Professionals vs. Kitch

Posted on July 14, 2008 by shaunmiller

I met someone new recently.  As with any new people, you ask him/her questions to get to know the person.  So I asked him, “what are you planning to do for a career?”  He said that he was aspiring to be a great writer and that writing is an outlet that lets him express himself that other ways can’t.  Well, I was captivated by this and I wanted to know who his influences were.  Well, I was expecting something that has had a big influence: people like Shakespeare, Hawthorne, Melville, Tostoy, Dostoevsky, Camus, or any other of the great authors that we read in high school or college.  His answer shocked me: “Stephen King” he said.  I was taken aback!  Now, I’ve never read any Stephen King so I honestly don’t know how great his writing is.  Maybe it is great, who knows?  But I felt like I was cheated out of a great reply.

Was this in my head?  I tried to figure out why I felt this way.  I came up with some analogies:

Suppose that you meet someone and this person says that s/he wants to change the world, let’s say a philosopher.  S/he says that these ideas and movements have really changed the way people have seen the world.  Now, you might be moved by this or perhaps intrigued, so you might ask this person, who’s your favorite philosopher?  What would you do if the reply was “Jon Stewart from the Daily Show.”  I would feel that s/he gave the wrong answer.  It’s not that I have anything against Jon Stewart.  I have deep admiration for him and he is actually a bright guy, but I wouldn’t consider him a philosopher.

Let’s try another example: suppose the same situation happens again and this person says that s/he wants to come up with a theory that explains social behavior and that s/he wants to devote his/her life to sociology and move it towards progress.  “Wow,” you think.  This might be someone who’s going places.  “Who’s your favorite sociologist?” you ask.  You’re probably expecting Durkheim, Maslow, Comte, or even Marx.  At least they made an influence.  What would you do if the reply was “Bill O’Reilly?”  Wow.  I would honestly say that that was not a good answer.  Now Bill O’Reilly does have a view sociology and he does recommend how society and culture ought to do things, but I would not consider him a sociologist by any means.  So what gives?  Why are these answers considered “wrong answers?”

I thought about this and I could only come up with two thoughts:

1.  John Stuart Mill was a utilitarian but he really emphasized on the higher pleasures.  In other words, intellectual pleasure was more important than basic pleasure.  “It’s better to a dissatisfied Socrates than a pig satisfied” is one of his famous remarks.  And by working on an intelletucal character, that will actually make you happier in the end.  So Plato his higher pleasure philosophy, whereas Jon Stewart is lower pleasure philosophy.  Durkheim is higher pleasure sociology whereas Bill O’Reilly is lower pleasure quality.  Aim for the intellectual pleasure is the key.  Now it sounds nice, but one problem I have with Mill’s view of utilitarianism is that it sounds so snobbish.  I mean, something like Shakespeare is better than bowling, a symphony is better than a rock concert, an art gallery is better than a strip club.  Schindler’s List is better than Dumb and Dumber.  It sounds so snobbish and somewhat annoying.  But there is the second option:

2.  What do Durkheim, Comte, Marx, and Maslow have in common?  They all have degrees.  Well, Bill O’Reilly has a degree, but not in sociology.  Jon Stewart has a degree, but not in philosophy.  So is it the fact that they must have degrees in the professed subject?  Well, that doesn’t work either.  Plato, Socrates, Aristotle never got degrees yet they achieved a lot more than current philosophers ever could.  I know some people nowadays that don’t have degrees yet they’re extremely smart in what they do.  I also know people who do have degrees yet they don’t know shit one some of the stuff they’re talking about.  So then why degrees?  Maybe it has to do with the idea that it’s their profession.  They are considered experts in that field.  But then, how do we tell if someone’s an expert?  Well, typically it’s because that person has a degree.  Uh oh.  We’re back to the problem again.

So that’s the dilemma.  Maybe I’m missing something but I wouldn’t consider Stephen King one of the “greatest authors” or at least on the same caliber as Shakespeare, Mill, Durkheim, and Plato.  But why not?  What is considered an expert anyways?  Is expertise something just random?  Or am I just being a snob?

Posted in Aesthetics, Books, Epistemology, Experts, Paper Topic | 10 Comments

Kant, Mormons, and Pragmatism

Posted on July 11, 2008 by shaunmiller

I’ve only taught for about four years so this may not be a general thing.  I’ve noticed that when I teach Kant’s ethics, the people who are LDS don’t particularly like it.  Actually, the people who are very religious and very LDS, but have critical and analytical thinking skills seem to like it.  But those are the rarity.  I mean the people who come from an LDS background, are who claim to be that religion, but they aren’t really religious.  I would’ve thought that they would have liked deontological ethics because it would somewhat reflect their view of God and God’s laws and somehow it’s congruent with the moral law.  But as I thought about it, it probably makes sense for Mormons not to like it.

Just a recap: Kant’s ethics basically starts off by saying there’s an absolute right or wrong.  There are no contexts or situations; it is absolutely right or wrong.  So for example, if slavery is wrong today, then it’s wrong for all time.  It just happens that the people back then got it wrong (as opposed to the saying “it was right for them.”  Kant would disagree with that view.)

Mormons have a different view of the afterlife.  There are three “levels” of heaven: the terrestrial kingdom, the telestrial kingdom, and the celestial kingdom.  Now here’s the kicker: what you do in this life determines which heaven you’re going to go into.  In other words, there are situations and contexts.  Thus, it isn’t written in stone, it’s not a strong of a view as Kant’s ethics claims to be.  Now given this, it makes sense that non-religious LDS people don’t like Kant’s ethics: it’s too rigid, too non-contextual and part of their belief system isn’t congruent with that.

Then it hit me, this is a lot with what the pragmatists were saying.  The experiences in life is what bears out your truth, your beliefs in life.  Pragmatists like William James says that you have a will to believe if it coheres with the rest of your beliefs.  This works out well with what the Mormons were reacting against with Kant’s ethics.  Since his ethics are too structured, it doesn’t cohere with the Mormon belief.  No wonder Mormons don’t like Kant’s ethics.

On the otherhand, I’ve mentioned before that the really critical thinkers do like Kant.  But I’ve also noticed that those who claim to be Mormons by name but know absolutely nothing about the Mormon religion somewhat like Kant.  After investigating, it’s because they view the afterlife as a one-shot deal, there’s only one heaven and hell.  But they obviously don’t know what their beliefs are supposed to be.  So I think it’s structured like this.

Mormons by name—–“Standard”, somewhat religious Mormons—–Critical Thinking Mormons

It’s the “standard”, somewhat religious Mormons that don’t like Kant.  Maybe they like Pragmatism?  I’ve never thought of teaching it that route, but perhaps I’ll give it a try sometime.

Posted in Ethics, Mormons, Pragmatism | 15 Comments

Castle Doctrine: Shifting Burden of Proof from Shooter to the State

Posted on July 4, 2008 by shaunmiller

In November 2007, Joe Horn, citizen of Texas shot two intruders.  According to the Castle Doctrine, he had the right to do this.  If someone is breaking in your house or your neighbor’s house, you have the right to defend yourself and your house.  Your house is your castle (thus the Castle Doctrine) and you can do anything to defend it.  Horn wasn’t indicted by the Grand Jury.  Is Horn a hero?  Is he a vigilante?

When I was teaching captial punishment in class last fall, everyone–including the pro-death penalty people–said that Horn should not of done it.  The reasoning was because everyone has rights until it’s decided by juries.  At that point, rights can be taken away.  John Locke came with the same conclusion about how society gets along.  We all have basic rights: life, liberty, property, and retributive justice.  It’s just that we give up our right to retributive justice when we enter society and we give that right to a judge.  So I would imagine that Locke would be against the Castle Doctrine.

What I find interesting is what’s taken from the article:

The flavor of the law basically shifts the burden of proving self-defense from the shooter to the state.

So instead of the shooter proving that it was in self-defense, the state has to prove that it wasn’t.  What do you think?  Is the Castle Doctrine a good idea?

Posted in Ethics, Guns | 18 Comments

Bill Moyers & Michael Winship: It Was Oil, All Along

Posted on June 30, 2008 by shaunmiller

Bill Moyers does an excellent article relating oil with the War in Iraq:

Oh, no, they told us, Iraq isn’t a war about oil. That’s cynical and simplistic, they said. It’s about terror and al Qaeda and toppling a dictator and spreading democracy and protecting ourselves from weapons of mass destruction. But one by one, these concocted rationales went up in smoke, fire, and ashes. And now the bottom turns out to be….the bottom line. It is about oil.

Alan Greenspan said so last fall. The former chairman of the Federal Reserve, safely out of office, confessed in his memoir, “…Everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.” He elaborated in an interview with the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, “If Saddam Hussein had been head of Iraq and there was no oil under those sands, our response to him would not have been as strong as it was in the first gulf war.”

Read the rest here.

Posted in Ethics, Politics | Leave a comment

Do humans have a greater right to live than other animals?

Posted on June 26, 2008 by shaunmiller

An interesting question was posted on askphilosophers.com:

Do humans have a greater right to live than other animals? If so, would beings of much greater intelligence and perception hold that same right over humans?

Any thoughts?

Posted in Ethics, Vegetarianism | 7 Comments

Derrida on Forgiveness

Posted on June 25, 2008 by shaunmiller

A really interesting talk about forgiveness from the philosopher Jacques Derrida.  Forgiveness cannot happen if the object is forgiveable because it automatically applies that forgiving that someone is “too easy.”  I know I’m butchering it.  Thus, one can only forgive the unforgiveable, at least that’s “true” and proper forgiveness.  But that’s the paradox: how do you forgive someone that’s unforgiveable?

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Artificially Grown Meat

Posted on June 23, 2008 by shaunmiller

Scientists have recently discovered a possible way to grow meat.  So here’s a question: would you eat it?

I’ve been wondering if vegitarians and members of P.E.T.A. would eat it.  I think if they didn’t eat meat for moral reasons, this may give them an out.  (However, if they don’t eat it because they have some moral repugnance of eating meat grown in a lab, that’s a different story.)

Posted in Ethics | 8 Comments

Good “Thinking” Books

Posted on June 22, 2008 by shaunmiller

A lot of people have been asking me, “Shaun, what’s a good book to read but that isn’t that deep?”  I’m guessing not too philosophical.  Well, I do have some books that I really enjoy and they are actually readable for the non-philosopher.

1.  The Story of Philosophy by Will Durant

This book set me on the path of philosophy.  I have known some friends in grad school that said that this book got them into philosophy.  I’ve even had a professor who said this book got him on the path to studying philosophy.  What I like about this book is that Durant knows how to use his words.  His rhetoric is filled with dynamism that it really feels like a story, or a novel of these great thinkers.  It’s really readable and I suggest to all.  People have said that he does spend too much time on Schopenhauer.  However, this book really got me to appreciate Schopenhauer more and more and whenever I think about Schopenhauer, I always return to this book.  It’s an excellent start and it’s always refreshing to come back to this book.  I always come back to this for a refresher and it captivates me more to study philosophy.

2.  Doubt by Jennifer Michael Hecht

This is also extremely readable.  I just wish it went into more details on each of the thinkers.  Hecht is a historian and she goes through history from the ancients to today wondering about people who have doubted.  More specifically, it’s mainly about religious doubt.  What were their reasons for doubt?  What were the doubts?  How did these doubts come about?  I was really impressed with the 19th century.  This almost reads like a novel, but it certainly does not feel like a textbook.  If I could, I would seriously consider using this as a textbook.  Hecht is very impressive and in the end, you come away with an appreciation for doubt and that doubt isn’t this aberration that everyone makes it appear to be.

3.  The Stranger by Albert Camus

Like all students, this book got me into existentialism, angst, depair, and the absurdity of life, but yet embracing it fully.  This complements the Myth of Sisyphus by the same author.  How can one find meaning in an uncaring, absurd universe?  Camus’ answer is shocking, yet it gives one a new look at the world with refreshing eyes.

4.  Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser

This makes you think about the whole fast food industry around the world.  You see the exploitation, the processing, the packing, the unpaid wages, the shit in the meat (yes, it’s true), and the E. Coli, just so that people can get their Happy Meal.  NOTE: the movie is horrible.  Just read the book.  You’ll never look at fast food places again.

5.  Singled Out by Bella DePaulo

I doubt people will read this, but I still recommend it.  Ever notice this: you aren’t “fully human” unless you’re in a relationship.  Oh, but it’s not a serious relationship until you get married.  Oh but wait, it’s not a “real” marriage unless there are kids.  It’s the culture of coupledom that our society has been indoctrinated into and with that, we view single people as inferior.  Well, no more.  DePaulo asks why? and I do too.  Why are single people seen as inferior and even discriminated against?  (If you don’t think so, look at tax deductions comparing single people to married people.  That’s just one example.  DePaulo provides more.)  It was nice to see someone doing a social analysis of single.  Here’s one of my favorites: when my friends (who are in relationships) go out, they always invite me.  I’ve never felt like the third or fifth wheel.  Why do I care?  They’re my friends regardless if they’re in a relationship with each other or not.  I really don’t care.  Why do people feel uncomfortable in being in a group where couples are involved?  Indeed, why are we obsessed with coupledom at all?

Anyways, these have been my favorites for a good general audience.  If any of you want to provide your top five books, do so.

Posted in Books | 1 Comment

Question: Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Posted on June 13, 2008 by shaunmiller

An interesting site that shows both sides of the argument. The info taken below is from Prelocutionary II website.

The Templeton foundation has published a 13 essay booklet on the topic edited by Michael Shermer.

On the “Yes” side
  • Victor Stenger: Yes. Worse. Science renders belief in God incoherent.
  • Steven Pinker: Yes, if by science we include secular reason and knowledge.
  • Pervez Hoodbhoy: Not necessarily. You must find a science-compatible God.
  • Stuart Kauffman: No, if we redefine God as creativity in the universe.
  • Chrisopher Hitchens: No, but it should.
  • Michael Shermer: It depends: belief no, God yes.
On the “No” side
  • Mary Midgley: Of course not, belief in God is not a scientific question.
  • Kenneth Miller: Of course not. Science expands our appreciation of the Divine.
  • William D. Phillips: Absolutely not! Belief in God is not a scientific matter.
  • Robert Sapolsky: No. Belief offers something that science doesn’t.
  • Jerome Groopman: No. Not at all.
  • Keith Ward: No.
  • Christoph Cardinal Schönborn: No.

You may read all the essays online, order a copy of the booklet, or download a PDFs.

Posted in Atheism | Leave a comment

Politics and the Brain

Posted on June 6, 2008 by shaunmiller

A recent study came out which you can read here. Basically, the recent brain-imaging study shows that our political predilections are a product of unconscious confirmation bias. In other words, we first come up with an opinion (for example, being Democrat or Republican) and then we try to find evidence for the already existing belief. Here’s the quote from the article:

During the run-up to the 2004 presidential election, while undergoing an fMRI bran scan, 30 men–half self-described as “strong” Republicans and half as “strong” Democrats–were tasked with assessing statements by both George W. Bush and John Kerry in which the candidates clearly contradicted themselves. Not surprisingly, in their assessments Republican subjects were as critical of Kerry as Democratic subjects were of Bush, yet both let their own candidate off the hook.

Indeed, the part of the brain that lights up has nothing to do with rationality and instead deals with emotions. So we are political animals not because of some rational argument, but because of some emotional connection.

So what do we do? What does the article recommend? Interestingly enough, it recommends politicians having a peer-review system where politicians check up on each other and perhaps even make opposite cases. Seems like skepticism gets away from this confirmation bias.

Posted in Politics | 5 Comments