Random Thoughts and Word-Salad

The Right to Naivety?

2010-07-07T09:18:00.004-05:00

Some philosophers speak of "natural" rights as if they were imprinted upon the universe, or somehow codified in the essential nature of mankind (blech). How naive. Better to ask, "What will it take for us to work together?" Only then can one look at human nature (insofar as there is such a thing) and figure out what "rights" must be respected. A civilized society can only continue when a sufficient number of its citizens believe in and respect these rights. But believing in these rights does not require some sort of fairy tale about their objectivity. Rather, we should recognize and confront the terrifying truth, and purpose ourselves to be the true source and sustenance of these rights.

Neglect

2010-07-06T21:40:00.002-05:00

I have neglected my website for quite a while now, and it's coming up for renewal next month. I wonder if I should just let it go?

Life After Death?

2010-07-06T21:36:00.001-05:00

Little children do not understand the finality of death. In this way, religious people are like little children.

Time is... so very precious...

2010-04-11T21:46:00.002-05:00

... and I really must write everything down. To do otherwise would be such a waste. But it is so easy to get caught up in both the mundane and the fantastic; everyday life and fantasy. And I cannot leave it up to someone else, because no one else would think it. And no one could ever plagiarize what I have written so far, because they would come off as being completely mad. I've come to certain realizations that really must be shared, but I find it so hard... I don't know why.

There are two large projects, both of them related, and both of them encapsulating a world-view: one mostly a curiosity, and the other mostly practical. The first is more of a way of understanding our way of understanding the world (metacognition?), and the second a way of thinking about living a human existence in a world so understood (although reading and understanding the second would in no way require reading and understanding the first, which is, after all, a mere curiosity).

And neither of these can be written in cognitive leaps and bounds like this blog. Oh, how am I to accomplish this, when I can barely manage to write such abbreviated posts to this blog?

The Meaning, Purpose, and Value of Life

2010-03-21T12:00:00.003-05:00

Nothing has intrinsic meaning, purpose, or value (is this supposed to be a substantive thesis?). Sounds nihilistic, but it's not. Meaning, purpose, and value are relational terms; x is meaningful to y, x's purpose is to y, x values y, etc. Now, in regard to one's own life, it is up to the individual to give meaning, purpose, and value to it. And that can be hard work, so I guess laziness about one's own life equates to a nihilistic attitude. It's your life, so make something of it.

What is Philosophy?

2009-10-10T08:06:00.006-05:00

Philosophy, broadly speaking, is the seeking of knowledge, in so much as people ask questions and expect answers. Indeed, all the sciences are the descendants of philosophy, and I do sometimes refer to scientists as "natural philosophers" when I feel the need to point this out.

Nevertheless, philosophy proper is not a science. Scientists ask empirical questions for which there exists a method for determining the answers to those questions. This is not to say, however, that a scientist cannot philosophize, or that philosophizing is unhelpful to science. On the contrary, Albert Einstein did quite a bit of philosophizing in order to come up with the basic tenets of Special Relativity. Nor am I saying that philosophers do not have their methods, for they do, but not anything so cut-and-dried as the scientific method. Science also tends to create fodder for philosophy. Philosophers philosophize about the meanings of certain scientific discoveries and the paradigms of science.

Neither is philosophy a religion, although religion deals with many of the same questions as philosophy. Religions tend to simply state answers to these types of questions, and a real philosopher would never do that. But like science, philosophy and religion are often intertwined, and many philosophers concern themselves with questions about religion, and many religions were built upon philosophical thought.

So philosophy is neither science nor religion. It lacks a method for obtaining answers, but neither does it pretend pull answers from thin air. Philosophers have been struggling with certain questions for millennia, and are no closer to having answers. Quite the opposite, as philosophizing about these questions has brought up innumerable other questions for which we have no answers. Nevertheless, what we gain from philosophy is far greater than mere answers to questions.

Now metaphysicians and analytic philosophers (among others) are quite sure to disagree with what I am saying. And that is just as well, for I have abandoned both. What is gained, really gained, from philosophy is a greater understanding, of how misguided our questions are sometimes, of how great our misconceptions are sometimes, of how awe-inspiring this world is sometimes, etc. And that is nothing short of wisdom, for philosophy truly is, or at least is motivated by, the "love of wisdom".

Speech as Behavior

2009-08-13T03:20:00.002-05:00

Speech acts are really just behaviors, like any other. Speech is just something we do, and as such does not have any sort of special significance that philosophers would impart unto it.

A great number of our behaviors are normally meant to be communicative. These include body language, sign language, stomping one's foot, typing, writing, drawing pictures, etc. But all these things can be done without any intention to communicate. Sometimes doing these things helps one's thinking processes, or could serve as a catharsis for something we are feeling (like writing in a diary).

But the vast majority of what we do is not normally meant to be communicative. We bathe, eat, sleep, walk, cough, scratch, build, etc. Usually these have a practical purpose but they can also be somewhat aimless. The thing is, though, even these behaviors can communicate something to others, because they can observe our behaviors. And because of this, these behaviors can be communicative on purpose as well. Sometimes we do these things to send a message to others.

So what's the difference between the former and latter types of behaviors? Nothing really. With either type there can be an intention to communicate, or that intention can be absent (or it can even be subconscious). With both types, other people can generally observe and understand our behaviors (although understanding is sometimes absent as well).

In the end there is nothing special about speech acts. And the patterns speech acts follow (language) aren't special either. It's all just behavior, and behavior communicates.

An interesting aside is that we can lie with all our behavior, not just speech. If I want you to think something about me, I just need to engage in suitable behaviors that will lead you to that conclusion. For example, if I want you to think that I am tired, I can yawn, droop my eyelids, and act listless. I might also say, "I'm tired."

Proper Names as Rigid Designators – The Case of Tom and Tim

2009-03-31T22:37:00.003-05:00

This is a small piece of something much larger…

Tom and Tim are two people in the actual world.

First case: there is some possible world where Tom has all the physical and mental properties as Tim, and Tim has all the physical and mental properties of Tom. Everything else in this world is exactly as it is in the actual world, with one exception: in this possible world Tom is referred to as ‘Tim’ and Tim is referred to as ‘Tom’. Now, one may wonder if there is any difference at all between this world and the actual world, and the answer is decidedly “no”; that is, unless one wants to maintain that there are haecceistic differences.

Possible response: Not every property can be switched. Tom and Tim must have the same respective parents that they have in the actual world.

Second case: Same as the first, except in the actual world Tom and Tim are brothers. And so, in the possible world we are imagining, Tom and Tim are brothers as well. Thus they have the same parents in this possible world as they do in the actual world, and all their other properties are switched. Again, one may wonder if there is any difference at all between this world and the actual world, and the answer is decidedly “no”; that is, unless one wants to maintain that there are haecceistic differences.

Possible response: Well, they must at least have the same DNA as they actually do. DNA is important to an individual’s essence.

Third case: Same as the second, except here Tom and Tim are identical twins. Thus, they share the same genetic code. But twins do have distinguishing characteristics, such as unique fingerprints. In this possible world, these distinguishing characteristics are switched. And here again, one may wonder if there is any difference at all between this world and the actual world, and the answer is decidedly “no”; that is, unless one wants to maintain that there are haecceistic differences.

Conclusion: Proper names do not designate rigidly, unless one wants to maintain that there are haecceistic differences.

And why the hell would anyone want to do that?

Something to Work On

2009-03-31T22:29:00.004-05:00

Philosophy is, for me, 99% conceptualizing. And as I am no longer in school, I haven't been forced to actually write anything lately (although I am trying to finish up a couple of papers to get a Masters). I started this blog so that I could jot things down here and there, but I find that even doing that much is, more often that not, something that I don't ever get around to doing. I need to work on that. As a poor substitute for writing something new, I will post something old. And I'll do it right now before I get lost in other things...

Opus

2009-02-20T06:36:00.004-06:00

There is something right about rationalism, and there is something right about empiricism.

There is something right about realism, and there is something right about relativism.

There is something right about internalism, and there is something right about externalism.

What I am working on is a reconciliation rather than a sysnthesis. An abandoning of false dualities in favor of an understanding of what is going on...

But it's a bit more than that, really. By sorting these things out we can acheive a better vantage point from which to investigate the world, and our own minds.

This would have been, and should have been, the subject of my dissertation. But alas, academia won't have me, or will they? Perhaps OU was just the wrong school, but what would be the right one? Where would I fit in? Who would believe in me?

The Philosophical Method(s)

2008-12-29T05:57:00.005-06:00

Philosophy always was about answering questions, although it is quite difficult to say what kind of questions philosophy is in the business of trying to answer. Perhaps some sort of metaphilosophy is required, but whatever, that is not the subject of this post. Philosophy is an attempt to find answers to certain kinds of questions, and always was.

Over time, however, it was discovered that certain questions could be posed in such a way that answers could methodically be found, and thus the sciences were born (i.e. natural philosophy). This breakaway includes the "hard" and "soft" sciences, as well as the mathematical sciences; but this post is not about them. This post is about what remains, those leftover kinds of questions for which there exists no such methodical way of finding or determining the correctness of proposed answers... philosophy proper.

Of course, philosophy does have its methods. And, like natural philosophy, it does have questions, along with proposed answers. But unlike natural philosophy, the bridge from question to answer is neither empirical nor logical. So-called "analytic" philosophy is all too concerned with the attack and defense of theses, and in the process forgets to say much in the way of actually supporting theses, where "support" just means what gets a person to actually believe the thesis. Analytic philosophy, with its hack-and-slash "all the other theses are wrong so mine must be right" approach is sorely lacking in this regard.

A proper philosophical method should gently guide the inquisitor in their thought processes, crossing the bridge from question to answer. Wittgenstein attempted to do this in his latter years, but was quite brutish about it. Rather than gently guiding, he poked and prodded, and hoped the reader would take the correct steps on their own. The best philosophical methods could best be described as "gentle guides to crossing conceptual bridges".

But here I have made an error; one which must be resolved post-haste. I have conflated the finding of answers with getting others to see the veracity of those answers.

In general, scientists formulate hypotheses after careful observation, using a hybrid inductive-intuitive process, for while observation and induction play an important role in scientific hypothesis formulation, it is intuition that bridges the final gap between observation and explanation. And while logic and mathematics seem to offer clear paths to their answers, computational complexity requires brilliant intuition to find a clear path amongst an infinite number of false starts. Philosophers, on the other hand, have nothing but intuition.

Thus, in philosophy proper, we have two methods: pure intuition for finding answers, and gently guiding others to see the veracity of those answers.

Never too busy to Think

2008-10-22T18:58:00.001-05:00

Yeah, I've been busy lately... but I'm still philosophizing.

Bread and Butter

2008-07-27T08:49:00.003-05:00

Even philosophers need to eat, so I took a job as a Child Welfare Specialist with the Oklahoma Department of Human Services (OKDHS). It's been a little over a month now, and I love it. You can read about what I do here (I work in Permanency Planning).

I would also like to take this opportunity to mention that foster families are in short supply, so if you have what it takes to be a foster parent, please do! Click here for more info.

So why child welfare? Well, I did not choose it "because I love children". I have two children of my own, and I love them, but I have no special love for children in general. Rather, I took this job out of a general concern for the future well-being of mankind. And because I need to eat.

Whither the Beginning?

2008-07-17T05:26:00.005-05:00

Wittgenstein said: "It is so difficult to find the beginning. Or, better: it is difficult to begin at the beginning. And not try to go further back"

But where is the beginning? Language and behavior? Experience? The primordial world?

There cannot be language and behavior without experience. (is that supposed to be a substantive hypothesis?) There cannot be experience without a primordial world (i.e. a world that is mind-independent). But we cannot talk about (or describe) the world without taking the world as we experience it as a given. But then we are not talking about a primordial world at all...

Here we have found a philosopher's Gordian knot.

It might be best to begin with what we say and do. Nevertheless, it is tempting to take the world as we experience it to be the beginning for all we say and do. And yet there is something enlightening in going beyond that. Or further back.

But all the while we must not forget that the mind is part of the world (i.e. not independent of it). The world as we experience it is mind-dependent, and that is all we can describe. The primordial world is mind-independent, and cannot be described. But isn't the mind part of the primordial world? Mustn't it be? (This question contains a conceptual error, but there is something correct about it).

Yet all the while there is only one world, not two. There is no beginning — we cannot go "further back" because there is no logical way to order our conceptions here. We must jump right in, and wrestle with this Gordian knot.

This is Life

2008-06-21T22:52:00.003-05:00

Trials and Tribulations: Life is a test to see if you are worthy of going to some sort of paradise, where you will live forever.

Reincarnation: You get to try over and over again until you finally get it right, and then you get to go to some sort of paradise, where you will live forever.

Atheism: You only get one life, and it is not a test. You will die. Live accordingly.

What Russell did for Wittgenstein

2008-06-19T22:46:00.003-05:00

You don't have to be stupid to be incapable of independent thinking — academia is awash with such people.

Those who are incapable of thinking independently are incapable of recognizing anything that is both novel and important. First they must be told, by someone whom they already deem to be of some importance, that such-and-such is important, and that they should pay attention. That is what Russell did for Wittgenstein.

The Problem with Analytic Philosophy

2008-06-17T08:27:00.005-05:00

Explanations are meant to be understood — but by whom? Many scientific explanations can be readily grasped by the masses, at least intuitively (e.g. Newtonian mechanics). And even where this is not possible, at least science produces results. But what can be said about analytic philosophy? It neither makes any sense to the masses, nor does it produce any results. And while it may be understood by the analytic philosophers, they are so steeped in confusion that it can hardly be called an "explanation" of anything. What is it then? A game?

I like to think of analytic philosophy as being a lot like chess. And while I very much like chess, I am not here to play games.

Random Thoughts and Word-Salad

2008-06-17T08:23:00.003-05:00

Here I say whatever is currently on my mind, without ever supposing that I've got it quite right. Nevertheless, perhaps you can see what I'm aiming at...

Ugh

2008-06-17T08:09:00.003-05:00

There are those who would have philosophy be like a science: the so-called "analytic philosophers".

Method

2008-06-16T12:29:00.001-05:00

What? Am I saying that there is no single method for doing philosophy? No, I am saying that there is no systematic method for arriving at a philosophical explanation.

What Philosophy Is(n't)

2008-06-15T09:49:00.002-05:00

Philosophy is like science in that both seek to provide explanations. And explanations facilitate understanding. But philosophy is not a science, because with philosophy there is no method — there is only explanation.

Purpose and Value

2008-06-02T10:25:00.004-05:00

Teleological thinking (that things have a purpose) is a useful heuristic, and a related view is that certain things have intrinsic value. Both are psychological phenomena that should not be taken too seriously, and both can be harmful when they impinge upon an autonomous agent (an entity having perceptions, beliefs, desires, and the ability to act on them).

Purpose and value come into the world with agency, they do not precede it.

Nostalgia

2008-05-26T03:17:00.003-05:00

From The American Heritage Dictionary (quoted from dictionary.com):

1. A bittersweet longing for things, persons, or situations of the past.

From Dictionary.com:

1. a wistful desire to return in thought or in fact to a former time in one's life, to one's home or homeland, or to one's family and friends; a sentimental yearning for the happiness of a former place or time: a nostalgia for his college days.

The past is no less real than the present; it is a real time with real things, persons, and situations. But the important thing to remember about the past is that you can't get there from here. And the things, persons, and situations you can get to from here are quite different from the ones remembered so fondly. One cannot return "in fact" to what one is longing for — it is simply impossible.

Of course, one can return in thought. The interesting thing is that one counldn't even want to return "in fact" if one could not return "in thought" (you have to think it to want it in this sense). And the queer thing about human psychology is that if we can think it, we can want it. Even if it is impossible.

What Philosophy Is(n't)

2008-05-22T06:49:00.003-05:00

Philosophy is not the answering of empirical questions, although sometimes it involves the creation of a systematic way of answering them. And often it involves the displaying of a confusion underlying the formation of certain questions.

Leaving Graduate School

2008-05-20T10:29:00.003-05:00

I'm leaving graduate school with a Master's degree in philosophy, and without going into too much detail, I'd like to explain why: It simply is not possible, having a wife and two kids, to both develop my own philosophical thought and jump through hoops. I'll take the former over the latter anytime.

Metaphysical Nonsense

2008-04-13T11:23:00.001-05:00

"Reference", as a relation between the mind and the world, is just as bogus as ESP.

The Problem with Analytic Philosophy

2008-04-11T09:35:00.001-05:00

They forgot that paradigm shifts occur in philosophy too.

Think Longer and Harder

2008-04-06T22:55:00.005-05:00

There are always objections that can be raised. Most of these will be trivial and easily overcome (see this post). Others will be more substantive, but again can be overcome, perhaps with a bit of tweaking. But a real objection is one that undermines the whole project. These sorts of objections are not easily found, although they are always devastating. And the odd thing about them is that they are always quite simple (the mark of a good objection: simple and devastating).

Speaking Philosophically

2008-04-06T22:50:00.001-05:00

It is quite difficult to say something philosophical without sounding stupid. And yes, a lot of what philosophers say borders on the idiotic.

Philosophical Etiquette

2008-01-22T23:29:00.002-06:00

"I don't understand what you mean" is not, under any circumstances, an appropriate response to a philosophical question/statement.

An example of an appropriate response would be: "I'm not quite sure I understand — do you mean... in which case..."

Epistemology

2008-01-22T09:21:00.001-06:00

I am thoroughly convinced that the primary use of the word 'knowledge' is in making value judgments regarding beliefs, and that epistemology is rightly seen as being part of value-theory.

My Two Favorite Philosophers:

2008-01-17T12:23:00.000-06:00

Wittgenstein and Hume

Conceptual Leaps and Bounds

2008-01-05T09:29:00.000-06:00

You're supposed to think it through, and figure it out for yourself.

Of course, I think this is all very clever.

Meaning Externalism

2008-01-01T21:58:00.000-06:00

It is a simple matter to conceive of myself as being a brain in a vat. I know what that is, and I know what it would mean for me to be one.

You chuckle. And mention Putnam.

But is there any reason why we shouldn't construe Putnam's argument as constituting a reductio ad absurdum of meaning externalism? I mean, any reason other than the fact that Putnam didn't mean for it to be, despite the fact that it is.

Nothing is Sacred Here

2007-12-29T12:07:00.001-06:00

I refuse to walk on eggshells when doing philosophy.

If I say something that offends you, or hurts your feelings, well...

that's just too damn bad.

Imagine That

2007-12-29T10:34:00.001-06:00

Nothing is more rewarding than worshiping

a figment of your own imagination.

Christians Need a History Lesson

2007-12-29T10:09:00.002-06:00

I'm getting really tired of hearing the following:

What these Christians need is a real history book.

Of course, I know some Christians are smarter than that. But then the question is — why do you believe in a myth?

Philosophical Styles - The Tree Analogy

2007-12-29T09:31:00.000-06:00

{This may be updated from time to time}

Analytic: We can't see the forest for the trees.

Post-Analytic: Here, let me show you how to see the forest...

Continental: OOOHHH...Look at the pretty forest!

Constructionist: 'Tree' and 'Forest' are just social constructs.

Deconstructionist: There is no forest without the trees, and there are no trees without the nuts...

Feminist: A tree is a phallic symbol, and a forest is a sign of male domination.

Supervenist: The forest is real but will disappear if we cut down the trees.

Reductionist: The forest is nothing over and above the sum of the trees.

Eliminativist: What forest?

Dualist: There are two things; the forest, and the trees.

Panpsychist: The forest is a living entity!

Neutral Monist: No, not trees, not a forest, but something else entirely different.

Relativist: You are all correct, but speaking past each other.

The Law

2007-12-22T08:25:00.000-06:00

The law is a crude instrument; you can't draw boundaries around life.

A Sure Sign of a Trivial Objection

2007-11-27T19:34:00.000-06:00

When I can make a slight modification to my example that completely eliminates your objection without affecting the point I am trying to make in the slightest.

The lesson to be learned: think before you speak (didn't your mother teach you that?)

Skepticism

2007-11-22T14:23:00.001-06:00

We have gone too far, and now cannot find our way back.

Virtual Conspiracies

2007-11-13T12:34:00.000-06:00

Tales of dark conspiracies abound, but most people (myself included) do not lend them much credence. Nevertheless, in some cases it does seem as if there were a conspiracy. Now this got me thinking, and I realized that the actions of a multitude of individuals, even though they are not coordinating their actions with one another, can result in a situation where it is as if there were a conspiracy.

And these virtual conspiracies can be every bit as dark and dangerous as real conspiracies. Even more so, when you consider that there is no one in charge - they are something mindless that emerges from the chaos of normal human activity.

Coinage

2007-11-10T11:56:00.000-06:00

Non-Descriptive Realism: realism about the mind-independent world as a whole (there is one way the world is in-itself), combined with conceptual relativism (there are multiple empirically equivalent descriptions that can be given of it).

Coinage

2007-11-10T11:55:00.000-06:00

Knowle: an individual belief that counts as knowledge.

What contract?

2007-11-08T11:29:00.000-06:00

I renounced my social contract a long time ago ... funny how nothing changed.

Another Stupid Philosophical Question:

2007-10-18T17:04:00.001-05:00

"Do mental events cause physical events?"
(and vice versa)

This illustrates a fundamental confusion faced by those who want to naturalize the mind, as if it weren't something already quite natural. Doesn't phenomenal consciousness provide us with a very good understanding of how reality operates?

This is why I am a neutral monist and panpsychist.

My Website

2007-10-13T08:36:00.000-05:00

I have a website where I post some of my writings. I haven't updated it for a while now, so it mostly consists of papers I wrote as an undergraduate. And most of those papers are somewhat sophomoric (I detest that word).

So why do I have the website, and why do I post my writings there?

It is more of a record or expression of my philosophical development than anything else. And the papers do contain some very good ideas, or seeds thereof. And a few of the papers are actually quite good.

http://www.modalrealism.com/

A Stupid Philosophical Question:

2007-10-12T13:26:00.000-05:00

"Are indexical properties causally efficacious?"

Titles are Everything

2007-10-09T23:11:00.000-05:00

I despise the title "Professional Philosopher" - I will never call myself that.

There is no such thing as a "professional philosopher". There are, to be sure, "philosophy professors", i.e. those who teach philosophy professionally. But no one does philosophy professionally. Philosophy just isn't something that one can be paid to do.

Or, in other words, if you're getting paid to do it, it ain't philosophy.

Addendum:

It should be obvious that, in order to be good at teaching philosophy, one must be good at doing philosophy (although the converse doesn't hold).

...just keep it quiet

2007-10-09T10:54:00.001-05:00

Court nixes man’s suit claiming torture by CIA

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Tuesday terminated a lawsuit from a man who claims he was abducted and tortured by the CIA, effectively endorsing Bush administration arguments that state secrets would be revealed if the case were allowed to proceed.

So it's OK for the Executive office to do whatever they want, just so long as they keep it secret?

What the fuck happened to checks and balances?

God?

2007-09-24T21:59:00.000-05:00

The idea of God is a manifest contradiction, and we all know that anything follows from a contradiction. Perhaps this is the origin of the saying, "With God, all things are possible." (Matthew 19:26)

Reset

2007-09-24T21:58:00.001-05:00

Begin again.