In philosophy club, Chris brought up the classic Platonic distinction in art between composer, performer and audience. He noted that much of the philosophy of art deals with deciding which position is the most privileged. Of course, all of them are necessary but I responded with irony "I don't know which is most privileged but most certainly the creator is the least privileged!" There was some agreement there and Mike shared how of all the song he has written it was the one he spent the least time and energy on that received the most praise. I have heard enough singer song writers say something along the same lines.
But this wasn't what I meant, my humility as sometimes being a creator is not related to the reception of the audience... unless you consider yourself the audience. I have never loved anything I wrote or been proud that it came from me. I have been tickled with a little poem and surprised by what comes out of me from time to time but nothing I've written has been "my baby" so to speak. The frustration and humiliation of being a creator of art (for me) is that I am as much an audience to something (Someone) else. I am a witness to something powerful and beautiful and meaningful beyond my ability to express and when I try to express it all I can say is "That's not right!"
The classic Bruce Lee line where the Master says "When someone points to the moon do not look at his finger." Art (as I understand it) is always a finger pointing to something (Someone) which can not be plainly stated and in some ways I agree with Heinlein that the only joy of writing is being done.
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Friday, July 15, 2011
Sunday, August 2, 2009
1st Half of Kant Paper
Solomon wrote that the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord. Socrates said that his wisdom was to know he was not wise. It seems that Kant would say “by the proper application of reason I am wise.”Perhaps he could defend this break from the ancients by saying his enlightenment is the result of a mature wisdom still for the individual in Kant’s path there is no place for humility except for the shameful self-incurred variety. This self-incurred humility either occurs in the individual who will not “boldly” “dare to know” or else in the priest who, as a hired man, instructs others in the most difficult and costly life choices which he may or may not believe. Other than in the sad cases of cowardice or hypocrisy, no individual acknowledges anything superior to their own individual human reason. Rather each thinking man is lord over his own mind and looks to no other for wisdom.
Kant’s paradigm recognizes the possibility for error in reason but this is to be solved by free public discourse, which is of course just the massive application of individual human reason. It is only by this Darwinian environment of ideas that a subject of thought can become mature. This supposes that the great tragedies, the great follies and great evils of human history occurred because of a lack of applying human reason rather than through the relentless and reoccurring application of that human reason to tragic, foolish and unabashedly wicked ends. If human reason were naturally as trustworthy and noble as Kant supposes one would wonder how in human history it had been unnaturally subjugated so that the majority in Kant’s day preferred self-incurred ignorance. Either some humans used their reason to subjugate others and were near universally able to do so against other humans capable of reason or else some evil genius interfered with human’s reason so that the majority became clouded by ignorance. In either case Kant’s theory supposes that for no stated reason the subjugating humans will now no longer be successful or else that evil genius has for no stated reason ceased to cloud human reason.
Considering these reservations against the infallibility of human reason it becomes necessary to explain why I study philosophy and am pursuing a career in education, which is primarily about strengthening
...
Kant’s paradigm recognizes the possibility for error in reason but this is to be solved by free public discourse, which is of course just the massive application of individual human reason. It is only by this Darwinian environment of ideas that a subject of thought can become mature. This supposes that the great tragedies, the great follies and great evils of human history occurred because of a lack of applying human reason rather than through the relentless and reoccurring application of that human reason to tragic, foolish and unabashedly wicked ends. If human reason were naturally as trustworthy and noble as Kant supposes one would wonder how in human history it had been unnaturally subjugated so that the majority in Kant’s day preferred self-incurred ignorance. Either some humans used their reason to subjugate others and were near universally able to do so against other humans capable of reason or else some evil genius interfered with human’s reason so that the majority became clouded by ignorance. In either case Kant’s theory supposes that for no stated reason the subjugating humans will now no longer be successful or else that evil genius has for no stated reason ceased to cloud human reason.
Considering these reservations against the infallibility of human reason it becomes necessary to explain why I study philosophy and am pursuing a career in education, which is primarily about strengthening
...
Monday, November 10, 2008
This post will demonstrate why I will never be the spokesman for any political issue. I swim in an ocean of words and am not suitable for mass consumption. It is ironic considering "my side" made a big deal about not wanting to redefine the word marriage because my main response to your letter is that you are using some words rather loosely.
In particular you use the word "prejudice" carelessly. I know what you mean when you are saying it, just like in "The Princess Bride" we know what Vincitti (sp?) means when he says "inconceivable!" but it is still not the correct use of words. Prejudice is when we prejudge a person based upon some sort superficial standard. For example when server X decides that this table will be a bad table because they are black, they are being prejudiced. This phenomena is a kind of mildly offensive form of foolishness that is in many ways unavoidable. They way formulate the world is to make or recognize patterns and use them as an expectation for future experience. So Jacob (my five year old nephew) just yesterday had a still yet undeveloped expectation that a lemon would be tasty like an orange based upon they way it looked. He now knows a little better. This pattern recognition/pattern projection is natural and develops all kind accurate and inaccurate prejudices. When used in social situations prejudice usually is forming expectations based upon the way someone looks, dresses or by associations. This is what the word prejudice means, but is not how I sense you are using it.
What I imagine when you get so passionate about people and friends who "have views that are prejudice." Is a collage of past associations with that word so strong that it would be more fitting if you wrote that "people have views that are PREJUDICE PREJUDICE PREJUDICE!!!!!!!!" When we were children and school teachers taught us about the Civil Rights movement they were somewhat limited by our own child understanding of the world and what is permissible to say in front of a child and also their own un-reflective and ignorant beliefs of the actual historical and moral questions. So they could not go into depth about what was really going on in the South so instead would say what was a little more digestible to children "White people in the South did not like black people. They were prejudiced against them. But Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. came to speak against prejudice so that everyone could be friends together (insert a clip from the "I Have a Dream" speech)." This is perhaps the best that we could hope for in the circumstances but one of the consequences is that the word "prejudice" has been loaded with many things that has nothing to do with the word. As a child we (perhaps only unconsciously) understood that what was going on in the South was much more bloody and reprehensible that white people not wanting to be friends or share drinking faucets with black people. Lynching, voting suppression, terror attacks are not issues of prejudice but has (usually only unconsciously) been associated with the word prejudice.
I think a better word in these circumstances is "oppression." I do not get the impression that you are passionate about people not being friends or accepting homosexuals or homosexuals getting less service at Outback because of server X's preconceived notions. Those are personal and social issues that can not be solved through a ballet measure. Oppression is something that is institutional and can be dealt with via political means and is worthy of our moral outrage.
For me the issue of Proposition 8 is whether or not it is oppression. To be sure there is oppression that the homosexual community has been made to endure throughout our nation's history and that is inexcusable. Much of this has come from within the doors of churches to the shame of the practitioners of my faith. But understanding the movement behind Proposition 8 and the movement against it I have to say it has no right to associate itself with the struggle for equal legal standing and the oppression of the black population in much of our nation. There are crimes against homosexuals because of their sexual orientation but it nothing on the scope or scale as the institutional disenfranchisement and terrorism against blacks. You could argue that this Proposition is be the first step in that direction but this is a heavy burden of proof (but a noble undertaking to attempt). But as of yet I (and a reasonable majority of voting Californians) are not convinced of this.
To be sure there are embarrassing examples of foolishness and wickedness supporters of most causes. There are those who supported Prop 8 because "God hates fags" and other inexcusable, intolerable and abominable reasons. Equally true there are opponents of Prop 8 who hope to relax social social sexual mores for their own perversity (NAMBLA is the easy to accept example). But we can not casually use these examples as real arguments against our sincere opponents. Teaching chess we have had students who make a bad move with the hope that their opponent will make a much more foolish move. As instructors we correctly instruct our students to plan as if your opponent will make the best possible move. In the same way let's examine and argue against the best cases of our opponents. Let me explain what I believe to be the best argument in favor of Proposition 8.
You wrote "for the LAW all people should be treated equal and have the same rights" but this is not, has never been and never should be the case. In the most egalitarian society (which we ought to strive to be) equal rights for all is not the ideal. The ideal is equal rights for all responsible persons. Defenders of Equal Rights would not say (even in principle) that active murderers, children and acknowledged enemies of the state ought to have equal rights with responsible citizens because in case the party in not willing or capable of serving the betterment of this society responsibly. As such it would be right and responsible to take away some of their rights. Proven murderers, through due process, have some of their rights taken away. Children are not granted the rights reserved for adults. Enemies of the state are sometimes rightly even refused the right to live. But up to this point we have only been talking about the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of property" (or happiness).
A person can lose their rights by their actions. "Rights"does not refer to something that no government has any right to ever take away. If it did, no government would accept any rights for any of it citizens. "Rights" refers to powers, blessings and rewards that a government has limited ability to infringe upon. My "right" to be alive does not mean that my government may never lawfully take my life but instead means that there are limited and (ideally) well defined circumstances in which a government can lawfully kill me. The same thing applies for my right to move about in liberty and try to acquire property (aka secular happiness).
When it comes to the social and legal benefits given to married couples (social acceptance, tax status and the like) I do not believe that these are rights that the married population deserves outright. Those blessings are not a right acknowledged but a reward given by society for perceived merit. The state for holds the position that marriage (what is being called "traditional marriage) is beneficial to society and therefore is granted certain benefits. When the state or voting population decides that homosexual unions do not deserve the exact same legal status (which marriage provides and civil union only partly provides) they are not pre-judging homosexuals but post-judging them. The statement is that homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality.
To those who believe the two are equally beneficial to society this is disappointing but it is not oppression. The logical next step in this letter is to go over the rational (rather than emotional) reasons that homosexuality is considered to be lesser than heterosexuality. I am very willing to go into this. However this has been a long letter so far and before we could go further I think we would need to refine the positions so far. No doubt you would find weaknesses that could be stated more clearly or even thrown out all together. Let's see where we are at this point and then decided if it is profitable to continue.
Most sincerely and with warm regards,Michael
In particular you use the word "prejudice" carelessly. I know what you mean when you are saying it, just like in "The Princess Bride" we know what Vincitti (sp?) means when he says "inconceivable!" but it is still not the correct use of words. Prejudice is when we prejudge a person based upon some sort superficial standard. For example when server X decides that this table will be a bad table because they are black, they are being prejudiced. This phenomena is a kind of mildly offensive form of foolishness that is in many ways unavoidable. They way formulate the world is to make or recognize patterns and use them as an expectation for future experience. So Jacob (my five year old nephew) just yesterday had a still yet undeveloped expectation that a lemon would be tasty like an orange based upon they way it looked. He now knows a little better. This pattern recognition/pattern projection is natural and develops all kind accurate and inaccurate prejudices. When used in social situations prejudice usually is forming expectations based upon the way someone looks, dresses or by associations. This is what the word prejudice means, but is not how I sense you are using it.
What I imagine when you get so passionate about people and friends who "have views that are prejudice." Is a collage of past associations with that word so strong that it would be more fitting if you wrote that "people have views that are PREJUDICE PREJUDICE PREJUDICE!!!!!!!!" When we were children and school teachers taught us about the Civil Rights movement they were somewhat limited by our own child understanding of the world and what is permissible to say in front of a child and also their own un-reflective and ignorant beliefs of the actual historical and moral questions. So they could not go into depth about what was really going on in the South so instead would say what was a little more digestible to children "White people in the South did not like black people. They were prejudiced against them. But Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. came to speak against prejudice so that everyone could be friends together (insert a clip from the "I Have a Dream" speech)." This is perhaps the best that we could hope for in the circumstances but one of the consequences is that the word "prejudice" has been loaded with many things that has nothing to do with the word. As a child we (perhaps only unconsciously) understood that what was going on in the South was much more bloody and reprehensible that white people not wanting to be friends or share drinking faucets with black people. Lynching, voting suppression, terror attacks are not issues of prejudice but has (usually only unconsciously) been associated with the word prejudice.
I think a better word in these circumstances is "oppression." I do not get the impression that you are passionate about people not being friends or accepting homosexuals or homosexuals getting less service at Outback because of server X's preconceived notions. Those are personal and social issues that can not be solved through a ballet measure. Oppression is something that is institutional and can be dealt with via political means and is worthy of our moral outrage.
For me the issue of Proposition 8 is whether or not it is oppression. To be sure there is oppression that the homosexual community has been made to endure throughout our nation's history and that is inexcusable. Much of this has come from within the doors of churches to the shame of the practitioners of my faith. But understanding the movement behind Proposition 8 and the movement against it I have to say it has no right to associate itself with the struggle for equal legal standing and the oppression of the black population in much of our nation. There are crimes against homosexuals because of their sexual orientation but it nothing on the scope or scale as the institutional disenfranchisement and terrorism against blacks. You could argue that this Proposition is be the first step in that direction but this is a heavy burden of proof (but a noble undertaking to attempt). But as of yet I (and a reasonable majority of voting Californians) are not convinced of this.
To be sure there are embarrassing examples of foolishness and wickedness supporters of most causes. There are those who supported Prop 8 because "God hates fags" and other inexcusable, intolerable and abominable reasons. Equally true there are opponents of Prop 8 who hope to relax social social sexual mores for their own perversity (NAMBLA is the easy to accept example). But we can not casually use these examples as real arguments against our sincere opponents. Teaching chess we have had students who make a bad move with the hope that their opponent will make a much more foolish move. As instructors we correctly instruct our students to plan as if your opponent will make the best possible move. In the same way let's examine and argue against the best cases of our opponents. Let me explain what I believe to be the best argument in favor of Proposition 8.
You wrote "for the LAW all people should be treated equal and have the same rights" but this is not, has never been and never should be the case. In the most egalitarian society (which we ought to strive to be) equal rights for all is not the ideal. The ideal is equal rights for all responsible persons. Defenders of Equal Rights would not say (even in principle) that active murderers, children and acknowledged enemies of the state ought to have equal rights with responsible citizens because in case the party in not willing or capable of serving the betterment of this society responsibly. As such it would be right and responsible to take away some of their rights. Proven murderers, through due process, have some of their rights taken away. Children are not granted the rights reserved for adults. Enemies of the state are sometimes rightly even refused the right to live. But up to this point we have only been talking about the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of property" (or happiness).
A person can lose their rights by their actions. "Rights"does not refer to something that no government has any right to ever take away. If it did, no government would accept any rights for any of it citizens. "Rights" refers to powers, blessings and rewards that a government has limited ability to infringe upon. My "right" to be alive does not mean that my government may never lawfully take my life but instead means that there are limited and (ideally) well defined circumstances in which a government can lawfully kill me. The same thing applies for my right to move about in liberty and try to acquire property (aka secular happiness).
When it comes to the social and legal benefits given to married couples (social acceptance, tax status and the like) I do not believe that these are rights that the married population deserves outright. Those blessings are not a right acknowledged but a reward given by society for perceived merit. The state for holds the position that marriage (what is being called "traditional marriage) is beneficial to society and therefore is granted certain benefits. When the state or voting population decides that homosexual unions do not deserve the exact same legal status (which marriage provides and civil union only partly provides) they are not pre-judging homosexuals but post-judging them. The statement is that homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality.
To those who believe the two are equally beneficial to society this is disappointing but it is not oppression. The logical next step in this letter is to go over the rational (rather than emotional) reasons that homosexuality is considered to be lesser than heterosexuality. I am very willing to go into this. However this has been a long letter so far and before we could go further I think we would need to refine the positions so far. No doubt you would find weaknesses that could be stated more clearly or even thrown out all together. Let's see where we are at this point and then decided if it is profitable to continue.
Most sincerely and with warm regards,Michael
Monday, October 27, 2008
Propostition 8
Yesterday I had three rather lengthy, unrelated conversations about Proposition 8. This is an attempt to change the state constitution to specifically describe marriage as only between a man and a woman. In 2000 the voters of California passed Proposition 22 which did define marriage between a man and a woman but that law was struck down earlier this year by the California Supreme Court with the justification that it violated the equal protection clause of the state constitution.
The short answer to my position is "I'm a Christian so I do not support the idea of homosexual marriage." I do not expect this to be very persuasive and indeed I am not seeking to be persuasive but instead honest. I think the rational for homosexual marriage is philosophically consistent with humanism (as best I understand its tenants) but if I agree with secular humanism it is largely accidental.
The world I live in is largely cast in a humanist light and my position is not just misunderstood but in some ways is not understandable. Humanism is specifically rationalistic and anything which can not be explained or argued about is beyond comprehension. I say (somewhat mock innocently) "I just want to obey God." The humanist asks me properly how I could know what God wants me to do and I just shrug. I could give rationally acceptable answers, there are deist camps in humanism, but that would be dishonest. I do not know God's will soley from the Bible, that is I do not recieve God's Word like a computer accepts programming. Rather by faith when I hear God's Word and seek to obey God's will somehow become clear in a less articulate and private medium that is beyond rationality.
So my three discussions concerning Prop 8 were rather subdued because I did not enter into them as a rational humanist. There are fair and perhaps very strong arguements against homosexual marriage but if I were to research and present these arguements I would hiding my faith in God behind dieistic rationalism as if my faith were not good enough on its own or needs something to make it approvable to others. Also I would be dishonest because these many possible arguements are not my actual reason for my position. Like I said earlier my position is quite literally "I am a Christian therefore I do not support homosexual marriage."
The short answer to my position is "I'm a Christian so I do not support the idea of homosexual marriage." I do not expect this to be very persuasive and indeed I am not seeking to be persuasive but instead honest. I think the rational for homosexual marriage is philosophically consistent with humanism (as best I understand its tenants) but if I agree with secular humanism it is largely accidental.
The world I live in is largely cast in a humanist light and my position is not just misunderstood but in some ways is not understandable. Humanism is specifically rationalistic and anything which can not be explained or argued about is beyond comprehension. I say (somewhat mock innocently) "I just want to obey God." The humanist asks me properly how I could know what God wants me to do and I just shrug. I could give rationally acceptable answers, there are deist camps in humanism, but that would be dishonest. I do not know God's will soley from the Bible, that is I do not recieve God's Word like a computer accepts programming. Rather by faith when I hear God's Word and seek to obey God's will somehow become clear in a less articulate and private medium that is beyond rationality.
So my three discussions concerning Prop 8 were rather subdued because I did not enter into them as a rational humanist. There are fair and perhaps very strong arguements against homosexual marriage but if I were to research and present these arguements I would hiding my faith in God behind dieistic rationalism as if my faith were not good enough on its own or needs something to make it approvable to others. Also I would be dishonest because these many possible arguements are not my actual reason for my position. Like I said earlier my position is quite literally "I am a Christian therefore I do not support homosexual marriage."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)