If you've read my previous similarly-titled posts, then you probably have a good idea where this is going - once again, the short answer to the question is, "Because the world needs it." But why, though? As with pop science, my meaning of action wisdom will take a little explaining.
I am officially a student of philosophy, and the question I most often hear when telling people about my major is, "What can you do with philosophy?" My immediate response has historically been to ask right back, "What can't you do with philosophy?" When I'm feeling particularly frisky, I sometimes say that I'm a student of applied philosophy, which reliably causes even more confusion. This is usually funny at the time, but it also points out the problem I have with the cultural position of philosophy as a field of study.
The fact of the matter is that philosophy can be applied to anything. Such applications can occasionally lead us down some rather silly rabbit holes of inquiry if we're not careful, and it is these rabbit holes which I suspect drive most people away from philosophy. A favorite joke of mine goes, "Philosophy is questions that may never be answered; religion is answers that may never be questioned." But so long as we remain aware of these rabbit holes and try not to fall into them during emergencies, philosophy can be usefully applied to just about anything. Like science, I want to see philosophy popularized - I want trolley problems and Russell's paradox to be discussed over a pint in a bar. And not just by my friends and me.
Philosophy certainly spends a lot of time in the ivory tower, especially in academic papers, but it must not spend all its time up there. After all, thought with no action is just as bad as action with no thought. Business ethics and bioethics are two excellent examples of applied philosophy (even if they aren't applied well in the real world, they're still clear opportunities to apply philosophy). Philosophy of science is another obvious one, and can be applied to help one pick up new material more easily by having a better idea of what will be the most useful questions to ask. A little bit of decision theory can help one in dealing with others, and even a semi-functional utility calculus can help one to organize busy days.
There's nothing particularly fancy about any of this, but that's kind of my point: philosophy is no fancier than any other field of study. All subjects have their esoterica, every field has specialists, and philosophy is no different. My guess is that most people who find philosophy to be more esoteric than other subjects are unable to recognize its mundane applications in everday life. This is the action wisdom I'm talking about: practical applications of philosophical principles, living out one's values, attempting to act wisely in day-to-day situations. As for those who think of it as a willy-nilly, anything-goes sort of enterprise (some nihilists, serious solipsists, and their silly ilk), this is no different in kind from the misunderstandings of legitimate science perpetrated by the purveyors of pseudoscience. A more obvious application of action wisdom is the legitimate sound-byte department. Tell me if you've heard any of these before: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," " 'Is' does not imply 'ought,' " "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." Each one of these phrases has practical application in modern life, and what's more, they're catchy! So why is philosophy not more popular than it is? Why is there no introduction to formal logic in high school? Why don't people seem to recognize just how often they do philosophy? Why should "action wisdom" appear to be paradoxical at all?
Every single person has a philosophy of some sort, some set of principles that plays a part in determining their thougths and behavior, whether these principles are well-organized or not (and whether the person is aware of them or not). The study of philosophy will help one determine those principles - both to discover and to decide. Just about everyone thinks of themselves as a rational agent who does the right thing most of the time, and philosophy can help make that a reality. In Crito, the titular character asks, “But do you see, Socrates, that the opinion of the many must be regarded, as is evident in your own case, because they can do the very greatest evil to anyone who has lost their good opinion?” Socrates replies, "I only wish, Crito, that they could; for then they could also do the greatest good, and that would be well. But the truth is that they can do neither good nor evil: they cannot make a man wise or make him foolish; and whatever they do is the result of chance.” It was true in ancient Greece, it is true today, and it has been true at every point in between. If it's ever going to change, then the world will need a healthy dose of practical philosophy in order to do so.
Showing posts with label FAQ. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FAQ. Show all posts
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Why Pop Science?
Continuing in the same vein as my earlier post on evangelical humanism, today I want to talk about the importance of pop science. Let's get right to it: why pop science? As before, the short answer is, "Because the world needs it." The long answer is a bit more complex.
First, I want to clarify what I mean by "pop science." I do mean that science should be popular, but I most emphatically do not mean that this popularity should come at the expense of content. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, and the wildly irresponsible speculations of pseudoscience are no fundamentally different for being based on a tiny bit of actual science rather than pure imagination. I mean that there should be a solid understanding, in the public mind, of the difference between good science, bad science, and non-science. I mean that the principles of the scientific method should be openly discussed in public, discussions which should be accessible to everyone. I mean, in short, that good & proper science should be popular.
This is, admittedly, a lofty and far-off goal. I am hoping for no less than a scientifically-minded society, which probably won't happen any time soon. Hell, it may never happen at all - but that's not for lack of need, and certainly no reason to stop trying. Lots of people are trying, in fact, and their labors have borne fruit already:
First, I want to clarify what I mean by "pop science." I do mean that science should be popular, but I most emphatically do not mean that this popularity should come at the expense of content. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, and the wildly irresponsible speculations of pseudoscience are no fundamentally different for being based on a tiny bit of actual science rather than pure imagination. I mean that there should be a solid understanding, in the public mind, of the difference between good science, bad science, and non-science. I mean that the principles of the scientific method should be openly discussed in public, discussions which should be accessible to everyone. I mean, in short, that good & proper science should be popular.
This is, admittedly, a lofty and far-off goal. I am hoping for no less than a scientifically-minded society, which probably won't happen any time soon. Hell, it may never happen at all - but that's not for lack of need, and certainly no reason to stop trying. Lots of people are trying, in fact, and their labors have borne fruit already:
- Richard Dawkins occupies a position created for just such a purpose, the Professor for Public Understanding of Science - he is also a prolific author, having written on all scales, from small essays and articles to the epic tome that is The Ancestor's Tale (a brilliant and very accessible read).
- Brian Greene, a professor of physics at Columbia and theoretical physicist, has written The Elegant Universe and The Fabric of the Cosmos, both good books for popularizing some of the most exciting bits of physics.
- Stephen Hawking, perhaps the best example of the benefits of science I can think of, has popularized physics with A Brief History of Time and The Universe in a Nutshell. Both of these books are small in size, but great in stature.
- Professor PZ Myers of the University of Minnesota, Morris is the author of Pharyngula, an extraordinarily popular blog on the admirable scienceblogs.com. Professor Myers regularly blogs on current scientific research, explaining such things as the mapping of the platypus genome in layman's terms (well, perhaps a bright high school layman, or a layman with some college).
- Ebonmuse's Evolution Pages present a clear and thorough look at several aspects of the struggle between legitimate science and fashionable idiocy. These short-to-medium-length essays (depending on how long an "essay" is in your mind - for me, it's "more than a newspaper article, less than a novel") are well-organized and written almost entirely in everyday language. The author's main site, Ebon Musings, also links to his writings on atheism and his blog, Daylight Atheism, which often bring scientific principles to bear on the more general conflict between reason and nonsense.
- Penn & Teller have created a Showtime series, appropriately entitled Bullshit!, in which they popularize science with a technique similar to the via negativa, showcasing popular bullshit and exposing it for what it is.
- Even House, MD touches on good, solid science - if you know what to look for. The show routinely touches on epistemology, parsimony, and ethics as applied to the medical field. The show is popular, and it's got science, so I call it a win.
- Other TV shows, for reasons more obvious, also bear mentioning: Mythbusters, Planet Earth, and Blue Planet spring immediately to mind. Also, I may watch a bit too much Discovery Channel. Also also, I may try to argue whether that's possible.
- Wikipedia also bears mentioning, not only for its status as a repository for knowledge, but also for its source-finding capacity.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Why Evangelical Humanism?
I have some snappy little phrases up at the top of my blog. At first blush, these pairings may seem paradoxical: evangelism and humanism are not commonly thought of together; neither are action and wisdom; neither are pop and science. And, like all good paradoxes, there is something deeper beneath these surface appearances. That's what I want to talk about today.
This entry is not meant to convince anyone of the virtues of humanism itself, or to argue that this or that religion is not the case; these points are taken for granted here. I am instead trying to make the case to humanists, who agree with me on the aforementioned already, that there is something to be gained by an evangelical approach. With the scope of my intentions established, let us begin in earnest.
So, why evangelical humanism? In short, because the world needs it. At length, I believe that humanism is the best system of belief for the future of humanity, and must replace supernaturalistic religion as the dominant cultural meme in the near geological future if we are to survive as a species and make lasting social improvements.
Evangelism is, put simply, a charismatic approach to espousing an idea. There's nothing wrong with evangelizing in and of itself - what is being evangelized (and why) is more important by far. For example, when global warming threatens the vast majority of life on Earth, an evangelical approach may be called for, in order to spread the word and encourage constructive change in those habits of ours which affect the climate, all in the name of good solid science and the long-term interest of life in general. As Penn Jillette says in the Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episode on the Bible, "The fact is, we are two evangelical assholes. Bullshit is an evangelical show. TV preachers are doing exactly the same thing we are doing - they are telling the truth as they see it." In other words, there is nothing wrong in principle with putting one's point of view out into the marketplace of ideas, for all to see, with the intention of convincing others of that point of view.
Contrary to the popular association of evangelism with Christianity, evangelism has nothing to do with Christianity, neither by necessity, nor by rights. Jesus Christ himself explicitly directed his followers to eschew public prayer and pious displays, and instead to keep their faith to themselves as a private matter between them and their god (Matthew 6:5-7). This is good advice, and I am rather disappointed that so many appear not to have taken it to heart. Supernatural claims are categorically unknowable, in that they are unverifiable and unfalsifiable matters of faith. Leaving aside the fact that empirical study can render them superfluous, there simply is no way to settle such matters (especially not between competing supernatural claims, as they're all equally ridiculous).
Humanism, on the other hand, is a philosophy centered around human life on Earth. It is concerned with the improvement of people, at both the individual and social level, and lacks the focus on the hereafter which is typical of religions. This focus has given religion tremendous memetic survival value in the past, by trading people hope for a better life after death, in exchange for patiently enduring misery in this life. But, lacking any possibility of verification, claims about a life after death are unactionable wishful thinking which lull their adherents into complacency, and in modern times these claims at best serve only to distract us from those issues which truly do deserve our attention. At worst, they actively encourage us to look forward happily to the destruction of the world, an event which we have only recently gained the capability to cause.
The belief that there is a second, eternal life is a distraction from this one for reasons of pragmatic mathematics alone: compared to eternity, a century or less vanishes to nothingness. What importance can this life have, aside from the question of picking the right religion to ensure one's eternal bliss after death? Even taking into account the actual suffering that happens on Earth, which we know to occur, the belief in an afterlife can only dismiss Earthly matters as ultimately unimportant, and this is perhaps the most terrible mistake we can make: to not care about the real and important concerns facing us here and now, in favor of a hope for things unseen (Buddhism is a rather remarkable exception to this rule, but that is a subject for another day and I shall leave it for now with but a mention). Humanism is the antithesis of this position, dismissing those matters about which no knowledge may be gained in order to place our focus properly upon those matters on which we can gain knowledge and make improvements. And because there is actionable content and purpose in the belief system, evangelizing for it is not an empty exercise as it is for religion, but instead a legitimately useful activity.
Evangelizing for the humanist worldview, far from being the pointless exercise of spreading ancient myths, is perhaps one of the most culturally impacting actions that can be taken by any everyday citizen at this point in history. Looking at the data, we see that the least religious nations tend to be the best nations for their citizens - and every citizen plays a role in shaping that trend. Living by example, we can show that a secular humanist lifestyle is a better way than that of superstitious piety. We can spread the word of science, embody the virtues of empathy and inclusion, preach the good news of secular democracy. We do this not to save souls, but to improve standards of living by encouraging others to work for a better life here, rather than preparing in vain for another life we cannot justifiably expect. Living our lives according to these values, and encouraging them in others, is an investment in long-term cultural change which we would be wise to make.
This entry is not meant to convince anyone of the virtues of humanism itself, or to argue that this or that religion is not the case; these points are taken for granted here. I am instead trying to make the case to humanists, who agree with me on the aforementioned already, that there is something to be gained by an evangelical approach. With the scope of my intentions established, let us begin in earnest.
So, why evangelical humanism? In short, because the world needs it. At length, I believe that humanism is the best system of belief for the future of humanity, and must replace supernaturalistic religion as the dominant cultural meme in the near geological future if we are to survive as a species and make lasting social improvements.
Evangelism is, put simply, a charismatic approach to espousing an idea. There's nothing wrong with evangelizing in and of itself - what is being evangelized (and why) is more important by far. For example, when global warming threatens the vast majority of life on Earth, an evangelical approach may be called for, in order to spread the word and encourage constructive change in those habits of ours which affect the climate, all in the name of good solid science and the long-term interest of life in general. As Penn Jillette says in the Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episode on the Bible, "The fact is, we are two evangelical assholes. Bullshit is an evangelical show. TV preachers are doing exactly the same thing we are doing - they are telling the truth as they see it." In other words, there is nothing wrong in principle with putting one's point of view out into the marketplace of ideas, for all to see, with the intention of convincing others of that point of view.
Contrary to the popular association of evangelism with Christianity, evangelism has nothing to do with Christianity, neither by necessity, nor by rights. Jesus Christ himself explicitly directed his followers to eschew public prayer and pious displays, and instead to keep their faith to themselves as a private matter between them and their god (Matthew 6:5-7). This is good advice, and I am rather disappointed that so many appear not to have taken it to heart. Supernatural claims are categorically unknowable, in that they are unverifiable and unfalsifiable matters of faith. Leaving aside the fact that empirical study can render them superfluous, there simply is no way to settle such matters (especially not between competing supernatural claims, as they're all equally ridiculous).
Humanism, on the other hand, is a philosophy centered around human life on Earth. It is concerned with the improvement of people, at both the individual and social level, and lacks the focus on the hereafter which is typical of religions. This focus has given religion tremendous memetic survival value in the past, by trading people hope for a better life after death, in exchange for patiently enduring misery in this life. But, lacking any possibility of verification, claims about a life after death are unactionable wishful thinking which lull their adherents into complacency, and in modern times these claims at best serve only to distract us from those issues which truly do deserve our attention. At worst, they actively encourage us to look forward happily to the destruction of the world, an event which we have only recently gained the capability to cause.
The belief that there is a second, eternal life is a distraction from this one for reasons of pragmatic mathematics alone: compared to eternity, a century or less vanishes to nothingness. What importance can this life have, aside from the question of picking the right religion to ensure one's eternal bliss after death? Even taking into account the actual suffering that happens on Earth, which we know to occur, the belief in an afterlife can only dismiss Earthly matters as ultimately unimportant, and this is perhaps the most terrible mistake we can make: to not care about the real and important concerns facing us here and now, in favor of a hope for things unseen (Buddhism is a rather remarkable exception to this rule, but that is a subject for another day and I shall leave it for now with but a mention). Humanism is the antithesis of this position, dismissing those matters about which no knowledge may be gained in order to place our focus properly upon those matters on which we can gain knowledge and make improvements. And because there is actionable content and purpose in the belief system, evangelizing for it is not an empty exercise as it is for religion, but instead a legitimately useful activity.
Evangelizing for the humanist worldview, far from being the pointless exercise of spreading ancient myths, is perhaps one of the most culturally impacting actions that can be taken by any everyday citizen at this point in history. Looking at the data, we see that the least religious nations tend to be the best nations for their citizens - and every citizen plays a role in shaping that trend. Living by example, we can show that a secular humanist lifestyle is a better way than that of superstitious piety. We can spread the word of science, embody the virtues of empathy and inclusion, preach the good news of secular democracy. We do this not to save souls, but to improve standards of living by encouraging others to work for a better life here, rather than preparing in vain for another life we cannot justifiably expect. Living our lives according to these values, and encouraging them in others, is an investment in long-term cultural change which we would be wise to make.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Introduction II: this time, it's personal!
I thought I'd take some time to rattle off the general personal stuff that typically goes in the "about" section but which I don't have space for in that little box.
What are you doing here? Anything and everything I feel like. This is my soapbox. This is my lectern. This is my podium. This is my mic. I'll probably talk about a lot of stuff with a philosophical bent, but I may geek out over tech news from time to time, or lambast religious insanity (or applaud religious sanity, for that matter), or talk about books that I'm reading, or just talk about everyday news news. I will rarely talk about my personal life, except when it serves as a segue into a broader philosophical point.
What kind of stuff will be discussed here? As the description indicates, I'll be writing lots about philosophy (but trying to keep a practical angle in mind), I'll put up science-y stuff from time to time (but translated into everyday English), and I'll occasionally write out a short essay on some speculative matter or other (but only when I think it would be interesting to other people). Every November, there's a small but non-zero probability that I will participate in National Novel Writing Month. I will also have some ongoing series, such as "Call Ripley," for improbable developments; "Poison for Your Brain," for stupidities of epic proportions; "101 Interesting Things," for encouraging lifelong learning; and maybe a few others. We'll see how it goes!
Why should I care? The key to maintaining an audience is consistent content, and I'm going to post at least one interesting thing here three or four times a week. I want each and every one of those interesting things to be readily accessible, to lend itself easily to a more thorough analysis, and to be interesting enough to provoke additional thought in the reader. If you like interdisciplinary studies, or if you find a breadth of topics to be refreshing, or if you think being an intellectual tourist isn't necessarily a bad thing, this will probably be a good place for you to bookmark/RSS/subscribe/whatever. In short: I'm an applied general philosopher - if that sounds interesting to you, I think we'll have lots to talk about!
Why like this? On previous Playskool blogs of mine, I would often link to grown-up blogs and talk about whatever they talked about... but I'm trying to move past that. I kept wanting to do what they did, but I never just went and did it. Here on my very own grown-up blog, I'm going to do that thing. I may still comment on other blogs from time to time, but only if I disagree or think that something huge has been missed (no "mere pointing," except for the occasional one-time referral to an interesting site). Mainly, I want to get away from the "journal-ish" sort of blog and closer to the "journalism-ish" sort of blog. More precisely, I'd like this place to be a modern version of my hero Socrates talking to people in the street - no, I don't think I'm nearly as important as Socrates, but that's the kind of thing I want to go on here.
Why are you doing this now? Oh, that one's easy! I couldn't take not doing it any more.
Why "She Who Chatters?" My father once gave to me a silver ring with an engraving of a kachina on it. He couldn't remember the name, but he said to me, "This kachina is the storyteller - the verbose one - the long-winded one - do you get the picture?" [stage_whisper]YEAH, I TALK A LOT![/stage_whisper] The first time I ever looked up the name Deirdre, it returned "she who chatters." I have a blog where I can say whatever I want, and I plan to say a lot. Somehow, it seemed appropriate - but I didn't write down my work, and I may have forgotten to carry the one, so maybe you should do the math instead.
Is there anything you forgot to put up here? I don't know, you tell me! Hoo-ha!
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Introduction: What I Believe
Criticism often flows one way in soapbox-esque situations such as this, but I want the dialogue to flow freely in both directions here. So I had this great idea for an introduction where I would just lay out the baldest assertions of what I believe. I am liable to explain, expand, and expound on any of these points at the slightest provocation (and probably will in future posts), but for now, I think that simple declarative sentences will do. Here goes!
Metaphysics: I believe that existence exists, and only existence exists. (I don't believe in Objectivism, but it does have a lot of useful stepping stones in it.) I believe that the term "nature," in metaphysics, ought to encompass all that is, and therefore the idea of the "supernatural" is borderline incoherent. I believe that our senses aren't reliable truth detectors, but they are the only way we can get data from the world, so we just need to be careful when we try to bridge that gap.
Metaethics: I believe that benefits are good and harms are bad, a tweak on the "happiness/suffering" view of most utilitarians. I believe that happiness and suffering are both important parts of life, but they are momentary, and focusing on long-term benefits and harms goes a long way to clarifying consequentialism. I believe that empathy is a fine foundation for morality. I also believe that, insofar as an objective meaning of life is possible, we are here to live a joyous life. I believe that, as a field, ethics is a game with fundamentally arbitrary rules, just like language or Chess, but we can still do useful and interesting things with this game and these rules, just like language or Chess - and I think that a forward-thinking, all-embracing hedonistic utilitarianism is the best game in town. I believe that, in everyday usage, morally-charged language is usually a covert expression of a value judgment or a command (e.g. "That's yucky to me," or, "Don't do that!").
Epistemology: I believe that the only way to learn about the world is by looking at it. I also believe that the only way to sort out just what we know is to think carefully about it - but please let's not get carried away (I'm looking at you, Hume!). I believe that careful epistemology should be kept in mind, but should be tempered with a healthy amount of pragmatism just to prevent being paralyzed by doubt.
Linguistics: I believe that language is a game where nobody's ever playing by exactly the same rules, but lots of us are usually pretty close, and that makes it useful. I believe that the utility of language has limits - you can't define entities into existence, for example. I also believe that language games belie their subtlety and intricacy: there are levels and levels to this stuff, and lots of it boils down to matters of perspective and emphasis. At the same time, I believe that words have meaning - but only intersubjectively so.
Ontology: I believe that philosophical atoms exist, metaphysically speaking; everything else only exists conventionally. This includes tables, chairs, persons, genes, memes, gluons, species, sexes, nouns, numbers, and your grandmother. There's nothing "wrong" or "bad" about conventional existence, we just ought to keep it in mind so that we play our language games properly. "Philosophical atoms" is a placeholder term for whatever the most fundamental component of reality happens to be; I also recognize that this term may in fact have no referent, in which case all the world is infinitely subdivisible "gunk" all the way down. I believe in the ontological disjunction: "either there are philosophical atoms, or it's gunk all the way down."
Ethics: I believe in determinism, and I believe that man is free as an undammed river is free. I believe that determinism does not diminish moral responsibility, it just complicates some things (and can clarify others). I believe that deontology is a relic of our superstitious past, specifically: beliefs in moral "substance" and divine fiat, inexcusable ever since the Euthyphro problem - however, I also believe that the second formulation of the categorical imperative (treat persons as ends in themselves and never as mere means) is an excellent principle. I believe that virtue ethics effectively captures many of our intuitions, and is useful for approximating the robust everyday ethics we often employ in practice, but it has deep and serious flaws. I believe that consequentialism is the best ethical framework available on the grounds that it is consistent, coherent, and practical, and lends itself easily to principled analysis - but it is also easy to abuse, so we need to be careful.
Politics: I believe that to govern men is a difficult matter. I believe that democracy is the worst form of government, except for every other form of government. I believe that truth and ethics are not subject to majority vote, but it's ultimately the only civil way we have of resolving conflicts when we can't convince each other. I believe that any system of governance is only as good as its people, and that perfect people need no governance, and it's all one giant downhill clusterfuck from there. I also believe that not everything is subject to the democratic process, because a tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.
Rights: I believe that the only truly inalienable right is the right to one's opinion - but that's only because we can't reliably read and change minds at this point in time. I belive that "human rights" is nonsense on stilts, because there's nothing you have that can't be taken away from you. I also believe that this makes it all the more important to have a sound legal system in place to give people sensible rights and protections under the law, and I believe that this centers around "negative" rights - phrasing rights in such a way as to only obligate other people to stay out of one's way, so long as no harm is coming to others.
Drug Policy: I believe that humanity has always had a strong commitment to getting wasted on whatever's handy. I believe that what you do to yourself in the privacy of your own home is your business, and yours alone, so long as you're not doing harm to others (like neglecting your kids). I believe that all drugs should be legal, and a construction worker should not be in a crane on pot any more than a surgeon should be drunk in the OR. I believe that drugs are no more a waste of time than theme parks - and no less.
Theology: I believe that all religions are fundamentally bunk as religions. They're simply the codified superstitions of our fearful and primitive ancestors, and we don't need them any longer - anthropologically interesting as they may be, they're simply not guides to The One Truth of the Universe. As philosophies, however, they've all got something useful to say, even if they're often instructive by negative example - so take what is useful and develop from there. I believe that there's nothing wrong with using a philosophy as a stepping stone.
Spirituality: I believe that spirituality has gotten a bum rap from being too long associated with religion. It also means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Words relating to "spirit" still have a lot of use for atheists: the spirit of the law or a holiday, the human spirit, a spirited person, kindred spirits, and so on. I believe that we're made of no different stuff than the rest of the universe, but despite that, we still feel like there's some metaphysical "I" at the helm of consciousness. I believe that it's entirely appropriate to refer to things that depend upon or cluster around that kind of feeling as "spiritual" - for an atheist such as myself, it just means that it's about being alive and conscious (and perhaps vividly aware of that fact), not about having a soul or whatever.
Etiquette: I believe that etiquette is a system of hypothetical imperatives and nothing more - what is rude or polite is a matter of contingent cultural context. I believe that nobody has the right not to be offended, and we should try to be open-minded and apply the principle of charity by default - but let's not be so open-minded that our brains fall out. I believe that, in most situations you're likely to encounter in civilized society, it's more important to get along than to get your way - in other words, live and let live. I believe that respect is to be earned, but we can afford to be generous with kindness.
Introspection: I believe that the unexamined life is not worth living. I believe that it's important to question one's beliefs, to keep an open mind, to always be willing to revise (or abandon) even one's most cherished beliefs when the situation calls for it (and that's a complicated matter in itself). I believe that philosophy applies to everything and everyone, and that it ought to be a subject at all levels of education - though it would have to be handled differently for different age groups.
Humanity: I believe that human history is a mess, our minds are a mess, our culture is a mess... we're just generally messy. I believe that the human body is dirty, and sexy, and gross, and beautiful, and ad hoc, and wonderful. I believe that the human mind is not a reliable truth generator, but is very useful for analyzing ideas when properly trained and carefully applied. I believe that we will always make mistakes, but this doesn't mean that we're always mistaken. I believe in optimism as a moral imperative: for all our messiness and flaws, we're all we've got, so we'd better make the most of it.
Postscript - Acknowledgements: I wrote this off the top of my head, but I freely admit that a lot of this is phrased in the words of others. I do actually believe these things, even though I didn't come up with them on my own (or at least not first). However, I also don't know where I got them all, so I'm going to try to do a "blanket attribution" thing here, rather than look up a billion obscure quotes. Acknowledgment for where I am today in my thinking is due, in no particular order, to all of:
Metaphysics: I believe that existence exists, and only existence exists. (I don't believe in Objectivism, but it does have a lot of useful stepping stones in it.) I believe that the term "nature," in metaphysics, ought to encompass all that is, and therefore the idea of the "supernatural" is borderline incoherent. I believe that our senses aren't reliable truth detectors, but they are the only way we can get data from the world, so we just need to be careful when we try to bridge that gap.
Metaethics: I believe that benefits are good and harms are bad, a tweak on the "happiness/suffering" view of most utilitarians. I believe that happiness and suffering are both important parts of life, but they are momentary, and focusing on long-term benefits and harms goes a long way to clarifying consequentialism. I believe that empathy is a fine foundation for morality. I also believe that, insofar as an objective meaning of life is possible, we are here to live a joyous life. I believe that, as a field, ethics is a game with fundamentally arbitrary rules, just like language or Chess, but we can still do useful and interesting things with this game and these rules, just like language or Chess - and I think that a forward-thinking, all-embracing hedonistic utilitarianism is the best game in town. I believe that, in everyday usage, morally-charged language is usually a covert expression of a value judgment or a command (e.g. "That's yucky to me," or, "Don't do that!").
Epistemology: I believe that the only way to learn about the world is by looking at it. I also believe that the only way to sort out just what we know is to think carefully about it - but please let's not get carried away (I'm looking at you, Hume!). I believe that careful epistemology should be kept in mind, but should be tempered with a healthy amount of pragmatism just to prevent being paralyzed by doubt.
Linguistics: I believe that language is a game where nobody's ever playing by exactly the same rules, but lots of us are usually pretty close, and that makes it useful. I believe that the utility of language has limits - you can't define entities into existence, for example. I also believe that language games belie their subtlety and intricacy: there are levels and levels to this stuff, and lots of it boils down to matters of perspective and emphasis. At the same time, I believe that words have meaning - but only intersubjectively so.
Ontology: I believe that philosophical atoms exist, metaphysically speaking; everything else only exists conventionally. This includes tables, chairs, persons, genes, memes, gluons, species, sexes, nouns, numbers, and your grandmother. There's nothing "wrong" or "bad" about conventional existence, we just ought to keep it in mind so that we play our language games properly. "Philosophical atoms" is a placeholder term for whatever the most fundamental component of reality happens to be; I also recognize that this term may in fact have no referent, in which case all the world is infinitely subdivisible "gunk" all the way down. I believe in the ontological disjunction: "either there are philosophical atoms, or it's gunk all the way down."
Ethics: I believe in determinism, and I believe that man is free as an undammed river is free. I believe that determinism does not diminish moral responsibility, it just complicates some things (and can clarify others). I believe that deontology is a relic of our superstitious past, specifically: beliefs in moral "substance" and divine fiat, inexcusable ever since the Euthyphro problem - however, I also believe that the second formulation of the categorical imperative (treat persons as ends in themselves and never as mere means) is an excellent principle. I believe that virtue ethics effectively captures many of our intuitions, and is useful for approximating the robust everyday ethics we often employ in practice, but it has deep and serious flaws. I believe that consequentialism is the best ethical framework available on the grounds that it is consistent, coherent, and practical, and lends itself easily to principled analysis - but it is also easy to abuse, so we need to be careful.
Politics: I believe that to govern men is a difficult matter. I believe that democracy is the worst form of government, except for every other form of government. I believe that truth and ethics are not subject to majority vote, but it's ultimately the only civil way we have of resolving conflicts when we can't convince each other. I believe that any system of governance is only as good as its people, and that perfect people need no governance, and it's all one giant downhill clusterfuck from there. I also believe that not everything is subject to the democratic process, because a tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.
Rights: I believe that the only truly inalienable right is the right to one's opinion - but that's only because we can't reliably read and change minds at this point in time. I belive that "human rights" is nonsense on stilts, because there's nothing you have that can't be taken away from you. I also believe that this makes it all the more important to have a sound legal system in place to give people sensible rights and protections under the law, and I believe that this centers around "negative" rights - phrasing rights in such a way as to only obligate other people to stay out of one's way, so long as no harm is coming to others.
Drug Policy: I believe that humanity has always had a strong commitment to getting wasted on whatever's handy. I believe that what you do to yourself in the privacy of your own home is your business, and yours alone, so long as you're not doing harm to others (like neglecting your kids). I believe that all drugs should be legal, and a construction worker should not be in a crane on pot any more than a surgeon should be drunk in the OR. I believe that drugs are no more a waste of time than theme parks - and no less.
Theology: I believe that all religions are fundamentally bunk as religions. They're simply the codified superstitions of our fearful and primitive ancestors, and we don't need them any longer - anthropologically interesting as they may be, they're simply not guides to The One Truth of the Universe. As philosophies, however, they've all got something useful to say, even if they're often instructive by negative example - so take what is useful and develop from there. I believe that there's nothing wrong with using a philosophy as a stepping stone.
Spirituality: I believe that spirituality has gotten a bum rap from being too long associated with religion. It also means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Words relating to "spirit" still have a lot of use for atheists: the spirit of the law or a holiday, the human spirit, a spirited person, kindred spirits, and so on. I believe that we're made of no different stuff than the rest of the universe, but despite that, we still feel like there's some metaphysical "I" at the helm of consciousness. I believe that it's entirely appropriate to refer to things that depend upon or cluster around that kind of feeling as "spiritual" - for an atheist such as myself, it just means that it's about being alive and conscious (and perhaps vividly aware of that fact), not about having a soul or whatever.
Etiquette: I believe that etiquette is a system of hypothetical imperatives and nothing more - what is rude or polite is a matter of contingent cultural context. I believe that nobody has the right not to be offended, and we should try to be open-minded and apply the principle of charity by default - but let's not be so open-minded that our brains fall out. I believe that, in most situations you're likely to encounter in civilized society, it's more important to get along than to get your way - in other words, live and let live. I believe that respect is to be earned, but we can afford to be generous with kindness.
Introspection: I believe that the unexamined life is not worth living. I believe that it's important to question one's beliefs, to keep an open mind, to always be willing to revise (or abandon) even one's most cherished beliefs when the situation calls for it (and that's a complicated matter in itself). I believe that philosophy applies to everything and everyone, and that it ought to be a subject at all levels of education - though it would have to be handled differently for different age groups.
Humanity: I believe that human history is a mess, our minds are a mess, our culture is a mess... we're just generally messy. I believe that the human body is dirty, and sexy, and gross, and beautiful, and ad hoc, and wonderful. I believe that the human mind is not a reliable truth generator, but is very useful for analyzing ideas when properly trained and carefully applied. I believe that we will always make mistakes, but this doesn't mean that we're always mistaken. I believe in optimism as a moral imperative: for all our messiness and flaws, we're all we've got, so we'd better make the most of it.
- - -
Postscript - Acknowledgements: I wrote this off the top of my head, but I freely admit that a lot of this is phrased in the words of others. I do actually believe these things, even though I didn't come up with them on my own (or at least not first). However, I also don't know where I got them all, so I'm going to try to do a "blanket attribution" thing here, rather than look up a billion obscure quotes. Acknowledgment for where I am today in my thinking is due, in no particular order, to all of:
- Greek philosophers such as Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Epicurus, Epictetus, and others (so wrong on some things, so right on others, and so hard to tell the difference on still more).
- Eastern philosophers, both ancient and not-so-ancient, such as Confucius, Siddhartha Gautama, Sun Tzu, Daisuke Togakure, and others (what they lack in analytic strength, they more than make up in suggestive power).
- Western philosophers, medieval to modern, such as Kant, Bentham, Leibniz, Voltaire, Rousseau, Hobbes, and others (still plagued by the same problems as the Greeks).
- Twentieth Century philosophers such as Ayn Rand, Bruce Lee, Winston Churchill, my father, my school teachers, my friends, and others (maybe not all career philosophers, but philosophers all in their own ways).
- Internet-capable philosophers, such as Richard Dawkins, Richard Carrier, PZ Myers, Adam Lee, Pat Condell, and others (the internet doesn't always make you stupid).
- The founding fathers of the United States of America, despite their flaws (and, in a way, because of them - for teaching me that hero worship is generally silly).
- Stand-up philosophers such as George Carlin, Lenny Bruce, Bill Hicks, Bill Maher, Richard Pryor, Lewis Black, Eddie Izzard, Eddie Murphy, and others (maybe not the most rigorous of philosophers, but similarly influential).
Even this is an incomplete list - I know I'm missing some, but I'm not sure whom. On top of it, this list also came right off the top of my head, but I hope it's good enough. My apologies to any who have been excluded, living or dead, and to the readers: anything you can identify as originating from someone else, I'll be happy to include (hooray for editing!).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)