in the political sphere perpetuates the more vicious qualities of a society, (and it could be said that it has an overall negative affect on society) does not change the fact that Darwin's theory itself has not been scientifically proven.  

If I am correct in this assertion, I would like to concur with your statement, and add that, to (loosely) quote Hume, and 'is does not make an ought.'  Just because numerous facets of Darwin's theory have been scientifically proven over centuries of research does not necessarily entail that this theory projects a normative 'ought' on other systems that exist within our world- political systems especially.

Darwin's Wife

I noticed in the chapter on Darwin, that he refused to discuss his theories with his wife, out of respect for the amount of religious faith she incorporated into her life- moreover, as Pojman recalls, Darwin hesitated to publish his Origin of Species for the same reason; the effect it may have one other religiously minded people.

This post is not focused on the metaphysical comparisons between evolution and religion, nor is it concerned with the ethics of the usage (or lack thereof) of information   What I am really getting at here, is the reason for Darwin's hesitation to publish his theory.

While it is very reasonable to suspect fear of persecution as the primary motive (and I am not aware that Darwin himself was or was not persecuted after publishing) I would pose the question; did Darwin feel that his theory detracted from the presence of morality in a given society?

Is assigning a subjective purpose to one’s life still a ‘condemnation’ of free will?

Sartre claims that we are 'condemned to free will.'  Namely, because humans have no purpose in their lives, beginning with accidental origin, and ending with, presumably, a series of freely selected actions, void of purpose, which lead to death.

I would like to think that humans are capable of assigning themselves their own purpose.  In Sartre's view, God does not exist, nor does an objective autonomous good exist.  Does this not mean that a subjective worldview of what is good cannot intrinsically allocate purpose to the life of an individual?  Or would Sartre merely say that subjective purpose would give anyone purpose for doing anything, and therefore, when every action is purposeful, no action is?

Response to Deven's post (of my post on his original post).

I agree, this is an interesting conversation to have.  I'm not sure if I worded my prior response to your first post poorly, but I'm pretty sure we agree- that religious texts should be treated as literary fiction- which was what I asserted in my last post.

I apologize if it was interpreted the other way- I was trying to say that looking at, for example, the Bible, in a historical context would be logically poor decision, because, it cannot and should not be treated as such, for obvious reasons.  I've never compared the Bible to a Dickens' novel, but I guess the level of analysis and the extent to which the aforementioned efforts would or would not be attributed to either book by a particular individual for a given purpose would definitely vary on the difficulty.

Like you said, and I agree, that since there is no hard evidence that Jesus existed, treating the Bible as literary fiction does not infringe upon the lessons one can take from a story.  Speaking from personal experience, religion is much more enjoyable and much less polarizing when one concentrates on how to live personally, rather than worry about the overarching metaphysical claims that are also associated with it, the beliefs of others, or of course, claims involving the historical accuracy of anything at all in religious texts.

Response to Deven's post: "Freud vs. Marx - Religion"

I would agree in your assessment of Freud and Marx's thoughts on religion.  I think you're looking at religious dogma from a very direct, logical standpoint.  I think, in this day and age especially, contemporary theologians in many prominent monotheistic religions, (Christianity and Islam, especially) have begun to look at ideological dogma from a different standpoint.

In other words, if you look at the Bible, or the Qur'an, as an historical account (and therefore, a logical analysis of a sequence of events) of what events lead up to and constituted that particular religion, of course you are going to be dissatisfied, and foolish even, to entertain the idea of that particular religion.  Its very obvious, in the Bible especially, that many events that happen are historically inaccurate.  And I'm not even referencing the metaphysical miracles- I'm simply talking about certain events in certain cities with certain people that we now know, probably didn't happen.  My suggestion would be this:

Treat religious texts like literary fiction- the importance is the lesson, the values, that emerge from the stories; not the historical accuracy of the stories themselves.  In this way, the individual can interpret the novel, and be their own literary critic.  Just because major monotheistic religions project universal dogma upon their followers does not mean that many people reject certain dogma, and critically analyze their own religion for themselves, as it is important to remember, from a theological standpoint, that religion is about God, and not the other way around.

Q & A Question: Would Freud say that his theory of human nature is objective, or would he say that it varies in degrees of influence, according to the particular society in question?

I would say that it does depend on degrees;  for example some cultures are much more open, or embrace human sexuality, more so than others.  It only seems natural that one such culture would not only embrace, but exemplify Freud's theories in a more complete and clear manner.

Conversely, a society in which sexuality was not open or treated the same, could see people affected less so, and exemplifying less so (Freud's theory) than others.

However:  Could a society that represses and condemns human sexuality perhaps give rise to more Freudian undertones?  I think this would also be a very legitimate claim as well.  Thoughts?

Response to Deven's Post: Fear of Marxism

I would agree- I do think that fear of the Soviet Union, or cold war opposition in general, is not the sole root of an aversion to everything Marx.  I simply think, at the core, fear of Marx is just a fear of socialism.  Capitalist ideologies are hard-wired into the systems of many United States' citizens.  Even the idea of anti-capitalist theories cause tension and aversion.

More often than not, free speech in the United States has taken a step in the wrong direction, due directly to communist political activists.  While the Supreme Court had upheld free speech of religious groups, certain obscenities, and even Klu Klux Klan activists, there are still cases when communist political speech was restricted.

I think free market capitalism is so far entrenched into the minds of Americans, and the economy as well, that it will take some time for Marxism to be even acceptable in the realm of discussion.  Perhaps our generation, with WWII, Vietnam, Korea, and the Cold War, only a distant (if at all) memory, will be the first to bring acceptability to the discussion of Marx in the political realm.

What are some common (most likely westernized) conceptions of Marxism that are, quite simply put, incorrect?

Besides some basic information I've gathered from a political science perspective in High School, this was really the first time I've ever read an (somewhat) in depth account of Marx's basic works.  Here are a few things I read that I felt have been very common misconceptions of Marx, especially in the United States today.

Uninhibited Redistribution of Property- the motto, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," only holds true for the ideal communist state.  Before this state is attained, a more classical version is used.  "Distribution according to need should only take place in the ideal communist society, where everyone is equally deserving, since all contribute according to their maximal ability.  Until that time, in the socialist society, the motto must be "From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution."

The Acquisition of Property- Another common misconception of Marx's economic theory is that no owns property, because everyone uses it.  Private ownership of property doesn't exist.  Pojman disagrees.
"Communists have been accused of advocating the elimination of all property, including that of the proletariat; but Marx makes an exception for the 'Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property...of the petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form.'  That sort of possession is part of the labor theory of value.  They deserve that property.  He means only modern bourgeois private property."

What are some other misconceptions that may exist in the average American's conception of Marx?

Yes, No, and not Applicable- A Response to Christian's Post

Like my post says, Rousseau and Hobbes would agree and disagree with your exclusive interpretation of them, as well as decline to answer- here's why.

Exclusive Traits:  Both theories of human nature display somewhat exclusive aspects;  Hobbes for example, claims that a totalitarian government is the only way for egotistical and selfish humans to behave in accordance with moral laws of a functioning society.  Rousseau cites the very cornerstone of institutional prominence paramount in Hobbes' theory as the very denigration of the noble savages of humankind.

Mutual Traits (Degrees):  Both theories also acknowledge the degree of goodness and the lack thereof in human nature.  For example, Rousseau champions the triumph of the noble savage as having the empathy to counteract egoistic tendencies, yet still acknowledges that this part of the human being does indeed exist, and even shows many examples in which the ego does triumph, via property and social constructs (institutions).  Hobbes is slightly less as "grey" as Rousseau, yet he still acknowledges that there is one thing that can actually control the unbridled selfishness of the human- an institution of law.  While both theories prefer a particular aspect of human nature, they do so only out of admission of the "other side," that exists.

Not Applicable:   Both theories are also extremely idealistic.  For example, how can Rousseau justify the complete denigration of institutions and property?  Surely, those with lots of political power and property would not willingly give it up without use of force.  In other words, it is possible that Rousseau ever thought his vision for humankind would ever be accomplished, much less attempted.  Hobbes' theory is also full of pragmatic holes- how can constantly egotistic humans be controlled by an absolute form of government?  Who does the governing?  Surely a human being in Hobbes' mind, would do unspeakable things with such use of absolute power.

To what extent would Rousseau denigrate social institutions in the contemporary world?

Rousseau cited the origin of private property as the need for institutions, and ergo, the downfall of the 'noble savage.'  With that being said, do you think he would call for the abdication of all institutions today?  It seems to me that despite the vicious perpetuation of oppression that many (but certainly not all) institutions demonstrate today, we are too deeply entrenched, pragmatically speaking, to completely do without all of them.  Would Rousseau agree, disagree, or perhaps call for reform?

It is worth noting that perhaps even Rousseau did not think his theory of human nature was at all realistic, but simply an idealistic commentary on the state of societies he observed.  Nonetheless, what about now?

Response to Sierra's Post- Changing the Culture

Honestly, I see a culture such as ours very hard to change, as far as a noticeable and vast change is concerned.  I think a few key aspects to concentrate on are cruelty, and awareness.

Many people don't spend enough time to think about where their animal products come from.  By making them more aware of which products employ slaughter house-style production, maybe we can initiate change.  In a culture that wide accepts the consumption of nonhuman animals, perhaps a good start would be to work on integrating the idea in society, that unnecessary suffering of nonhuman animals is not morally justifiable.  Only then can one work on achieve Miller's view of the truly just treatment of nonhuman animals.

What Entails Significant Moral Status?

I think it was very clear that Harlan Miller thought that significant moral status for, say, cows, entailed that humans are not justified in taking their life, even for purposes of efficient and respectful consumption.  With that being said, cows demonstrate much more intelligence and capacity to suffer than say, shellfish?  Would significant moral status entail the same method of treatment for nonhuman animals that are mainstream in many human diets, such as clams, oysters, muscles, scallops, ect.?

Agreeing Without Saying Goodbye to Patriotism

In his article, Jenson centers his thoughts on his country, in this sentence:

“I live in the United States and have deep emotional ties to the people, land, and ideals of this place. Because of these feelings, I want to highlight the positive while working to change what is wrong” (Jenson).

Personally, I do agree with Jenson on this particular sentiment one should project towards his or her country.  However, this definition, in my eyes, still constitutes as patriotism.  Most notably, the "moderate," or "liberal patriotism"  we discussed from the second article last week.  What are your thoughts?

In response to Jenna O'Connor's Post: "Nature v. Nurture"

I would be inclined to agree with you, on the inescapable impact of our genetics on our lives.  I would also say that even those who are more inclined to side with nurture, as Pinker suggested, should probably rethink just what kind of nurture that has been proven to be most influential on a life.

Parental life and social integration, via one's peers, are both debated as to which has more affect on one's behavior.  I would say that although it varies, more often than not, the social integration of peers proves to be more influential.  As Pinker suggested, who we go to school with, are friends with, and discuss contemporary issues with is perhaps more prominently marked upon our lives.  I definitely think the human race learns and progresses (over the long haul) incrementally, and generational liberalization plays a key role in just that.

Just looking at the progression of women's suffrage, civil rights, and gay rights over the course of the 20th and 21st century is evidence of such powerful generational, incremental acceptance of what have become uncontroversial (more or less for some issues rather than others of course) and simply egalitarian social norms.

Embracing Integration- Avoiding Simplification

Holistic Interactionism reminds me of many theories which begin with good intentions- most notably the classic philosophical debate of rationalism, championed by Descartes, and empiricism, fleshed out by Locke.

While many philosophers today agree that not all knowledge is innate, or conversely, that all knowledge is aquired by perception of the senses, many refuse to settle on a muddled and mysterious mix of both.

Holistic Interactionism does just this- taking two concepts, and deluding them of political charge, in a way that results in a user-friendly, conflict avoiding, theory which seems to sit back and admire the mystery of how humans behave and what causes them to do so.

[Holistic Interactionism]...It has a veneer of moderation...safe conduct across the politicized minefield of modern academic life."

In my opinion, any theory which is celebrated for its "safe conduct across the politicized minefield of modern academic life" is not academia, as the truth should neither be avoided nor inadequately concluded.

Response to Corbin's post : "Vicious Circle"

I would definitely agree with Corbin on this one.  Naturalists and Theist disagree for their own reasons, both of which condemn the other.  I do think there can be compromise however, especially, as was mentioned in the article we read this past week, those who use religion as a guide for personal moral action.

I think the number of people that behave in this way, especially those with careers that deal with the morality of actions of others (judges, specifically) have come to realize what is appropriate to believe, and what is appropriate to impose upon others.

Determinism and the Legal Process

In class this week, I heard very convincing arguments pertaining to the legitimacy of determinism in moral theory.  I personally did not think it was possible to pragmatically integrate morality into a determinist philosophy, although our discussions this week led me realize the contrary.

With that being said, how would this new theory of morality affect the legal system?  Laws, especially criminal law, is largely based on motive, intent, ect.  All of these measuring components used by a judge or jury to determine (no pun intended) the sentence of the defendant greatly influence the verdict reached.  Honestly, I'm not sure if a deterministic swing in moral theory would completely change the legal process, or have very little impact at all.  What do you think?

"Everything Happens for a Reason" (Response to Siearra's Post)

I would definitely agree here, the saying, "everything happens for a reason," seems to derive itself from deterministic roots.  Like most cliches though, it can be taken literally or figuratively, in a thousand different ways.

For example, that same saying can apply to "God's plan," or simply someone who thinks that every experience has a benefit, in some way, regardless of whether or not it was literally meant to happen.  The aspects in which certain ideas can be interpreted is very interesting, as one idea can appeal to different ideologies which at first seem very polarizing.

Moral Versus Intellectual Virtue

Aristotle discusses the differences between moral and intellectual virtue.  What stuck out to me the most was the process in which one becomes virtuous- moral virtues require habituation and practice, and intellectual require the uncovering of innate knowledge.

I would strongly agree with Aristotle's view of moral virtue.  Morality would not exist without action, mainly because, morality is the endeavor of looking at whether our actions were right or wrong.  It would make sense then, for a person who constantly acts in a virtuous way to become more morally sound than one who inconsistently acts virtuously, or one that does not at all.

As far as intellectual virtues are concerned, I would agree with half of Aristotle's reasoning.  While I think the teacher has a great responsibility and ability to foster brilliant students, I would wonder just how much of that knowledge would be innate, or a priori.  Perhaps, as we discussed in class, it is not factual knowledge that is innate within us, but the capacity to critically think.  In which case, a good teacher would make a world of difference.

Pleasure Scale (Response to Jenna's Blog)

As far as pleasure is concerned, I agree, Aristotle would definitely think that the level of pleasure would be objective.  I would also agree that many people today would say that happiness is indeed subjective, and fulfillment of a purpose, or telos, is also subjective.  I think Aristotle's view of the functions of humans are actually closer to the subjective view than many would think.

Of course, his view of the good life is definitely subjective.  In Aristotle's case, the good life would be attaining eudaimonia, and the usage of reason to the highest capacity is the only way to reach it.  However, Aristotle recognizes the multiple functions of all humans.  For example, while everyone's ability to reach eudiamonia may depend upon reason, fulfilling a function as a farmer or soldier would be different for every person, depending upon their career choice; and while Aristotle would deny their "true" happiness (considering they would not reach eduaimonia) I don't think he would deny a certain level of happiness to the hardworking farmer or the courageous soldier.

Plato's Theory of Forms: Function, Intent, and Parameters

Response to:  http://jennaoconnorr.blogspot.com/2013/02/response-to-httpcorbinbrassardblogspotc.html?showComment=1359931317406#c1241568056337602977

I would be inclined to agree with the idea that size does not always matter when defining an object.  Of course, that is resting on a few premises about the process of defining an object.
An object is defined when:

-It's function or appearance (or both) coincides with the name given.
-It can be identified, just as a classmate, friend, or co-worker can be.  (Recognition upon sight)

I think it's important to remember that everything has an essence of it's true form.  In other words, an object like a trash can may have the essence of the form of a chair, as far as function goes, although not quite as much, as far as aesthetic appearance or intention is concerned.  Just because a trash can can serve as a chair does not mean that it is actually closer to the perfect form of a chair than say, a conventional chair.

I think the same holds true with a porcupine.  A porcupine who acts like friendly puppy is still a porcupine, just as a giant porcupine is still a porcupine.  They are both different, in regards to their function and parameters, yet they still both contain the essence of a porcupine.  We know this, because upon seeing either one, I would immediately recognize it as such.

Q & A #2: Question 1

We talked a good deal about this in class, so I hope my answer to the following question will provide some new insight.

Considering his "Philosophy Kings," would Plato be for or against democracy?

I prefer to think about the question in this way:

First off, Plato condemns the mob mentality of democracy in The Republic, citing it as merely, a step up from tyranny.  Living in one of the most famous democratic countries in our world's history, I was understandably taken back when I read this the first time.  If you really think about it though, from Plato's point of view (or any rationalist for that matter), would living under a Philosopher King really be that bad?

In today's world, we equate absolute power, or even concentrated authority, as bad, quite possibly, because in most cases of concentrate power, the power was abused.  You have to ask yourself though, what else is bad with a ruler, besides the potential abuse of power?  Think of a case where a regime was condemned by the rest of the world, where the ruler was truly good, and did his best to do right by his people.  I would not consider sociopaths, such as Hitler, to be an exception to this rule.  Moreover, many thinkers over the centuries have warned against aspects or negative products of democracy, such as, the brutish will of the majority, the ignorance of the masses, the dangers of factions, and as we see today, the sluggishness of a dual party system, and the bureaucratic machine.

As we discussed in our first class, the epidemiological root of philo-sophia means, "love of wisdom."  The Socratic thinkers clearly included just and morally sound action as a pillar of a wise person, not merely a possessor of great knowledge.

Which leads to my last question:  Would it be the worst situation to live in a society under the rule of a person who devotes their lives to attaining the truth of knowledge and action, and working to enlighten others of these same truths?

The Search for the Truth

The search for the truth begins on finding out where to look, and what exactly one should look for.  Socrates searches for the "good life," and the wisdom, happiness, and justice that come with it.  Ethical behavior is indeed a cornerstone of how Socrates would say that one should live his or her life.  However, I think Socrates would say that the good actions would stand, regardless (autonomously) of the people in a society, family, or culture.  One good point Socrates makes in the Apology (his trial) is his assertion, that he only listens to the crowd if they are right.  Ergo, the crowd is right when they advocate for the truly right decision, not because they are a crowd, but merely by virtue of calling for the right action.

Seeing as ethical conduct consists of good actions, and Socrates thought that the goodness of everything in the world was timeless and even deserving of the recognition of god (not by their creation) he probably would have said that by examining our lives and by living virtuously, we would be on our way to living the good life.  Regardless of where we live, who we talk to, or any religion or traditions we uphold, the good stands independent of all of it, therefore, anyone can attain it.

Chapter 2: Question 2

Did Socrates think that persuasive rhetoric was bad, or merely the misuse of it?

For me, it seems like a tougher question than one would think.  While Socrates obviously speaks to the fallacious nature of rhetoric, the analogies he uses can occasionally be questionable, thus, possibly committing the informal fallacy of weak analogy.  Some scholars will also point out that while Socrates speaks down to sophistry and poetry, Plato (who wrote all of Socrates' dialogues) is renowned as one of the most eloquent philosophical writers in history.  Plato's Republic is on par with classic literature, as far as the reader is concerned.

With that being said, Socrates places the highest emphasis on the love and pursuit of knowledge, for knowledge's sake, and acknowledges the great power of it's usage, for better or worse.  Given the time period (filled with prominent and influential sophists), it's possible that Socrates only witnessed the downside to persuasive rhetoric, therefore, I would not be surprised to find that he thought it had no place in any kind of medium or school of thought.

Chapter 2: Question 1

Why did Socrates risk his life trying to enlighten the most cynical relativists?

Socrates was told that the Oracle of Delphi named him the wisest man alive.  He spent the rest of his life trying to prove the Oracle wrong.  This greatly involved the questioning and debating with many prominent figures in the Arts, Politics, ect, many of whom were those same relativists, and students of a sophist.

Socrates not only asked questions to prove the Oracle wrong, but also because he truly thought that virtuous knowledge and wisdom would lead to a happy and just life.  In that context, it's easy seeing why he risked his life; for the ultimate goal, the greatest happiness.  Living the "good life," was the way to get there, and for Socrates, the risks that came with it were minimal.