Graduate School... In the Beginning

It is Wednesday...the third day of my studies as a graduate student here at Cleveland State University.
I love philosophy. I am already rejuvenated! I am also already behind on my required reading. But besides my required reading, I have already started a mental list of what I want to read outside of class.
I am taking three 1/2 classes this semester.
First I'll explain the half, because I know that is what you are wondering about.
The 1/2 is part of my assistantship. Since its my first semester, they want me to attend all of the logic courses that I will be tutoring for--I guess so I know what I am in for and am ready for when people ask questions. It looks strangely designed, at least compared to the U of I. At Iowa, we had a 'Principles of Reasoning' course, which was basically recognizing fallacies and basic forms of valid and invalid arguments. Then we had a Symbolic Logic course which was all of the (x)(y)(Fx>Fy)) predicate logic stuff. This course is like half and half. And its arranged on the syllabus that we do the predicate logic before we do truth tables and venn diagrams and stuff. Its weird.
The first real class I am taking is called Analytic/Linguistic Philosophy, which is sort of vague. But judging by the syllabus, it is more of a course on logical positivism (Wittgenstein, Carnap, Russell). My prof was sick for that on Monday, so I'm not sure how that will be.
The second class is Theory of Knowledge, and I think it will be awesome. I don't know much about Epistemology, but its essential problems seem really interesting to me. And I have some prima facie strong opinions about attempts to 'naturalize epistemology', and also contextualism. (I think they are both serious misconceptions). Epistemology is exciting to me because in most areas of philosophy I tend to agree with the majority opinions (ethics, phil of science), but with both epistemology and phil. of mind my views would probably be categorized as 'radical'. I consider this to be good because it makes for the challenge of an uphill battle to formulate good theories. If I can create arguments for my form of interactionism, or my radical skepticism, and these theories can stand up to all attacks, I am in a good position, because in these cases I am arguing against instead of with the leading minds of the field.
The third class is a seminar on Hume and Kant. Fundamental, foundational, necessary. But hopefully it will be fun too.

I love my classes because they are small (12-18 people). There are no strictly graduate classes here, we are in a class with upperlevel undergrads, but I don't think this is bad really, as I once did. It would be pretty elitist and stupid to consider myself smarter than a senior philosophy undergrad, since I was just one like 3 months ago, wouldn't it?
Also, there are only like 10 graduate students here. Isn't that awesome? A small community. I have met 3 or 4 of them, and they seem really cool. Hopefully there will be a lot of conversation between us once I get to know them better. So far its been mostly introductions.

Being in graduate school means something else for the 3 readers of this blog; I won't bore you with politics quite as much as philosophical thoughts. I guess they are both pretty boring, aren't they?
Well, a mixture of different boring elements will be good.
So, expect an entry on skepticism and contextualism in the future, hopefully.

One little piece of news.
Thats the most recent interesting thing I have read.

And hey. I really hate Christopher Hitchens. I really do.

Being an Opinion Leader

I am pretty sure most people reading this will have heard of the concept before, but it may be that I am only familiar with it because of my Journalism minor.
Take any given subject...let's say...movies.
Now I don't know much about movies at all. Less than the average person. So when I want to know whether or not a movie is good, I need an opinion leader. Usually an opinion leader is the leader of several people. For example, Freddie Fillers is my go-to movie guy, a.k.a. opinion leader. But I'm sure there are plenty of other people, ones that I know and ones that I don't, who consider him, whether consciously or not, to be their opinion leader on the subject as well.
Having an opinion leader for things is intuitive. We don't have time to become experts at everything. It seems necessary that I rely on Joe for knowledge about ferrets, and Luke about firefighting, in order that I don't lose my expertise in another category.
On the other hand, having an opinion leader for everything is counterintuitive, at least to me. And this is what upsets me. I see people who do this. They go through life relying on other people's opinions for nearly everything. First of all, how is this living? Ok, that might be a little harsh. But putting your entire web of belief into a network of opinion leaders seems silly, some kind of form of cognitive suicide. Not to mention--opinion leaders are just as fallible as you and me (because, after all, they are you and me). Blind faith in an opinion leader is just dumb. Which is the reason why deciding an opinion leader should be done consciously when possible, because otherwise we could find ourselves listening to someone like Bill O'Reilly or Kevin Trudeau.
The bigger problem here is the giving up of belief-control, subconsciously, to a large group of fallible opinion leaders. And this is the thing I see happening to people I know, and this is what disappoints me. Opinion leaders are a necessary evil. Relying on only them is the bigger problem.
The solution to the bigger problem is to bring your fields of expertise to a conscious level and deciding what things you only trust yourself to form an opinion on. One thing I think everyone ought to become their own opinion leaders of is ethics. This would do a serious blow to harmful and useless social norms. As far as other areas, I would say religion would be pretty huge. Being of a certain religious belief because you were raised a certain way seems like an extremely arbitrary way of deciding your foundational metaphysical beliefs. Other areas of importance are up to you, but it seems like the smartest thing to do would be to become your own opinion leader on as many topics as possible to research.
Which brings me to my final point. The entire need for opinion leaders is that we don't have time to do the necessary research to make an educated decision about everything. So, giving up opinion leaders must come at the price of doing research and thinking about the subjects you have decided to take belief-control of. I am not advocating that people just arbitrarily decide something for each subject and then tenaciously cling to it. Time and thought is necessary as well!
But it seems very worth the research to take back control of one's own opinions, doesn't it?

The 9/11 Conspiracy Entry

You know, I have really never spoken with anyone about the so-called '9/11 Truth Movement' as such. The only conversation I have ever had about it was with my Dad, not about the beliefs and arguments themselves, but as to the limits of academic freedom. (There was a professor at the University of Wisconsin who many thought should have been fired for featuring a few essays that debated the issue--last I knew, he wasn't. I guess Bill O'Reilly's campaign failed.)
My Dad thought he should have been fired for expressing such insane beliefs, in the classroom or out of it. To him, the 9/11 Conspiracy is not something he is cognitively able to believe (see William James, 'The Will to Believe'). I was on the other side, that although I remained skeptical about the validity of the 9/11 Conspiracy, that academics must be allowed to express unpopular beliefs without fear of losing their jobs. Academics are sort of a high-brow version of the Fourth Estate, or at least I always thought so.
So anyway, back to my original point. I have never really spoken with anyone about the 9/11 Conspiracy movement, so I'm not really sure how much on the 'fringe' it is. I know there are quite a few 9/11 myth books, and I've seen at least one nutjob on Fox News (not to say all people who believe in the movement are nutjobs, but this guy, yeah, he was.)
So, really, this entry may be preaching to the choir. Do people remain vehemently against the movement on principle? Or do people not care and be agnostic about it?
Well, either way, I was always agnostic about the whole thing. I guess I just figured that regardless of what the Bush Administration may have known before the attack, they used it as a reason to go after Iraq.
But finally, the curiosity got to me--it felt close-minded of me to not hear their arguments out just because they are on the fringe. So, I started by looking around the internet to see what the '9/11 Truthers' thought was the best documentary made so far. The answer seemed to be a documentary called Loose Change. I was lucky enough to find a version of Loose Change which included counter-arguments along with the movie itself. That way, I could decide for myself who was more convincing.
Well, the movie is almost 3 hours long, so unless you're pretty curious, I wouldn't waste your time. The 9/11 Truth Movement is bull shit. My dad was right about that. (I still think professors should be able to hold the view, however.) Yeah, I really overestimated their reasoning abilities. The extent of which they mislead is the only thing I underestimated. I mean there is malicious use of quotes! Let me give an example. Let's say someone was quoted as saying "It looked like a missile, but it wasn't, because it had wings and said American Airlines." Loose Change would only take the "It looked like a missile" part of the quote.
Not to mention how clearly ad-hoc their arguments are. They cite only sources which illustrate the point they are trying to make, and anyone who disagrees with them they consider part of the conspiracy. Its pretty ridiculous.
But, I'm glad. I am glad they are totally wrong. That would have really made me much more paranoid than health would advise.

On the other hand, I still am cynical. Check out This video. WOW.

Anyone but Clinton Club

I thought it was popular right now to hate Hilary Clinton, but apparently that must be among Republicans only, because she is starting to dominate the Democratic presidential race. Shucks. Just when I'm starting to come around to Obama.
Why do I hate Hilary Clinton? Because she is a woman? No. At least not consciously. Maybe this could become a series of posts I could write about why I cannot stand her. But for today, I'd like to give three reasons why I think it is frightening that she is ahead of anyone in the 'horse race', and why it is clear it can only be because people either a) want to be part of the history of making a woman president, or b) Are not paying attention.
I can't blame people for b). After all, it is early. But when a poller calls you and asks if you are voting in the primary, and you should either say 'no', or say you are rooting for anyone other than Hilary Clinton (and, let's go ahead and say Joe Biden too, because he is in many ways just like Clinton, but as he is lower than Kucinich in the polls, isn't much of a threat).
So why do I dislike her so much? If I don't cite enough examples of the three things I cannot stand about her below, just watch the debates, and you'll see it.

1."Anyone but Bush" --The Democratic party rode off of this in 2004, and yet Hilary Clinton is still applauded over and over again for answering any tough question by saying something about how much the 'current administration' sucks. Yeah, Hil, we know that. Along with this reason goes her basic argument for why people should choose her over the other candidates. Let's see this argument and analyze it:
a. We (the Democratic candidates) are all the same.
b. I'm winning.
c. I am experienced.
Therefore,
d. 'I'm your gal'.
Premise a., plainly false. All Democrats vaguely agree, the war is bad, but each one has their own proposal as to what to do about it. All Democrats vaguely agree on health care, but each one has their own proposal about what to do about it. Everything else, Democrats disagree on, to varying degrees. And this is true among the three front runners as well, so its even false if the premise is weakened to 'The leading Democratic candidates are all the same.'
b. So what? Should I vote for whoever is winning, regardless of whether I agree with them or not? Well damn, then my whole concept of voting is fucked up. I'd better remember this come voting time, if a Republican candidate is winning, I have to vote for them.
c. True; however, you are not the most experienced. That would go to Richardson, Biden, and Dodd.
B and C aren't that mistaken, however, it is A as a premise that pisses me off so much.
2. The lobbyist thing.
Everyone should really watch this video if they plan on voting in the primaries. Edwards challenges Clinton to stop taking money from lobbyists, and she just flat out says 'no, lobbyists represent real people.' (Hilary Clinton was the pharmeceutical company lobby's biggest recipient in 2006).
Although, to be fair, Edwards' hedge fund campaign doesn't seem much better. But at least he promotes public finance of campaigns.
3. 'I stay away from hypotheticals.'
This is what Hilary Clinton says whenever she is asked a hard question, along with, 'well, at least I won't suck as much as the Bush Administration.' What does this even mean, "I stay away from hypotheticals" ? Does it really make people think she is mature or a better candidate because she refuses 'what if' questions?
It is just a way to avoid making any campaign commitments!
Besides, how can you really even run for president, or debate for president, if you really are oppose to answering hypotheticals?! Isn't pretty much every debate question framed in the hypothetical 'If you were elected President..."?
It is such a sleazy question dodge. I know that all candidates dodge questions, but this is somehow worse, because it makes her look 'mature' or 'experienced'.

Most people hate Hilary Clinton because she has changed her views on basically everything except health care. I agree. But I thought I would touch on some of the other things. Please vote for anyone but Hilary.

One final note: There is a new 527 I'd like to publicly support, called "Rock the Debates" (www.rockthedebates.org) and they are basically trying to get all Democratic and Republican candidates to commit to having a debate with ALL candidates with a mathematical chance to win the election.
I think its a pretty good cause for democracy, letting third parties call out the major parties in a debate. It won't happen, but why not try?

Ignorance

I might just be getting old or something, because I feel like a 'feel-good' entry today.

I was walking on a trail in the woods today with Emily, when I was reminded of how ignorant I am of, well, basically, everything. I don't mean this in a philosophical way either.
I realized this while I was looking at a 10 story highway bridge above where we were walking. How the hell did they construct this thing? How would you even begin? Who figured out the math for this? Who figured out the logistics? Did they poor the concrete into constructed molds or what? I have no idea.
Take a thought like this and then expand it out.
Computers. How the hell do they work? How can me pushing buttons somehow put it on an electronic screen? How does the screen work? How does the programming language work? But even bigger--how could someone even begin to understand, much less create, a circuit board? I don't even know how electricity works.

Basically, I realized that I have no idea how anything works in life at all. Things I use everyday: electricity, cars, buildings, computers, microwave ovens...the list could go on pretty much indefinitely.
To quote the great Meatwad: "Damn I'm dumb."

I have these thoughts every so often, maybe monthly, and it always leads to the same place. I decide I want to undertake the long process of beginning to learn how these things work; after all, I know its within my capabilities, because human beings invented all this stuff. (But how could human beings be so fucking smart? I see human beings all the time, and I feel like I am part of a culture which is completely separated from the species that creates iPods and laptops!) And then, I realize...I don't even know anyone that knows how these things work! The vast majority of the population is walking around, just like me, using these things, buying these things, looking at these things, with absolutely no clue how any of them work! I once asked a computer science major to teach me, roughly, how a computer worked. He had no more idea than I did! And he works with these things everyday, manipulating them and such. Where are the people that understand these things? Do they live on some Utopia somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean? I want to understand!

This cycle repeats itself every month or two--its frustrating, but it also feels really good, for two reasons: 1. The thought that human beings are capable of the things they create is very comforting--its something to point at when cynics say humans are nothing but evil. Its amazing what 'we' as a race can do, when we set our minds to it; be it for profit, for God, or for community. 2. This one is more personal, but it feels good to know that I will never run out of things to learn. I live to learn, and the realization that I'll never be 'done', if I don't want to be, feels good. Its like knowing your purpose will never run out.

So, if you want to have a cheesy sentimental moment today, as you go about your business think of all the things that you are enjoying, thanks to humankind.

America and Food....

Food is culture, or so I have heard half a dozen times. And America doesn't have much of a proud culture...hot dogs, apple pie, burgers...did we invent the sandwich? I guess that is something worth being proud of.
Anyway, it seems to me that this 'obesity epidemic' thing is out of control. Ok, so Americans are overweight. Ok, this is unhealthy. But aren't we overreacting just a touch?
People do unhealthy things all the time. But overeating, although costly to the health care system, doesn't seem to be the biggest threat. After all, SuperSizing my meal at McDonald's doesn't cause me to act irrationally or lose my ability to think clearly.
As long as I'm not eating behind the wheel (which I don't condone), it doesn't make me unsafe to other people.
I guess it isn't the media coverage that bothers me, as much as the less frowned upon social response. Today I heard an employee at Starbuck's say he was on a 'less-than-1000-calorie' a day diet. People skip meals, people starve themselves, etc. etc.
And all but the most extreme cases are socially acceptable, as far as I can see.

So I've come to a tentative conclusion: We are too obsessed with weight. You can't make everything into such a simple issue--overweight or underweight. Shouldn't it be more important that we are getting all of our proper nutrients?
People can be overweight and healthy. People can be underweight and healthy. People can be overweight and happy. People can be of 'ideal' weight and unhappy.

This is probably obvious too almost everyone reading this. But then why do we forget it when we go about our lives?

A Paradox of Democracy

So I only have one political philosophy class under my belt, so maybe this is already a dilemma in the field. But I realized a bit of a problem with democracy and the 'rational voter' about a week ago. Hopefully I will explain this problem well enough that someone will have a satisfactory conclusion. Because if not, I will probably just ignore this problem when it comes time to actually make political statements and vote.
Ok--so, for simplicity, let's say that voters are generally rational, but not omniscient. They have two options: a) Vote for what they feel is best for the country (or possibly the world), or b) Vote for what they feel is best for them personally.
Now it seems that most people I've asked think that a) is the best option. I agree. However, we are not omniscient, and in fact, the vast majority of us lack a large chunk of relevant information. We really only go off of our own experiences and what little research we do read in newspapers, magazines, or television.
Let's take, for example, the economy. I know nothing about the economy. Is it true that the tax cuts for the rich stimulate the overall economy enough that it creates jobs? I'm not sure. Maybe. When it is an area of debate to even highly educated economists, how am I to decide what is best? I have to take a leap of faith based on anecdotal evidence, at best. Virtually all issues are this way. Health Care, Education, the war, global warming, etc.
Now if all voters (whom we have agreed are rational and not omniscient) decide to choose option a), it seems like we put our trust too much in what magazines, books, TV, newspapers we read and the selected information they give to us. Don't get me wrong, I'm not crying conspiracy here, I am just saying that we only have so much time to do research, and regardless of which sources we choose for information, it is a limited amount of sources, which taints everything from the start.
So a), although well meaning, would cause the majority to vote for whatever is the most rational choice given whatever information is most widely publicized or read. And this doesn't seem right, unless we assume all relevant facts are widely publicized.

b) is ideal, in theory. If all voters are rational, they vote for what is best for them, and whatever is best for the majority goes. But isn't there something counterintuitive about such blatant selfish voting? For example, I don't know anyone who has died in the war in Iraq. So as a rational and selfish voter, I just shouldn't give a damn about that issue at all? And the Iraqi civilians, hell, I have no chance of knowing any of them, so I shouldn't take that into account when going to the booth?
Should I vote against gay marriage? After all, I'm not gay, and it would mean more of my tax money spent on federal benefits that I am already eligible for.
Should I vote for ethanol? It is great for the economies of the midwest, so shouldn't a rational midwesterner vote for it, regardless of the fact it uses more energy in fossil fuels than it produces?
Should I vote against national healthcare? After all, I have insurance, so I have no worries.
Maybe I have too strong of a conscience, but this just doesn't feel right.

So how do we solve it? I have no idea.

Oh...and they don't have bagged cereal here. Actually, we can't find any generic cereal, aside from ALDI. What is that? Thank God for Aldi.

Pros and Cons

Its been a few days since we got to beautiful Cleveland, Ohio...so let's update you...


Pro: Big City=A lot to do!
Con: Big City=Areas of severe poverty

Pro: Diversity
Con: Gas stations and convenience stores separate....what the hell is that? Its not convenient if I can't get gas while I'm getting food!

Pro: No job, lots of free time!
Con: No job, lots of being bored.

Pro: Little Caesar's
Con: No money to buy the Little Caesar's

Pro: Living on Lake Erie
Con: Not knowing anyone...I miss you guys!

Pro: Dennis Kucinich lives here!
Con: I have no reason to follow politics anymore, Ohio's primary is like 3 months after a primary that would have any relevance.

Pro: A big, nice, apartment.
Con: No Hy-Vee, only its equivalent, "Giant Eagle" (what kind of a name is that for groceries?) --(pro--there are Aldis)

Pro: A great transportation system
Con: I can't get my free bus pass for another 2 weeks!

So, thats how it is...
I have a couple things to post on, but I will save that for the next couple days.