Philosophy and Literature Blog

Looks like I'm going to be reading this book this year. The book is very, very long, and I have bad eyes, so I will likely be reading it for a long time. I seem to be in a Kierkegaard frame of mind these days. You don't have to be religious or mystical to like Kierkegaard as I do, perhaps it helps if one has an unconscious remnant of religion from one's youth, I don't know. These things have a way of coming back, insisting themselves on you. But in some important ways that's beside the point. The point is one's subjectivity and individuality. The forward of the book mentions that some have suggested that Wittgenstein's reference to the words of the Tractatus as a reference to this book ,which the author of the forward says Wittgenstein admired. Wittgenstein combined this powerful mystical bent with his analytic writing; one is tempted to think that the mysticism is responsible for his more radical later statements Russell so hated.  In the meantime I've

 The events of January 6, 2021, a terrible day for the United States, and I fear not the end, have prompted me to post some thoughts on this short book. It seems to me that I might think I'm being an individual when I'm online when I'm really not, I'm really part of a crowd, but it's not always clear which crowd. There are philosophers who think we are always part of a crowd since we inherit our language and mores from various crowds, and they may be right. But I want to suggest that, notwithstanding, there is usefulness in considering ourselves as individuals. If I posit myself as an individual, does that make me one? Maybe so. Another reason to think I might actually be an individual is that it sure seems like my body is distinct from that of others, and furthermore the character of my mind and heart, including the details of my aortal sclerosis, are unique to me. So I want to, perhaps against the grain here, suggest that there ARE individuals and that you are one

 I had just poured myself a cup of Highlander Grogg, non-alcoholic of course, and added some caramel syrup, when Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were declared the winners of the 2020 election. Suddenly a weight lifted from my chest and I was able to breathe more deeply. Today could be one of the great days in American History if we will seize it. From now on Highlander Grogg will be my toast to this day, I hope I will remember it for the days I have left.

My recent reading of James Baldwin has turned into a full-on binge. In order simply to keep up with myself, I'm going to be putting links and thoughts in this blog. The first link below is the YouTube video of the debate between James Baldwin and William F. Buckley, which is a must-see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Tek9h3a5wQ Next are two videos of James Baldwin on Dick Cavett: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWwOi17WHpE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzH5IDnLaBA The next video is an examination of James Baldwin's  No Name in the Street  with Darryl Pinckney: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RW6KwSE4958

Scanlon is dilating on the notion of  'reasons to act' and whether one can be right or wrong about such things. As a mathematician I really liked this great paragraph where he describes mathematical reasoning as not about oneself, something one can be right or wrong about, but not being outside the self. That way, we are not committed to Platonism. A very nice summary of this position.  Can reasons for action be the same way? Can we be incorrect? If so, how can we know we are incorrect? Is there a logic underlying reasons for action that is close enough in analogy to math that we should at least not dismiss? It does seem that we have a kind of Kantian thing going on here -- adoption of rationality in some form as a way to decide about action. I have to admit I am attracted to this general philosophy. Look, you can say 'why should I be reasonable anyway?' and I don't have a good answer. But, being reasonable has helped me in so much of my life, perhaps I sho

Over the last year I have gotten more heavily into reading moral philosophy. As a result, some of my long-held views have been significantly challenged -- most especially my Nietzschean or nihilist intuitions have been challenged. Thus I have to admit that in the past I have not given sufficient attention to certain other views, especially more contemporary views, including, perhaps, though I need to read him more thoroughly to know for sure, the views of Derek Parfit. But, before I haul off and read thousands of pages of Parfit, I will start by looking at this book by Scanlon, which I am just now reading. But first, I'm going to describe the main consideration that has made me re-think things. It all started with Kant. I listened to the Critique of Practical Reason on audiobook -- my eyes are such that physically reading is difficult, though there is no audiobook of Scanlon that I know of. The basic point is, do I have a reason to be rational in my moral behavior? If not, then s