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!
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
