"the Truth at any cost"

Marmaduke

2009-12-01T21:27:00.000-08:00

Ok. I have owned a dog for over a month now. When am I supposed to start finding Marmaduke funny?

Take this....

2009-10-13T11:30:00.000-07:00

argument, and generalize. Consuming can never replace charity.

Sorry....

2009-09-05T20:35:00.000-07:00

but this is just hilarious. And totally legit. I promise. No photoshopping, this is from a real news broadcast.

Torture

2009-08-25T21:20:00.000-07:00

A few random thoughts....

1. With the new info out, it seems clear that people were tortured. People died in our custody, as a result of interrogation techniques. If death isn't torture, what is?

2. As per 1, its obvious now that no dignified lawyer could have actually believed these techniques were legal.

3. Which means that the only defense left for the defenders (like Cheney and Rep. King) is that laws can be overridden given enough reason. But that is an extremely dangerous precedent to set. We might as well have one and only one law on the books: "Do whatever is best, in each case."

4. Which makes me think...it is rare when news items effect my philosophical views (though conversations with friends tends to), but these events have definitely made me think that pure act consequentialism is false, at the very least at the political level, but probably at the individual level as well.

5. Now before someone responds to these thoughts along these lines: "Preston, you bleeding heart. These are terrorists. The worst people in the world. They would kill your family in front of you in a heartbeat. They deserve to be tortured. I could give a shit about their 'feelings.' Cut their balls off if that's what it takes." Let me remind you that none of these people have been tried as criminals. Now sure, a few of them are definitely guilty. Most of them are probably guilty. But a lot (don't misread this as most) of the people at Guantanamo are most likely innocent, victims of being in the wrong place t the wrong time. Torturing suspected criminals? That's an even worse precedent.

6. With all of this in mind, I think I'm justified in saying I am ashamed of many of the leaders of this country.

7. Oh, and by the way--if you appreciate this new transparency and you think the public deserves to know this kind of stuff, don't thank the big media. Thank the ACLU. They're the ones who sued to get this info out.

Representative Democracy...

2009-08-19T22:49:00.001-07:00

I am beginning to lose faith in our political system.

Metaphysical Skepticism --Does it imply egoism?

2009-08-16T21:11:00.000-07:00

I have been reading a lot of ethics lately, including, if I may name drop, Sidgwick's renowned The Methods of Ethics.
And its gotten me thinking again about how metaphysical views can influence ethical views in a lot of ways, and I'm not just talking about the metaphysics of ethics either. And this certainly isn't a good thing, because metaphysics is tricky and contentious.
I have two arguments rolling around in my head with different conclusions based on different metaphysical views. The first one, an argument for what we might call "practical egoism," is what I want to go over here. Perhaps someone can point out if I have gone wrong.
First, the metaphysical view that my argument rests on--let's call it "metaphysical skepticism." Metaphysical skepticism doesn't deny that there are metaphysical truths, but that they are unknowable by human beings. Its a very reasonable view, and something roughly like what I have in mind is what Colin McGinn argues for in Problems of Philosophy: The Limits of Inquiry.
Most importantly for my current argument is the view that the problem of other minds is unsolvable. The problem of other minds is the problem of knowing the mental states of other persons besides ourselves, or even if they have mental states at all.
Everyone practically believes that all humans have mental states and feelings just like their own, based on inferences from their behavior--Colin winces in pain when I kick him in the shin, just as I would; therefore he must be feeling the same way I do when it happens to me.
Now we couldn't really get around very well in our day-to-day lives without assuming this--its perhaps an evolutionary necessity that we assume persons move and act intentionally and feel similar qualitative states to our own. But this inference isn't really a valid one--its a generalization from an sample size of 1--yourself. And in no other area of inquiry would that fly. So there is the problem of other minds.
Metaphysical skepticism says that this problem is unsolvable--we can't, even in principle, have any evidence for or against the existence of minds other than our own.
Philosophically reasonable position, right?
Ok, so much for our metaphysical basis.
Nothing ethically harmful follows from this, does it? How could it? Well, actually, for all practical purposes, the rational believer of metaphysical skepticism should be an egoist, as far as I can tell. Say I am a consequentialist--as long as my ultimate ends is something mental or intentional, such as desire-fulfillment or something more like hedonism, I can only safely assume that I am a being with desires and qualitative states like pleasure and pain. Because I have no idea about other beings and objects, I rationally ought not risk trying to increase their pleasures or desire-fulfillment. For maybe these other beings are zombies, without qualitative states. Or maybe they're even worse than zombies--lacking both qualitative and intentional states (if thats possible--some people define desires and intentions behavioristically, so thats one 'out' for the metaphysical skeptic). But even if zombies are metaphysically impossible, (which, it should be noted, the metaphysical skeptic doesn't confirm or deny) there is no way of knowing if Colin McGinn's wincing is actually represented in his mind pleasurably, and he feels great joy and exhileration at the feeling of tissue damage, though his behavior doesn't show this in any way. Its impossible for the metaphysical skeptic to rule this out.
Now, as noted above, its not really feasible for the skeptic about the problem of other minds to live her life as if other people don't have minds--its psychologically impossible to doubt it, I presume. But nevertheless, from a rational standpoint, the metaphysical skeptic should seemingly try to suppress this thought as much as possible. To try to please the people around us would be like trying to please a rock--we have no idea how to do it, so it is fruitless to try. The metaphysical skeptic is in the same position with human beings.

But receding to a more Kantian view will not help here, for a simpler reason--respect for persons goes out the window when we have no safe way of deciding who are persons. We could have a strictly scientific test for personhood, I suppose, but I don't think its feasible in practice. This is a point for another post, but it seems like any strictly scientific test of personhood is going to either be too wide, and bring in things like computers, or too narrow, and rule out infants or intelligent non-human animals. But, I admit, that is another 'out' for the metaphysical skeptic, because that is a contentious point.

Either of these stances, consequentialism or deontology, when coupled with metaphysical skepticism, appear to imply, for all practical purposes, egoism. Though both the utilitarian and Kantian agree in principle to treat all sentient beings/persons with respect, neither can know what beings fall into the proper category, and are thus hopeless to take moral action, outside of their own mental life.
Now I think there are ways to weasel out of these conclusions, but I don't immediately see how. Anyone have any ideas?

The Other Argument against Obamacare

2009-08-11T11:07:00.000-07:00

What if Fire Departments were Private?

Radiohead--All I Need

2009-08-10T19:45:00.000-07:00

Great video. That is all.

Oscar the Grouch and Philosophy

2009-07-27T10:52:00.000-07:00

Well everyone, I have made an amazing discovery. Sesame Street set into motion the steps which made me, much later in my life, become a philosopher.
You see, while everyone else was laughing at Elmo's bizarre voice, and becoming accepting of homosexuality via Bert and Ernie, I was intently watching the actions of my favorite Sesame Street character: Oscar the Grouch. (Side note: Grover is way cooler than Elmo.)
How did my affections for Oscar the Grouch manifest themselves later in life? Well, its obvious now! Oscar the Grouch IS Diogenes of Sinope, the cranky cynical Greek philosopher known as the dog. The parallels are innumerable. Let me just lay them out, to prove my point:
Both Oscar and Diogenes are, well, grouchy. Oscar, for one, loves to argue.--what a philosopher. Diogenes seemed to hate people in general.
Oscar lives in a trash can; Diogenes lived in a bath-tub.
Oscar lives and acts unconventionally; Diogenes not only did the same, but it was also the foundation of his philosophy. Diogenes hated custom. Oscar the Grouch even hates Christmas.
Diogenes reportedly walked around in the middle of the day with a lantern--when asked what he was doing, he said he was "looking for a real human being," saying he only could find rascals and scoundrels.
Diogenes lived among dogs and rats. Oscar does as well, living amongst many pets in his trash can, most notably a rat.
Diogenes once masturbated in a public square...well, ok, Oscar never did that. But its a children's show.

The point is, the parallels are to great to ignore. Oscar is Diogenes! Sesame Street is deeper than you once thought.

Williamson’s Argument against an Epistemological Conception of Analyticity

2009-07-05T11:03:00.000-07:00

So, I’m about halfway through Timothy Williamson’s The Philosophy of Philosophy (POP). From what I’ve heard, POP has gotten a lot of people talking, because Williamson is largely attempting to come to the defense of traditional “armchair” philosophy. Williamson isn’t explicitly anti-X-phi (Experimental Philosophy), but he does think that armchair philosophy is still as important as ever. At the halfway point, I think I agree with his general thesis, though I disagree with some minor points, one of which is the subject of this post.

In chapter 4, Williamson argues against the idea that “failure to assent [to an analytic truth] is not merely good evidence of failure to understand; it is constitutive of such failure.” To prove his point, he wants to argue that a competent speaker of a language can reject analytic truths. He decides to use one of the simplest types of analytic case out there, “Every vixen is a vixen.” If he can show that even a competent user of the English language can reject this statement, then he will have proved his point.

There is a lot more going on in this chapter, but most of it centers around this argument. An epistemological conception of analyticity will say something along the lines of:
(ECA) “A statement (or thought) p is analytic iff anyone who truly understands p will assent to it.” Williamson considers a lot of subtle ways the defender of an epistemological conception may change it to avoid his objections, but I don’t think that’s important to my present point.

On pp85-99, Williamson discusses at length his two examples of competent speakers who reject “Every vixen is a vixen” [henceforth (V)]. The first example is Peter: Peter takes universal quantification to be existentially committing, and thus, (V) is only true if vixens actually exist. Furthermore, Peter happens to subscribe to a conspiracy theory whereby vixens, in fact, do not exist. A crazy belief, sure, but certainly it doesn’t make him linguistically incompetent. In all other respects, Peter is a competent native speaker of the English language.* Nevertheless, because Peter believes there are no vixens, he rejects (V) because he thinks it assumes that there are vixens. So (ECA) fails.

I think this first case fails, for two reasons. First, if there is a fact of the matter about the analyticity of (V), which Williamson presumes, then Peter is either wrong, and incompetently using the word “every” as a universal quantifier which is existentially committing, or right, and the vast majority of people are wrong. If there is no fact of the matter, then statements in natural language have no truth-conditions, so of course (EPA) fails, along with any other account of the truth-conditions of sentences (or statements, thoughts, etc.) of a natural language such as English.

The Peter problem is one that only arises in natural language, which ought to tip us off to the fact that it is a problem of the vagueness and ambiguity within natural language, not with (ECA) or analyticity itself. For Peter could not competently deny (V) within a logical system like basic, elementary predicate logic. The denial of (V) would result in a contradiction. Peter could construct his own system which didn’t interpret universal quantifiers in such a way, but then it would just be a different system, a different language, and incommensurate with the elementary predicate logic which Hurley and Copi made us love (or hate).

Williamson’s second example is the case of Stephen. Stephen “believes that borderline cases for vague terms constitute truth-value gaps.” (pg87) When a borderline case for a vague term comes up, Stephen recognizes it as “indeterminate,” rather than true or false. Stephen rejects (V) because there are borderline cases of vixens (Evolutionary ancestors of foxes, for example), call them x. For cases like x, “x is a vixen” is indeterminate, and therefore (V) is indeterminate. Stephen is, despite his views (which may, in fact, be accurate), a competent speaker of English. He understands (V), but does not assent to it.

The Stephen case can be answered on similar lines. Williamson takes all cases of things to be determinately vixen or not vixen—there is no middle ground. If he is right, then Stephen does not understand “Every vixen is a vixen,” because he doesn’t understand the meaning of “vixen” as being strictly determinate. Sure, Stephen may be competent in the sense of “getting by,” but if there really is a fact of the matter as to whether the statement is true or not, and Williamson is right about that fact, Stephen does not properly grasp what a “vixen” is.

On the other hand, Stephen may be right, that “vixen” is a vague term, and that there are things which are indeterminate as to whether they are vixens. If this is the case, then it is Williamson who doesn’t really grasp (V) (as well as, perhaps, most of us, because most people intuitively assent to (V)). Williamson believes there are necessary and sufficient conditions, which, though unknowable by us in totality, can pick out determinately which x’s are vixens and which not. But what are these necessary and sufficient conditions, if not part of the semantics of the word? So the dispute between someone like Stephen and Williamson is over the meaning of “vixen.” And if there is a fact of the matter, one of them is wrong, and one of them doesn’t properly understand (V).

But surely, Williamson will respond, Stephen, Peter, and I are all competent speakers of the English language. This is a sleight of hand—-by “competent,” Williamson means that they can communicate in all everyday affairs without making wildly false statements.* Well sure they can! But that doesn’t mean they infallibly grasp the meanings of words and logical operators in the language. If someone had a system to add numbers which gave outputs identical to ours except in the case of 7+5 it said 13, we wouldn’t say they understood what “+” means even though they were reliable in most circumstances (think Kripkenstein). When Williamson discusses Stephen and Peter’s competence, what he needs is semantic competence, but all he has is pragmatic, functional competence. And their semantic competence is obviously skewed, since they are giving improper truth values to basic sentences (or we are giving improper truth values to basic sentences, but the point is that someone must be right).
One final note—Williamson considers the objection that perhaps Stephen and Peter are using the words in (V) in a non-standard way, and thus are just constructing a semantics independent of standard English. His response is that “Peter and Stephen are emphatic that they intend their words to be understood as words of our common language, with their standard English senses.” (pp89) But this objection just looks to me like a straw-man. Of course Williamson’s response is accurate—Peter and Stephen think they are accurately describing standard English. But they are wrong (ex hypothesi). So much for the worse for their analyses. This isn’t an issue, because the defender of (ECA) can just say that Stephen and Peter lack semantic competence, despite the fact that they have what Williamson seems to think is important, functional competence.

*Actually, in Peter's case, this seems implausible, since Peter will not be able to assent to statements like "All unicorns have one horn."

Beating Singer at His Own Game

2009-06-07T07:23:00.000-07:00

Peter Singer is one of very few living philosophers who are known in the mainstream--I have seen him on the Morning Show, the Colbert Report, and a BBC news special.
Its probably a toss-up whether he is more known for his animal rights stuff or his ending world poverty stuff, but he is extremely prominent in both areas.
Recently, Singer has published a book entitled "The Life You Can Save". This book is written for a popular audience, and it basically makes the same case Singer has been making since his 1972 "Famine, Affluence, and Morality": that we (individuals as well as governments) should be giving A LOT more money to charities, to end world poverty and unnecessary deaths from things that, frankly, people shouldn't die from-- diarrhea, cholera, etc. etc. Even the poor in affluent countries like the U.S. are much better off than the poor in third-world countries, and proximity should have no independent effect on our obligations.
I generally agree with Singer's project, as well as most of his others (that is, I am a utilitarian who isn't afraid to follow those principles to their conclusion.)

Here, I want to focus on one of his most famous arguments. This is an argument that gets discussed in Intro to Ethics courses all over. Briefly, it is this:

"if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it. An application of this principle would be as follows: if I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, I ought to wade in and pull the child out. This will mean getting my clothes muddy, but this is insignificant, while the death of the child would presumably be a very bad thing...the principle takes, firstly, no account of proximity or distance. It makes no moral difference whether the person I can help is a neighbor's child ten yards from me or a Bengali whose name I shall never know, ten thousand miles away. Secondly, the principle makes no distinction between cases in which I am the only person who could possibly do anything and cases in which I am just one among millions in the same position." (Famine, Affluence, and Morality)

Its the example of the child drowning that gets me. I actually think it is an apt analogy--if you can save a child's life by donating $75 to Oxfam, that is just as good as saving a child's life that is drowning in a wading pool right in front of you. That's okay with me. Sure, you might ruin your suit. But saving a child's life is much more valuable than a suit, even a nice one.

But there is an issue here, if we are sticking strictly to our utilitarian calculus (which Singer wants to do). Let's assume, for sake of example, that a child in Africa's minor ailment can be cured with a $75 donation to Oxfam, allowing him to live a productive and full life. Next, let's assume that the suit I am wearing has a resale value of, say, $300. I notice the child drowning in front of me. Here we are, in the same situation which Singer gives above, but with the added detail about the suit's cost. So, it seems we should save the child in front of us--most people would even say its pretty obvious we ought to do that. But let's say I don't have time to take off my suit. If this is so, then, by utilitarian lights, I ought not save the child! Why? Because I can save the lives of 4 children by leaving, selling the suit, and donating the money to Oxfam. The lives of 4 are greater than the life of one, and proximity makes no difference.
This looks to be just another formulation of the trolley problem, or the forced organ-donor example. But it is especially interesting because what Singer says in his work on poverty seems to imply he has to be ok with this counterintuitive conclusion.
Anyone have any way of getting out of this? It sure seems like there ought to be one; that is, I think Singer's argument is cogent--so something fishy must be going on here.

The Terminator Argument for Determinism

2009-06-03T19:22:00.001-07:00

Ok, so I saw Terminator: Salvation (a.k.a. Terminator 4) today. It has its moments of greatness, in between sections of mediocrity.
Anyway, there was one thing in the movie which made me think--and I'm pretty sure it was supposed to...the film didn't have a lot of brains behind it for the most part, but this may be one exception.
I saw, within the plot, an argument that might be used to shift the burden of proof onto the libertarian in the free will/determinist debate.
But let me preface this:
SPOILER ALERT

Ok, hopefully you have stopped reading if you plan on seeing the movie and haven't yet.

One of the characters in the film is named Marcus Wright. He learns in the movie that he is a cyborg--a human/machine hybrid, created by Skynet (if any of this doesn't make sense because you aren't familiar with the Terminator series, go to wikipedia.) Marcus sees himself as being completely human; he is, in fact, not even aware that he is a cyborg until about half way through. So, presumably, his judgment and actions appear to himself as autonomous.
However, later on, after Marcus helps get John Connor into the headquarters of Skynet, the main CPU at Skynet reveals that bringing John Connor was Marcus' programmed mission, and that Marcus has executed his mission perfectly, though he was unaware that he was doing so.
This all seems to make sense, in the moment. After all, it is an American action movie, one ought not think too hard in the heat of the moment.
But, if one could accept (and, even better, to argue for) that the case of Marcus Wright is logically coherent, as well as in principle physically coherent, it seems that a somewhat cogent argument against free will could be made.
If it is possible, in principle, to manipulate someone's experience in such a way as to give them the phenomenology of choosing freely when in fact they are not, then there really isn't any way of knowing why this may not just be the way we've evolved.

So, the argument would look something like this (and, grant me that its late and I haven't thought this through too much):

1.Some version of libertarian free will is the most intuitively plausible.
2.We, prima facie, as well as "the folk," find libertarianism about the will to be intuitively plausible, in main part, because of our phenomenology of choice--that is, we deliberate and act on what seems to us to be of our own choosing.
3a.(What we may call, The Skeptical Premise) This phenomenology of choice does not give us reason to favor a libertarianism about the will over a determinist one--that is,
3b. the phenomenology can be equally explained by something like the Marcus Wright story, without any messy science fiction tale (e.g. we may have just evolved to be Marcus Wrights). Ockham's Razor does not favor the libertarian explanation of the Marcus Wright one.
Therefore,
4.Our reason for finding libertarianism about the will loses its grounding, and along with this, its intuitive force.
Therefore, ceteris paribus,
5.Determinism should be the accepted view, libertarianism should hold the burden of proof.

What obvious hole am I missing? I may be accused of begging the question. Well, yeah, I guess that is probably true. But, if we took an anecdotal survey of reactions to the Marcus Wright story, and most found it coherent, then perhaps we could say intuitions about free will are too highly inconsistent to claim that libertarianism is more intuitively plausible than determinism.

Holy Crap!/Question of the Summer

2009-05-11T17:23:00.000-07:00

Pt. I-- Holy Crap!
So, yeah. I have turned in my final paper; I have taken my final test. I will be graduating on Saturday, barring any unforeseen failings or transcript overlookings! Holy shit! I will have an M.A. in Philosophy! In honor, I have created a "Word Cloud"
http://www.wordle.net/gallery/wrdl/837362/Masters

Are Investors Functionalists?

2009-03-07T17:45:00.000-08:00

Ok, so before I get started on this post, I have a question for all readers (with an opinion) of this blog--I am currently trying to decide the manner in which to write posts. I have, in the past, written in a way such that any intelligent reader can understand. However, there are times when I have wanted to post on things which are more specific to contemporary analytic philosophy, things which I have not the space to give background. Here is my question: Should I write this blog to the general reader, or should I assume a good background of philosophical knowledge? Your opinion would be appreciated.
On to the post!

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
"Functionalism in the philosophy of mind is the doctrine that what makes something a mental state of a particular type does not depend on its internal constitution, but rather on the way it functions, or the role it plays, in the system of which it is a part."
Put very simply, and in a way functionalists would quibble with, functionalists define mental states by their functional/dispositional role. For example, a functionalist would define pain as "a disposition to wince, to take aspirin if offered, etc. etc."
There are a lot of objections to functionalism, and its not as popular as it once was about 20-30 years ago. But its still a pretty popular theory of mind--it can be construed materially, so no problems with immaterial substances. But it also allows for multiple realizability, which seems pretty plausible.
I'm not concerned with those objections here. But I am interested to see if functionalists have thought about accepting a real life China-brain example.
Is the creature, "Carl", being referred to in the following quotes an intelligent being capable of reacting to world events just as we are?
"Carl's reaction to the 'going concern' news was somewhat strange given that it was not a surprise at all."
"The president's words did little to inspire Carl, however."
Headlines: "Unrepentant Carl" "Is Obama Responsible for Carl's Meltdown?" (a little tabloid, that one.)
"He appeared to win the confidence of some leaders, according to CNNMoney.com. But the story was different on the home front, where Carl is all but comfortable with the plan."

Who is this powerful "Carl"? Some political nerd? A powerful, but emotionally unstable, member of Obama's cabinet? He certainly reacts to world events in a swift and calculated way.

Well, you've probably figured it out. But if you haven't, "Carl" is Wall Street. So is Wall Street a conscious, intelligent creature? Don't give me that incredulous stare (philosophers will get that)! What is the difference between a human being and Wall Street that makes you believe that we are conscious and Wall Street not? Both are highly organized systems, made up of smaller systems (cells on the one hand, and human beings and computers on the other), react to stimulation in somewhat though not totally predictive ways, etc.
If you aren't a dualist, what is it that makes humans different from other organized systems?
I've been learning philosophy of mind for about 5 years now; everything seems more confusing the more I learn. So before you dismiss the idea of something like Wall Street being conscious, try to find, in your own introspection, some definitive line or qualifying idea as to what the necessary and sufficient conditions are to be a conscious being.

And before you say, "hey, functionalism is just stupid. Problem solved." Trust me, every position in Phil of Mind has something bizarre going on. That's why Philosophy of Mind is such a hot field, and why views are still so divided.

I just may have been right about something

2009-02-18T20:08:00.000-08:00

Hey look! Another reason why NOT to get/have a facebook account! Everything you upload or post becomes property of Facebook....forever.
http://consumerist.com/5150175/facebooks-new-terms-of-service-we-can-do-anything-we-want-with-your-content-forever

There is also stuff on the news sites, but I am afraid the links will die, so just google news it.

Michael Phelps smokes weed.

2009-02-03T14:59:00.000-08:00

Maybe instead of "Wow, who knew Michael Phelps was a big loser drug addict," the reaction should be "Wow, I guess marijuana isn't that bad for you when done in moderation. After all, winning eight gold medals has to take a lot of ambition, hard work, strength, and focus. Maybe all of our stereotypes about marijuana aren't completely true?"

The Law of Non-Contradiction

2008-11-22T21:17:00.000-08:00

See! People use logic, whether they realize it or not!

Best Thing of the Month

2008-07-19T19:55:00.000-07:00

http://www.freerice.com

Its legit (I found a BBC article about it). And amazing. Just click the link.

Religious Freedom

2008-07-08T18:45:00.001-07:00

The event that prompts this post is, I'll admit, a bit outdated. Remember that raid on the Fundamentalist Mormon sect (known as FLDS)? Let me recap for a second in case you forgot. A teenage girl called an anonymous tipline to say that she had been abused on the ranch (Yearning for Zion, I believe it is called, if you'd like to wikipedia it). Alright, so that was good, right? She worked up the courage to call out whomever this asshole who abused her was, and hopefully he will be thrown in jail.
But no. Instead, the next day, the powers that be invade the ranch, and take over 400 children away from their families! Because of a phone call?
Think about a regular community, like Traer, or in Ohio like Berea. A girl is abused and calls the proper authorities. Would the police raid every home in the town and take away all legal minors? Hell no!

What I am saying is that I am with the FLDS on that case--apparently the Supreme Court of the state of Texas was, too. One phone call does not warrant taking hundreds of children away from their home. It was, clearly, an issue of religious discrimination. People think the FLDS is bizarre (which it is), and maybe even barbaric, because they allow polygamy, and they pretty openly think men are better than women. Not to mention, they tried to go off and live on their own! How dare they!
Well listen, the fact is, just like freedom of speech, when you have a country with freedom of religion, you have to let the weirdos in.
The state claimed their right to take away the children, because they feared them being 'socialized' to become abusive. The courts rejected this as too broad.

Ok, so thats my opinion on that case. But it brings up some interesting questions about freedom of religion that I just don't know the answer to.
Freedom of speech laws have had many famous court cases to sort how far it goes. Basically anything that isn't obscene (as defined by the Law) is free. But what about freedom of religion? It seems intuitive that we would want a vast range of freedom of religion--but then cases like the FLDS weaken those intuitions. Religious pacifists don't have to fight in wars; this seems fair. Can a religion be openly racist? I would say that should probably be allowed, for similar reasons as freedom of speech. Where do we set the limits? Any suggestions? We can play it safe up in abstract theory land to simplify things.

The second question I have is about organized religions vs. non-organized religions. If the law is willing to grant religious people exceptions from obligations, which they ought to, why can't irreligious people have the same perks? Ok yes, you shouldn't get to avoid draft because its inconvenient, but that isn't exactly what I'm saying.
What I am saying is that, I don't belong to any religious group. But I have ethical standards I take just as seriously as devoutly religious people. Why should I be legally obliged to do something I consider unethical, if religious people don't? And how many members does a church need to have before their beliefs are accepted?
Certainly we can imagine strange religions which would bring serious problems--like a religion which had a compulsory communion of LSD or another illegal substance. The government has let this type of thing go with certain Native American religions; why couldn't a new start-up religion be just as valid?
I'm not asking these questions in order to cheat the system--I'm just trying to consider a principled way to give equal rights to all religious and non-religious people, regardless of their particular faith's popularity, normality, or age. And this question is proving more difficult than I thought it would be. Any takers?

Counterfactuals

2008-07-07T08:03:00.000-07:00

(I get the idea that, generally speaking, the layperson tends to believe philosophy as an active practice is dead. Philosophy, they believe, is merely the study of the history of thought. And it certainly is. A huge chunk of philosophy is interpretation and study of what other great thinkers thought. But there is actual philosophizing going on today, believe it or not.)

My big project for late this summer and into the fall semester has to do with counterfactuals. What is a counterfactual? Well, let's review some related concepts:
A counterfactual is a type of conditional, of which there are many.
First there is the 'Indicative Conditional':
"If the moon is made out of cheese, then Sally would like some cheese." What makes an indicative conditional true? Well, it is certainly controversial. The common-sense interpretation is that the antecedent (what comes after 'if') must cause the consequent (what comes after the 'then'). When conditionals are interpreted in this way, they are called 'causal conditionals'.
The problem with causal conditionals is that 'cause' is an extremely mysterious concept in any philosophical conversation, and a lot of people think it invokes implicit counterfactuals. This is a problem, as we shall see later.
So for simplicity's sake, most basic, non-modal systems of logic interpret "If the moon is made out of cheese, then Sally would like some cheese," as being logically equivalent to "Either the moon is NOT made out of cheese, or Sally would like some cheese." Logical equivalence means that the truth-value of the first statement must always be the same as the truth-value of the second statement.
Ok, think about this--it takes a moment to grasp.
Now this way of interpreting conditionals works a lot--the only counterintuitive result is that any conditional with a false antecedent is automatically true as a whole. For example-- "If the moon is made of cheese, 2+2=74" is true, because it is logically equivalent to "Either the moon is NOT made of cheese, or 2+2=74," which is true.
There is another way of interpreting conditionals, called 'strict conditional'. This interpretation attempted to alleviate the problem just mentioned by saying only a conditional with a true antecedent AND a true consequent could be true.

Alright, finally to counterfactual conditionals, or subjunctive conditionals (they both refer to the same thing from different literature).
When someone uses a counterfactual conditional, they realize that the antecedent is false, but are trying to say what would be the case if it weren't. For example:
"If Bush had been a veteran, his approval ratings would be higher."
This statement makes sense to all of us, regardless of whether we agree with it or not. But it isn't trivially true or trivially false. So here is the problem--how can we declare its truth-value? We can certainly try to show evidence for or against it--but what evidence is even relevant?
The Bush/veteran case seems to be rationally resolvable, but it seems there are much more difficult cases, such as "If George Bush had been named 'Jeb', the president of the United States in 2003 would not have invaded Iraq." What makes this counterfactual true? If George was named Jeb, it seems our world would be different in ways we can't imagine. Is the speaker saying someone named 'Jeb' wouldn't have invaded Iraq? Or are they saying a 'Jeb' couldn't have won, and Gore wouldn't have invaded? Or Gore would have prevented Sept. 11? There are so many circumstances which we are ignorant of, it isn't clear how the truth value can be determined.
Its also entirely plausible that we just can't talk about situations that bizarre and expect to come up with a decent answer.

But the point and the question in all of this that I am trying to answer is as follows: What is the formal (logical) definition of a counterfactual? Do we interpret them like causal conditionals? Do we consider a world in which all facts are the same besides the explicitly stated antecedent?

This is all very confusing, and I probably haven't explained it well. For that I apologize.

2008-07-06T19:05:00.001-07:00

"Freedom is the freedom to say '2+2=4'. If that is grounded, all else follows."

A Brief Dialogue on Marriage

2008-06-16T16:43:00.000-07:00

J: So, K, you've been with your significant other for a while now. Any wedding or proposal plans in the future?
K: Uhh, well, no. I just don't know if I'm comfortable with the idea of marriage.
J: What? Marriage is the ultimate expression of love for another person! You're obviously just afraid of commitment.
K: Well, maybe that is part of it. All a marriage really is is a contract that says "X will not cheat on or leave Y, and all financial burdens between X and Y shall be shared." What the hell else is there?
J: No way! Marriage isn't about the legal contract! Its a sacred bond to promise your love to another person through thick and thin, for the rest of your soul's existence--
K: I'm agnostic; I don't believe in the soul.
J: --ok, well then the rest of your life. I mean, most people see it as a promise in front of God, but I don't see why you couldn't make that same commitment in a secular way. Marriage, for a non-religious person, is just a promise in front of the world to spend a life with someone, through thick and thin.
K: Alright, maybe you are right about that one. Still, I just don't think marriage is for me.
J: So its a commitment issue.
K: I guess it is technically a commitment issue. But its not like you think. Its not like I just want to sleep around some more. Its that marriage, in both senses we've defined it, is not something I'm interested in.
J: How have we defined it?
K: First there is my inclination--legal contract.
J: Yes, and we've covered that.
K: Yes, we have. So there is the second--
J: Right--marriage is an act of love in which two souls become one--and you can certainly interpret that in a secular way. Its a promise to God and/or the world at large that you will love and cherish this person for the rest of your life.
K: Ok, there you go. So I don't fall into that second definition either. I'm not ready to make that promise.
J: Maybe your significant other and you just aren't right for each other...
K: What?
J: Well if you don't feel that way after being with them for this long...
K: No! Its not a lack of love, I love them with all my heart! Its that I am not ready to give up my personhood to become 'one-soul'.
J: Yes, but that is only in a metaphorical sense for a non-religious person like you.
K: Ok, but I'm not ready for that, even in a metaphorical way.
J: What do you mean? How could you not be ready for a 'metaphorical bond'?
K: Well, it seemed like more than a 'metaphorical bond' a minute ago. You seem to be implying, intentionally or not, that because I'm not religious, I shouldn't take marriage so seriously.
J: Well, its not that you shouldn't take it seriously. Its just that, with God seemingly not being involved...
K: Its a life-long promise; its more than a promise! I am offended by the notion that you think because I am a secular person I should get married willy-nilly.
J: Its not 'willy-nilly'! Besides, who uses that phrase anymore anyway? Listen, I'm just saying that you are being stubborn over a simple metaphorical issue, and its ridiculous. If your partner wants to get married, and you love them, why not do it?
K: Because I take marriage seriously, for better or worse; I take it to be as we have defined it, and politely decline from practicing in the institution. It may very well be for others, but I don't feel comfortable making such a big promise.
J: What is it that scares you of it so much? You don't want to be with your significant other after a while or something?
K: No, its not that. To be honest, I can't imagine being without them. But I don't think it is fair to my future self to make such a big commitment. The fact is, who I am today is different in a lot of significant ways from who I was 5 years ago. And I see no reason for this constant self-change to end.
J: That is fine! That is just one of the difficulties of marriage. If you took marriage as seriously as you claim to, you could work through you and your spouse's changes.
K: I understand what you are saying. But my objection isn't that it would be too hard. Its that getting married, as I see it, is making a promise for someone else--my future self. I wouldn't expect my self 5 years ago to make decisions for me today--it would fuck it all up. So why should I do the same to the person who will exist in this body years from now?
J: You are thinking too hard about this. Marriage isn't a great philosophical issue.
K: I'm afraid I disagree. Everything is a philosophical issue, and if not everything, then at least huge social institutions and abstract concepts such a marriage are.
J: Maybe once you meet the right person, you will see my position better.
K: We've clearly reached a stalemate. For I am with the person I would marry, were I to marry anyone. It is not my potential spouse I am rejecting. It is the institution.
J: You think too much.

Its good to be back.

The Thin Line between Tolerance and Relativism

2008-02-10T08:11:00.000-08:00

Though I consider myself a Democratic Socialist, there is something frightening to me about the increasing liberalness of our society. But let me first justify that comment. I am looking at the big picture here; and it seems clear to me that from generation to generation our nation, and most of the world, is becoming more liberal. From emancipation, to civil rights, to near universal suffrage. I mean, our parents generation would have had legal troubles with marrying someone of a different race. That is fucked up. But we've gone a long way. Sure, there are a lot of people who are still against interracial marriage today--but these tend to be older people, raised in a different cultural climate.
Homosexuals will probably be able to get married soon. Who knows, maybe in a few more generations the government will just get out of the marriage business completely. People wouldn't be punished via taxation for their decision to remain single.
But I am happy about all these changes. I've just read J.S. Mill's "On Liberty", and I'm really pumped up about liberalism. I am sure I will be on the liberal side of things for at least a few more years.
So what is it that frightens me about modern society? You ready for this? Relativism.

One of the most wonderful things about living in an industrialized nation on Earth today as opposed to 100+ years ago, besides educational opportunities and 40-hour workweeks (Thank you liberalism!), is our tolerance for those unlike us. No, not everyone is tolerant. And most people aren't tolerant of everything. But more and more people are becoming tolerant of other people who hold different views and live different lifestyles than themselves. This is beautiful! Diversity is wonderful. Freedom is all about living your life as you please--deciding what is best for yourself, deciding what sources you can get your information from, deciding where to work, what to put into your body*, etc.
The problem is that I hear more and more people from my generation faltering. They somehow make the logical gap from tolerance for others to relativism about truth. The implicit argument makes enough sense:
1. I shouldn't judge people for disagreeing with me about what is true or moral, because I don't know any better than they do.
2. But I certainly know a lot about what is true and moral.
/:. 3. So, what is 'true for me' must be different than what is 'true' for someone else.

The problem with this argument is premise 2. The whole idea behind tolerance, as I see it, is that we DON'T know what we think we know. I think that most of us would admit that we probably have some false beliefs. And we would admit we aren't sure which of these beliefs we are wrong about. So, we ought to have tolerance of others based on our acknowledged ignorance. The problem is that people want to have it both ways. They want to be tolerant AND arrogant. They refuse to admit their own ignorance.
Take religion--this is a prime example. Let's say Sally is a Christian, and Sarah is Jewish. Sally is tolerant. But is she tolerant for the right reasons?
The wrong reason: Sally thinks that both her and Sarah have true religious beliefs. She believes Christ is the son of God is 'true for her', and Sarah's not believing so is 'true for Sarah'.
The right reason: Sally realizes that such a deep metaphysical question such as those about religion are unknowable by humanity. She acknowledges that her belief in Christianity is a 'leap of faith', and as such, is fallible. Epistemically, she is in the same position as Sarah, so she respects her differing beliefs.

I see this relativism all over the place. And I see the logical slip that causes it. And its an easy mistake to make. So how can we perpetuate tolerance while retaining absolutism about truth?

...And now for something completely different.

2008-01-12T14:45:00.000-08:00

I have thought about doing this since I started this blog. And I'm in a particularly strange mood today, which means I may remove this post when I come to my senses. Here are some samples of writing I've done in the past 5 years. Notice how it gets increasingly worse over time? Whats up with that? I am old and uncreative.
Don't mind the editing on that first one. Its just too recent to be public at this point (if interpreted correctly)

Making Political Philosophy a Science

2008-01-10T07:43:00.000-08:00

Ok, so I have an idea, which, though technically possible, is not feasible or plausible. But what the hell, why don't I just throw it out there?
People disagree widely on political philosophies. And I'm talking about the broad picture here, not just republicans and democrats. We've got communists, socialists, fascists, capitalists, anarchists, and many subsets of each of these. Now, despite what you may self-righteously believe, I think there are essentially high quality intelligent arguments for each of these philosophies. I believe, though I'm not certain, that these philosophies ultimately rest on different views of human nature. To take one striking example, capitalists believe humans achieve the most in a competitive society, whereas communists believe humans achieve most when contributing to the greater good. Now that is just one example, of many fundamentally different worldviews. And to my mind, there doesn't seem to be any way to test 'human nature'. But I do have this idea to solve, or at least provide a great amount of evidence for certain political philosophies.
So here is the plan:
We get a bunch of philanthropists and angel investors to give us a TON of money. Billions and billions of dollars. Plus a TON of land. I suppose we could buy northern Canada, where very few people live. Then we get about 100,000 volunteers. Now in my mind, this part would be easy (I'll explain why in a moment). So we divide up the volunteers by their political philosophies, and create like 30 sovereign 'countries' up there in northern Canada. They all start out with the same amount of money; everything else is left up to them. Then we stand back and watch. Give them 50-75 years, and see which societies end up prosperous and which ones fail. Barring any huge oil or other resource find in one of the societies, it seems like a fair deal. Now the volunteer thing would be easy. For the communist country we'd find communists, for the libertarian country we'd throw all the Ron Paul supporters in there, etc.
Again, not feasible. But what better way can you think of to put some science behind our political views? Put real people in a real culture with those policies, and see what happens. Makes enough sense to me.

What is Modal Logic good for?

2008-01-05T08:12:00.000-08:00

Over this break I have been attempting to learn modal logic. Modal logic is the symbolic logic of necessity and possibility. So, for example, its possible that a Republican will win the White House this year. Anything that doesn't entail a contradiction is a possibility. Something is necessary when its denial produces a contradiction--for example: A square necessarily has 4 sides.
So, what is Modal Logic good for? Is it just some garbage made up by philosophers to keep the publishing going and get some professors tenure? Well, yes and no. Modal logic is important to philosophers because a large chunk of the last 100 years of philosophy has been something called conceptual analysis. Conceptual analysis is the attempted defining of a difficult term by its necessary and sufficient properties.
For example, one huge area of this type of work is the conceptual analysis of 'knowledge'. Modal logic helps us to precisely ask questions like "Is it (logically) possible for a person to have knowledge without being justified?", "Is it (logically) possible for a person to have knowledge by accident?" etc. etc.
This work also has certain implications for philosophy of science--are laws of nature necessary? etc.
So I would whole-heartedly agree that modal logic is very important for conceptual analysis. But modal logic is also used for at least one other purpose. Philosophers of mind have been using modal logic in the past 40 years or so to make metaphysical arguments. At first, I didn't even question. Probably the most famous metaphysical modal arguments are Kripke's in "Naming and Necessity". He argues against physicalism in that lecture. I don't want to get into the argument, though its very interesting (and to this day, I am undecided whether I accept it or not. I've gone back and forth for the last couple years). My point is--can modal logic tell us anything about the way the world is? Its hard to believe it could. Modal logic is seemingly a priori. So all bizarre and controversial exceptions aside, Kripke's argument seems to be saying that physicalism is necessarily false in any world with consciousness. And that is a tough argument to make when you put it that way. For I see no inherent contradiction in a physicalist world with consciousness. And I am a dualist, so it isn't just dogmatism going on.
So here is my challenge, to myself, and to anyone who wants to do some preliminary research on modal logic: Give me a simple modal argument which proves something metaphysical. If someone can prove that metaphysics is possible using modality, then I will be more open to the more controversial arguments.

My Endorsements

2007-12-31T13:39:00.000-08:00

Ok. So I live in Ohio. We have one of the latest primary/caucus events in the nation (its sometime in March). Needless to say, no one around here is following the presidential race. Well, I am, and have always been, for a national caucus day. I know it has its drawbacks--people like Huckabee don't have as much of a chance. Only the big money candidates have a go at winning. And I think that is a setback. But no solution is perfect. A rotational early primary state system would be nice too, but flawed in the sense that its going to result in widely different candidates each election cycle. For example, if Hawaii was the earliest primary state, Kucinich would be more likely to be our nominee. Ok, that would be nice for me, but only about 500 other people would be pleased.
But that is not what I am here to talk about. I want a tiny say in the electoral process too! So why can't I make some endorsements and hope that someone gives someone a second lookover because I mentioned their name? I know, its unlikely. But I figure, its worth a shot.
I've decided to make two endorsements for each party. The first endorsement is my long shot endorsement. This is the person whom I think people should vote for on conscience, to make a statement. Unfortunately, everyone is too cowardice to vote with their heart. Everyone wants to be on the winning team. Which results in our 'lesser-of-two-evils' system. So, taking this into account, I have a second endorsement, of someone who actually has a chance of going on and getting the nomination. So...without further ado:
let's start with the Democrats:
My long shot endorsement is...Dennis Kucinich!
Justification: Alright, I worry about his sanity too. But despite his strange 'interconnected' stuff, he does seem to be right on a lot of issues. His health care plan is non-profit. He actually wants to end the war (unlike the front-runners). "Strength through Peace" is his motto. Damn thats cheesy, but that is politics.
My actual chance endorsement is...John Edwards!
Justification: John Edwards is like Kucinich-lite. Truly, if you look at them on the issues, they fall very close together. I'm sure Edwards and his followers would deny it. I've heard conservatives call Edwards a 'neo-socialist'. And I'm ok with that. Edwards does want to take care of people. He does think its everyone's business--including the government--to do something about the poverty problem in the U.S.A. He is the only front runner that isn't a Centrist. Don't try and tell me otherwise. The only way I can tell the difference between Hilary Clinton and George W. Bush is that one is criticizing Bush and the other isn't. Policy-wise, I see little difference. Its all rhetoric. Obama is honest, as far as I can tell, but he is too centrist for my taste.

Republicans:
My long shot endorsement is...Ron Paul.
Justification: Ok, I disagree with Ron Paul on nearly everything. (His comments on Pakistan were just ridiculous. Yeah, let's just leave a country with nuclear weapons alone. Let's just stop making a big deal about it. What!?) But he is so principled, and he is an extreme form of what Republicans should be. Not this warmongering neo-con crap that is going on, but a party that represents liberty and free market economics. Yes, Republicans should be tough on defense. But pre-emptive military strikers are not the Republicans of yesteryear.
My actual chance endorsement is...John McCain.
Justification: John McCain is an American hero! You can't deny it. He is the kind of Republican that keeps people respecting Republicans. He is pro-war, but he understands the misery of war. He is pro-war on terror, but he is also, and more importantly, pro-morality. Other Republicans just want to rip the testicles of terror suspects, while McCain actually has the guts to stand against them and say "Hold on a minute. Thats ridiculous. We are America." Its fortunate that he is a vet, because otherwise I'm sure he would be a 'treasoner' to the talk radio circuit. And, well, McCain is a centrist, and he is a principled man. So I guess I would vote for him over Hilary, because even though I disagree with him, I trust his judgment--after all, he does have more information in front of him than I do.

So. Good luck on Thursday. If you live in Iowa, please go caucus. You have more power than you know. Vote for whoever you want (please not Hilary!).

What Separates Us from Terrorists

2007-12-18T10:11:00.000-08:00

When Mukasey was being 'interrogated' before he was sworn in as Attorney General, the big debate, as we can remember, was why he wouldn't admit waterboarding is torture. Republicans (rightly, in my mind) flat out said "Listen, democrats. If you hate waterboarding so much, let's just pass a bill that outlaws it." Now, Mukasey should have said it was torture. He probably shouldn't have been confirmed for not being willing to do so. If anyone can find any example of someone who HAS been waterboarded who claims it isn't torture, I might begin considering changing my mind. But that fact is, out of several folks, Republicans and Democrats, hawks and doves, everyone who has been waterboarded has said it IS torture. End of story, right?

So now the Democrats actually grew a backbone for once and decided to pass the bill. It passes in the House. Ok, no problem. But now Republican Senators are trying to delay and shoot down the bill!? What the hell is going on!?

Let me just explain something to anyone pro-waterboarding, or against this bill. We are not terrorists. We are fighting terrorists. Why? Because they have no sense of human rights, or freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or habeas corpus.
Don't you understand that when we violate human rights (by waterboarding), freedom of religion (ethnic profiling), freedom of speech (by putting outspoken critics of the government on 'watch lists'), or habeas corpus (Gitmo)---WE ARE NO BETTER THAN TERRORISTS! It becomes a cut throat war--no rules, no Good--only two evil sides fighting against one another.

Some Republicans have shown that winning is more important than the things we are fighting for. Its disgusting. Its UnAmerican. We have shown we could give a shit about democracy--nothing is happening to Musharraf despite the fact that he suspended the Constitution in Pakistan because of politics. We have shown we could give a shit about habeas corpus--"let's double the size of Guantanamo Bay" (Romney). Secret CIA prisons!? Listen--finding loopholes to be able to do what you want with terrorism suspects (Suspects! Not Convicts!) is not American. Or at least its not an American I learned about in school or have read in the constitution.
We are now showing we could give a shit about human rights. Waterboarding! Its clearly torture. And we are doing this to suspects. Do you realize you could be a suspect? I could be a suspect? Anyone in the wrong place at the wrong time could be a suspect. Its ridiculous. Hell, I've read a bin Laden speech in an Alt-newspaper--I'm probably on the 'watch list'.
"But Preston, don't you know waterboarding saves lives?"
At what cost? People in a fascist country are safe too, but they have no rights. No privacy. No freedom. Does waterboarding save lives? I'm not sure. I mean, if I was being waterboarded I'm sure I would say whatever I could to end it. That doesn't mean its the truth. And sure, sometimes it probably is. But let me reiterate two things: 1. I would rather have my human rights. Thats what makes us better than the terrorists. 2. We are torturing suspected terrorists. Not convicted terrorists. Thats ridiculous. Its horrendous.
Even if torturing and invading our privacy keeps us safe, it keeps us safe by costing us the very things that make us a country worth living in. Saving lives by giving up what makes life worth living is not worth it.

Unshakable Beliefs

2007-12-11T14:59:00.000-08:00

I've heard people talk before about being pyschologically incapable of not believing in God. I've heard the same from an atheist or two. Or the case of parents refusing to believe their child has done something evil (murder, rape, etc.), in the face of overwhelming evidence.
It truly is a bizarre phenomenon, is it not? A belief which we cannot rationally reject. I've never really completely understood it, as I couldn't analyze a situation in which it had happened to me. But now, I have realized a belief I do have which is unshakable. My belief in karma.
Now its strange--I was raised Catholic--why karma? I'm not sure, it probably has something to do with Catholic guilt. So I don't believe in karma. I don't think that people who commit bad acts necessarily 'get theirs'. Some people live terrible lives and have only luck. Some people live great lives and have only shit happen to them. And sure, in a lot of cases the opposite happens; sometimes evil people do get theirs, and sometimes good people do as well.
But karma just doesn't fit in with my worldview. I don't see it. It doesn't fit in with science, and I'm agnostic, so I can't appeal to some God guiding things along--not to mention karma isn't really consistent with the Christian doctrine (well, they believe in karma, but it comes after death, not before.)
Yet despite my complete acknowledgment and rejection of karma on a rational level, I find myself with unshakable beliefs. When I act in a way I perceive to be immoral, or hurt someone, I find myself having the unshakable feeling of impending doom. Something bad will happen to me. I will be punished. It can be terrible.
I guess this just illustrates the close link between emotions and beliefs. Most philosophers (myself included) are in a constant battle to separate emotions and beliefs--rightly so, as this provides an example of where emotions cause irrational beliefs. In lesser cases, it happens unconsciously. That is why all beliefs ought to be justified, all the way down to self-evident beliefs.

But my question is: What do we do about these unshakable beliefs? Do we fight them? Try our best to ignore them? Embrace them?
I really don't know. I think that all of these could be correct. I mean, take for example, a person who has an unshakable faith in God. Why not embrace it? It gives them piece of mind, hope, hopefully causes them to do good things for others, etc. But it can only truly be a positive thing if this embrace comes with a healthy realization that the belief's unshakability does not equal its truth--as I stated above, some people have the unshakable belief that there is no God. So clearly unshakable beliefs are fallible.
Now as for fighting them, Yes, we should always fight beliefs we believe to be irrational. An irrational belief is one that is unlikely to be true, and a false belief will very rarely help us with anything. (That God example is pretty much the only one I can think of.) But, clearly, if the belief is truly 'unshakable', as we've defined it, fighting it will not be of any use.
So in certain cases it seems that we should try our best to ignore them. Take the person who has the unshakable belief that Their life is meaningless. They probably should ignore that rather than embrace it--otherwise they will probably kill themselves.

But I guess the main thing is that if you truly have an unshakable belief, you ought to use it to your advantage, as in the God example. The problem is that people become dogmatic--they think unshakability equals truth. And this is where fundamentalists come in, from homophobic funeral protesters to Muslim terrorists.

I believe we have an epistemic duty to constantly look for evidence that may challenge or reshape our beliefs, especially the ones that, if false, could do a lot of damage; for example, ethical or political beliefs. This is what motivates me, when I'm having my week long bouts of moral antirealism, to continue researching, to continue asking myself "Well, what if I'm wrong?"
Hopefully this will do me more help than harm.

And, as for my unshakable belief in karma, I despise it, but I try best to use it to my advantage: as a deterrent for acting unethically. All the while, continuing to try and shake it off as irrational.

Defeat by Self-Refutation

2007-12-10T09:38:00.000-08:00

The more philosophy I think about/read, the more evidence there seems to be in favor of the following view:
"Every philosophical position is self-refuting." (Which, if true, is itself self-refuting)
I mean, its just bizarre--maybe its just the way I think, but it seems like every original criticism I can come up with against a view is that it is self-refuting.
Verificationism, for example. "All sentences are either true by definition or only true by appeal to possible experience." Self-refuting.
Naturalism...this is too hard to sum up in one brief sentence. wikipedia it. But naturalism is arguably self-refuting, because if evolution is true, our brains were only evolved to survive and reproduce, not necessarily to reason well. Therefore, our theories don't have any probability of being true, only of being conducive to survival. Therefore, naturalism, a theory created by us, has no probability of being true. Self-refutation.

But I have a new one. I was looking into the 'Brights' movement. The Brights are naturalists. A bright is defined as: "A bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystic elements." Brights are naturalists. So I'm thinking...am I a Bright? I certainly am a methodological Bright, that is, I don't think science should ever posit mystical entities as solutions or causes of events.
But naturalism originates from skepticism about mystical entities like Gods or spirits. Now I have that skepticism, but I remain utterly agnostic about these entities. Now is naturalism an atheism about these entities? It seems the answer must be 'Yes'--they are the opposite of supernaturalists, who DO believe in the entities. It seems to me the best to withhold judgment on anything of which we have no evidence of. The Brights claim that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence.
Ok, so what is my point?
The Brights are implicitly holding the Universal claim: "All events in the world have natural explanations/causes." But a Universal claim goes beyond naturalism. It is asserting something beyond all possible experience. It is thus, supernatural. Thus, the Brights are self-refuting.
Unless they are just methodological naturalists; in which case, I am a Bright. But so is everyone but evangelicals. That seems to make the movement much less interesting.

WWJD?

2007-12-07T14:01:00.000-08:00

Am I allowed to wear a W.W.J.D. bracelet if I'm not Christian? I mean, I don't believe he is our Savior, but his ethical system is amazing. So can I just support that or is that somehow sacreligious?

Aphorisms

2007-12-05T14:26:00.000-08:00

If there is one thing I learned from Neitzche, its this aphorism:
1. When you want to make a claim look profound and obviously true without argument (even when its clearly false in any other context), just put it in the form of an aphorism, and people will buy into it.

I guess Wittgenstein also taught me this.

So let me spout off a few aphorisms I developed from the show I went to last night:

1. If you are a true metalhead, when you headbang, you don't nod your head, but shake it back and forth. Why? Because its not metal to say 'yes', and that is what nodding your head is doing. Shake your head back and forth because "No" is much more metal.

2. Watching a local band is like going to Good Will. You will either be pleasantly surprised by finding something awesome, or you will be pleasantly surprised by finding something that is so lame that it is awesome.

3. It isn't 'live music' if there isn't a drummer. Its karaoke by the original artist.

4. 'Disgust for the Weak' is a metal as fuck band name. But the band is not metal as fuck.

5. Being popular with the trendy kids costs you a lot of money. Being popular with indie and scene kids is easier: You just have to say something bad about George Bush.

6. You are only a good live band if every question you ask the crowd is repeated a second time with the preface 'I can't hear you [city or club name]!'

7. When your favorite band goes on at a show and instead of listening and watching them you take pictures of them on your digital camera the WHOLE SET, it pisses me off. So don't do it. One or two pictures, OK. For the memories. I get it. But when you spend the whole set doing it, you clearly don't even like music.

8. Autographs are still stupid. Your favorite band, actor/actress, athelete, whatever--they are just human beings. What do you prove by having them write their name on something?

Dillinger Escape Plan is REALLY good live. And their new CD is great.

Tractatus-Logico Philosophicus

2007-11-29T10:28:00.001-08:00

I think I'm finally beginning to understand some early Wittgenstein. He is such a cryptic jerk.
So its like this: I am interpreting him to be saying that The world is a truth-table. (Infinitely long, I assume)

Now I'm not sure if he means that its a truth-table like, thats all there is, or like the truth-table is all we can talk about. I am tending toward the latter. Because Wittgenstein does talk about 'simple objects'. Simple objects are what make up the propositions--propositions are statements about the relations between the simple objects. This is all speculative.
Well we can't speak about the simple objects, only about the relations; I guess.
But the thing is, Wittgenstein never really says what the simple objects are. Atoms? Sense-content? Who knows?

But then its also got this bizarre metaphysical thing going on, which Dr. Baumer pointed out. The world is made up of all possible propositions about the simple objects. (Thats where the truth-table thing came from.) But what the hell are these propositions? Thoughts?
The other bizarre metaphysics is that Wittgenstein talks about the simples as if they were the only possible simples. Every simple object in this Universe is necessary. There are no possible worlds in which any of the simple objects in this world are missing, or in which there are some other additional simple objects. So what these simple objects are is crucial to the whole grounding of his theory. But he never says anything about what these simples are! Atoms? Quarks? Objects? Experiences? Regardless of interpretation it seems bizarre. Not just bizarre, but extremely metaphysical, which goes against the entire positivist project.
So I'm not sure why the positivists worshipped him. Yeah, he wanted to reduce everything to atomic facts. But these atomic facts are so Platonic in nature that its mystical.

(This is most likely all mistaken anyway.)

By the way, the Tractatus is online: http://www.kfs.org/~jonathan/witt/tlph.html

Its fun to attempt to discover what it was Wittgenstein exactly was saying, but at the same time it really makes us philosophers look more like poets. Its like we all are seeking knowledge--if you have a grain of it why don't you explain it in plain language instead of being cryptic and sadistic to all of your readers?

7 - Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

An Entry Tom will Like.

2007-11-26T14:17:00.000-08:00

I just read the news that the U.S. and Iraq are negotiating the long-term presence of U.S. troops in Iraq. Now, I just read this, and as such, I haven't heard the liberal democrats' reaction. But as a liberal democrat, I just want to give my reaction.
One would seemingly think I would be outraged at the thought of long-term troop presence in Iraq. Why let our kids (like I'm old enough to say 'our kids') continue to die?
Well, I am not. I am/was for withdrawing from Iraq because Iraq citizens overwhelmingly want[ed] us out. They see us as contributing to the violence. Now don't get me wrong, I think the invasion was a bad and unprincipled move to begin with--but the point is, we are there, pulling out won't reverse that mistake. But what I am saying is that now that we are there, and we have a moral interest in ensuring the freedom and sovereignty of Iraq, we ought to do what they want (within limits, of course). Now it seemed to me, at least until now, that they wanted us to leave. And they may still want that, I'm not really sure. But if Iraq is taking steps toward democracy (which is debatable), we should help the process along by respecting their sovereignty. And that is why I have/had always said 'let's get the hell out of there', because the citizens of Iraq want[ed] us out. With this new story of Iraq wanting us to stay and provide security, I am not so sure. The real question at this point is whether the Iraqi government is representing their citizens' desires and interests. And I don't know that answer to that question. But if they are, and I were to be convinced that they were, I would reverse my position on the occupation and advocate us staying there, as long as we were welcome.
Now to respond to my fellow liberal democrats objection: "What about the families of the troops that are dying? Isn't this reason enough to be against the occupation?"
I respond: No. Its not. As controversial as this may be, American lives are not more valuable than Iraqi lives. If staying in Iraq provided decent security to millions of Iraqis, it would be worth it, even if a few thousand more American soldiers died. They wouldn't be dying in vain. They would be dying 'for freedom'. Just because its freedom in a different country doesn't make it any less valuable. That would be ethnocentric to assert otherwise.
I assume Republicans would disagree with my claim about Iraqi lives being equally as valuable as American lives, but it doesn't matter. The point is that we would conceivably hold the same position on the war, but for different reasons.

So there you have it. And I'll be watching my boy John Edwards on this one--his reaction could make or break my support for him.

A Crisis Averted...for Now

2007-11-25T09:35:00.000-08:00

Last week I was depressed for a few days. I was pretty worried. I mean, I know its only depression if it lasts a couple weeks, but I didn't have the will to do anything.
Anyway, at the end of it all I realized that I am in a unique and frightening position. Let me briefly explain: I have a certain view of what philosophy is, what it is for, etc. I love science, don't get me wrong, but I think philosophy is a separate realm from science. Some philosophers do not, they are the radical empiricists.
Radical empiricists believe that philosophy is to be executed empirically, or scientifically.
To me, this wouldn't be, by definition, philosophy anymore. It would fall appropriately into the realms of cognitive science, neuroscience, and/or quantum physics.
So what does this mean? If I decided to become a radical empiricist, I wouldn't believe philosophy had a point anymore. So it seems I would have to drop out of school and go do something else with my life. And thus, when I read a really good paper by Hilary Kornblith (a radical empiricist) last week, I was depressed. Am I wasting two years of my life?
I got over that, but my point is, again, I am in a unique and frightening position, philosophically at least. If I change a certain philosophical view that I have, my life threatens to be superfluous. Its quite a bit of a leap of faith, I suppose.
Anyway, its finals next week. I have to get back to work.

two random notes

2007-11-19T08:54:00.000-08:00

First of all, I just wanted to respond to those on the Christian Right who claim that the United States is a country which emphasizes the ideals of Judeo-Christian religion. This may have been true at the beginning, but it is most certainly not true today. What is my argument for this? Go read the Tenth Commandment. It is in direct opposition to our country's economic well-being. That is all I will say, as I have posted on this topic before.

Secondly, the revolutionary communists are on campus today! They are cute. Its funny because they are protesting the war...which I find humorous, if not ironic, because they advocate regime change at home, yet for some reason are opposed to it when it comes to another country which was probably more oppressive to communism than we are. Shouldn't they be for the war, but on different grounds? I don't know...I'm just saying...

Quick Question

2007-11-18T13:38:00.000-08:00

I would have thought one fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats would be that Democrats see human rights as more important than national security, and Republicans feel the opposite.
Apparently I'm wrong.
Am I crazy? Didn't we invade Iraq because human rights are more important than national security? Don't we criticize Musharaff because human rights are more important than national security? Isn't the whole problem or fascism that it puts national security ahead of human rights?
Someone explain this to me, because I wouldn't feel comfortable voting for Clinton, Obama, or Edwards right now.

whoa...

2007-11-15T12:42:00.001-08:00

So, now having read Kant, Carnap, Frege, Russell, third wave feminist epistemologists, and now Wittgenstein, I would say...how could it get any worse from here? This has to be the toughest (reading-wise) semester I have ever had. I read the Critique of Pure Reason and the Critique of Judgment in their near entireties (not all of the appendices).
Brutal. But its awesome.
At the same time, I am wondering:
Does anyone fully understand some of these people?
I mean, Wittgenstein...does anyone get it? Or is he just revered because people assume anything that hard to read must be profound? I wonder.

Ideolocide

2007-11-11T09:45:00.000-08:00

If Stephen Colbert can have 'truthiness', then I can have 'ideolocide'.
I invent the word 'ideolocide' at the risk of looking like a fool, because it seems to me there probably already is a word for what I am thinking of, but I just don't know what that word is.
'Ideolocide' shall be defined as the attempted destruction of an ideology--this is not to be confused with 'genocide', which could be broadly construed as the attempted destruction of a political group (though I think most of us traditionally think of it as a race or culture being destroyed).
So ideolocide is the attempted elimination of an idea, or group of ideas.
Ideolocide is seemingly what the 'war on terror' is attempting to do: Destroy the idea of religious fanatacism. I want to talk about this from two directions: 1. Is ideolocide possible? 2. Is ideolocide ethical?

1. Is ideolocide possible?
I'm not really sure if the possibility of ideolocide is a necessary precursor to an attempted ideolocide; after all, the Bush administration has suggested that the war on terror is unending. This is sort of strange--the idea of a war being, in principle, 'unwinnable'. (The logical positivists certainly would have argued it to be meaningless.) Nevertheless, it being strange certainly doesn't disqualify it.
So what would have to happen for an ideolocide to be a success? Well, for starters, we would have to eliminate the idea/ideology in its believer's heads. This could seemingly be done by killing and/or brainwashing all believers.
This isn't all, of course. To complete an ideolocide, we would also need to brainwash (or, rationally convince) anyone who would 'contemplate' believing the idea/ideology in the future. This would probably involve some sort of education program, which would have to be reinstated worldwide. Even if we were only attempting a national ideolocide, our education program would need to be worldwide--ideas can cross borders, regardless of how isolationist a nation may be.
This education program might not be quite as tough as it seems. All we would need to do is create a culture which would render the idea/ideology unthinkable. Certainly there have been cultures historically who have rendered certain ideologies unthinkable: In the middle ages, for example, atheism was considered so unthinkable that people actually considered atheism an impossible belief--they thought God's existence was so self-evident that anyone who denied it was delusional.
So, something like this is what we would need to put into place to make an ideolocide successful.
Also, let's not forget: we would need to eliminate any literature which spoke of the idea/ideology. We couldn't just eliminate literature which promoted or condoned the idea/ideology, but anything which could spark the idea in a critical reader's mind. Now I'm not sure this would be possible, at least for any ideas we find threatening. To eliminate religious fanatacism, we would have to eliminate all religious books! This seems impossible. We could burn millions of books, but chances are quite high that copies would remain, in hiding. Soviet Russia tried to do this, with minimal success--and that was just nationwide. A worldwide attempt at this would probably be impossible.
So it seems rather clear that what would have to be done for a successful ideolocide is impossible. For it is not just a matter of killing or brainwashing a group of people, but of killing or brainwashing anyone who would even critically examine an idea/ideology without rejecting it out of hand.

Nevertheless, it still may be argued that an attempted or partial ideolocide would be helpful, even if it could never be completed. So let us address our second question:
2. Is ideolocide ethical?
Ok, so I think it would be trivial to say ideolocide is unethical with respect to certain ideas/ideologies. That it not the question I have in mind. What I want to ask is, is ideolocide ever ethical? or, Is ideolocide unethical in principle?
I think the best way to ask this question is to look at a morally reprehensible idea, such as "The Aryan Race is the master race", and ask whether an attempted ideolocide of that is ethical.
I think it is clear to a Kantian that ideolocide is unethical, as it involves categorically unethical acts: Killing, Brainwashing (Taking away the free will of another rational being), destruction of knowledge (Because, after all, even if the idea/ideology itself was false, some of the things which don't promote the idea/ideology itself but still mention it would certainly contain valuable information.)
But hey, who is a Kantian anymore anyway?
What about to a utilitarian? Well, this seems like the best route to take for an ideolocide advocate. It basically reduces the question to this: Are there any circumstances in which the attempted destruction of an idea/ideology would create more pleasure/less pain than failing to destroy an idea/ideology would?
And it seems, at least to me, that there could be certain extreme situations in which the answer to this question would be 'Yes', and thus, ideolocide would not be wrong in principle.
But don't worry, hippies, this doesn't open up the floodgates. Because think about what would have to be taken into account when we do our utilitarian calculation:
1. Severely reduced freedom, worldwide, of education, religion, speech, press.
2. Imprisonment and 'reeducation' program to anyone who attempted to exercise freedoms. If this failed (or if there was risk their idea/ideology could be spread to others) it seems like death would be the only other solution.
3. Not only would you have to punish anyone who exercised freedoms of speech, but you would have to somehow destroy the idea from their heads. This couldn't even be a matter of convincing them not to hold the ideology--it would be a matter of eliminating the ideology completely and all traces of it.
4. A limitation of freedom would be a) fascism, and b) The suppression involved in the attempted ideolocide would drive people to develop negative ideologies toward the state, risking rebellion.
5. The risk of a slippery slope; resulting in the attempted ideolocide of any ideas/ideologies that disagreed with official state policy.

As we can see, this world resembles something close to Orwell's 1984. It is hard to imagine a situation which would necessitate ideolocide, short of threat of the genocide of the entire human race.
And, in terrorism, I fail to see this. Terrorists do want to kill people, but not everyone. And the amount of people we would have to kill to commit ideolocide of Islamic fascism would probably be around the same amount of people they would have to kill of ours to succeed. Not to mention, the fascism we would have to attempt would probably be just as bad as Islamic fascism, short of it being based in religion. So it doesn't seem like ideolocide in this situation fits the bill of 'ethical', even to a utilitarian. Stooping to the level of an enemy, or even to a level above that of an enemy that is still morally reprehensible, is not worth fighting an indestructible ideology. It seems the best thing to do is to attempt to protect ourselves, and attempt to show that our ideology is better than the Islamic fundamentalists'. Patience and self-protection. And yeah, we can protect those that are with us on this fight as well. But protection at the cost of giving up our ethics would be wrong, as is, in my opinion, the attempted ideolocide of religious fundamentalism.
Conservatives think that the free market should guide us as far as products, supply and demand, and economics goes. So why do they want the government to limit the marketplace of ideas? Certainly the threatening and unethical ones will be weeded out, right?

Ethicists and Morality

2007-11-05T10:25:00.000-08:00

Are ethicists more ethical than non-ethicists?

Some philosopher is doing research on the topic, and so far the answer seems to be 'No.'
Its strange I stumbled across this, because this is something I've always been interested in. I have heard some stories of ethicists doing terrible things, but at the same time, why would you take an interest in something as a career which you didn't want to apply to your own life? It would be like a doctor who refused to take medicine.

Either way, I just thought I would share it in case anyone else was interested.

Also, in personal news, I read 120 pages of the Critique of Pure Reason by Kant in one day--needless to say, I am on the brink of insanity.

Health Care vs. Homeland Security

2007-10-25T16:01:00.000-07:00

Alright--first, a note for those of you who don't want to read another political entry. I am thinking about learning Esperanto. I have decided to learn it on the condition that at least five other people will learn it with me, so it will actually have a tiny bit of practical worth. Let me know if you are interested.
on to the post!

Alright, if you will permit me to be a cold and calculated utilitarian for a minute, I would like to illustrate why, even if you give them all the benefit of the doubt, given $x amount of money, it would be smarter to put it towards Universal health care than homeland security. But, in keeping with my promise of giving them the benefit of the doubt, let's call it "Socialized Medicine", so they can have the rhetorical advantage as well.

Ok. So. According to the Institute of Medicine, 18,000 Americans died from lack of health insurance in 2002. Now, I take the IOM as being a credible institute (it is non-partisan, and all of their studies are subject to blind peer-review by scientists).
But a conservative may be able to find some reason why this study was biased. So let's lower that number to 12,000. Cutting it by a third seems very generous to me.
Now, selecting the number of estimated Americans who actually died from not having health insurance is giving another benefit of the doubt to conservatives. Because the figures of who doesn't have insurance and why is controversial--illegal immigrants are sometimes included in the count, as well as people eligible for government programs who just don't sign up. But we will ignore the fact that besides flat out death, not having health insurance decreases quality of life as well.
(An interesting analysis of this can be found here.)
Ok, so let's take our next step of helping our conservative friends out. The conservatives may say, "Well, yes. We certainly can agree that there are a lot of uninsured people out there, and the solution is to be found in the private sector." Of course, I am not sure what this would mean. Giuliani is the GOP frontrunner, and he wants to do something with tax credits for the poor. That is not a private solution. In fact, that is is similar to democratic proposals, and as such, we are going to have to call it weak "socialized medicine". Though, his proposal is absolutely unclear, since 'Health Care' is not listed on his website anywhere.
But let's not let it end there. Conservatives don't like Giuliani; moderates do. So let's take a look at Mitt 'double Guantanamo' Romney. Romney's site has Health Care as an issue list, but fails to mention anything besides that health coverage should be provided through market-reform rather than government reform.
Its hard to see exactly what this would be, since he says nothing at all about it. However, I could hardly see it being something other than tax credits.
The problem is, even with tax credits younger adults can choose not to have health insurance, and then just claim bankruptcy if something goes wrong.
Ok though, let's not stop this benefit of the doubt stuff. Let's say these conservative reforms cause half of those deaths to go away.
We are down to 6,000 deaths in an average year caused by lack of insurance. And remember, this is assuming all possible ways the number could be lowered from its original number, 18,000.
Remember that number: 6,000 per year.

Terrorism is a worldwide problem. But in the United States, how many people die from terrorism in a given year? In 2001, 3,000 people died. Since then...none...in the United States at least. But maybe my memory is mistaken. Let's say 50 more die every year. And let's count citizens of the U.S. in foreign countries. About 1,000 contractors have died in Iraq since the war started. Let's just pretend they were all American. And let's say another 50 citizens die from random terrorist attacks across the globe each year. You know, those minor attacks...at hotels and what-not. I admit, I really have no idea about that number, but it seems about right. Hell, call me out on it if I'm wrong.
And, though its quite debatable, and I don't think this is a fair move because these deaths could have seemingly been prevented (not to mention, terrorism is a little rough here because 7 in 10 Iraqis approve of attacks on soldiers), let's include American soldiers in Iraq. As of my last count, about 3838 American soldiers have been killed in the War in Iraq. Let's round that up to 3900. Another 450 in Afghanistan makes 4350.
Ok, I think I've been generous enough. Let's add it all up.
4350 American soldiers
600 random traveling citizens
3000 Sept. 11.
1000 contractors in Iraq
equals
8950
divide that by 6 (years this total makes up)
1491 and 2/3. (average number of American deaths, per year, from terrorism, including American soldiers and contractors in Iraq.)

So, let's look at our raw data:
Being completely generous to our conservative friends:
6000 Americans die per year from lack of health insurance.
1491 and 2/3 die per year from terrorism.

Now am I saying defund homeland security? Of course not. Terrorism is a big deal. What I am saying is this: All Republican candidates (except Ron Paul, who has his own issues) are using fear to try and turn people's attention away from real issues. Terrorism is very frightening. Republicans want people to be so afraid of terrorism that they will vote for whoever will keep them safe from it. But if we look at the raw facts here, rationally, we should care more about a quality health care plan than doubling the size of the military. And on health care, I think it is pretty clear the Democrats win. (After all, if they didn't have the better positions, why would the Republicans downplay the issue so much?)

Leaders of Countries who Deny Genocides...

2007-10-13T13:53:00.000-07:00

President Ahmadinejad of Iran takes a lot of shit for denying the Jewish genocide of WWII, and rightly so. Truly, how can he not know? The evidence is sitting right there in front of everyone. It happened. It was fucked up. I wish everyone could acknowledge that. I mean, Ahmadinejad wouldn't even have to take any of the blame for the genocide! It wasn't him, it wasn't his country. It was Hitler and Germany. And Germany acknowledges it, they feel bad about it. And that is good. We all ought to remember genocides.
I won't even mention the genocide happening in Darfur that no one seems to care to do anything about. Except to respond to: "Yeah, but Preston, you are a pacifist liberal--you think intervening in Iraq and Iran to stop human rights abuses was wrong, so how is Darfur any different?" Well, I'll tell you. I am not talking about killing people. I am talking about a peace force. Its completely different. Its like when you are at a bar and a fight breaks out--someone ought to step in and hold the two guys back. That isn't war; that isn't regime change; its using force for peace.

Anyway--back to the topic here. Why does Ahmadinejad deny the WWII genocide? I'm not sure. Maybe he feels like if he did he would have to acknowledge Israel as a state. But his motives aren't too crucial to me--the point is denying genocide is stupid and arrogant. Especially when the evidence is right in your face. And I think everyone would agree with that.

except...

Wait a minute. Has anyone been watching the news this week? Congress finally is trying to pass a bill acknowledging the other genocide...you know, the Armenian one? The obvious response...I would have thought, from almost everyone, would be "Wow! That is great! I mean, its unfortunate the government is using our tax dollars to vote on so many non-binding resolutions, but, cool. I guess its time we finally acknowledge that happened--after all, hundreds of thousands of Armenians died (link is graphic; be advised).

But wait a minute...

President Bush and his cabinet are urging congresspeople to take the bill off the table, or barring that, vote against it? What!? Why?

Well, the Ottoman Empire (which doesn't exist anymore) was based in Turkey. Apparently we have more genocide deniers than just Ahmadinejad on our hands. Turkey has threatened to take away our strategic military base if we..uh..I don't know how to say this and have it sound unbiased...if we..acknowledge a genocide of which there is overwhelming evidence happened.
I am not sure why Turkey is repressing what happened in their country a hundred years ago. No one that committed the genocide is still alive. No one would have to be held accountable. So it can't be that. I am very confused on why Turkey is so pissed off.

But this presents a problem for us. Do we take down the bill, thus tacitly denying a genocide which involved hundreds of thousands of people's deaths?
President Bush says yes. I am not really sure how this wouldn't make him a genocide denier. He is saying passing this bill will be harmful to our alliance with Turkey and our war on terror. So, don't pass the bill.
But doesn't that imply the following:
Acknowledging a horrible event of which hundreds of thousands of people were killed because of their race would be harmful to our alliance with Turkey and our war on terror? What if Turkey came out and denied the Holocaust happened? Would that change anything? And if so, why? Because Hitler was more successful at his genocide? Because we will allow you to deny one genocide, but two is just too much?
What
the
hell!

I mean, I think even folks against the bill would agree, that Turkey is just being completely unreasonable. We aren't holding them accountable--we aren't asking for reparations. We are acknowledging something happened on the same land that they live on. I guess the Ottoman Empire was also Muslim, but, we aren't making any overarching claims about all Muslims. I think Muslims would agree genocide is wrong. So yeah, Turkey is being completely unreasonable.

Now if their threats are going to prevent us from passing a non-binding resolution about a genocide which anyone with the evidence in front of them would acknowledge happened, then how much power do they really have against us?
What other unreasonable demands could they make that Bush would nod and smile to?

I say, pass the resolution. Everyone knows its the moral and principled thing to do. The only argument against it is the pragmatics. And it seems like one thing everyone would have agreed upon, Republicans and Democrats, before this week, is that we are not going to pander to any genocide deniers. So why is it different because its Turkey? If their leadership (not necessarily their people, I don't know what they think) want to be completely unreasonable, and deny genocide, then fine. They shouldn't be our allies. Period.
And if someone thinks our policy should change on that, and that we should allow leadership of countries to hold bizarre opinions, then fine. Let's open up talks with Iran then.

Its your choice. All I ask from you is consistency.

(It seems to me like the Republican thing to do would be to tell Turkey to fuck off if they are going to be ridiculous, and the Democrat thing to do would be to open up talks with Iran and keep Turkey as an ally. I am sympathetic to both, but more so to the latter. Either way, passing the bill seems the obvious thing to do, since we are supposed to be a country with a moral compass, not North Korea or Myanmar.)

2007-09-27T11:22:00.000-07:00

How are you folks doing?

Iraq Oil Law

2007-09-04T17:23:00.001-07:00

Two quick things. First of all, there has been a lot of talk in the media lately about the "Iraq Oil Law". It is one of the political benchmarks the U.S. set against the al-Maliki government.
Now, being the inquisitive mind that I am...I wanted to know...what is this Oil Law? Is it to share all profits among the country, ensuring that it isn't just the Kurds whom receive the profit? Is it to ensure that hardworking and cooperative Iraqis will be able to reap the spoils of their hard work?
NO.
The Iraqi Oil Law is a bill that guarantees at least 12.5% of oil profits to foreign companies. It gives the Iraqi government ownership of 17 of Iraq's 80 oil fields, with the rest of the developed fields going to foreign companies. All undeveloped and undiscovered fields (which, this is Iraq, there are plenty), are open to private investors.
Why is no one paying attention?

On a more sympathetic note, in a new book out today, President Bush admits that he cries. A lot.
Am I laughing? No. It gives me a warm sentiment inside...you know...a Humean moral sentiment...to know that our President, wrong as he may be, is trying to do his best. Barring that, he feels guilty.
He isn't a heartless evil demon like some liberals want to stamp him. He is just a guy, with differing beliefs. I think he really does believe invading Iraq was right. And he really does believe privatization will benefit all.
So let's take a breath, and realize that there are very few people out there who are flat out evil all the time. Most just disagree about fundamental beliefs.

Graduate School... In the Beginning

2007-08-29T11:25:00.000-07:00

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

2007-08-20T15:21:00.000-07:00

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

2007-08-17T08:09:00.000-07:00

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

2007-08-12T09:39:00.000-07:00

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

2007-08-09T17:48:00.000-07:00

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....

2007-08-08T12:59:00.000-07:00

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

2007-08-07T19:06:00.000-07:00

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

2007-08-01T14:47:00.000-07:00

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.

I,Songwriter, signing off...

2007-07-15T19:57:00.000-07:00

With my band Witness the Undefined playing our last show a week from Tuesday (Thats July 24th, at the Picador at 9PM), I wanted to post a little something about the music I have been a part of creating over the past 8 years in several bands... infandous, Drag For Miles, and finally, Witness.
None of my bands were very successful...infandous got pretty big locally right before I left, but they are even more popular now, and any remnants of influence from me is gone.
I now realize why this is (that I've never been in a successful band). I will probably never know whether I have succeeded in what I wanted to create. Its impossible to judge one's own music. You just can't listen to a song that you have written and expect it to sound anything like it will to someone who has never heard it. When musicians do try to judge their own music, they tend to love it, because they know all the fine details that went into it that no one else will notice (see Billy Corgan).
Some people still have an outlet for whether they have succeeded in what they've done, because they are specifically trying to create a sound that will appeal to a certain demographic, be it pop music or generic metal. None of my bands have been extremely interested in creating catchy or danceable hits.
Witness the Undefined is the closest I could ever have asked for the epitome of what my dream band would be. I can think of areas where we needed improvement (vocals, lyrics, harmonies), but we have done everything I have wanted in terms of writing songs conceptually, and breaking what we see as nostalgic traditions (choruses, 4/4, breakdowns). But our overall goal was to create GOOD music...original, unpredictable, experimental, and obviously emotional.
And this I will never know if we achieved. The problem is that when you are in a band that is intentionally trying to be different, it comes across as bad. Because people want to judge bands in the same way they judge other bands. If person A drives to a Witness the Undefined show listening to Metallica, or System of a Down, they are going to judge us by the same standards as they judge those bands. And let me clear this up: I am not saying 'don't judge us', because yeah, I want you to judge us. And I'm not saying that we need to be held to a lower or higher standard than music on the radio. I am saying DIFFERENT. because bands on the radio ought to be judged by catchiness...ability to get you singing along or bobbing your head. But we don't want to be judged by that standard...we aren't going for that. We want...well, let me just speak for myself. I want our music to throw you off, to make you LISTEN. Its not background noise, and its not nostalgia. And its not shut-your-brain-off-and-sing-along music. It is supposed to hold your attention--and you are supposed to think. As I said, we wrote our songs conceptually, and ideally this would matter to people..but people aren't looking for concepts, so they don't notice it.
I am not talking down to people. I am not saying our music is too high-brow for anyone. What I am saying is that people aren't looking for conceptual. They are not looking for mathematical. So there doesn't seem to be anyone to judge us by that standard...thus, no way for us to know if we have achieved our goal.

I guess it just upsets me if people think our music is weird because we aren't talented enough to write radio hits. Because 1. we wrote a catchy shitty song, and its called 'Deep Drags', and 2. Our music takes way more talent to write and play than any song on the radio.

Come see us! July 24th, its our last show and our CD release show.

Why Libertarianism Doesn't Work

2007-06-30T11:01:00.000-07:00

In high school and early college, I was a libertarian. You know, the government needs to stay out of our business and let the market work, etc. I think this is a common thing for rebellious political men...like I am sure Aaron Walker is a libertarian if you really pressed him.
Anyway, after a while I began to lose faith in human beings, at least politically, and now I am some kind of Green/Democrat/Independent. And I finally realized why. Because generally I do have faith in human kind, so it seemed inconsistent to have faith in them most of the time, except when it came to boycotting evil companies and what-not.
So here is my theory on why libertarianism can't work: In democracy, candidates are basically competing over who can solve the most problems. So in order to beat one another, candidates begin, over time, to step outside of the traditional government role, and start offering to step into areas like education (Department of Education), food safety (USDA), natural disasters (FEMA), workers rights, and health care (which we are seeing now). Basically, if there is any tragedy going on, governmental or not, candidates in the fierceness of competition decide to propose the government step in. So over time, the government becomes larger.
Once politicians began solving these problems, people became dependent. For example, instead of boycotting Wal-Mart, people just demanded that the government raise minimum wage. In the Earthquake in San Francisco in the early 1900s, the relief effort was completely led by private organizations. Yet in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the government was expected to help everyone out. And its not because people didn't want to help--it is just implied to people that nowadays the government is in charge of making sure people aren't starving, etc. Which is caused by the competition of democracy.
The only way to create a libertarian society would be to start over again with the premise that everyone thought about what they were supporting with there actions. This would be tough, and I am not sure if it would even be desired. What a hassle it would be to research everything you bought.
So, in sum, democracy naturally leads to more and more government control, or socialism. Wow...I am a Marxist.

(This doesn't mean that civil liberties have to go away though. That is separate from free-market business liberalism)

I could be fired for this.

2007-06-26T19:25:00.000-07:00

originally this was about a three page long post.
But it was a whiny rant about my job.
So let me just sum it up:

Go read George Ritzer's "The McDonaldization of Society" and you will understand who I am. And it will change you too, if you give a damn.
I read it about 4 years ago, and it effects my life and worldview everyday.

Flags at Half-Mast

2007-06-18T13:30:00.000-07:00

If there is something I generally believe, it is that doing something over and over again makes it become meaningless. When everything is 'amazing', hearing you say it doesn't mean anything. It goes the same for when everything 'sucks'.

And I'm not just talking about phrases. I swear that 90% of the time the Old Capitol building is flying at half mast. Listen: People die. And it is a sad event. But save flying the flag at half-mast for a world leader's asasination or something! Not when some guy who's wife used to work at the Java House in the IMU dies.
When I see the flag flying at half-mast, I think it should be the death of someone whom at least 40% of the community has heard of. That is my new rule. Go--petition the Board of Regents.

Nietszche

2007-06-16T08:22:00.000-07:00

I should have known a man with 4 consecutive consonants in his name would be the root of all evil. I am about 50 pages into "The Will to Power", which would have been Nietszche's magnum opus, had he decided to piece together the scraps into some kind of coherent whole. But, he went nuts, so, well, shucks--we have to deal with what some editor did with a series of notebooks full of incoherent thoughts.

I will give him that I have only read a tenth of the book--so maybe I am being biased. But this guy sucks. I would blame Nietzsche for Nazi Germany--reading "The Will to Power" is like reading the Third Reich.
You see, Nietzsche thinks that 'morals' are a human invention to try to justify our 'weakness'. To Nietzsche, treating people fairly, giving them rights, assuming other people as equals, etc.--these are all signs of weakness. He is a radical social Darwinist--he says that we are going against nature by helping out those in need--the strong man would say to the weak 'perish!' and be done with them. I induce from this that emotions are pretty much worthless as well.
Forget that Darwin wouldn't endorse this, and that Nietzsche had no scientific backing. And listen--I'm ok with people holding radical views, I really am. But at least somehow justify them. Nietzsche treats everything as a fact. All of this is stated assertively, there are no arguments--not even weak ones.
I guess the only sense in which Nietzsche's ideas are 'dangerous' is to people who assume everything they read is true, because I find it hard to believe any intelligent person would buy into this.

But hey. Maybe I'm just missing something. I guess I'll keep reading.

The Omnivore's Dilemma

2007-06-13T20:46:00.000-07:00

I am about halfway through this Michael Pollan book, which is more or less the culmination of my summer project of deciding what kind of diet is the most ethical. Its been a rough ride--I started off thinking vegetarian, then vegan, then vegetarian, then all organic, etc etc. There is so much information on the subject it sucks. I like making ethical decisions that involve complex information but yet a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer to engaging in a given act. But with food its just too hard. There are so many levels.
One dilemma I haven't been able to solve is the one raised by my conservative father--if organic and local food use so much less energy, why are they more expensive? Shouldn't the switch to organic and more sustainable farming happen through simple economics? When factory farming stops becoming profitable because of all the waste the market will change things for the better, won't it?
I don't have an adequate response to this, because I'm just not sure. By that time it may be too late. David Pimentel says that by the time this happens, our soil will be shot and he estimates that the Earth will only be able to permanently feed 2 billion people using conventional farming methods. Currently we have enough food for all 6 billion (though many don't get fed for other varying reasons). Pimentel says that even switching to organic we would only be able to feed about 5 billion permanently, but thats much better.
Will the market just switch as factory farming begins to fall apart? Yeah, probably. The question is whether or not this will be too late. And the answer to that question, I'm not sure of. If someone could convince me that basic economics will work it out, I probably would switch back to conventional food. Its much cheaper--and I'm not worried about the chemicals in my body, because if they do any harm I'm already screwed anyway.

That is the only objection I can't yet answer.

As of now, I think I have decided to allow myself some gray area, but try to make a slow process of switching over to organic, local, and whole foods. I'm going to try and slowly ween myself off of processed foods, and try to buy just the basics (eggs, butter, flour, vegetables, fruits, etc.). I discovered the Co-op in town is lovely enough to print on the sign of all the fresh produce where it comes from, so I can focus on buying produce that is from Iowa (as I found out in Pollan's book, 3/4 of organic produce comes from the San Joahin Valley in California)--local is probably the most important when it comes to reducing our carbon footprint, because transportation is huge when it comes to fossil fuel waste. Fertilizers are the other big one, and that is where organic comes from.
I've also decided I can eat grass-fed organic meat, because even though it takes 10 pounds of feed to make a pound of meat, we can't eat grass anyway, so why let it go to waste? This is awesome, I LOVE meat and its good to be back; unfortunately, for all practical purposes I am still a vegetarian, because grass-fed beef is expensive as hell.
If anyone else happens to be interested in where they can buy this kind of hippie crap, check out this for a great resource on finding locally grown food in your area, wherever that may be. Pollan makes it seem like the grass-fed farmer he spends a week with is one of like five left in the country, but this just isn't true. There are 8 sustainable farms within 20 miles of me.

And a final note--if, on the long shot, you are throwing a get together and happen to invite me, don't feel bad about serving good ol' corn fed conventional steak or what-have-you. Your moral decisions are your own, and I realize I am taking a leap of faith on this one. So feed me what you want, I will eat any free food.
I don't mind people coming to different conclusions about what they should eat. But I seriously encourage people thinking more about what they buy and where there money is going. In a capitalist society like ours, how we spend our money defines us--and this includes ethically. I once thought cheap was always best--but then I realized there are ways to help those in sweat-shops in Cambodia and lower your carbon footprint without being rich. All it takes is spending the money you DO have on things you DO need in an informed and ethical way.

And now, I step off of the soap box.

Oh wait. one more thing. Has Lieberman gone mad?

Why I don't read Tabloids

2007-06-09T16:21:00.001-07:00

Why is it wrong to support tabloids by giving them time and money?
Because now our society's definition of news looks something like this.

Primaries, Third Parties, my Support goes to....

2007-06-08T10:25:00.001-07:00

Well, we are through two Democratic debates and anyone who gives a shit probably knows at least a bit about the major candidates. But before I give my list from my favorites to least favorites, let me explain why I have decided this is important. Let's face it, after 8 years of Bush, and a war with very low approval ratings, it is very likely a Democrat will become President next. Of course, this might just be because I live in Iowa City, because in 2004 I thought there was not much of a way Bush could win again. Nevertheless, national polls are against Republicans right now, and most experts think the Democrats will continue to sweep elections until this unpopular war ends.
And that is why the Democratic primaries are so important to me, and why I feel endorsing a Candidate is important early this time around.

Secondly, before I get to the ratings, I want to reiterate my sentiment from last year that in local races everyone should support third parties on principle. Green, libertarian, whatever--a duopoly is not a good system. It isn't democracy. I read a good article about that here.
(If that link is weird, just go to desmoinesregister.com and search 'green party'.

Anyway, I have done a little research on the third party candidates, and I'm not too impressed with any of them. So here is my ranking of the current democratic candidates, from best to last. (By the way, of the Republicans, I like Guiliani, but in all truth, the republicans look pathetic. They continue to rely on fear mongering.)

1. John Edwards - I love this man. Charismatic, universal mandatory health-care (with an actual plan to back it up). What makes him stand out? I have never seen such a serious candidate come out and tell the truth: Taxes need to be raised. WOW. Balls.
2. Denis Kucinich - I love Denis. He was my guy at first. Nothing like a hippie politician. He really believes what he says, but he is too much of a peacenik even for me. I love peace; but a Department of Peace? C'mon dude.
3. Joe Biden - "We need to rid of regime change as a foreign policy." Thank you Joe. Secondly, on Darfur "We can sit here all day and talk. That is all anyone ever does about Darfur. We need to send in peace keeping U.S. troops now. While we are sitting here talking, 50,000 more people are dying." (These are both paraphrases.)
4. Bill Richardson - Honestly, I can't really stand the guy. But he has a ton of experience and has been nominated for the nobel peace prize 4 times...very pragmatic, but a question dodger.
5. Mike Gravel - Ok, he is a loose canon. I don't want him to be President. But I want him to continue to be at the debates to call people out on their shit. He called out the senators, along with Kucinich, on not ending the war (yes it is in their power, comment on this if you want to dispute it). And he called Hilary out on her 'balanced budget'--it was balanced because of money taken from social security.
6. Christopher Dodd
7. Barack Obama - You know, I like how Obama speaks. But he is a Democrat who wants to add to the Pentagon budget. What is that?
8. Hilary Clinton - I don't like her, I think she is a politician's politician. In the last debate all she did was point out how alike the democrats were in an effort to make her views ok. And also shifted all blame to Bush. She is running on the 'anything but another Bush' ticket. (See John Kerry).

So, not surprisingly, the popular (and more moderate) candidates are at the bottom. But surprisingly, for me at least, my favorite presidential candidate actually does have a chance of winning for once. I don't think anyone I've ever voted for on the national level has ever won. I didn't even vote for Loebsack! So, maybe, if Edwards can push forward, I can actually back a winner. He is in third in the polls now, but a lot of people think he won the debate on Sunday. Thats a good sign.

William James

2007-06-02T21:37:00.000-07:00

William James, co-founder of American Pragmatism, taught me something wonderful last semester, so let me share. All of our beliefs rest on other beliefs. Those beliefs rest on further beliefs, etc., until we reach our foundational beliefs. These beliefs can vary widely, from 'There is an external world', to 'God exists', to modus ponens. But the fact is, these beliefs are foundationless--that is what makes them foundational. To the individual, they are seen as self-evident. But to someone who disagrees, it is impossible to argue with them. These beliefs are at the center of our belief-web, and as such are not accesible to alteration, without starting from scratch, which is most likely psychologically impossible.
But when you find yourself in an argument with someone and you reach a point at which foundational beliefs differ, just remember that theirs has as much grounding as yours; none. As long as a person's beliefs are consistent with one another, and as long as their inferences and deductions are not flawed, their system is as good as yours.
So I guess the lesson here is tolerance.
James says, and I agree, that any belief system which is self-consistent and explains all given evidence (sensible evidence, that is), it is as good a system as any.
So, sorry pretentious scientists, but a reflective and rational theist is on as good a ground as you are. I have to remind myself of this too, as I tend to take science's side on most matters. But unfortunately, unless you can point out an inconsistency, the creationist is perfectly ok to say God put dinosaur bones there as a test, or something like that.
Don't worry--when I first realized this I thought it meant all meaningful argument was impossible, until I realized that everyone's belief system (including my own) has so many logical inconsistencies that just working these inconsistencies out creates endless debate possibilities. For one fun example, how about the fact that most Christians believe in ghosts even though Christian theology doesn't allow such a thing.
I'm not trying to rip into Christians--scientists do the same kind of shit.

Just remember, be tolerant of anyone who uses good reasoning from their beliefs, whatever those beliefs may be.

A Moral Question

2007-05-31T17:56:00.000-07:00

To some extent, it seems we choose what we like. This isn't always the case, as we all have some guilty pleasures that we just can't resist indulging in once in a while.
However, it is true that our surroundings and ourselves greatly influence what we enjoy. I, for example, don't like any sports except hockey. And I think this has little to do with how I was at birth or that hockey and I were meant for each other or something like that. It is because I was raised in northern Wisconsin, where hockey is like little league, and I played it for 10 years. I associate fond memories of going to see the North Stars and winning hockey tournaments.
And in my adult life, we seem to have some control over what we like as well. I convinced myself to like coffee, for example, and to enjoy going to plays and music recitals. And its not really like I am lying to myself, because I actually do now enjoy those things, when there was a point when I consciously decided to enjoy them. Maybe it could be argued that the enjoyment was always there, but was only 'latent'. (Well shut the hell up, Freud.)
So what does this have to do with a moral question?
My question is, ought we, as much as is in our own power, decide to enjoy hobbies that are ethical? To some extent we do this, for example when you recycle and you get that warm feeling inside like you are 'making a difference'.
But I am talking about a more radical version of this--for example--let's say I am considering taking up a hobby, because I have some free time. Could someone be morally faulted (though probably very slightly) for taking up photography, which uses all kinds of toxic chemicals and is in some respects wasteful, over organic gardening?
Now if someone has a passion for photography, that is a little different--as I said, certain pleasures we cannot choose, and we can't feel bad about that. But I am talking about someone who is, as of now, neutral as to which hobby to choose. Is it even slightly obligatory for a person to consider ethical factors when choosing something like a hobby?
Truthfully, this is probably not a very relevant question, because very seldom is there an 'all things being equal' about pleasures. But I ask because it has come up in my life a couple times, and I didn't know if contemplating the minute ethical differences was really worth it.

High Quality Humans

2007-05-25T19:06:00.000-07:00

I have just returned from Cleveland, where a lovely apartment was leased for Emily, Felicia, and myself. You can ask them for details.
Cleveland is a great place, from what I can tell. I stereotyped it as a large city with mean people--driven to even more extremes of negative actions by the huge poverty level of the city. But we didn't run into any of that, really. Granted, we were mostly in a suburb known as Lakewood. However, the overall experience left me with a warm general feeling towards humankind. First, we wandered around a very run down neighborhood that both my parents wouldn't even drive through. But no problems--someone did yell out a car window a racist remark, but I think it was more of hitting on the girls than anything else. We walked around for a couple hours trying to find a decent place--the sidewalks were covered in dirt, and there were no businesses that remained, well, in business. It was all just shit. Barely any people around, even. As we finally found a subway station, a man started talking to us. He explained to us more about the transit system than we wanted to know, even missed his train because he was showing us all the routes and explaining why its cheaper to get a 7 day pass. He told us to watch out for people, and stay off crack. He asked nothing in return. He was just a nice guy that took time out of his day to help strangers, even strangers of a different race (which, as he explained, would have been sacreligious in Cleveland 20 years ago).

And the first woman who showed us an apartment took us to a nearby park and explained that this park was all around Cleveland, so no matter where we lived we would be near it.

And the woman who we are renting from, Linda, made a special trip on Thursday night to get our credit checked out before we left this morning--she said she wanted to maker sure it all got taken care of before we left Cleveland.

So I guess the lesson I learned, is don't misjudge people. They can be nice for the sake of being nice.

I kind of have a theory that paranoia and distrust are the beginnings of selfishness and deceit in people. That is why is seems to me so important to keep a positive idea of human nature.

More of this politics shit

2007-05-22T20:50:00.000-07:00

(Well, no one responded to my non-political post, so I am just going to assume I can post whatever I want...)

In general, contemporary social democrats support:

A mixed economy, consisting mainly of private enterprise but with government owned or subsidised programs of education, healthcare, child care etc for all citizens.
Regulatory systems over private enterprise in the interests of workers, consumers and fair competition.
Advocacy of fair trade over free trade.<
An extensive system of social security (though usually not to the extent advocated by democratic socialists or other socialist groups), notably to counteract the effects of poverty and to insure the citizens against loss of income following illness, unemployment or retirement.
Moderate to high levels of taxation (through a progressive taxation system) to fund government expenditure.
Environmental protection laws such as combating global warming and increasing alternative energy funding.
Immigration and multiculturalism.
A secular and progressive social policy, although this varies markedly in degree. Most social democrats support gay marriage, abortion rights and a liberal drug policy, while others are either non-committed or opposed to these policies.
A foreign policy supporting the promotion of democracy, the protection of human rights and where possible, effective multilateralism.
As well as human rights, social democrats also support social rights, civil rights and civil liberties.
From Wikipedia

Goodbye Music, Hello Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

2007-05-21T10:34:00.000-07:00

So...the band that I am in went to Des Moines this weekend and recorded 12 songs for what hopefully will become an album. I don't really know what will come of it...maybe we will make 10 copies, and maybe 100. Its not really important.
I'd like to take a survey. I want to know the reasons why people play in bands. To me, it has always been to write and play music that I loved. To create. This seems innocent, and obviously true.
But if this is so clear, why do people whom I talk to focus so much on fame and fortune? The band I am in could never get famous...we go against the principles of fame. We aren't catchy, we have very few 'hooks', we aren't very pleasant on the ears. The conclusion to most laypeople would be that we suck--we aren't good enough to sound like a band you would hear on the radio. We CAN'T write hooks, we CAN'T put together verse-chorus-verse songs. We CAN'T be pretty. But this assumes that our ultimate goal, our ultimate desired end is fame or money.
To be sure, this isn't just 'laypeople', and I'm not just insulting you for not 'getting it'. Because there are a million bands out there that are the same way. Believe me! I have heard the words "Listen, if any label is going to take a second glance at us we are going to need a few singles!" spoken without a hint of sarcasm. Now my band is breaking up, as I am moving to Cleveland in the fall. And to certain bands this may seem like a failure. We never got off the ground. Hell, we didn't even have a MySpace account! That is just poor marketing.
But to me, we have succeeded. We will have a recording of all of our work, and damn them if they can't enjoy music for music's sake. I don't know. Am I alone here? Sometimes I think I might be, when my own close-knit group of musicians has a traitor in its roost.

In summary, I don't care that I won't get famous. When art stops being done for art's sake, I question whether it is even art anymore.

I think I am becoming...a pundit....

2007-05-15T15:54:00.000-07:00

Not like a opinion leader or anything of that sort, because...well I haven't known many people who take my advice or hold my viewpoints. But I am just politics obsessed lately. Its pretty disgusting.

Anyway, stumbled across this great site yesterday--- WorldPublicOpinion.org
They gather surveys worldwide about stuff and bring it all together. Want to know how Muslims feel about Americans? ...we all know the world doesn't feel too greatly about America, but how does the world feel about the EU?
Polls are interesting because they are another outlet for democracy. And it is amazing how much polls can vary from the politicians that poll-takers voted in.
A couple of interesting things I've stumbled across so far:
Most Americans support th e UN, and want it helped along to become a relevant international player. This is interesting, possibly only to me, because conservatives tend to be against the UN on the grounds that they don't get anything accomplished. But to me, this isn't a reason to abolish the UN, or quit funding it, but to improve it. Some people seem convinced that you can't fix what is broken, but it seems ridiculous to disband an international community of rational people because they haven't gotten a lot done lately.

How about this...Muslims overwhelmingly think the US is trying to divide and weaken Islam!

Ok...I can't even begin to respond to that. Obviously some policies need to be changed somewhere, if we are alienating not just a few radicals but the entire international Muslim community. Has Bush seen this poll?

And then, of course my favorite...the one which I argued with my own mother about.
Iraqis want Americans out.
Now we aren't in Iraq for WMDs. We are arguably not in Iraq for Al-Qaeda...I say arguably because even though no links between Sadaam and Al-Qaeda have been proven, it could still be said that Sadaam let them hang out in the country...they are both Sunni. But that is a questionable link. So the official government argument is that we are in Iraq to promote democracy in the Middle East.
But let's stop right there.
Is U.S.A. really always pro-democracy, or are they pro-democracy when democracy happens to be a good thing for the U.S.? Case in point: The 2006 Palestinian election. Hamas comes in and wins a democratic election, as far as everyone knows fairly, and aid is withdrawn left and right. I understand Hamas doesn't recognize Israel. I understand they are seen as a terrorist organization. But ok, I guess we don't support democracy in all circumstances. Am I speaking too radically if I say you have to accept politicians you vehemently disagree with to win elections?
Now, back from that tangent, let's look at this poll, example number 2 of why the U.S. isn't really pro-democracy all the time. Iraqis want Americans out. 80%. So there you go. There is democracy. read the article, I won't waste my time repeating it.
My point is, and this is coming off of the top of my head, if you are going to support democracy, support it all the time, even when you disagree with how it turns out. Not doing so is just as bad as those liberals (Yeah, thats right, I'm attacking my own crowd) that are pro free speech until something sexist comes out of someone's mouth.

And finally, I Like Al-Jazeera. I think what they do is wonderful. But more on that next time....

One reason why I hate MySpace

2007-05-14T16:36:00.000-07:00

Is MySpace really a 'place for friends'? Or is it just a place for SPAM?

Here is an e-mail our band account somehow received:

From :
Sent :	Monday, May 14, 2007 3:02 PM
To :
Subject :	Get fans on myspace

Inbox

Hey there,

If you were wondering how all those bands get a lot of fans on myspace,
well here it is.

They're using this program to add friends, promote shows, post comments
etc. It works great for venues,00

promoters, bands, DJ's. Check it out - you'll be a star in no time!

http://www.friendadder.com/idevaffiliate/idevaffiliate.php?id=348

Cheers,
John

endquote

Social networking is a euphemism for 'using other people for personal gain'.

Gay Marriage

2007-05-11T14:11:00.000-07:00

Emily and I finished Angels in America by Tony Kushner last night. It is a brilliant piece of art, 6 hours long but all worth it (I would suggest dividing it up into 2 or 3 nights however).
Anyway, it reminded me also I wanted to post something about gay marriage.

Chances are most people who read my blog are pro-gay marriage, so this might be like preaching to the choir. But that aside, let me explain why I think gay marriage should be legal:
A lot of Christians think homosexuality is a sin. That seems to be the argument behind why gay marriage should remain illegal. And most gay rights activists respond to this strangely--they try to argue that it is not a sin, or immoral, or something along those lines. Well, I do personally think the bible is pretty clear that homosexuality is a sin, but whether or not this is true is really all beside the point. See in the wonderful nation of U.S.A, we have a policy called "separation of church and state". This means that even if God came down to Earth and clarified that homosexuality IS a sin, it would theoretically mean nothing to the government. Biblical scholars may unanimously shout out that homosexuality is a sin (which they don't), but none of that is important. Because the government has no business in putting ethics into law. There is no good argument I have ever heard against gay marriage. If it is immoral, so be it. Immoral is not a sufficient reason to make something illegal, especially when it does no damage to others. If the churches don't want to marry homosexuals, that is certainly up to them.
Oh yeah, I guess there is the 'sacred bond between a man an a woman' response. But this is either based on church teachings (which makes it irrelevant), or just plain false. What is sacred about arranged marriages between old men and 13 year olds? Should we go back to those days simply because of 'tradition'?

Now this is where most people will probably lose me...but what business does the government have in marriage anyway? It shouldn't be part of the public sphere if you ask me. Marriage should be between the church and people. --what about the tax breaks and stuff? Well, either get rid of those, or give it to everyone, or something else. I'm not sure what motivation the government has anymore in wanting people to get married anyway. That is just another moment of legislating morals.
Privatize marriage...now thats a true libertarian idea....

Capitalism and Christianity

2007-05-07T18:15:00.000-07:00

At some point in my life, I would like to study this more in depth, but alas, I know little about the bible. I only have one class by Jay Holstein under my belt. And who knows what to trust with a post-modern interpreter like Holstein?
But I will say this...I do not understand how true Christians can support capitalism. Or at least free market economics. I have heard many Republicans say things like "America is a country based off of Christian ideals" --listen, I understand that to Christians every man was created equal, but I'm just not sure how far the Christian influence extends beyond that. I know our founders were Christian, but if Fred Phelps is right about one thing, it might be that the U.S.A. is not a Christian state (God, please don't let Fred Phelps be right about anything else).
Ok, I can see it coming from a mile away. "What?! Are you saying Jesus was a Communist? Communists are a Godless people. They are a violent people. They hate individual rights. Jesus wasn't like that at all!"
You may cite two pieces of evidence.
#1 - Marx called religion the 'opiate of the masses', and pretty much wanted to abolish religion, because it took away power from the state.
#2 - Luke 20:25 "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." --Jesus Christ

First I shall address these criticisms, and then I will show you my positive evidence for my case.
#1 - Ok, so Marx hated religion. And so does Castro. But people are so quick to make a giant logical leap from communism to capitalism. Alright, obviously Jesus wouldn't like throwing away religion. But does this really mean he would throw the baby out with the bathwater and reject communism? I mean, communist theory has been revised quite a bit...but it is still communism. Or, maybe its called socialism. But the point is, to me it seems like Jesus would love some kind of reformed communist state in which the government ensured citizens weren't starving, homeless, or jobless. Don't call it communism, but don't tell me that its libertarian, laissez-faire capitalism.

#2 - Read the context! Jesus can be interpreted here as either a) Keeping good with the Romans (he is talking to spies), or b) Giving the lesson that even Christians need to pay taxes and follow laws according to their political leaders. Alright, so Jesus would not like the idea of a revolution against the government. Obviously! He hates violence. He promotes love above all, 'love thy enemies'. Sidepoint--Marx was not for armed rebellion. He theorized that communism would gradually take over as a natural result from capitalism's flaws....oh wait...social security...medicare...public utilities...FEMA...Oh my God, Marx was right? Its hard to believe how brilliant Marx was, considering how much hatred people have for him. Maybe they saw Rocky IV too many times? Read the Communist Manifesto if you don't believe me. Everything Marx predicted has begun to come true, though not at the pace he predicted.
The only thing Marx got wrong (that I can think of now, it having been a couple years since I read the Manifesto) was his failure to predict labor unions.

So, I have shown two objections to be mostly unfounded. What is my evidence for Jesus as communist?

Book of Acts
32 Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. ³³With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. ³⁴There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. ³⁵They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. ³⁶There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means "son of encouragement"). ³⁷He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

Have you ever read any stronger red propaganda than this paragraph in your life? The U.S.S.R must have something to do with this!

Ok, so maybe a system like the one above wouldn't work. I don't know...maybe it would. I am a socialist, so I think a system sort of like this would work. I have an idea in my head. But I am not saying this system would work. I am saying that if you truly are a Christian, than shouldn't this begin to shape your political views on the economy? Can you really be more than a Fairweather Christian if you vote Republican? I am not sure...I guess socially the republicans are closer in line with Christian ideals, so its sort of a toss up. But my point is that I don't understand Christians. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Christianity or Christians. But I don't know why so many people call themselves Christians, but only believe the parts of the bible that fit in with how they want to live. What makes people be able to pick and choose what holy scripture is really holy?
I just don't understand how we can be 85% Christian in the U.S., with all these greedy filthy rich business people running around trying to figure out how they can get more money, when things like "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Mark 10:25) are in the bible.

I know its easy to rip a religion apart when you are agnostic, but feel free to respond and terrorize my cloudy reasoning process.

Happy Earth Day!

2007-04-22T17:12:00.000-07:00

A study by Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin, vegetarians, and assistant professors of geophysics at the University of Chicago , compares the CO2 production resulting from various human diets in the United States. They find that a person in the United States who switched from the typical diet to a vegan diet would, on average, reduce CO2 production significantly more than switching from a Toyota Camry to a hybrid, Toyota Prius.

I know that is depressing. I'm not trying to be a negative nancy. I just wanted to spread some knowledge I stumbled upon that seems important.
But if that one depresses you too much, try this one.
And if that one is still depressing, let's go with this

And, if even the idea of taking any action at all depresses you, follow this link. And before you immediately discredit this guy, note that he is a professor of atmospheric science at MIT.

Either way, have a great Earth Day. To sound like a stoic public service announcement, there is no reason to be sad, only reason to act.

A most likely bad solution to "Old Money"

2007-03-27T12:45:00.000-07:00

We all see spoiled little children running around, doing whatever they want. And we all see spoiled young adults running around doing whatever they want.
A conversation about class inequality during my visit to UNL got me thinking. Most people believe, along with the statistics, that its much more difficult than capitalism's founders planned it to change classes. If you are born in the lower middle class, you are most likely going to die in the lower middle class. If you are born in the upper class, you are most likely going to die in the upper class. Sorry idealistic republicans, but it just didn't turn out the way Adam Smith planned it.
Our races and genders determine to a certain extent (hopefully a decreasing extent) how easy we are going to have it in life. Unfortunately, this is a very tough thing to change. We can't feasibly erase certain fundamental physical characteristics, and I don't even think we would want to.
However, the class we are born into has arguably as much if not a larger effect on how easy we are going to have it in life as well. But this, like race and gender, does not seem to be quite as tough of a problem to solve.
Capitalism is founded on the idea that those who work harder get richer. And society attempts to make this more so the case by offering education funding to lower classes and minorities. We want everyone to have an equal shot, because that is what capitalism is supposed to be founded upon.
So why do we allow for disgustingly gigantic inheritances? I put forward the radical proposition that upon a person's death their money goes to the government. Repeal the death tax? No. Make it 100%. This could allow us to lower other taxes--a pro-capitalism move. It would make every adult (sure there would still be spoiled children) have to work for their own money--another pro-capitalism move.
Why not do it?
Objection 1: The whole reason a lot of these people want to get rich is to ensure their children have a good shot at having it made, not having to work as hard as they did, etc.
Response: Well, then this has the added bonus of stopping the drive of so many people to get ridiculously rich (which, logic dictates, causes others to get poorer), thus shrinking the rich to poor gap that has been growing for a couple hundred years.
Objection 2: Parents will just give large monetary sums to their children before they die, which will not stop the problem.
Response 2: Yeah, that is an issue, but I'm sure there could be certain restrictions that would ease this kind of issue.

Alright, I haven't thought about this through completely, but it did cross my mind and I see no immediate HUGE problems. But, maybe I am missing something.

Moral Holiday

2007-03-20T14:59:00.000-07:00

Ok, so here is one we can all enjoy.

I am what I like to call a "moral prude". Maybe its because of my Catholic upbringing. Maybe I just overanalyze. Either way, I either a) Think a much greater percentage of decisions in life than other people are moral decisions (for example, buying things), or b) have values vastly different than 97% of people in society. This is not to say I am a better person than 97% of other people, or that my values are completely and utterly right (though I obviously think so, otherwise I would change them). I do things I consider to be immoral everyday. Constantly. I am no better of a person than anyone else I know, but I am just talking theoretically here. Many things I consider to be immoral are just a non-issue to other people, and it makes me feel like an asshole for even bringing them up.
Obviously, trying to live up to my own moral standards is implausible at best. And it is very stressful to go against the grain all the time, especially when 'the grain' is the very people you love the most.
But lately I have been trying harder to gradually shift to the lifestyle I think I should be living. I am going to try to start hardcore recycling again. I am trying to ensure that I don't buy anything that comes from sweatshop labor. Eventually, I want to buy food that doesn't support terrible things in other countries and near-slave labor. It is a slow and tough process, especially when one feels alone in the process.
Anyway, with all the stress that is building up I don't want to explode on friends and family, accusing them of not supporting me and surrounding my life with immoral behavior--because that would be the stress talking. But I also don't want to give up and just go along with social norms because its easier that way. I for the first time in my life am working with a normative ethical theory that I believe in. I don't want to throw it away because its inconvenient.
This is really all a preface to my real question: Is it ever justified to take a moral holiday? I realize that no matter what we can't always be moral, but is it ever moral to allow yourself to be immoral?
Let's say I quit eating fast food because it creates a large amount of unnecessary waste. Am I ever morally justified in eating at Hardee's because a group of my friends is going there and I am hungry? Wouldn't it be arrogant to just say "Oh, I don't support this place. I am waiting in the car." Or is it the same (though far less extreme) than waiting in the car at a whorehouse or something standardly thought of as morally worse?
I do not know of any philosophical literature on this, but I would be interested in reading some. But I am also curious to see what you have to say. What do you think?

Barack Obama - An Unimportant Issue

2007-02-13T13:59:00.000-08:00

Ok, I don't know much about Barack Obama. To be honest, I think it is too early to do research for an election more than a year away. But a fellow liberal creampuff that I work with, Jim, pointed something out to me a few days ago. Everyone, on all sides, is calling him an African American. That is, a Black African American, since white people can come from Africa (see Dave Matthews). Now, for me, this is really a non-issue. Why should race come into play? But that is beside the point.
Race is a big issue to a lot of people, and sometimes maybe for good reason. I don't really know why, but I am sure there are good reasons, right? I don't know.
Anyway, that isn't the point. The point I want to make is that Barack Obama is only half black. His mother is white, and he grew up with her. Why is this important? Well, its not really--but isn't it strange about how much his race has been played up? It seems to me like if we follow through on our reasoning here the whole notion of races falls apart, which it probably should. Obama is 50% black, whatever 'black' means; but he is in the history books as being the 5th black senator in the United States. Now we don't want to call him white, even though he is 50% white, but we also don't want to just call him nothing, do we? Sure, we, as human beings don't want to. He is black to us, and that is that.
But isn't that a fucked up way of classifying everything too simply into categories? At risk of being offensive and making a crude analogy (God, I am sorry, I don't have this sensitivity thing down yet), isn't this somewhat like calling a bisexual person homosexual? They are just completely different. And as I have noted in my earlier post "Two Definitions of Racism", which no one was willing to touch with a 10 foot pole, I am not sure anyone even has a clear conception of what is means to be black. Is there a certain percentage of 'black' genes you have to have? And what the hell are 'black' genes? Maybe this is where the shift to "African American" comes from. But as I stated earlier, this conception is just as vague. Tons of 'white' people live in South Africa, and what would we call them if they moved to the United States and gained citizenship?
Or are we going for ancestral routes? In that case everyone is African-American. SO unless we are going to make "African American" mean something like "10 generations ago your family was living in Africa", African American collapses into 'black', and 'black' collapses into nothing.

Ok, wait, I got off track there for a second. So here is my point--unless someone can show me how these thoughts are way off, and make me look racist (its not easy for a white male to talk about race, believe me, its uncomfortable)--what I would like to see is the destruction of race talk. We are all human beings.

Side note: Is it stupid of me to talk about things like this on a blog? I mean, I guess they say future employers will Google me and maybe posts like this could get me in trouble? I'm not sure. So I guess at a later date I will delete this...no one quote me...anywhere...ever...about anything.

Grad School/ Aqua Teen

2007-02-02T08:08:00.000-08:00

So, I know I said this wasn't a place for me to personally vent or celebrate. But I thought I would brag about this since I just found out:
I GOT ACCEPTED TO MY FIRST GRAD SCHOOL!!!
yep. I know its early, but I guess they are quick at the University of Nebraska. That is a pretty good school. Definetely not one of the ones I thought I would get into. So that is awesome. We will see what happens in the coming weeks. But now I'm just interested. I am in at least one program, so now its just a picking my favorite kind of thing.

Secondly. Listen, I don't know if anyone has heard about this whole Boston Harbor terrorist scare?
If you haven't, read the article. Go research it. Now, this is really strange, because before I heard about the Aqua Teen connection, I remember watching MSNBC as the 'story' was breaking--The mayor came out and said something like "Its a hoax, and its not funny." --I remember seeing this on the screen, but not really knowing much else about the story (we were eating at Buffalo Wild Wings), and saying to Emily something about how things are always funny when someone says "its not funny". Because obviously if it wasn't funny you wouldn't have to point it out. Anyway, this is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. These guys are going to probably get thrown in jail for their lives because as of September 12, 2001, we are a society of fear. You see these little creatures (mooninites) on flashing signs flipping people off, and you think "Oh, those are bombs"?! I mean, what kind of paranoid mindset are you in when you think any flashing sign that you don't recognize is some kind of terrorist plot? They SHUT DOWN Boston Harbor!?
The irony of all of it is that if one of the homeland security officials would have brought their teenage son or daughter along in some sort of 'take your child to work' day ceremony, none of this would have happened. The kid would have said "Mom/Dad, thats just Ignignok. Its on Adult Swim. Their just postmodern cartoonists with postmodern marketing ideas." On second thought, no, I'm sure the parent would have just said "Shut up, this is important business. You can't trust anyone or anything in the world we live in."
I mean, I don't know. Am I insane about this? I understand there were a lot of misunderstandings. I understand that these guys who did it are, for some reason, not worried about their future. (I would be scared shitless! They are probably fucked for the rest of their lives.) But now that all of this information is out...they were just marketing in a creative, if bizarre, way...they were just FLASHING SIGNS...etc etc. Why can't they just be like 'whoops! Sorry about that everyone, we just wanted to play it safe.' ? No. Instead they have to arrest these guys on felony charges. Instead you hear things from the Massuchusets (sp?) homeland security demanding that Turner Broadcasting pay for all the costs of the investigation. I heard some government worker say something like "This was just tasteless marketing, and Turner Broadcasting should be held accountable for everything that happened."
Am I out of my mind or is this just funny? Not the prank, not the marketing, that was just what it was, and it is truly unfortunate that people were scared about terrorism and stuff. But isn't it funny that in retrospect we can't just laugh and say, 'alright guys, you had your fun, now go home. sorry about the mix up.' No, we have to continue taking it so fucking serious. I don't know. Am I nuts?

Objectivity without Ontological Commitment

2007-01-02T17:58:00.000-08:00

Everyone seems to hate G.E. Moore's ethical intuitionism, because it assumes the existence of a non-natural property, 'good'. The real problem with doing this is that it makes the problematic assumption that we have some sort of bizarre epistemic access to this property, as did human beings during the creation of language itself, hence us making a word to describe this non-natural property.
On the other hand, it doesn't seem that non-cognitivists have our moral language right. When I am in an ethical discussion/argument with someone, it is more than just table pounding. Stevenson says ethical arguments are like preference arguments because we aren't stating physical facts to prove ethical facts ("We should go to the movie because it is an action movie"), but stating physical facts to attempt to convince the other person to hold our preferences ("[because I know you like action movies]"). But I'm not sure that an argument about anything, factual or relative, could go any other way.
At the end of the day, an ethical argument is just a matter of taste, say the non-cognitivists.

But that certainly doesn't seem right either.
So is there a way we can have objective moral truths without strange metaphysical commitments? YES.
It has been around for hundreds of years, mostly popular around Hume's time, but I am not sure why it failed to gain popularity when Roderick Firth formalized it in the 60s.
It is called the "Ideal Observer Theory". Under this theory, 'x is a good act' means 'the ideal observer would do x under these current conditions'. The ideal observer has certain characteristics, such as omniscience, impartiality, disinterest, etc. That is all important, but there is not enough space for that here. The point is, when we are making ethical arguments, we assume all these pretenses, such as utility, kindness, etc. The ideal observer has all of these characteristics, and puts its desires at the same level as others. But assuming these pretenses, an ethical dilemma does have an objective solution, so long as hypothetical situations can be considered true or false (for ex. If John likes pizza and is hungry, and a pizza is put in front of him, ceteris peribus he would eat the pizza).
One objection I will field briefly before I open this up for discussion is this: People can agree on all the facts of an ethical dilemma, and be unselfish, but still disagree on the outcome.
My response is this: Certainly it is possible, if not likely, that they have two different conceptions of the ideal observer. And these subtle differences could cause the difference. Not to mention, it is impossible for someone to know all facts about a situation, even if they were brilliant scientists--think about mental states and things like that. This opens up a lot of room for sensible disagreement. But when this happens between two people (most likely philosophers), all they have to do is step back and agree on a conception of an ideal observer, and then progress forward. This won't solve all problems, but it will help.

Also, I know nothing about aesthetics, but I'm not sure why the ideal observer theory wouldn't work in aesthetics. We have a piece of art: and we agree on a certain general conception of what good art (or music) is; takes creativity, emotional venting, etc. etc. But once we agree on a conception, we can ensure we are actually arguing about something instead of just talking past one another.

Two Definitions of Racism

2006-12-28T17:56:00.000-08:00

Ok, before I get started on the content of this post, I want to say I am sorry if I offend anyone--I am against racism and sexism, but I think that only through a clear conception of racism can we eliminate it.

It seems to me, when people use the words 'racism' and/or 'sexism', they use it in different ways. And this isn't necessarily true of just the uneducated, either. In both of my interpretations of the definition of racism, I have heard and read scholars use them in each way.
This is an exercise in Folk Philosophizing (see below), so obviously I have no real scientific evidence behind why I take these to be the definitions people are using--it just seems that way to me. So feel free to comment and criticize me.

The first definition of racism is the type that states that all stereotypes of a group of people (whether it be race or sex, or even something else) are false, and therefore, believing these stereotypes to be true is damaging ethically and practically. Now this is the definition I held about racism/sexism for almost all of my life. For example, I criticize people for saying gay men are more sensitive, have better fashion sense, are shallow, are feminine, etc. According to this definition of racism/sexism, shows like Queer Eye and Will and Grace are homophobic (or homosexist, if that might be a word), because they perpetuate these stereotypes of gay men.

But this definition of racism/sexism seems problematic. For one, I have heard many people applaud shows like Queer Eye and Will and Grace for bringing more homosexuality into the media. They don't think those shows are homophobic--this is something I have heard not from ignorant people, either, I am talking about gay men themselves applauding these shows.
The second problem with this definition of racism/sexism is a little more controversial. Let's say a sociologist did a study on gay men and found that they rank significantly higher on some kind of sensitivity scale (just work with me here, this is theoretical). Wouldn't this justify the homophobia? I mean it wouldn't prove that all gay men are more sensitive, but it would give me a rational reason to, when meeting a gay man, guess that he is more sensitive. It would be parallel to this less controversial example: I like metal music. I like Meshuggah. Now if I meet someone else who likes metal music, I am going to assume there is statistically a higher chance that this person likes Meshuggah. Now if I meet a homosexual male, I can already know that there is a statistically higher chance that he is more sensitive.
And this could work for anything. A black male is more likely to go to prison than a white male, and from this I could rationally assert, when seeing a black male on the street, that he is a criminal.
So if this first definition is right, there are empirical tests that could be done that could make racist/sexist beliefs rational. And we certainly don't want to say that racism and sexism are rational.

The second definition I hear people use seems more bizarre to me: The second type of racism/sexism assumes certain stereotypes to be true about certain groups of people, but says that disciminating against these people because of these characteristics is wrong. For example, I'm not sure if anyone remembers last year when there was a big issue with the Visitor's locker room at Kinnick Stadium, but suddenly, after years of it being, some feminists and homosexual advocates accused the University of Iowa of being sexist/homophobic because the Visitor's locker room is painted pink. Now they can't possibly using 'sexist' or 'homophobic' in the way the first definition describes it, because it wouldn't make sense. The pretense in their accusations was that pink is a color associated with women and homosexuals, so using it in this negative way is sexist/homophobic.
But this definition seems even more problematic. Using this line of reasoning, someone could say something as ridiculous as this: "Playing highly rhythm based music in clubs is racist against caucasians, because caucasians aren't born with the amount of rhythm that African Americans are." Now we certainly would accuse the speaker in this statement of him/herself being the racist for taking the pretense that white people don't have rhythm to be true.
Secondly, it does not seem so crazy to dislike a group because they hold a certain characteristic like the ones being used. If a study shows that teenagers are all rude and a bunch of thiefs, can someone really accuse me of being irrational for not liking teenagers? I don't think so, it seems a clearly valid argument:
I dislike people who are rude.
Teenagers are rude,
Therefore, I dislike teenagers.
And we can run an argument like that for any 'accepted' stereotype. For example:
I dislike people who love the color pink.
Women tend to like the color pink.
Therefore, I tend to dislike women.

As we can see, both ways in which people use the words 'racism', 'sexism', and 'homophobia' seem flawed. But I can't find any way to resolve it. I am much inclined to try to fix the first definition, because it seems much closer to what most people mean by these terms than the second, but I'm keeping an open mind. Any ideas?

Folk Philosophy

2006-12-22T11:17:00.000-08:00

Coming home from an undergrad philosophy conference once, I stopped to get gas. The gas station attendant was a nice, talkative guy, about my age.
"Where are you headed?"
"Home."
"Where were you visiting?"
"I was in Madison, at a philosophy conference, actually."
"Oh, philosophy, huh? What is the meaning of life?"

I get this kind of thing every now and then, mostly when making small talk with strangers. By 'this kind of thing', what I mean is that I get the idea that people don't really know what academic philosophy is. And I understand it, and I can't blame them, because when you have (as most of the population does) taken either an Intro to Philosophy class or no formal philosophy introduction, your idea of philosophy is probably much different than mine. What philosophy means to most people is a bunch of pretentious assholes smoking pot and using language in a convoluted manner as to seem intelligent. (Think modern day Chinese proverbs) Well, in some ways, I guess it is like that--but we don't say things like "What is the meaning of life?" and "Can God cook a burrito so hot that even He/She could not eat it?"
Things like this I like to call "Folk Philosophy". Folk Philosophy is the type of thing that all people engage in, myself included. I like Folk Philosophy. Its actually what got me into Academic Philosophy--my Intoduction to Philosophy class was largely a class on Folk Philosophy. Plato could in many respects called a Folk Philosopher.
My point here is that the Philosophy practiced in upper level undergraduate courses (and I presume beyond) is a different kind of thing. The biggest difference is that we ask completely different questions. This Philosophy is probably strongly influenced by Folk Philosophy, but instead of just playing around with words (as I think people believe we do), we formalize arguments into logical forms. We attempt to define things in ways which don't allow them to be manipulated.

This all seems pretty useless, as I am not explaining myself well. But my point, and you'll have to take my word for it, is that Academic Philosophy is important, and is dealing with real questions, not just questions of language (contrary to what Wittgenstein may have you believe). I am happy to talk Folk Philosophy with anyone at any time, but it really upsets me when I hear people say that all philosophers do is get really good at bull-shitting. Because an Academic Philosopher is that last person you want to try bull-shitting. A philosophy professor is going to see every fallacy and error in reasoning you use, and if he/she wants can tear you apart for it.

Christmas Wish List

2006-12-16T22:25:00.000-08:00

This year, I am hard pressed to find anything that I truly want...I am pretty satisfied with my material state in life right now...and since people can't really give me less stress or more free time for Christmas, I want to give a list of great organizations that everyone should donate money to. (that should is a moral should, but it isn't to be taken to be literal that every single person should donate money to these organizations)
Mostly this is for my parents, who seem strangely dissapointed that I want to squander away my Christmas gifts on the less fortunate (especially my Dad). They must be reading too much Ayn Rand. I remind you: "She always wore a large gold dollar-sign pin on her dress. At her funeral, a six-foot floral dollar-sign was placed by the casket."
So, without further ado...here is a list of organizations that should have more money...some are important because they actually work to help people of today in the world to live and not suffer; others are important in changing the landscape of knowledge, thus creating more informed and able people to help.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

This is just a great resource for all philosophers, and fortunately right now it is free. Its written by reputable people, so you know it isn't full of shit like many other web sites are.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

How about rich people that give a shit? Pretty awesome, huh? This is just an awesome organization that, from what I have heard, does everything to help--after all, its not like Bill Gates needs to pocket the money or anything.

Wikipedia

Alright, now I know Wikipedia gets a ton of criticism. So its ruined like 3 people's lives, and that is sad. But they are improving the system, and making fraud much tougher with the help of volunteers. Wikipedia is an all-around great thing. It is full of so much useful information, and you can't deny that you have used it to brush up on a topic. Its an incredible source for information, and with your monetary help it can only get better. The money goes to pay monitors and servers and what-not.

Food Not Bombs

Food Not Bombs isn't the most internet savvy charity, but they are trying to change things in intelligent ways. They take the whole "teach a man to fish" idea to charity, as oppposed to just dropping boxes of food in poor places.

Adbusters

Go surf around this website if you are not familiar with Adbusters. Adbusters is an anti-consumerism media group. They are non-profit and have a bi-monthly magazine. I think it this is an important company to make otherwise unquestioning people realize that we in the Western world live in absolute absurd luxury. I, as you all know, think consumerism (caused by rampant capitalism) is a huge factor in this drive for more luxury/higher status. I read somewhere today (and don't quote me, I don't have a source), that the median life expectancy in parts of Africa is less than 5 years old. Dammit! I think its strange that if a child is drowning right next to us we are morally obliged to save it, and yet when donating $10 to Oxfam can save a childs life, we don't consider it morally obligatory. Somehow if we don't see it right in our faces it is outside of our moral duty?

Doctors without Borders

Damn French. How dare they save people's lives.

In conclusion, these or many other organizations are great. Even churches are fine, on the condition the money goes to needy people instead of a huge flashing marquee that tells the time and temperature. Does it piss anyone else off when a church is so loaded they put up expensive worthless crap? It can be best summed up by what my friend Jordan once said, in mockery of his old church: "This 50ft. cross will help us love our God more!"

By the way, Thanks to everyone who responded to the last post--it is still eating me alive, but I feel much better than I did before I put it up. I just made the mistake of reading an article about how bad world poverty really is while I was on my break today.

What I say, not what I do

2006-11-19T21:23:00.000-08:00

So, my latest existential crisis goes something like this: I have a lot of idealistic beliefs--most college students do. 'Adults' don't tend to have these beliefs. They say that our ideas would never work in reality. Thats what makes them idealistic. I've come to the conclusion that the reason this happens is that people talk a lot more than they act. For example: I was first drawn to philosophy because of ethics. I want to know the most valuable life to live. But now I realize--I would be doing a lot more good (or what I defined as good) in the world if I donated my life to charity. Being a philosophy professor is being about as selfish as I could possibly be. After all, its my dream, and as much as I think philosophy is intrinsically valuable, the vast majority of the public doesn't benefit from me becoming a professor. I had this problem once before; I kind of cheated my way out of the situation by telling myself that teaching philosophy is valuable. And I still believe that--but is it really more valuable than saving lives in Africa or something? I don't even donate money to charity. Its pathetic.
The fact is, I don't follow through on things I truly believe in. I tend to be a utilitarian in general normative situations. But I choose to eat what I want and buy what I want instead of living off of the bare minimum and giving the rest away. Sure, this is an extreme belief, but I honestly believe that is the right thing to do. I am not much of a consumer, but I still have more than my fair share (of resources compared with all other human beings in the world), and that is unjust in my mind. How can I justify preaching against consumerism and selfishness when I engage in it myself? How can I justify engaging in unethical actions?
I can't.
These are only a few examples. My life is constantly in this turmoil. I have a lot of beliefs that go against society, but this doesn't make it ok for me to ignore them, does it?
And how far do I go? Do I drop out of school and donate my life to charity? Do I quit my job to protest corporations use of people as means and not ends (yes, that is one part of Kant's categorical imperative I strongly agree with)? Do I refuse to buy anything but bare necessities? Sell my car?
Or do I just do what everyone else slowly allows themselves to do as they "grow up", and give up what I believe as 'idealistic'? I may know that widespread giving up on these beliefs is all that makes them 'idealistic', but how else can I justify not doing all of the things mentioned above?

2006-11-14T20:31:00.000-08:00

So, I don't actually know how to make a title

If anyone can help me with that, that would be great. I haven't posted in like 4 months, and I am willing to bet no one even looks to see if I post anymore.
The election was last week. Everyone has said almost everything there is to say, however, there is one thing people seem to be overlooking. The media would like you to think that the Senate is split 51-49 Democrats. In actuality, it is 49-49 with two independents. The first independent is Joe Lieberman--now I know what you are thinking: "Well, Joe Lieberman is a Democrat, he just lost that primary so he had to run as an Independent." That is all fine, but was Joseph Lieberman really ever a Democrat? We are talking about a guy who agreed to "Stay the Course"--we aren't talking about merely supporting the troops, we are talking about a DEMOCRAT going around and saying Bush was completely right. Secondly, Lieberman is against abortion, and against free speech. Alright, that second one may be an exaggeration, but he does want to limit free speech. After all, he led a commision to get violent video games and gansta rap banned, or at the very least illegal for minors to own. Now this doesn't make the man out of his mind or radical or anything like that, but democrat? No, this man is a Republican and he always has been.
But none of that is important. This is the real story of the election. The socialist workers party may want to be pessimistic because they didn't support him, but the reality is that Vermont elected the first Socialist Senator in United States history. Now I am happy of this for two reasons, but most of you will only be happy about the second. First of all, its a socialist. This is a step away from the blind Anti-Communism of 25 years ago--if any students today ever read the Communist Manifesto, they would see that Lenin and Stalin got it all wrong. Criticize communism all you want, but I am sick of hearing "It never works", because there are only about two examples you can come up with. After all, democracy failed in Greece, but I certainly wouldn't give it up (aside from maybe some sort of Philosopher-King system). The second reason this socialist election is good is that it is a HUGE step in the right direction for Third Parties.
Am I the only person that thinks the two party system is terrible? There are more than two types of people in the country, yet everyone seems forced into choosing Republican or Democrat. They don't want to 'throw their vote away'. Well, I've got news for you: Your vote, by itself, doesn't count. So vote for third parties. Now is the time--they won't win right away, but once they get a bigger percentage, people will start taking them seriously and voting for them.
I read somewhere once, and I forget the source, so don't quote me I guess, that exit polls showed that if people thought he had a chance, Perot would have won the election in 1996. Isn't it ridiculous that he didn't because people didn't want to "throw their vote away"?
Now, I certainly put some blame on the third parties themselves. They have too much pride, for the most part, to start small with local elections and work their way up. For example, in this election, the Libertarians, Green Party, and Socialist Worker's party all only ran for one office: Governor. Well they knew they wouldn't win. But if they ran in a small race, like state house or something, they may have been able to go door-to-door and do it. But they didn't.
Anyway, the point is this: If you dislike the two party system, and you are sick of voting for the "lesser evil", vote for third parties. If we all do this, eventually they will be getting enough votes to be taken seriously, and even winning some races. Hell, Bernie Sanders did it. He started as a mayor, and now he is an openly Socialist Senator. How about that?
Too bad there aren't any real elections for a couple years...we will all forget this rant by then.

2006-08-31T11:16:00.000-07:00

Are Morals Real?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/27/books/review/Rorty.t.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&ref=books&adxnnlx=1157047491-VmCiBfTcrmIe2sOG5tWWUA&oref=slogin

A new book says yes. Unfortunately, the review says no. So..ethicists are still relevant? Yay!

2006-08-18T12:56:00.000-07:00

Let's just get the frequently asked questions started then, shall we? Why would a technophobe such as I start a blog? Am I selling out? Am I giving in?
Well, listen. I have been thinking about this for about six months now. First off, I don't hate technology. I just hate the ways in which we use technology. Why should the innovators of the world be creating tiny cameras to spy on women's bathrooms when they could be curing disease? Well, the short answer is capitalism. But we will save that for another entry.
The reason I am starting a blog is because I think about things, and I alone am a small mind. I want more perspectives on the things I think about. I question you, now you should question me. Am I rational? By no means. When I criticize people for being irrational, it is because I wish they would do the same to me. I think if people all had the balls to help eachother be rational creatures (excluding art, of course), maybe there wouldn't be war and famine in the world. Thought is a powerful thing.
So I am starting this blog to get some feedback on my thoughts, be they political, social, or philosophical. I have always written but in notebooks, alone.
Another note: if this ever is reduced to me talking about personal crap like having a bad day at work or missing the bus, tell me. I never want it to be about me and my life. If you want to know about me and my life, TALK TO ME. HUMAN INTERACTION. Its very important to me...in fact its one reason I didn't want to start this blog. But, I've given in. Face to face discussion is always better, but I guess I have a problem with being overly agressive and offending people. Maybe this will curve that behavior.
But don't get me wrong. You offend me. And just because what offends me is different from what offends you does not make me unjustified. So just remember that.
I love the Truth. Even though I will never feel or touch it. I will pursue it. Thats philosophy, I suppose. I'm not even sure it exists, though I will argue that it does. Everything is not relative. But thats a different entry as well.

Finally, "the Truth at any cost" is stolen from a comic book that my boss is making me read. Thanks Darrin. But it is a philosophy I have definetely grasped tightly. People think the Truth is important when its convenient and doesn't hurt people. But I think the Truth is much more important than a temporary feeling. If the Truth offends, so be it. If we all held the Truth, well, it would solve a lot of problems.
For example, let's say you have an affair. You don't want to tell your wife because it will hurt her. Well, in my opinion, it isn't telling her that hurts her. The harm has been done. Its having the affair that causes the pain. the Truth can't hurt anyone, in the Big Picture. At least that is what i think. Maybe I'm wrong.
So, good luck, please comment. Sorry I sold out.