The basic insight of Stoicism is the following: unhappiness comes from the world not matching your desires, and happiness comes from matching your desires to the world.
The problem is that Stoicism can lead to stagnation -- I want those dishes to be dirty, so I am happy!
The solution is to live in harmony with the world. If you leave the dishes dirty, you will have serious problems...
A Laughing Stoicism
The ancient Stoics believed in living in harmony with the cosmos. They believed that the world is ordered and rational (a cosmos) and so the wise man lived an ordered and rational life. The pop culture version of this is Mr. Spock.
But the world is not entirely ordered and rational. The world is also crazy, absurd, random, and unpredictable. To live in harmony in the world does not require being cool and detached. Living in harmony with the world requires crying, loving, hugging and laughing.
Sometimes laughter is what the world requires, and not to laugh is to be dead.
But the world is not entirely ordered and rational. The world is also crazy, absurd, random, and unpredictable. To live in harmony in the world does not require being cool and detached. Living in harmony with the world requires crying, loving, hugging and laughing.
Sometimes laughter is what the world requires, and not to laugh is to be dead.
Hatred and Frank’s Snowmobile Paradox
Thomas Frank’s Snowmobile Paradox explains why people who otherwise hate each other will vote the same way. If you live in the city and love to snowmobile, you vote Republican because you hate the regulations that liberals want to impose. If you live in the snowmobile country, you vote Republican because you hate those rich city tourists (with their liberal bumper stickers and loose sexual morals) who come to snowmobile.
On both sides, hatred is the motivation.
On both sides, hatred is the motivation.
Rorty's Tools
Richard Rorty believes that he can avoid discussing truth and reality by instead talking about tools and usefulness. He believes that describing a theory, idea, word, world-view as a useful tool allows him to avoid discussing their truth.
This does not reveal anything interesting about theories, ideas, words, or world-views. Instead, it reveals that Rorty never had to work a day in his life. Anyone who has ever actually used a tool knows that there is a direct link between its usefulness and the reality of the situation.
This does not reveal anything interesting about theories, ideas, words, or world-views. Instead, it reveals that Rorty never had to work a day in his life. Anyone who has ever actually used a tool knows that there is a direct link between its usefulness and the reality of the situation.
Growth is Our God
I am happy when I make more money this year than last, when I have plans to build onto my house, when I buy a new car, when I travel more than before, when I consume more resources than ever.
Towns, cities, counties, and countries watch their annual growth rate (population, GDP, etc.) and read happiness or gloom into the signs much as the ancients would tear open a bird and read the contents of its stomach.
Colleges seek to increase enrollments and endowments. Businesses seek to increase profits and their share of the market. Workers always want a raise. Investors want growth in their portfolios.
Happiness is consuming more this year than we did last year -- more farmland paved over for housing developments, more water diverted from rivers, more coal burned, more fiber optic connections, more cell phone users, more computer memory, more horsepower, and so on, and so on.
All plants and animals strive for more in the competition for resources. But in nature, growth is checked by disease, predators, parasites, and famine. Humans have temporarily removed these obstacles through modern medicine, modern industrialized agriculture, and systematically killing all large predators. The only consistent check on human population growth today is the occasionally successful disease and warfare. But for two hundred years, despite world wars and pandemics, human growth has been unnaturally successful -- and despite our mistaking this for a permanent condition, nature will eventually check our hubris.
Now I am happy -- another posting!
Towns, cities, counties, and countries watch their annual growth rate (population, GDP, etc.) and read happiness or gloom into the signs much as the ancients would tear open a bird and read the contents of its stomach.
Colleges seek to increase enrollments and endowments. Businesses seek to increase profits and their share of the market. Workers always want a raise. Investors want growth in their portfolios.
Happiness is consuming more this year than we did last year -- more farmland paved over for housing developments, more water diverted from rivers, more coal burned, more fiber optic connections, more cell phone users, more computer memory, more horsepower, and so on, and so on.
All plants and animals strive for more in the competition for resources. But in nature, growth is checked by disease, predators, parasites, and famine. Humans have temporarily removed these obstacles through modern medicine, modern industrialized agriculture, and systematically killing all large predators. The only consistent check on human population growth today is the occasionally successful disease and warfare. But for two hundred years, despite world wars and pandemics, human growth has been unnaturally successful -- and despite our mistaking this for a permanent condition, nature will eventually check our hubris.
Now I am happy -- another posting!
Removing the Threats and Absurdities
Why is it that threatening people with eternal torment is an effective means of getting people to believe outlandish things and (possibly) to create nice people with strong families and communities? The question partially answers itself -- eternal torment is persuasive, but why must people believe outrageous things in order to be good?
For example, Mormons build strong families and communities; but to be a Mormon involves believing that a man in upstate New York translated golden tablets written in "reformed hieroglyphics" with magic translating stones. Mormons are taught to believe that these magic golden tablets record a complicated and elaborate history of North America (including a visit by Jesus!) that bears no resemblence at all to the actual historical record. In addition, Mormons have created an elaborate and complicated metaphysics of the next world that must be believed on the basis of Mr. Smith's magic golden Egyptian translation. Can a person have the strong families and communities without the absurd historical and metaphysical beliefs?
Philosophy used to be a means to replace the threat of torment and the absurd historical and metaphysical beliefs with an appeal to reason and evidence. Can good families and communities be built on reason and evidence rather than threats and absurdities? Or must the intellect be broken with faith in impossibilities before it is pliant enough to be a good member of a family and society?
What is needed today is a laughing Stoicism.
For example, Mormons build strong families and communities; but to be a Mormon involves believing that a man in upstate New York translated golden tablets written in "reformed hieroglyphics" with magic translating stones. Mormons are taught to believe that these magic golden tablets record a complicated and elaborate history of North America (including a visit by Jesus!) that bears no resemblence at all to the actual historical record. In addition, Mormons have created an elaborate and complicated metaphysics of the next world that must be believed on the basis of Mr. Smith's magic golden Egyptian translation. Can a person have the strong families and communities without the absurd historical and metaphysical beliefs?
Philosophy used to be a means to replace the threat of torment and the absurd historical and metaphysical beliefs with an appeal to reason and evidence. Can good families and communities be built on reason and evidence rather than threats and absurdities? Or must the intellect be broken with faith in impossibilities before it is pliant enough to be a good member of a family and society?
What is needed today is a laughing Stoicism.
Jesus says not to bother washing
Jared Diamond writes in Guns, Germs, and Steel about why Europeans infected Native Americans with deadly diseases rather than the other way around. Diamond writes about their close contact with domesticated animals, which Native Americans did not have. After thousands of generations, the remaining Europeans were tolerant of the germs and diseases that the domesticated animals carried while Native peoples were not.
Gregory Clark writes in A Farewell to Arms about the same issue and focuses his attention on the peculiar European habit of living above your fecal waste. This had the same evolutionary effect: only those who could survive this germ-fest lived to reproduce, thereby making Europeans in general more resistant to diseases that wiped out Native populations.
Both authors are afraid to look at how ideas influence behavior, and so they fail to understand why premodern Europeans had such negligent bathing habits. The answer is easy. Jesus says not to bother washing your hands before you eat since what goes into the mouth cannot defile you, only what comes out can do that. Jesus is following Plato and developing a metaphysics in which spiritual truths are divorced from physical reality.
Both Homer and Hesiod emphasize for ancient Pagans the importance of washing, especially your hands. Jews ritually wash their hands during Sabbath. Muslims ritually wash their whole bodies five times a day. Only Christians are allowed to be filthy; and, despite their howling rejection of evolutionary theory, being filthy gave Europeans the evolutionary advantage of being resistant to many dread diseases for the simple reason that those who were not naturally resistant simply died leaving only the powerfully filthy ones to conquere the world.
Gregory Clark writes in A Farewell to Arms about the same issue and focuses his attention on the peculiar European habit of living above your fecal waste. This had the same evolutionary effect: only those who could survive this germ-fest lived to reproduce, thereby making Europeans in general more resistant to diseases that wiped out Native populations.
Both authors are afraid to look at how ideas influence behavior, and so they fail to understand why premodern Europeans had such negligent bathing habits. The answer is easy. Jesus says not to bother washing your hands before you eat since what goes into the mouth cannot defile you, only what comes out can do that. Jesus is following Plato and developing a metaphysics in which spiritual truths are divorced from physical reality.
Both Homer and Hesiod emphasize for ancient Pagans the importance of washing, especially your hands. Jews ritually wash their hands during Sabbath. Muslims ritually wash their whole bodies five times a day. Only Christians are allowed to be filthy; and, despite their howling rejection of evolutionary theory, being filthy gave Europeans the evolutionary advantage of being resistant to many dread diseases for the simple reason that those who were not naturally resistant simply died leaving only the powerfully filthy ones to conquere the world.
Life has no Meaning
There is a terrible fear that if life is meaningless, then we might as well jump off the nearest cliff. Actually, it is good that life is meaningless.
"Meaning" comes from pointing to something beyond itelf. A sign is meaningful not in itself, but in reference to something else. A red octogon shaped STOP sign is not meaningful as a big piece of oddly shaped metal -- it is meaningful because it is a symbol that points to something else, namely that you should stop your car when you see this sign.
If life is meaningful, then life itself has no meaning but only gets meaning by pointing to something else -- something beyond life. Religious people think that life is meaningful only because it points to God or Heaven or whatever. Take away the God or Heaven or whatever and they think you might as well jump off the nearest cliff.
But life is not a symbol. Life is not a sign. Life does not acquire value by pointing to something else. There is nothing else. Life has value in itself. Life is meaningless because life is not a symbol that aquires meaning by referencing something else.
Life itself is the source of all other value and meaning. Life does not require something else to make it valuable. Embrace that life has no meaning.
"Meaning" comes from pointing to something beyond itelf. A sign is meaningful not in itself, but in reference to something else. A red octogon shaped STOP sign is not meaningful as a big piece of oddly shaped metal -- it is meaningful because it is a symbol that points to something else, namely that you should stop your car when you see this sign.
If life is meaningful, then life itself has no meaning but only gets meaning by pointing to something else -- something beyond life. Religious people think that life is meaningful only because it points to God or Heaven or whatever. Take away the God or Heaven or whatever and they think you might as well jump off the nearest cliff.
But life is not a symbol. Life is not a sign. Life does not acquire value by pointing to something else. There is nothing else. Life has value in itself. Life is meaningless because life is not a symbol that aquires meaning by referencing something else.
Life itself is the source of all other value and meaning. Life does not require something else to make it valuable. Embrace that life has no meaning.
All or Nothing Metaphysics
Some skeptical philosophers, trying to play the Socratic "What is x?" game, assume an all or nothing metaphysics that is completely false. An all or nothing metaphysics assumes that there must be necessary and sufficient conditions for membership into a class or else nothing will qualify for membership into that class.
Skeptical feminist philosophers use this kind of argument. Since, they argue, there exists individuals who fall between the "male/female" categories, then the categories themselves must be suspect. Thus, some skeptical feminist philosophers believe that there is no difference between men and women since some people are neither strictly male or female.
With this kind of argument, a skeptical philosopher could argue that there is no difference between trees and bushes since there are individual plants that fall between these two categories. Also, since there is no sharp distinction between bushes and grasses, one could conclude that by implication there is no difference between trees and grasses. With some work, a skeptical philosopher could make a mess of all of the nouns in the English language thereby undermining meaningful communication.
But the existence of hermaphrodites does not disprove the difference of men and women. Instead, they prove that nature is more complicated than the simplistic all or nothing metaphysics. Nature does provide clear categories, but in each case the categories are fuzzy at the borders. The problem isn't with nature, the problem is with our overly simplistic metaphysics.
There is a real difference between men and women even though there are individuals who are not clearly male or female. There is a real difference between trees and bushes even though there are individuals who are not clearly one or the other. (As Wittgenstein would point out, the only people who say such obvious things are either crazy people or philosophers.)
Visit the beach to witness a good example. There is a clear difference between the land and the water, and anyone who thinks otherwise is free to try and walk on the water. However, there is not a sharp distinction at the border between the land and the water -- it is a constantly changing and mixed area of both land and water. Sometimes the tide is in, sometimes the tide is out, and the waves are constantly mixing up the border between the two -- but the land and the water are still distinct.
Nature provides clear examples of difference even though the borders are often not clear between the two. Philosophers need to give up the all or nothing metaphysics.
Skeptical feminist philosophers use this kind of argument. Since, they argue, there exists individuals who fall between the "male/female" categories, then the categories themselves must be suspect. Thus, some skeptical feminist philosophers believe that there is no difference between men and women since some people are neither strictly male or female.
With this kind of argument, a skeptical philosopher could argue that there is no difference between trees and bushes since there are individual plants that fall between these two categories. Also, since there is no sharp distinction between bushes and grasses, one could conclude that by implication there is no difference between trees and grasses. With some work, a skeptical philosopher could make a mess of all of the nouns in the English language thereby undermining meaningful communication.
But the existence of hermaphrodites does not disprove the difference of men and women. Instead, they prove that nature is more complicated than the simplistic all or nothing metaphysics. Nature does provide clear categories, but in each case the categories are fuzzy at the borders. The problem isn't with nature, the problem is with our overly simplistic metaphysics.
There is a real difference between men and women even though there are individuals who are not clearly male or female. There is a real difference between trees and bushes even though there are individuals who are not clearly one or the other. (As Wittgenstein would point out, the only people who say such obvious things are either crazy people or philosophers.)
Visit the beach to witness a good example. There is a clear difference between the land and the water, and anyone who thinks otherwise is free to try and walk on the water. However, there is not a sharp distinction at the border between the land and the water -- it is a constantly changing and mixed area of both land and water. Sometimes the tide is in, sometimes the tide is out, and the waves are constantly mixing up the border between the two -- but the land and the water are still distinct.
Nature provides clear examples of difference even though the borders are often not clear between the two. Philosophers need to give up the all or nothing metaphysics.
Rising to the Challenge of the SuperFriends
One reason people take their children to church is to provide moral guidance. But dwelling on the torture and death of a Jewish Rabbi is not a good way to encourage children to play fair, or eat their vegetables, or to listen to their parents.
There are many secular alternatives to a relgious education, but the SuperFriends are certainly one of the best. The stories are melodramas where good always triumphs over evil. Children can easily understand them, identify with the heroes, and boo the villians. Children learn through role play -- and the superheroes lend themselves easily to that. The question "What would Superman do?" gives a clearer response than its Christian equivalent.
There are many secular alternatives to a relgious education, but the SuperFriends are certainly one of the best. The stories are melodramas where good always triumphs over evil. Children can easily understand them, identify with the heroes, and boo the villians. Children learn through role play -- and the superheroes lend themselves easily to that. The question "What would Superman do?" gives a clearer response than its Christian equivalent.
Christianity is not Democratic
Christians sometimes argue that since Christian values form the basis for democracy, a person cannot be a patriotic atheist. They argue that since God loves everyone equally, this equal value for everyone is the metaphysical basis of the claim that we are all equal before the law in a democracy.
This argument is based upon what Christians would like to believe about their religion rather than what is actually found in the Bible.
The Bible is full of words such as "master," "servant," "lord," "slave," "Caeser," and so on. The entire world-view of the Bible is of royalty and kingship, not of elected representatives and presidents. Jesus tells parables that instruct us to be good servants and obey our master. Churches regularly sing praises of Jesus as the "king of kings" and "lord of lords." There is not a single reference in the Bible to voting for laws, of universal suffrage, or of doing away with royalty. Instead, there is an overwhelming message of obedience to one's superiors.
There is a deeper reason why Christianity is essentially anti-democratic: Christians believe that they have the one true way to live and are eager to ensure that we all believe and live as they do. They divide the world into those who are right and those who are not. This is clear evidence that they really do not believe in the equal value of everyone. A democracy can only flourish when people agree to disagree and then try to develop a system of living together with their disagreements. Christians refuse to agree to disagree since they believe that they and only they have the one true answer.
This argument is based upon what Christians would like to believe about their religion rather than what is actually found in the Bible.
The Bible is full of words such as "master," "servant," "lord," "slave," "Caeser," and so on. The entire world-view of the Bible is of royalty and kingship, not of elected representatives and presidents. Jesus tells parables that instruct us to be good servants and obey our master. Churches regularly sing praises of Jesus as the "king of kings" and "lord of lords." There is not a single reference in the Bible to voting for laws, of universal suffrage, or of doing away with royalty. Instead, there is an overwhelming message of obedience to one's superiors.
There is a deeper reason why Christianity is essentially anti-democratic: Christians believe that they have the one true way to live and are eager to ensure that we all believe and live as they do. They divide the world into those who are right and those who are not. This is clear evidence that they really do not believe in the equal value of everyone. A democracy can only flourish when people agree to disagree and then try to develop a system of living together with their disagreements. Christians refuse to agree to disagree since they believe that they and only they have the one true answer.
The Meme Copernican Revolution
Instead of asking what an idea does for a person, ask what that person does for the idea.
In The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins introduces the meme as a mental equivalent to the physical gene. Some ideas survive and reproduce while others die out in a struggle for existence.
Gnostics and Shakers believed that birth is trapping a pure soul in a corrupt body, so they avoided sex. They also believed that their shining pure example would inspire others, so they did not evangelize. As a result no one is a Gnostic or a Shaker anymore. The memes are dead -- they failed to survive and reproduce.
Mormons and Catholics believe in marrying early and having as many children as possible. Both groups also have a strong emphasis on evangelizing. As a result, there are lots of Mormons and Catholics in the world. The memes are thriving -- they succeeded in surving and reproducing in the minds of new believers.
Imagine two groups of people. One group doesn't really care what people believe. The other group has a strong commitment to make other people believe the same thing. Certainly within a few generations the stronger meme will outnumber the weaker meme.
This doesn't mean that Mormons and Catholics are right and that Gnostics and Shakers are wrong anymore than dandilions are right and grass is wrong. Instead, it means that one set of memes spreads more aggressively than the other.
In The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins introduces the meme as a mental equivalent to the physical gene. Some ideas survive and reproduce while others die out in a struggle for existence.
Gnostics and Shakers believed that birth is trapping a pure soul in a corrupt body, so they avoided sex. They also believed that their shining pure example would inspire others, so they did not evangelize. As a result no one is a Gnostic or a Shaker anymore. The memes are dead -- they failed to survive and reproduce.
Mormons and Catholics believe in marrying early and having as many children as possible. Both groups also have a strong emphasis on evangelizing. As a result, there are lots of Mormons and Catholics in the world. The memes are thriving -- they succeeded in surving and reproducing in the minds of new believers.
Imagine two groups of people. One group doesn't really care what people believe. The other group has a strong commitment to make other people believe the same thing. Certainly within a few generations the stronger meme will outnumber the weaker meme.
This doesn't mean that Mormons and Catholics are right and that Gnostics and Shakers are wrong anymore than dandilions are right and grass is wrong. Instead, it means that one set of memes spreads more aggressively than the other.
Avoiding the Tolerance Paradox
Tolerance is a virtue. But the common view of tolerance requires allowing everyone to do whatever they want. That raises the problem of being tolerant to obviously intolerable actions such as rape and genocide. To generalize, the common view of tolerance entails the paradox of being tolerant to those who are intolerant.
For example, conservative Christians sometimes argue that tolerance requires allowing them to oppress homosexuals. To argue that Christians should accept homosexuals, they argue, is to stifle Christian freedom. Tolerance, they argue, requires allowing Christians to oppress homosexuals.
The common view of tolerance is flawed. Tolerance is allowing individuals to have their own private life of their own choosing while we also behave according to fair rules in public / social / legal spheres. The sanctitiy of a private life of one's own choosing is paramount. While it is difficult to draw a clear line between the private and the public, it is evident that there is a difference.
Tolerance requires tolerance only to those who respect the sanctity of the private life -- by implication tolerance is consistent with stopping those who are trying to interfere with other individuals' private lives. Rape and genocide are clear violations of this sanctity.
The conservative Christian believes that they have a God given right to interfere with the private lives of others. This cannot be tolerated.
For example, conservative Christians sometimes argue that tolerance requires allowing them to oppress homosexuals. To argue that Christians should accept homosexuals, they argue, is to stifle Christian freedom. Tolerance, they argue, requires allowing Christians to oppress homosexuals.
The common view of tolerance is flawed. Tolerance is allowing individuals to have their own private life of their own choosing while we also behave according to fair rules in public / social / legal spheres. The sanctitiy of a private life of one's own choosing is paramount. While it is difficult to draw a clear line between the private and the public, it is evident that there is a difference.
Tolerance requires tolerance only to those who respect the sanctity of the private life -- by implication tolerance is consistent with stopping those who are trying to interfere with other individuals' private lives. Rape and genocide are clear violations of this sanctity.
The conservative Christian believes that they have a God given right to interfere with the private lives of others. This cannot be tolerated.
The Meaning of Pavement
Pavement means that we want nothing green to grow here ever again. If something manages to sneak through a crack and grow, we will pour hot tar on it. We want nothing green here.
Consider how much more pavement there is in the world now than just one hundred years ago. Consider how much more pavement there will be in just one hundred years. More pavement means less green.
Consider how much more pavement there is in the world now than just one hundred years ago. Consider how much more pavement there will be in just one hundred years. More pavement means less green.
The War between the Conservatives
Here in the U.S., there are conservatives who are eager for more warfare in the Middle East and there are liberals who want to pull our troops out of there. In Middle Eastern countries, there are conservatives who are eager for more warfare with “The Great Satan,” and there are liberals who embrace Western culture and want an end to the violence.
“The War on Terror” is the wrong name for this conflict. It should be called “The War between the Conservatives.”
“The War on Terror” is the wrong name for this conflict. It should be called “The War between the Conservatives.”
Obviously Arbitrary Authorities
Heard this morning on a Christian radio station: “The Koran states that God is not a father, has no children, and that you’ll burn in Hell for believing that He is a father who has a son. But John 3:16 says that God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son so that those who believe will have eternal life.”
Two religious texts, both claiming to be the only true word of the only true god, contain completely opposite statements about this basic theological question. How can this be? Here are some possible explanations:
Perhaps God changed His story later and denied ever impregnating a married woman. (Or was she a young virgin? I’m so confused…)
Perhaps both texts are correct – perhaps God transcends our mortal notions of binary Logic (true / false, father / son) and religious texts are like kaleidoscopes that illuminate fragments of the stained glass window that is THE TRUTH.
Or perhaps these are just books written by men with agendas, charisma, issues, problems, and undiagnosed psychological traumas that make them hear voices. Perhaps it is time to realize that none of these books are really what they claim to be.
Two religious texts, both claiming to be the only true word of the only true god, contain completely opposite statements about this basic theological question. How can this be? Here are some possible explanations:
Perhaps God changed His story later and denied ever impregnating a married woman. (Or was she a young virgin? I’m so confused…)
Perhaps both texts are correct – perhaps God transcends our mortal notions of binary Logic (true / false, father / son) and religious texts are like kaleidoscopes that illuminate fragments of the stained glass window that is THE TRUTH.
Or perhaps these are just books written by men with agendas, charisma, issues, problems, and undiagnosed psychological traumas that make them hear voices. Perhaps it is time to realize that none of these books are really what they claim to be.
God and Mammon
Christians used to worry that Christmas was too comercial. That's the moral found in old popular culture stories such as "A Charlie Brown Christmas" and "How the Grinch Stole Christmas."
But today's self-annointed "culture warriors" have inverted the issue. Bill O'Reilly is upset that Wal-Mart employees say "Happy Holidays!" Commerce is not Christian enough!
But today's self-annointed "culture warriors" have inverted the issue. Bill O'Reilly is upset that Wal-Mart employees say "Happy Holidays!" Commerce is not Christian enough!
The Prius Paradox
By conserving, hybrid owners are reducing the demand for gasoline. Economics dictates that a decrease in demand will create a decrease in price. The resulting cheap fuel encourages more people to buy large vehicles.
Perhaps the most environmentally active thing to do is to buy a large gas hog, which will increase the demand, cause an increase in price, and force more people to buy hybrid vehicles.
Perhaps the most environmentally active thing to do is to buy a large gas hog, which will increase the demand, cause an increase in price, and force more people to buy hybrid vehicles.
Not Stark Enough
Rodney Stark, sociologist from the University of Washington, uses an economic model to analyze religious choices. He is against the idea that religion is irrational, and works to show the reasons why people choose to be religious. One thesis is that the more expensive the religious organization, the more valuable is it perceived to be. So, a church that demands a lot from its members (two years of missionary work, no sex before marriage, no drugs or alcohol, 10% of your income, etc.) will be perceived to be more valuable than a laid back church that demands little from its members.
But Stark fails to follow through on this thesis. Churches can also demand that you sacrifice your rational thinking and your ability to think for yourself. People willingly give up their own rational autonomy and give their lives over to someone else. This greatest sacrifice reveals the purposeful irrationality of religions.
But Stark fails to follow through on this thesis. Churches can also demand that you sacrifice your rational thinking and your ability to think for yourself. People willingly give up their own rational autonomy and give their lives over to someone else. This greatest sacrifice reveals the purposeful irrationality of religions.
In Zeus We Trust
U.S. currency states "In God We Trust," but it does not specify which god. It does not say "Jesus," or "Yahveh," or any other particular god. However, most U.S. currency display classical pagan temples. Most major government buildings and monuments are built in this classical style. So, to what god do we owe our trust? Zeus!
Zeus is an aristocratic tribal warrior god. Zeus is not the creator god -- he is actually in the third generation of divine powers (following Hesiod's Theogony). Creation involves manual labor and getting your hands dirty. Zeus rules the heavens by force -- taking what others have created and threatening violence if opposed. Book 8 of Homer's Illiad opens with Zeus threatening violence and torture to any god who dares oppose him.
Certainly Zeus describes the character of U.S. foreign policy better than the Gospels.
Zeus is an aristocratic tribal warrior god. Zeus is not the creator god -- he is actually in the third generation of divine powers (following Hesiod's Theogony). Creation involves manual labor and getting your hands dirty. Zeus rules the heavens by force -- taking what others have created and threatening violence if opposed. Book 8 of Homer's Illiad opens with Zeus threatening violence and torture to any god who dares oppose him.
Certainly Zeus describes the character of U.S. foreign policy better than the Gospels.
Dualism and Artificial Intelligence
Dualism is the view that humans are two types of things: physical bodies and non-physical minds. Developers trying to create Artificial Intelligence deny dualism because a non-physical mind (like a soul) would be impossible to create in a physical computer system. Many books in philosophy of mind begin with a chapter rejecting Descartes' version of dualism.
However, the very fact that they are trying to create a mind within a computer actually reveals that they are dualists. By trying to create a mind within a computer, they are claiming that mind is independent of the human body. That is dualism. I have read authors who dismiss the necessity of the "wetware" of brains without realizing that this rejection commits them to dualism.
The only way consistently to avoid dualism is to accept that what we know as a mind has only been possible within the physical body of a human being.
Perhaps computers can or will create some kind of mind, but it will be very different from a human mind. A computer lives in a world free of hunger and the need to reproduce -- independent of the evolutionary forces that created the human mind. It will be interesting to watch the development of robot insects if the developers figure out how to harness evolutionary pressures.
However, the very fact that they are trying to create a mind within a computer actually reveals that they are dualists. By trying to create a mind within a computer, they are claiming that mind is independent of the human body. That is dualism. I have read authors who dismiss the necessity of the "wetware" of brains without realizing that this rejection commits them to dualism.
The only way consistently to avoid dualism is to accept that what we know as a mind has only been possible within the physical body of a human being.
Perhaps computers can or will create some kind of mind, but it will be very different from a human mind. A computer lives in a world free of hunger and the need to reproduce -- independent of the evolutionary forces that created the human mind. It will be interesting to watch the development of robot insects if the developers figure out how to harness evolutionary pressures.
Eat Chocolate Everyday
A friend once told me that he had thought about suicide. I told him not to kill himself because then you can’t eat any more chocolate.
He immediately replied that in the next life you may get to experience the best tasting chocolate you’ve ever had for all eternity. I told him that, yes, that might be what the next life is like. But I have no evidence for it. I know that there is chocolate right here in this world, however. And I know that when I die I can no longer enjoy this chocolate in this world.
For many people, the thought of a wonderful afterlife gives their life meaning. Whether it is the promise of seventy virgins, or playing the harp for eternity, or Robin Williams learning that Cuba Gooding, Jr. is his son, the pleasantness of the next world gives this world meaning. Take away that promise of a wonderful afterlife and people find this world to be scary and meaningless.
I work the opposite way. The thought of a wonderful afterlife does not move me at all. The primary reason is that I have no evidence for it. I’ve never seen it, and everyone who has died has been unable to tell us anything about it. And I don’t believe everything I read. Certainly part of being an educated person is to be critical about what you read. And I’m not impressed by the fact that so many other people believe it. Many people think that Adam Sandler is funny, so I don’t trust what many people think.
Instead of focusing on some dreamland perfection, I would rather focus on this world. The primary reason is that I have loads of evidence that this world is here. You have loads of evidence too! It just seems rational to me to focus on the world that exists.
So, what’s in this world? It is true that there are a lot of awful things in this world. It is the awful things that so often turn people to focus on the next world. It is, as Nietzsche tells us, a form of escapism. The reason why there are no atheists in foxholes is because no one wants to be in a foxhole. This doesn’t tell us anything about the next world, it just tells us to avoid foxholes.
There are also lots of things in this world that should be good but ending up being bad. Spouses run off with people they meet on the internet, children die, cars wreck, diseases cripple, teeth rot, bowels clog, toes stub, eyes go blind, ears go deaf, and you need a root canal. Your favorite stereo equipment is stolen. Your favorite car blows a head gasket. Your computer crashed. Your health insurance doesn’t cover that. Lots of things will go wrong in your life and they will continue to do so until you die. This world has a lot of awful things in it.
But it also has chocolate. It is true that there are many other pleasurable things in this world. But most of those things are unreliable. Sex is very pleasurable, but unreliable. Alcohol is very pleasurable, but it has way too many awful characteristics. I picked chocolate because it is very reliable and very primal. For me, eating chocolate really releases some basic essential pleasure. It is reliably wonderful.
And so I eat chocolate everyday. By eating chocolate everyday I am affirming that there is something in this world which I know is wonderful. By knowing that there is this one thing that is wonderful, I can then go on and see all of the other things that are wonderful, for there are many wonderful things in this world.
He immediately replied that in the next life you may get to experience the best tasting chocolate you’ve ever had for all eternity. I told him that, yes, that might be what the next life is like. But I have no evidence for it. I know that there is chocolate right here in this world, however. And I know that when I die I can no longer enjoy this chocolate in this world.
For many people, the thought of a wonderful afterlife gives their life meaning. Whether it is the promise of seventy virgins, or playing the harp for eternity, or Robin Williams learning that Cuba Gooding, Jr. is his son, the pleasantness of the next world gives this world meaning. Take away that promise of a wonderful afterlife and people find this world to be scary and meaningless.
I work the opposite way. The thought of a wonderful afterlife does not move me at all. The primary reason is that I have no evidence for it. I’ve never seen it, and everyone who has died has been unable to tell us anything about it. And I don’t believe everything I read. Certainly part of being an educated person is to be critical about what you read. And I’m not impressed by the fact that so many other people believe it. Many people think that Adam Sandler is funny, so I don’t trust what many people think.
Instead of focusing on some dreamland perfection, I would rather focus on this world. The primary reason is that I have loads of evidence that this world is here. You have loads of evidence too! It just seems rational to me to focus on the world that exists.
So, what’s in this world? It is true that there are a lot of awful things in this world. It is the awful things that so often turn people to focus on the next world. It is, as Nietzsche tells us, a form of escapism. The reason why there are no atheists in foxholes is because no one wants to be in a foxhole. This doesn’t tell us anything about the next world, it just tells us to avoid foxholes.
There are also lots of things in this world that should be good but ending up being bad. Spouses run off with people they meet on the internet, children die, cars wreck, diseases cripple, teeth rot, bowels clog, toes stub, eyes go blind, ears go deaf, and you need a root canal. Your favorite stereo equipment is stolen. Your favorite car blows a head gasket. Your computer crashed. Your health insurance doesn’t cover that. Lots of things will go wrong in your life and they will continue to do so until you die. This world has a lot of awful things in it.
But it also has chocolate. It is true that there are many other pleasurable things in this world. But most of those things are unreliable. Sex is very pleasurable, but unreliable. Alcohol is very pleasurable, but it has way too many awful characteristics. I picked chocolate because it is very reliable and very primal. For me, eating chocolate really releases some basic essential pleasure. It is reliably wonderful.
And so I eat chocolate everyday. By eating chocolate everyday I am affirming that there is something in this world which I know is wonderful. By knowing that there is this one thing that is wonderful, I can then go on and see all of the other things that are wonderful, for there are many wonderful things in this world.
A Bushie Irony
One of the stated reasons for invading Iraq was to create a secular, liberal democracy that would be a model for the Middle East. The Bushies wanted Iraqis to respect each other's religious differences (liberalism) and create a non-theocractic government (secularism).
The irony is that the same Bushies don't want a secular, liberal democracy in the U.S. They insist upon the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, they want copies of The Ten Commandments displayed in public places, they want to ban homosexuality, and so on, and so on.
Pursuing a strategy that they clearly don't want makes them look like a giant dog chasing its own tail.
The irony is that the same Bushies don't want a secular, liberal democracy in the U.S. They insist upon the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, they want copies of The Ten Commandments displayed in public places, they want to ban homosexuality, and so on, and so on.
Pursuing a strategy that they clearly don't want makes them look like a giant dog chasing its own tail.
Creative Misreading
A common theological trick is to quote one line of scripture and then expound upon its “true meaning” for an hour until the audience no longer can remember the original words. In this way the text can be co-opted to suit any purpose. No one seems to question this embarrassing method of finding scriptural truth. On the contrary, this method of creative misreading is frequently used by fundamentalists who claim (without any apparent irony) that there is only one correct, literal reading of scripture.
The Real Reason for the Season
Christmas was born of Northern Europeans trying to survive the long cold winter with parties, alcohol, and lots of lights. The lights keep you from going crazy when the sun shines only for about a quarter of the day. The parties and alcohol lead to babies who will be born at the end of summer when the harvest is ripe. Survival and Reproduction are the evolutionary reason for the season.
Germs and Birth Control
Most religious traditions date back prior to the germ theory of infection, which is just over a hundred years old. Our religiously derived ethical beliefs predate the standards of cleanliness and sanitation we take for granted. The belief that families must generate as many babies as possible makes sense given the high mortality rate of just a few centuries ago; but now we are creating more people than this planet can sustain. Nature’s birth control is starvation.
Our Little Sliver of Atmosphere
I am very concerned about global warming. Each day I become more aware of the fact that we live in a small sliver of atmosphere in a universe that is otherwise completely inhospitable to humans. Each day I see us burn as much fossil fuels into that small sliver of atmosphere as we can possible burn. People invent new and better ways to burn even more fossil fuels, and each day people buy more and more stuff that will burn these fossil fuels. Economies grow by burning more fossil fuels than were burned last year.
Scientists do not know what exactly will happen. Critics pounce on this fact as if it proves that nothing terrible will happen. It doesn’t. It only proves that scientists are rational, and rationality requires some modesty concerning predicting the future, especially with a phenomenon as complex as the global atmospheric conditions.
Humans are burning as many fossil fuels as possible and releasing the waste into this little sliver of atmosphere. We are polluting what makes human life possible.
Scientists do not know what exactly will happen. Critics pounce on this fact as if it proves that nothing terrible will happen. It doesn’t. It only proves that scientists are rational, and rationality requires some modesty concerning predicting the future, especially with a phenomenon as complex as the global atmospheric conditions.
Humans are burning as many fossil fuels as possible and releasing the waste into this little sliver of atmosphere. We are polluting what makes human life possible.
Rationalism, Materialism, Environmentalism
Studying philosophy is an attempt to be rational about life. Many people use magical thinking to solve the question of how to live. Magical thinking halts inquiry, whereas rational thinking requires it. Peirce wrote that the first principle of logic is “Do not block the way of inquiry.” That is the motto of the rational.
I believe that rationality leads to materialism – the belief that the physical world is everything there is to the world. The alternative is the belief in the supernatural – the belief that there is something beyond this mere physical world. Most believers in the supernatural (from Plato on) have also believed that this heavenly beyond world is also better and more valuable than this polluted and fallen mess. This allows them to pollute and pillage this world and feel confident that a better world exists in the skies. By contrast, the rational person must realize that this planet Earth is our only possible home in a hostile universe. Rationality leads to materialism, which leads to environmentalism.
I believe that rationality leads to materialism – the belief that the physical world is everything there is to the world. The alternative is the belief in the supernatural – the belief that there is something beyond this mere physical world. Most believers in the supernatural (from Plato on) have also believed that this heavenly beyond world is also better and more valuable than this polluted and fallen mess. This allows them to pollute and pillage this world and feel confident that a better world exists in the skies. By contrast, the rational person must realize that this planet Earth is our only possible home in a hostile universe. Rationality leads to materialism, which leads to environmentalism.
Why I study philosophy
At a recent job interview I gave a terrible response to the question “What is Philosophy?” There are multiple correct answers to that question, and I gave only one. In retrospect a better response would be more volumous, which reflects the various types, ways and methods of doing philosophy.
But what they all have in common is someone doing philosophy. All the different categories and movements are at bottom really individual people doing this stuff – writing the books, giving the lectures, thinking the thoughts. The reason why there are so many multiple right answers to the question “What is philosophy?” is that there are so many multiple people pursuing philosophy in their own idiosyncratic ways.
I study philosophy because I followed Aristotle’s advice that thinking about thinking is the highest form of life. To study philosophy, The Philosopher writes, is the best life.
But what they all have in common is someone doing philosophy. All the different categories and movements are at bottom really individual people doing this stuff – writing the books, giving the lectures, thinking the thoughts. The reason why there are so many multiple right answers to the question “What is philosophy?” is that there are so many multiple people pursuing philosophy in their own idiosyncratic ways.
I study philosophy because I followed Aristotle’s advice that thinking about thinking is the highest form of life. To study philosophy, The Philosopher writes, is the best life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
