Philosophy and Literature Blog

     So I was reading The End of Faith, was a little bit into it when I ran across the following: "There also seems to be a body of data attesting to the reality of psychic phenomena, much of which has been ignored by mainstream science.  The dictum that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" remains a reasonable guid in these areas, but this does not mean that the universe isn't far stranger than many of us suppose.  It is important to realize that a healthy, scientific skepticism is compatible with a fundamental openness of mind."(pg 41) In the footnote to this passage he says "There may even be some credible evidence for reincarnation."(pg. 242) Well, I'm not going to let anybody accuse me of being narrow-minded, so I'm going to investigate all this crap, I mean evidence. I'm going to be sure and finish the End of Faith, including his mushy section on consciousness at the end.  I'm going to follow it up by readi...

      You might find it odd that after all my protestations about being a secular humanist that I would pick a book from The Bible, the OLD Testament no less, as the subject of a sequence of blog entries.  It is about time I revisited this book that has had such an important effect on me.       In fact, of all the books I have ever read I cannot think of one that has changed my life the way this one has.  I first read this book when I was 14.  Its first word changed me forever.  Soon thereafter I read Macbeth, my favorite Shakespeare play, containing these words: "Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tommorow Creeps in this petty pace from day to day to the last syllable of recorded time and al our yesterdays have lighted fools the way to dusty death. Out, out brief candle! Life's but a walking Shadow a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idi...

Sam Harris suggested that perhaps the very rich should pay their share.  He was then viciously set upon by marauding objectivists: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/how-to-lose-readers-without-even-trying

     Below is a link to a response from Chomsky on the subject of the "New Atheists".  It is interesting and typical Chomsky: http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/616576-noam-chomsky-on-new-atheists I apparently also missed out on all the fun.  Evidently Hitchens and Chomsky got into it -- in all likelihood initiated by Hitchens, unless I miss my guees -- over 9/11 and the Iraq war.  If you look up something like "Hitchens debates Chomsky" you get a number of nice hits.

http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2009/06/plant-sentience.html

    Alright, I've had enough of this.  There is zero evidence that plants feel pain.  They do not have the requisite nervous system for such sensations.  They lack a brain and other sense organs.  I'm not a botanist, and it is evident that some plants are able to respond to the environment, but I am unaware of any mechanism any of them possess that would indicate sensory experience of any kind.  Now, animals such as my dog very obviously feel pleasure, pain, etc... ; this applies to cows, chickens, pigs, etc...as well.    Unless there is some paranormal method whereby plants are able to have sensation(though, I don't know what good sensory experience would be to a carrot or a rutabaga), I can find no evidence for it.  It is obvious to me that animals do feel things.  Thus we should try to reduce that suffering since we can.       As for other animals not being sensitive...

     So Easter Sunday a couple of years ago I'm at the Cheesecake Factory with my wife and best friend from church and I order the stuffed mushrooms.  They were incredibly delicious.  I couldn't believe how good they tasted!  I scarfed them down with great gusto and commented frequently how much I liked them. I was thinking to myself self-pityingly how little enjoyment I had in this life and how much I enjoyed these mushrooms.       Well, it turns out the mushrooms were stuffed with sausage!  Thus ended 15 years of vegetarianism.  The next thing I knew I was guzzling Metamucil and stuffing my face with the carcass of every sentient being I could legally order.  In particular I enjoyed steak.  OH MY GOD did I enjoy steak.  I blew a ton of money on every variety of steak, I preferred a good marbled one.  Getting hungry?     I could eat a gargantuan amount of meat in a si...

     The gentle reader should be aware that I arrived at his conclusion, that there is no such thing as free will, for the same reasons as Harris some time ago.  So, readers may decide that I am too easily convinced by his arguments.  Long time readers of my blog will recall I was very critical of The Moral Landscape, which I thought was deeply flawed, so it's not that I'm somehow under his spell.  I just have to admit that he nailed this issue.      All of our thoughts arise in us from unconscious processes.  We don't control the thoughts that arise, they just arise.  We don't control our desires or intentions; they just happen to us.  Even if we have a soul we did not choose it; wicked people under this theory are simply unfortunate.  Even if conscious processes are necessary for certain decisions, we are passive recipients of those processes.    Quantum Uncertainty is no solution.  It just m...

     Well, OK, I can see that Ayn Rand makes me upset.  Perhaps this means I should just avoid reading the rest of this book for awhile.  I mean, I enjoy a good rant as much as the next person, but is it really productive?  There are plenty of sites on the internet devoted to hating Ayn Rand's philosophy and everything it stands for.  On the one hand I could say to myself, "There can never be enough!" on the other hand "What's the point?"     I'm basically a mild-manered, peace-loving guy.  I try to understand where others are coming from, even if they are completely out of their minds, reality impaired if you will.  I mean, it's not their fault, really.  They can't help it.     And as for pure evil...well, yes the philosophy is pure evil -- sorry, I can't take that one back.  But the people who follow it are just misguided, that's all.  I feel sorry for them...well, no I don't.  Ever...

     Well, I've gotten a start on Atlas Shrugged.  It is even worse than I remembered!  The writing is execrable and the message is heinous.  She's not exactly subtle about her points.  It takes no great intellectual effort to glean the message from this protracted piece of tripe(now that I'm a vegetarian I no longer knowingly eat tripe.) .      Obviously Rand is indulging in some fantasy of a masterful masculine capitalist, Master of the Universe.   I can see how this image could appeal to certain men, especially.  All around these figures are pitiful hippy do-gooders who care about the poor(who are inferior or loafers).  The capitalist master takes abuse from ungrateful parasites all of whom he could swat like flies, but because of some misguided sense of noblesse oblige he does not.  Take for example Hank Reardon, whose victory in the productio...

     Some may wonder how I am an atheist materialist since I have a history of studying philosophy.  Haven't I read Derrida? Stanley Fish? Foucault? etc... Yes, I have read much of this.  I am familiar with a lot of the history of Western Philosophy.  I am familiar with the main arguments from the big movements in its history.  I am also acquainted with Eastern Thought.  I think the Tao Te Ching an incredibly wise book.  I once again recommend it to everyone.  If I'm so aware of this, how can I adopt what seems a metaphysical position?  Well, let me start at what I consider the epistemological beginning: 1. Can  I demonstrate the existence of anything outside my immediate here and now experience? No. This includes the universe and other minds.  There is, as far as I can tell, no successful argument.  Period. 2.  Can I use logic to demonstrate that I ought to use logic to make philosophical decisi...

     In response to the American Humanist Association's 'Day of Reason' a certain Mr. Ham posted online that there could be no absolute moral standards without God.  Everyone would be on their own to decide for themselves what is right and wrong.  It seems he is right here.  I have been unconvinced by any attempt to demonstrate logically the truth of any moral propositions.  So far, so good.       Here's the problem, though: NONE of the arguments for the existence of God are convincing.  I have thought about these things for my entire life and that's the skinny.  Thus, one can choose to believe in God if one wants, or choose not to.  I think the probability inclines against the existence of God, but that doesn't make belief in God impossible, just not compulsory.       OK, so let's try to follow the logic where this goes.  One is certainly free to choose to believe in God an...

     Those who had known me for a long time might have been surprised when I converted to Christianity, and was a practicing Christian for a number of years. I had up until that time been a rather intense atheist for most of my life.  My first doubts about God occured when I was around 11 or 12.  I had a brief period of some kind of belief around 15-16, and then returned to atheism around 17.  I stayed an atheist until my mid-30s.  How did this conversion happen? Why?      I have asked myself this question over the last number of years.  The closest I can come to an answer is that the first influence was Dante.  I spent several years, starting around 1999, virtually obsessed with this Florentine poet.  His powerful writing spoke to me, a man in middle age,  feeling somewhat lost, wondering how I had arrived at the position I was in.  What did I believe in? What would become of me?   ...

Private Property -----------------      Let me start by saying I am not a socialist or a communist.  I fear that both of these systems would tend to concentrate too much power in the hands of the governmen which would have to stamp out 'unapproved' capitalist ventures.  On the other hand, I am not a pure capitalist in the way that Ayn Rand is.      Unlike Ayn Rand I don't think private property is some 'right' that exists outside of some agreement among persons regarding what property is and how one may dispose of their property.  Our 'right' to private property has to be enforced by some entity.  That is, I need to be able to call the police or take someone to court when someone absconds with this 'property'.  Operationally, the enforcement of those rights by collective agreement(ie, by the government) is what DEFINES my right to property in the first place.  There is no other meaning to the notion of property....

     A number of years ago I attempted to read Atlas Shrugged.  I found the book so revolting that I put it down.  Over the years since then I have become acquainted with Objectivism and met a large number of its adherents among my mathematical and scientific colleagues.  I found that the philosophy exerted a doleful effect upon their personalities.  It seems logical, now that I have come out as a Secular Humanist, to revisit what Rand considered to be her magnum opus and respond to it.      First, however, I need to let out my response to Rand's philosophy.  This so it will be out that I read the book with a rather strong bias.  I will attempt to bracket that bias out while reading the book and do my best to give the book a fair shake.       So,  from my reading in Objectivism and my reading about Rand's philosophy I have come to consider her thought one of the mo...

In this entry I will state my conclusions regarding some hot button issues. Gay Marriage --------------      The state ought to get out of the marriage business altogether.  Marriage between two or three or ten adults should be a private matter.  As far as the other issues freqeuently raise, hospital visiting privileges and family health care plans...  I don't understand why a patient can't just say in advance who should be able to visit them.  AND there should already be UNIVERSAL, FREE, HEALTH COVERAGE for all Americans.  That would solve the family health care question.  I believe such a thing is possible, but it will take time and commitment. Capital Punishment -------------------- Capital Punishment should be banned.  It is excessive and is a non-deterrant.  People are ultimately not responsible for their behavior, so why should we punish them as though they were 'evil'?  We should realize that people become...

     Where Secular Humanism comes into difficulties is with ethics.  Atheitsts who like science fall across the political spectrum.  How can one position say that they alone represent the interests of humanity while the other positions, all deeply felt, do not?  Some philosophies associated with atheism, such as contemporary communism on the one side, and the untrammeled capitalism of Ayn Rand on the other, are downright pernicious.  I haven't met a lot of communists among my mathematical colleagues, but unfortunately the philosophy of Ayn Rand is like a cancer.  I find that this point of view, with its pseudo social darwinism, has a revolting effect upon the personalities of those who adopt it, making them less humane, less compassionate.  I, for one, cannot live like that.      I am further not convinced by any of the arguments for morality given by secular thinkers such as Sam Harris or even Derek Parfit....

     Perhaps if Nietzsche were alive today, to see the incredible advances of modern science and technology, especially modern medicine, he would have a different view of the power of science.  On the other hand, we take the obvious successes of science so much for granted that people, I'm speaking of postmodernists here, don't realize the magnitude of what it has accomplished.       Contemporary physics is INCREDIBLY accurate.  Quantum Field Theory is accurate beyond the wildest dreams of the science of earlier generations.  Science has pegged the age of the universe, perhaps part of an infinite multiverse, at 13.72 billion years ago.  Our understand of the nervous system, especially of the brain, has made enormous strides over the last few decades.  We now have an impressive understanding of how the various parts of the brain are responsible for our consciousness and behavior.  These two areas of underst...

     Humanism is not necessarily fashionable as a position in philosophical circles anymore, such is the influence of postmodernism.  Humanism, with its emphasis on reason and science, is throw-back to modernism, to philosophy unencumbered by the influence of currents of more recent Continental Philosophy.  Indeed, the fact that humanists use the word 'human' suggests a universal definition of the 'human' that we are told has been manufactured by western powers to legitimate certain forms of power.  So, how can someone who has absorbed Nietzsche and is especially fond of Foucault, able to take the humanist position?  That is the question I am going to try to answer in the next few posts.      There is no doubt that Nietzsche was a great genius.  He was certainly one of the great stylists.  He paints a disturbing picture of the modernism of the 19th Century.  He plumbs its emptinesses, reveals the nihilism ...