Tuesday, May 5, 2020
Monday, May 4, 2020
From the Banality of Information to the Aesthetics of Pattern and Order
 |
| Central Social Institution of Prague |
Sunday, May 3, 2020
A farrago of animated prognostications refracting through the prisim of an astonishing sequence of cosmological visions projecting against the ultimate conceptual fabrics enfolding the long-anticipated continua where the physical sciences at last encounter the delimitating syntactical obscurities of their gorgeous dissolution into infinity
Saturday, May 2, 2020
Friday, May 1, 2020
Kant and Rawls: drawing a droll comparison
Philosophers Immanuel Kant
(1724-1804) and John Rawls (1921-2002) compare in some interesting ways.
Here I will not bother to sketch out a complete summary of their moral concepts, though that would be interesting. Nor will I consider them—as I did Hobbes and Kant yesterday—in terms of the "Moral Philosophy in Context" scheme, though no doubt that would lead to some interesting insights too. Instead, I will briefly summarize the main points of their moral philosophies, and focus on a key similarity in their methodology that is revealed in the exercise of drawing some cartoons that are as incisive as they are droll.
5) The Practical Imperative - People should not be used as a means to an end.
Now, in seeking to understand Kant, let's examine how the concepts of Universalizability and the Categorical Imperative guide the methodology philosophers should (according to Kant) employ to decide what the rules should be.
Consider the following three cases:
Case One: Is it permissible to lie?
I am hiding Jews and Gypsies in my basement, when the Gestapo comes knocking on the door. I open the door and the Gestapo demands to know it there are any Jews and Gypsies in the basement. Is it moral to lie and say that I am not hiding any Jews and Gypsies in the basement? Now, I understand that the Gestapo will take these Jews and Gypsies to the concentration camp, where they will die. I feel very strongly that I should lie to protect the people in the basement, but what is my duty? Is it permissible to lie?
To answer this question, Kant wants us to Universalize the question by elevating it to the realm of pure reason, to a transcendental level beyond the earthly context, and at this transcendental level we can decide, categorically, if it is permissible to lie. Kant would ask us to consider: What if people were lying all the time? What if lying was a universal practice? Clearly, if lying was a universal practice, all sorts of bad things would ensue (and, hmm, it looks like Kant is considering consequences after-all—but maybe that's OK because he is an important philosopher? Ahem.).
In any event, “Nein!” You may not lie to the Gestapo, and therefore you do your duty and tell the Gestapo that the Jews and Gypsies are hiding in the basement.
Case Two: Is it permissible to steal?
You have lost your job, and you cannot afford to buy bread to feed your children. Meanwhile, there is a bread store down the road at the corner, with bread sitting out front. You feel very strongly that you should steal to feed your starving children, but what is your duty? Is it permissible to steal?
To answer this question, Kant wants us to Universalize the question by removing it to a transcendental level beyond the earthly context, and at this transcendental level we can decide, categorically, if it is permissible to steal. Kant would ask us to consider: What if people were stealing all the time? What if stealing was a universal practice? Clearly, if lying was a universal practice, all sorts of bad things would ensue (and, erm, it looks like Kant is considering consequences after-all—but maybe that’s OK because he is an important philosopher?).
In any event, “Nein!” You may not steal bread to feed your children. You exercise the Good Will, do your duty and let your children starve.
Case Three: Is it permissible to use deadly force?
An axe-wielding maniac has invaded your home, and he is chasing your wife and children around the living room. He is a pretty big guy. You don’t want to be judgmental, but he is evidently a madman, and he is clearly about to strike your wife and children with his axe. You are holding a bow and arrow, and you could use it to shoot the intruder and save the lives of your wife and children. But you also cannot be squeamish; he is very big and, clearly, you will have to use deadly force to stop him. You feel very strongly that you should use deadly force to save your family, but what is your duty? Is it permissible to use deadly force?
To answer this question, Kant would have us to Universalize the question by removing it to a transcendental level beyond the earthly context, and at this transcendental level we can decide, categorically, if it is permissible to use deadly force. Kant would ask us to consider: What if people were using deadly force all the time? What if using deadly force was a universal practice? Clearly, if using deadly force was a universal practice, all sorts of bad things would ensue (and, erm, it looks like Kant is considering consequences after-all—but maybe that’s OK because he is an important philosopher?).
Observe how Kant puts the questions into his Categorical Imperative Machine. The machine universalizes the question by raising them to a transcendental level beyond the earthly context, and at this transcendental level he can decide, categorically, if it is permissible to lie, to steal or to use deadly force. Of course, the entire methodology consist of abstractions that are not part of the real world, that are mere abstractions in a cartoon. Here, Kant’s big ideas are abstractions in a cartoon, where the cartoon is a description of things that are indifferent to and removed from what should be a real or relevant description of a moral action. (And recall what Francis Bacon said when he described the Idols of the Theatre.)
Keep this cartoon in mind as we turn to out next moral philosopher.
2) The Equity Principle - Each person has an equal right to liberty (or freedom, or a reward) comparable with the same amount of liberty for everyone else. Or, there must be Fairness in terms of equality of opportunity for all.
3) The Difference Principle - Any equality (in terms of rewards or punishments) is permissible to the extent that it is to the advantage of everybody, including the people at the bottom of socio-economic status, and that that reward or punishment is distributed under conditions of equal opportunity.
4) The Original Position - This abstraction can be compared to Kant’s transcendental realm of pure reason. Here, the principles of justice can be decided upon from behind a Veil of Ignorance.
5) The Veil of Ignorance - This is the crux of Rawls’ “thought experiment” in which people are asked to consider the question of Fairness and Justice. Here in this hypothetical construct, according to Rawls, “...no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like. I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance.” In other words, consider a bunch of babies in Peter Pan Land waiting to be born. The babies do not know who they will be as human beings, or what their fortunes will be when the stork carries them to the real world and they become human beings. In this Fairy Land, behind the veil of ignorance, Rawls says they will all agree that they want to live in a Fair world of Equality and Equal Opportunity.
Since these babies are ignorant of the real world, they are in an excellent position to be reasonable and impartial about how the world should be run (yes, at this point Bacon would be reminding us again about the Idols of the Theatre, and also the Idols of the Market-Place). Meanwhile, let’s ask these babies some questions about the real world.
One question will do: “Is it moral to tax people and then decide how to spend that money without elected representatives either writing such tax laws or deciding how the money should be spent?”
Kant would universalize the question by using his Categorical Imperative Machine to elevate the question to the Transcendental Level of Pure Reason. In a similar way, Rawls uses his Veil of Ignorance Machine to move the question behind the Veil of Ignorance. Here, behind the Veil of Ignorance, the Fairy Babies can exercise their inclination for exercising fairness as they decide the question reasonably: “Is it moral to tax people and then decide how to spend that money without elected representatives either writing such tax laws or deciding how the money should be spent?
Alright, time for another funny cartoon. I call this, “Herr Professor Doktor John Rawls with his Original Position Machine.”
The babies ask, “Does it promote Fairness? Does it meet the criterion of Social Justice? Does it adhere to the Equity and Difference Principles? If the answer is “yes” to these criteria, then, Yes, taxation without representation is morally good.
Long ago along these at these Highbrow crossroads I gave John Rawls a mention in connection with Confucian notions of law and morality. At that time, I promised my colleagues in the Highbrow Commonwealth that I wound return to Rawls (and Elizabeth Anscombe) and dilate upon a comparison of Confucian morality and the ideas of John Rawls. I have begun to fulfill that promise here, but no doubt this is just the beginning of a much more involved investigation. To see that post on Confucius, please click HERE.
Here I will not bother to sketch out a complete summary of their moral concepts, though that would be interesting. Nor will I consider them—as I did Hobbes and Kant yesterday—in terms of the "Moral Philosophy in Context" scheme, though no doubt that would lead to some interesting insights too. Instead, I will briefly summarize the main points of their moral philosophies, and focus on a key similarity in their methodology that is revealed in the exercise of drawing some cartoons that are as incisive as they are droll.
Immanuel Kant
There are five main ideas to
keep in mind when examining Kant. Here, items 1, 2 & 3 are central to
the comparison we will draw up today.
1) The Good Will - People
are not animals, and rather than doing "what they want to do", or acting
on their feelings, or considering the consequences of various actions, people
can exercise the Good Will and instead do their duty. What is our
duty? Why, our duty to follow the rules. What are the rules? According to
Kant, these rules can be decided upon with reason. The next two concepts
describe the methodology philosophers can use for deciding these rules.
2) Universalizability -
Rules must be consistent and non-contradictory. They must be applicable
in ALL circumstances, and they cannot be inconsistent in application; that is,
"true" rules are Universal.
3) The Categorical
Imperative - our rules are categorically correct. They transcend
"worldly" considerations, they are established by reason, and
they are to be followed without exception.
4) Reversibility - This is
the Golden Rule idea. Treat others as you would have others treat you.5) The Practical Imperative - People should not be used as a means to an end.
Now, in seeking to understand Kant, let's examine how the concepts of Universalizability and the Categorical Imperative guide the methodology philosophers should (according to Kant) employ to decide what the rules should be.
Consider the following three cases:
Case One: Is it permissible to lie?
I am hiding Jews and Gypsies in my basement, when the Gestapo comes knocking on the door. I open the door and the Gestapo demands to know it there are any Jews and Gypsies in the basement. Is it moral to lie and say that I am not hiding any Jews and Gypsies in the basement? Now, I understand that the Gestapo will take these Jews and Gypsies to the concentration camp, where they will die. I feel very strongly that I should lie to protect the people in the basement, but what is my duty? Is it permissible to lie?
To answer this question, Kant wants us to Universalize the question by elevating it to the realm of pure reason, to a transcendental level beyond the earthly context, and at this transcendental level we can decide, categorically, if it is permissible to lie. Kant would ask us to consider: What if people were lying all the time? What if lying was a universal practice? Clearly, if lying was a universal practice, all sorts of bad things would ensue (and, hmm, it looks like Kant is considering consequences after-all—but maybe that's OK because he is an important philosopher? Ahem.).
In any event, “Nein!” You may not lie to the Gestapo, and therefore you do your duty and tell the Gestapo that the Jews and Gypsies are hiding in the basement.
Case Two: Is it permissible to steal?
You have lost your job, and you cannot afford to buy bread to feed your children. Meanwhile, there is a bread store down the road at the corner, with bread sitting out front. You feel very strongly that you should steal to feed your starving children, but what is your duty? Is it permissible to steal?
To answer this question, Kant wants us to Universalize the question by removing it to a transcendental level beyond the earthly context, and at this transcendental level we can decide, categorically, if it is permissible to steal. Kant would ask us to consider: What if people were stealing all the time? What if stealing was a universal practice? Clearly, if lying was a universal practice, all sorts of bad things would ensue (and, erm, it looks like Kant is considering consequences after-all—but maybe that’s OK because he is an important philosopher?).
In any event, “Nein!” You may not steal bread to feed your children. You exercise the Good Will, do your duty and let your children starve.
Case Three: Is it permissible to use deadly force?
An axe-wielding maniac has invaded your home, and he is chasing your wife and children around the living room. He is a pretty big guy. You don’t want to be judgmental, but he is evidently a madman, and he is clearly about to strike your wife and children with his axe. You are holding a bow and arrow, and you could use it to shoot the intruder and save the lives of your wife and children. But you also cannot be squeamish; he is very big and, clearly, you will have to use deadly force to stop him. You feel very strongly that you should use deadly force to save your family, but what is your duty? Is it permissible to use deadly force?
To answer this question, Kant would have us to Universalize the question by removing it to a transcendental level beyond the earthly context, and at this transcendental level we can decide, categorically, if it is permissible to use deadly force. Kant would ask us to consider: What if people were using deadly force all the time? What if using deadly force was a universal practice? Clearly, if using deadly force was a universal practice, all sorts of bad things would ensue (and, erm, it looks like Kant is considering consequences after-all—but maybe that’s OK because he is an important philosopher?).
In any event, “Nein!” You may not use deadly force. Instead,
you exercise the Good Will and do your duty, and you let the maniac continue. The intruder chops up your family, and then
he chops up you. Yes, it is a big mess but you have done your duty. Remember, an animal might use deadly force to
protect its family, but you are no animal!
You have the power to exercise the Good Will! Wunderbar! Hang on! Where is the droll
cartoon? So far, this isn’t very funny.Alright, here is a funny cartoon.
I call this, “Herr Professor Doktor Kant with his Categorical Imperative Machine.”
Observe how Kant puts the questions into his Categorical Imperative Machine. The machine universalizes the question by raising them to a transcendental level beyond the earthly context, and at this transcendental level he can decide, categorically, if it is permissible to lie, to steal or to use deadly force. Of course, the entire methodology consist of abstractions that are not part of the real world, that are mere abstractions in a cartoon. Here, Kant’s big ideas are abstractions in a cartoon, where the cartoon is a description of things that are indifferent to and removed from what should be a real or relevant description of a moral action. (And recall what Francis Bacon said when he described the Idols of the Theatre.)
Keep this cartoon in mind as we turn to out next moral philosopher.
John Rawls
There are three main ideas
to keep in mind when examining Rawls. Here, items 4 & 5 are central
to the comparison we will draw up today.
1) Justice as Fairness - A political criterion whereby—rather than Natural Law
standards of Liberty and Happiness—Justice or Fairness are the basic criterion
of morality and state and institutional policy.2) The Equity Principle - Each person has an equal right to liberty (or freedom, or a reward) comparable with the same amount of liberty for everyone else. Or, there must be Fairness in terms of equality of opportunity for all.
3) The Difference Principle - Any equality (in terms of rewards or punishments) is permissible to the extent that it is to the advantage of everybody, including the people at the bottom of socio-economic status, and that that reward or punishment is distributed under conditions of equal opportunity.
4) The Original Position - This abstraction can be compared to Kant’s transcendental realm of pure reason. Here, the principles of justice can be decided upon from behind a Veil of Ignorance.
5) The Veil of Ignorance - This is the crux of Rawls’ “thought experiment” in which people are asked to consider the question of Fairness and Justice. Here in this hypothetical construct, according to Rawls, “...no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like. I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance.” In other words, consider a bunch of babies in Peter Pan Land waiting to be born. The babies do not know who they will be as human beings, or what their fortunes will be when the stork carries them to the real world and they become human beings. In this Fairy Land, behind the veil of ignorance, Rawls says they will all agree that they want to live in a Fair world of Equality and Equal Opportunity.
Since these babies are ignorant of the real world, they are in an excellent position to be reasonable and impartial about how the world should be run (yes, at this point Bacon would be reminding us again about the Idols of the Theatre, and also the Idols of the Market-Place). Meanwhile, let’s ask these babies some questions about the real world.
One question will do: “Is it moral to tax people and then decide how to spend that money without elected representatives either writing such tax laws or deciding how the money should be spent?”
Kant would universalize the question by using his Categorical Imperative Machine to elevate the question to the Transcendental Level of Pure Reason. In a similar way, Rawls uses his Veil of Ignorance Machine to move the question behind the Veil of Ignorance. Here, behind the Veil of Ignorance, the Fairy Babies can exercise their inclination for exercising fairness as they decide the question reasonably: “Is it moral to tax people and then decide how to spend that money without elected representatives either writing such tax laws or deciding how the money should be spent?
Alright, time for another funny cartoon. I call this, “Herr Professor Doktor John Rawls with his Original Position Machine.”
The babies ask, “Does it promote Fairness? Does it meet the criterion of Social Justice? Does it adhere to the Equity and Difference Principles? If the answer is “yes” to these criteria, then, Yes, taxation without representation is morally good.
Long ago along these at these Highbrow crossroads I gave John Rawls a mention in connection with Confucian notions of law and morality. At that time, I promised my colleagues in the Highbrow Commonwealth that I wound return to Rawls (and Elizabeth Anscombe) and dilate upon a comparison of Confucian morality and the ideas of John Rawls. I have begun to fulfill that promise here, but no doubt this is just the beginning of a much more involved investigation. To see that post on Confucius, please click HERE.
More? Please click HERE.
Thursday, April 30, 2020
Hobbes vs. Locke
Here I offer brief sketches of Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and John Locke (1632-1704). My sketches follow the three-step scheme presented in the Highbrow post "Moral Philosophy in Context." Please click HERE for the elaboration. Through analyzing Locke and Hobbes along these lines, we can gain a fresh understanding of the familiar academic dichotomy called "Hobbes vs.
Locke."
Thomas Hobbes
John Locke
Sources for an American Idea of Revolution
These materials will prove helpful in building a picture of "Classical Liberalism" (Locke, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, etc.), and they represent a framework for understanding the philosophical and political foundations of the United States of America.
The Idea of the Nation-State
A Final Remark from Aristotle
Thomas Hobbes
1) Metaphysics/claims for logic/theory of human nature.
Metaphysics: The universe is a big empty space filled with atoms that interact according to strict deterministic and mechanical principles. The universe is a big machine. Everything in the universe is explained by this model, there is nothing else to it.
Human Nature: Human beings are machines that are hungry and selfish and they prey on everything including each other.
2) Moral Philosophy.
Human beings are viscous machines and they need to be controlled by a state.
3) Political Philosophy.
Society: There is no society without a state, and human society is imposed by the state. Human beings need to be controlled in order to create conditions under which economic activity, civil coexistence and worthwhile patterns of human life can be sustained; therefore, any kind of state that controls human beings (by maintaining the social contract) is good. Hobbes is predisposed in favor of monarchy.
Metaphysics: The universe is a big empty space filled with atoms that interact according to strict deterministic and mechanical principles. The universe is a big machine. Everything in the universe is explained by this model, there is nothing else to it.
Human Nature: Human beings are machines that are hungry and selfish and they prey on everything including each other.
2) Moral Philosophy.
Human beings are viscous machines and they need to be controlled by a state.
3) Political Philosophy.
Society: There is no society without a state, and human society is imposed by the state. Human beings need to be controlled in order to create conditions under which economic activity, civil coexistence and worthwhile patterns of human life can be sustained; therefore, any kind of state that controls human beings (by maintaining the social contract) is good. Hobbes is predisposed in favor of monarchy.
1) Metaphysics/claims for logic/theory of human nature.
There is no conclusive scientific proof that the universe is a big empty space filled with atoms that interact according to strict deterministic and mechanical principles. The universe is not a big machine. Hobbes' theory is not a comprehensive model that explains everything that happens in the universe. Clearly, there are things about the universe that we do not yet understand.
Human Nature: Human beings are imperfect but they have a capacity for great good and God loves them. Human beings have God-given rights, as can be seen through studying nature (this is an implication of Aquinas's Natural Theology).
2) Moral Philosophy.
Human beings naturally live in society and they are predisposed to live in peace; respecting each other's property comes naturally. There are, however, some people who are greedy and they do not respect other peoples' property, liberty, life, and other rights. Human beings are often weak, and so their rights need to be protected by powerful (but controlled) forces.
3) Political Philosophy.
Society: Society comes before the state. People give some of their power to the state to protect their rights. If the state/government is corrupt and fails to protect their rights, people have the right and the duty to change their government. Governments should be constituted so their powers are limited under a system of checks and balances, and according to constitutional specifications separating and designating the various magisterial (executive and judicial) and legislative powers.
We might reflect here that Locke was a scientist (medical doctor, and professor of medicine at Oxford University) and he "wrote the book" on how we preform science even today. Hobbes was not a scientist. Now, does this help us to understand that Hobbes' "scientific theories" are weak--they are just "theories." Meanwhile, Locke (a scientist) is viewing the universe with appropriate skepticism and an open mind, and rather than relying upon abstractions and theories, he sticks to the facts. Moreover, he has the ability to confront the facts (or a mystery) and honestly say, "My goodness! We just don't know. Let's work on this mystery together, my friends, and see if we can improve our understanding."
People who need to control other people make up all kinds of explanations and reasons (philosophical, pseudo-scientific, "claims to privilege") in order to justify their authority. It follows that their philosophies, their pseudo-scientific claims, their "sense of privilege" and their "sense of elite superiority" are prone to corruption, if they are not themselves corruptions at the outset.
There is no conclusive scientific proof that the universe is a big empty space filled with atoms that interact according to strict deterministic and mechanical principles. The universe is not a big machine. Hobbes' theory is not a comprehensive model that explains everything that happens in the universe. Clearly, there are things about the universe that we do not yet understand.
Human Nature: Human beings are imperfect but they have a capacity for great good and God loves them. Human beings have God-given rights, as can be seen through studying nature (this is an implication of Aquinas's Natural Theology).
2) Moral Philosophy.
Human beings naturally live in society and they are predisposed to live in peace; respecting each other's property comes naturally. There are, however, some people who are greedy and they do not respect other peoples' property, liberty, life, and other rights. Human beings are often weak, and so their rights need to be protected by powerful (but controlled) forces.
3) Political Philosophy.
Society: Society comes before the state. People give some of their power to the state to protect their rights. If the state/government is corrupt and fails to protect their rights, people have the right and the duty to change their government. Governments should be constituted so their powers are limited under a system of checks and balances, and according to constitutional specifications separating and designating the various magisterial (executive and judicial) and legislative powers.
We might reflect here that Locke was a scientist (medical doctor, and professor of medicine at Oxford University) and he "wrote the book" on how we preform science even today. Hobbes was not a scientist. Now, does this help us to understand that Hobbes' "scientific theories" are weak--they are just "theories." Meanwhile, Locke (a scientist) is viewing the universe with appropriate skepticism and an open mind, and rather than relying upon abstractions and theories, he sticks to the facts. Moreover, he has the ability to confront the facts (or a mystery) and honestly say, "My goodness! We just don't know. Let's work on this mystery together, my friends, and see if we can improve our understanding."
People who need to control other people make up all kinds of explanations and reasons (philosophical, pseudo-scientific, "claims to privilege") in order to justify their authority. It follows that their philosophies, their pseudo-scientific claims, their "sense of privilege" and their "sense of elite superiority" are prone to corruption, if they are not themselves corruptions at the outset.
Here are some related discussions:
Aristotle and the Meaning of Eudemonia
Modernity, Locke, Jefferson and Milton
Aristotle and the Meaning of Eudemonia
Modernity, Locke, Jefferson and Milton
Sources for an American Idea of Revolution
These materials will prove helpful in building a picture of "Classical Liberalism" (Locke, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, etc.), and they represent a framework for understanding the philosophical and political foundations of the United States of America.
The Idea of the Nation-State
A Final Remark from Aristotle
Wednesday, April 29, 2020
Brave New Gender Roles, Revisited
 |
| Bored beatniks deep in the jungle of a new self-concept, circa 1957. |
Tuesday, April 28, 2020
Monday, April 27, 2020
Sunday, April 26, 2020
Saturday, April 25, 2020
"What is the Meaning of Life?" is not a philosophical question: a few remarks on Moby-Dick, Chapter 54, "The Town-Ho's Story"
The question of the meaning of life is explored in Moby-Dick ad infinitum. Melville's continuously-unfolding-conclusion is anti-Platonic, post-Calvinist, and his formulation might be compared to Milton, Judaism and various threads we could associate with Existentialism and the Beats. In science, Melville is advancing skeptical-empirical science, which is characteristically rooted in Aquinas's Natural Theology, and which culminates in Bacon and Locke. Politically--and his political philosophy also compares to Locke--his historiography is straight up and down Classic Liberalism.
Along these lines, I should point out the remarkable chapter entitled "The Town-Ho's Story", which advances apophatic theology, treating such questions as "Is the white whale the agent of God? Is Moby Dick actually God himself, righting wrongs in this world and exacting vengeance upon evil men who prey upon the innocent?" Approaching the question apohatically, Melville's answer is "no", and in this answer he advances a rather dire cosmology that compares to Hobbes (who, incidentally, Melville would otherwise reject at a number of levels).
"The Town-Ho's Story" is wonderfully plotted: After enduring endless abuses at the hands of the bullying mate Mr. Radney, a resourceful sailor named Steelkilt gives Radney a broken jaw. After assorted power-plays, Steelkilt plots to murder Radney, but before he can commit the evil deed, Moby Dick appears, gives the ship a bump, and the shock throws Radney into the sea, whereupon Moby Dick takes the mate into his crooked jaws and drags him down to Davey Jones. In the wake of this astonishing (and very likely "fictitious") event, Steelkilt leads a mutiny and takes the ship. At the conclusion of the mutiny story (there is more, of course, as the story is told by Ishmael who places the meaning of the story in an apophatic context), Steelkilt is presiding as the Captain and two or three loyal sailors are put into a whaleboat and pushed off to find their fate out in the middle of the Pacific. In a clearly emblematic phrase replete with philosophical meaning, Steelkilt expresses his contempt for the Captain, who had been consistently indifferent to the suffering of the crew and the abuses of Radney.
Steelkilt laughs at the Captain as the whaleboat is pushed off: "A pretty scholar! . . . Adios, Senor!"
 |
| Moby Dick by Rockwell Kent |
Friday, April 24, 2020
Thursday, April 23, 2020
Wednesday, April 22, 2020
Tuesday, April 21, 2020
Sunday, April 19, 2020
Friday, April 17, 2020
Jean-Paul Garnier reads Michael Butterworth
Thursday, April 16, 2020
"Eddie Allan's Mysterious Manifesto" - a note from William Weiss
One of my colleagues in International Authors is
William Weiss, a recently-retired English professor from the Northeast, who now
makes his home in the Mojave Desert. Professor Weiss attended school at a
number of universities and colleges, including Naropa, where he was a student
of William Burroughs, Allen Ginsberg and Gregory Corso. Professor Weiss taught
at Patten College, UC Berkeley, National Hispanic University, the San Francisco
Conservation Corps, and SUNY Adirondack. His books include Orbiting William
S. Burroughs, and Hallucination May Constitute the Final Theorem
under the pen name Professor Nil. Most recently, he published
Escape Trajectories (in collaboration with Gareth Jackson) and 68
Cantos. William Weiss will have a short story in the forthcoming volume
of Emanations.
The other day, he wrote to tell me that he had been reading Emanations: Chorus Pleiades, and in it he found my short story "Eddie Allan's Mysterious Manifesto." Now, this story also appears in my novel Echoes as the second chapter. Professor Weiss writes:
The other day, he wrote to tell me that he had been reading Emanations: Chorus Pleiades, and in it he found my short story "Eddie Allan's Mysterious Manifesto." Now, this story also appears in my novel Echoes as the second chapter. Professor Weiss writes:
I read "Eddie Allan's Mysterious Manifesto"... I like Eddie’s sense of humor and would have laughed out loud if not for the piece’s final seriousness. Identifying the fantastic proliferation of information with horror is Eddie’s true contribution. I encountered well-managed and clever echoes of Burroughs, Foucault, Chomsky, Baudrillard and others in the course of his manifesto. Very nice to hear.
I'll say this for now: I'm with Eddie. I don't like telephones and expect nothing from computers (I call them deified appliances). I agree that the NETWORKS are hastening the apocalypse, but I don't find this a bad thing. Eddie makes the connection to the acceleration of accumulation of wealth (for who?) via the NETWORKS (that is, via the sheer accumulation of information), but the NETWORKS are part and parcel of postindustrial capitalism, and the socialist's dream of a worldwide rejection of capitalism is about as likely as us making the 2-degree Celsius goal. It's ridiculous. No one can AFFORD to drop capitalism. Especially now. The MACHINE and its NETWORKS will crank on until the exhaustion of natural resources makes capitalism as we know it impossible. The militarization of the planet will proceed, the countries with the most powerful militaries will grab every last ounce of oil left, and all of this will only edge us closer to nuclear conflict. (How about a nuclear winter for a climate crisis?). Let the Himalayas of information rise. When the grids go down, and they will, those mountains will disappear like sand castles on the beach (the last 3 words of that sentence remind me of Nevil Shute's novel and Brinkley's The Last Ship).
And I'll step out on a limb with another Eddie, Ed Abbey, here: let's get it over with.
The horror. The horror.
I sent William Weiss the following response:
The second and third volumes of The Invisible Tower trilogy should be available by the end of the Summer. Learn more about the first volume, Echoes, by clicking the cover image:Thanks for the encouraging message.The "Manifesto" is also in Echoes--the second chapter--and the rest of the stories/chapters reflect (and sometimes with wonderful derangement) the themes in the Manifesto. Do you know Poe's biography? He did not get along with his step-father, John Allan. The bizarre relationship Eddie has with his step-father in the trilogy is touched on several times in Echoes, and in the second volume of the trilogy it becomes one of the many bizarre themes. Then it "haunts" the third volume in all kinds of strange ways."When the grids go down, and they will, those mountains will disappear like sand castles on the beach."In the second novel, the grid goes down; and then in the third novel, what's left over melts like those sandcastles...Ah, Ed Abbey--in the Second Volume there is a lot of monkey-wrenching going on. Bronson Bodine and his faithful sidekick Nabnak Tornasuk keep busy shutting down nuke power plants, mines, factories, satellites, sweat shops, ore processing plants, smelters, and so on. But, as I say, in the third volume that gets melted too.
Wednesday, April 15, 2020
The Naturalistic Fallacy
Wherever you look, G. E. Moore's Naturalistic Fallacy is not described very clearly. Moore's own explanation is too-involved, and his illustrations of the idea are tiresome. When she explains it in her paper "Modern Moral Philosophy," Elizabeth Anscombe, for some reason, embarks upon a long-winded description of an idea from Hume that resembles the Naturalistic Fallacy. The Ethics textbooks are similarly confusing, or boring.
It
is, however, a pretty easy idea. First, recall what we already know about propositions.
Next, consider how the Naturalistic Fallacy helps us to understand why (I
believe) that Logic cannot prove--like a mathematical or geometric proof--a
moral proposition.
Consider
the following propositions:
1)
Two and two is four.
2)
Stealing is wrong.
In
each of these two examples, is has a different kind of meaning.
In
the first example, "Two and two is four", is means
equivalence. It is true in an analytic sense. That is, it is
logically true: 2 + 2 = 4. We don't usually call mathematical equations
"propositions," but note that the example here is a grammatical
sentence, and it is proved by the relationship of (2 + 2) and (4). That is, two
and two is four.
In
the second example, "Stealing is wrong," is means "I
think" or "some people think" stealing is wrong. Although
many people agree, and even though I (the consummate highbrow) and you
(card-carrying members of the Highbrow Commonwealth) think (or believe)
stealing is wrong, in this case, is is not the same as equivalence or
conclusive proof.
Stealing is wrong because we say so.
Stealing is wrong because we say so.
.jpg) |
| George Edward Moore |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
