As soon as the phase the good life is set as the standard, I know the trip is into abstraction. a journey into what is defined: a journey mind over flesh. We have been there before. .
1
The apostle Paul in ( 1Cor 13:12 ) writing about our perception of reality "For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known'" Paul is speaking of that time when we shall come face to face with God. Then all our questions will be answered.
5
Contrary to Burton's tacit assumption, neurobiologists and neurologists have not demonstrated much of anything about how we think, let alone about "mind." At best, some brain blood flow correlations have been shown, but even many of the studies that seem to demonstrate such have been found faulty in their methodology and/or interpretation.
The entire fMRI predicate for conclusions about mind-body relationships is dubious. Are the indications they point to and the conclusions drawn from them wrong? That we do not know. However, neither do we have any substantive evidence that they are right. See, for instance, the Times August 27 article, "Do You Believe in God, or Is That a Software Glitch?" of
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/opinion/sunday/do-you-believe-in-god-...
In a sense, they are using an epidemiological model to draw conclusions, a dubious model for such complex processes. Such is useful for establishing probabilities and making policy, but is limited in establishing the certainty of cause and effect.
Let us not forget that common sense and excellent mathematics "proved" that the sun revolved around the earth.
The entire fMRI predicate for conclusions about mind-body relationships is dubious. Are the indications they point to and the conclusions drawn from them wrong? That we do not know. However, neither do we have any substantive evidence that they are right. See, for instance, the Times August 27 article, "Do You Believe in God, or Is That a Software Glitch?" of
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/opinion/sunday/do-you-believe-in-god-...
In a sense, they are using an epidemiological model to draw conclusions, a dubious model for such complex processes. Such is useful for establishing probabilities and making policy, but is limited in establishing the certainty of cause and effect.
Let us not forget that common sense and excellent mathematics "proved" that the sun revolved around the earth.
6
The confusions in this article run so deep that I hardly know where to begin. I would most certainly run out of characters well before I had adequately addressed even one of them. I can only observe that in reading the article the sense of disgust to which the author refers was indeed activated. :-) (I am reminded here of passage of Kant's Groundwork where he discusses the "dangers of descending into popular concepts"; it being commendable, provided that one has completed the necessary philosophical groundwork, but it otherwise being liable to produce "a disgusting hodgepodge of patchwork observations and half-rationalized principles, in which shallow pates revel because it is something useful for everyday chitchat"). Note that I attempt to sort this mess out in an article titled "Causation in Moral Judgment", if anyone is interested.
2
Of the works of this mind history is the record. Its genius is illustrated by the entire series of days. Man is explicable by nothing less than all his history. Without hurry, without rest, the human spirit goes forth from the beginning to embody every faculty, every thought, every emotion, which belongs to it in appropriate events. But the thought is always prior to the fact; all the facts of history preexist in the mind as laws. Each law in turn is made by circumstances predominant, and the limits of nature give power to but one at a time. A man is the whole encyclopaedia of facts. The creation of a thousand forests is in one acorn, and Egypt, Greece, Rome, Gaul, Britain, America, lie folded already in the first man. Epoch after epoch, camp, kingdom, empire, republic, democracy, are merely the application of his manifold spirit to the manifold world.
3
The essay’s title asserts there is meaning to life, but the essay states that meaning is just a visceral or gut feeling that we have about things, like the emotions of joy or disgust or even despair.
The author does not mention the role of anxiety in despair. The pleasure of discovery is what drives us to find out about the world. The anxiety of the unknown, however, limits our pleasure in discovery and yet anxiety is an even more important emotion than pleasure in many ways. Our anxieties are what keep us safe since anxiety keeps us from walking off of cliffs or into traffic.
The pleasure and anxiety about discovery are two key emotions that provide an inherent purpose and meaning for each life. The pleasure of discovery, after all, takes on many forms and is why we are who each of us are.
In a sense, then, there is no mystery to life’s meaning and purpose since our purpose is driven by the pleasure of discovery. The mystery is how anxiety can overwhelm that pleasure and rob life of any meaning and purpose. The author mentions that “a bout of spontaneous depression is a despair of feeling that nothing in life is worth pursuing.” This means that the overwhelming anxiety of despair precludes any pleasure in the discovery of the world.
Therefore the irony in life’s meaning is that while anxiety is a very important emotion for survival, life’s meaning and purpose naturally emerge from the pleasure of discovery despite any anxious feeling.
The author does not mention the role of anxiety in despair. The pleasure of discovery is what drives us to find out about the world. The anxiety of the unknown, however, limits our pleasure in discovery and yet anxiety is an even more important emotion than pleasure in many ways. Our anxieties are what keep us safe since anxiety keeps us from walking off of cliffs or into traffic.
The pleasure and anxiety about discovery are two key emotions that provide an inherent purpose and meaning for each life. The pleasure of discovery, after all, takes on many forms and is why we are who each of us are.
In a sense, then, there is no mystery to life’s meaning and purpose since our purpose is driven by the pleasure of discovery. The mystery is how anxiety can overwhelm that pleasure and rob life of any meaning and purpose. The author mentions that “a bout of spontaneous depression is a despair of feeling that nothing in life is worth pursuing.” This means that the overwhelming anxiety of despair precludes any pleasure in the discovery of the world.
Therefore the irony in life’s meaning is that while anxiety is a very important emotion for survival, life’s meaning and purpose naturally emerge from the pleasure of discovery despite any anxious feeling.
6
Scientifically it is obvious that we humans, including our minds, are evolved chemical machines, based on rigorously logical mathematical patterns from which emerge even our thoughts, goals, and emotions. It is our self awareness that makes it all weird as hell.
6
A batter begins to swing before conscious deliberation to swing. Isn’t this just a learned response established by regulators of behavior previously acquired – such as the pitcher's movements, the ball's initial trajectory from the mound, etc.?
The batter never freely “chooses” to swing. Even the choice to play ball is a result of conditioned inputs of culture, of limits of body, and of regulators (often hidden) established over a lifetime. In the same way, we do not think or act responsibly (or rationally) without inputs of previously taught and experienced benefits of consensually determined responsible or rational action. When an individual’s given mental and physical conditions combine with experience, contexts of infinite variety and nuance are created. The prolific nature of these nuances creates the illusion of free will.
Our decisions, whether appearing to arise from rational intent or not, are extensions of the illusory concept of free will. Just as butter is churned from milk, decisions are mere byproducts of thought as are notions of purpose and meaning. A baby isn’t born with a passion to know who she is or what life means or whether her actions arise from free will. Yes, the exploration of who we are is a wonderful occupation. But only if it points to the reason we explore: to fill the void of having failed to live, to recognize the systems and structures we erected that are suffocating us, to discover the way back to life, and then to live fully.
The batter never freely “chooses” to swing. Even the choice to play ball is a result of conditioned inputs of culture, of limits of body, and of regulators (often hidden) established over a lifetime. In the same way, we do not think or act responsibly (or rationally) without inputs of previously taught and experienced benefits of consensually determined responsible or rational action. When an individual’s given mental and physical conditions combine with experience, contexts of infinite variety and nuance are created. The prolific nature of these nuances creates the illusion of free will.
Our decisions, whether appearing to arise from rational intent or not, are extensions of the illusory concept of free will. Just as butter is churned from milk, decisions are mere byproducts of thought as are notions of purpose and meaning. A baby isn’t born with a passion to know who she is or what life means or whether her actions arise from free will. Yes, the exploration of who we are is a wonderful occupation. But only if it points to the reason we explore: to fill the void of having failed to live, to recognize the systems and structures we erected that are suffocating us, to discover the way back to life, and then to live fully.
11
I wish this article was instead titled "A Life of Meaning (References to "The Brain" Not Required)"!
2
It's ironic that Hawking et al proclaim that philosophy is dead because philosophers aren't modern physicists, while ignoring the fact that highly trained philosophers of physics would laugh at his questionable claim. Is Hawking's "A History of Time" a work of physics or philosophy? Entertaining as the little booklet is, can each and every claim of Hawkings' be proven by his theoretical physics? If not, why not? It would be safe to say that many of his most interesting claims are speculations pure and simple. This is not a bad thing, however. Why? So long as one tries to think something through, one philosophizes whether ones knows it or not. The first great Western mathematical physicist-philosopher Rene Descartes was humble enough to realize that his grasp of both mathematics and physics would not by itself be sufficient address the big questions thinking humans cannot help asking. Hawkings et al would do well to reflect on the limits of their knowledge and methodology.
4
Discussions such as this always bring
me back to the first chapter from the Tao Te Ching, by Lao Tzu:
The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The named is the beginning of ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.
Both of these spring from the same place, but differ in name; this appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery.
Everything's a mystery. The closer you look, the further away the truth seems.
me back to the first chapter from the Tao Te Ching, by Lao Tzu:
The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The named is the beginning of ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.
Both of these spring from the same place, but differ in name; this appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery.
Everything's a mystery. The closer you look, the further away the truth seems.
6
It may be that there is a coherent argument in this piece, but it has eluded me in two fairly careful readings. It would seem to be related to the assertion that "...the greatest challenge for philosophy will be to remain relevant while conceding that, like the rest of the animal kingdom, we are decision-making organisms rather than rational agents, and that our most logical conclusions about moral and ethical values can’t be scientifically verified nor guaranteed to pass the test of time. "
I scratch my head. What is this "philosophy" that is said to "have a challenge"? What is the "Philosophy" which Stephen Hawking is said to have "gleefully declared" dead? In what way is this "philosophy" in any way a thing, being, or domain that has an (implied) goal or intention--which intention seems not to have been realized, and whose capacity to intend at all may have once lived and now be dead?
How is it that "the word rational" can lead us to anything, let alone to scientifically unsound conclusions? What is demonstrated by the finding that neural activity precedes "conscious decision" to initiate action?
I will look for further essays by the author, in hopes of better understanding the points he evidently wishes to make. In the meantime I confess myself stumped by this confident communication.
I scratch my head. What is this "philosophy" that is said to "have a challenge"? What is the "Philosophy" which Stephen Hawking is said to have "gleefully declared" dead? In what way is this "philosophy" in any way a thing, being, or domain that has an (implied) goal or intention--which intention seems not to have been realized, and whose capacity to intend at all may have once lived and now be dead?
How is it that "the word rational" can lead us to anything, let alone to scientifically unsound conclusions? What is demonstrated by the finding that neural activity precedes "conscious decision" to initiate action?
I will look for further essays by the author, in hopes of better understanding the points he evidently wishes to make. In the meantime I confess myself stumped by this confident communication.
3
Not the centuries-old "no free will" thing again. That idea can't stand a second of scrutiny. Originally, it was a religious idea, designed to prove that God, that greatest of excuses, was responsible for everything in toto, all the time... In which case nothing would ever happen for any comprehensible reason, and thought would be unnecessary. Not running over a child isn't that simple, either. So the science of reason has stuck its foot in its mouth, yet again. The Three Stooges of human thought, science, religion and philosophy, should get a life, not pretend to understand it. There is nothing more disgusting than a whole series of "disciplines" (absurd name for three pompous forms of quoting pre-rehearsed, banal pseudo-logic) yet again pronouncing that only they understand anything. Drivel. Revise.
2
this argument runs up against a basic objection: if i have a "taste" for unethical or criminal behavior, then burton's style of philosophy has really nothing to say about it.
underneath is a thicket of non sequiturs, from the loose equivalence of "rational" (guided by logic and evidence) with "reasonable" (what is appropriate in the situation, such as braking for a child), or "strip away biases and innate subjectivity" (a grisly flaying of human nature) with philosophical inquiry.
worst, forms of reasoning and verification are clearly not forms of perception or taste. perception is a largely involuntary neural response shaped by development and experience; reason is the delay of action pending an abstract manipulation of possibilities.
philosophy is indeed dead, if philosophy means discovering fundamental truths of existence (science assumed that role centuries ago) or giving purpose to ethical judgments (the enlightenment blasted that premise). but it can have other roles. it's irrelevant that we lack free will when we exercise reason: it matters that reason is not reflexive. it does not have to be free, so long as it is different.
this is the crux. reason requires us to recognize when our evidence is biased or our conclusions kneejerk. so long as it is better than a reflex, it has value.
underneath is a thicket of non sequiturs, from the loose equivalence of "rational" (guided by logic and evidence) with "reasonable" (what is appropriate in the situation, such as braking for a child), or "strip away biases and innate subjectivity" (a grisly flaying of human nature) with philosophical inquiry.
worst, forms of reasoning and verification are clearly not forms of perception or taste. perception is a largely involuntary neural response shaped by development and experience; reason is the delay of action pending an abstract manipulation of possibilities.
philosophy is indeed dead, if philosophy means discovering fundamental truths of existence (science assumed that role centuries ago) or giving purpose to ethical judgments (the enlightenment blasted that premise). but it can have other roles. it's irrelevant that we lack free will when we exercise reason: it matters that reason is not reflexive. it does not have to be free, so long as it is different.
this is the crux. reason requires us to recognize when our evidence is biased or our conclusions kneejerk. so long as it is better than a reflex, it has value.
4
Sleep on it.
4
Feeling and thought are two distinct kinds of knowing. Why then is it necessary for philosophy to "bridge this gap"? Instead, it should look to and expand each kind of knowing to help "guide us to a better life," emotionally, rationally, morally and aesthetically.
3
I was at a Sunday lunch outside of Bogota yesterday, high in the mountains in a bucolic setting with spectacular views of the cordillera. When the subject turned to politics, the guests quickly polarized over the upcoming plebiscite. Most supported the SÍ campaign (yes to end the war) but a few indignant guests insisted that the accords were a sham and would lead to impunity for war crimes. Positions hardened; intolerance flared. One indignant gentleman got up from the table, motioned to his wife to follow him, and walked out. Outside he cursed obscenities while they got into their car and hastily drove away.
Were these positions the result of some genetic predisposition toward conservative or progressive thought, for war over peace? Is there a gene for a preference for military solutions to intractable social problems?
Curiously, at the lunch, a young woman, the daughter of the host, was genuinely trying to understand the arguments on both sides. The more she probed, one could see the light bulb turning on as she made good use of her reason to understand the problems facing her country.
Despite the studies of the neuroscientists, Sr. Burton, reason can advance in the light of rational discussion. Great teachers change minds. They do so with passion and pedagogy but mostly through the use of reason. If we completely removed reason from the public debate, life would indeed be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
Were these positions the result of some genetic predisposition toward conservative or progressive thought, for war over peace? Is there a gene for a preference for military solutions to intractable social problems?
Curiously, at the lunch, a young woman, the daughter of the host, was genuinely trying to understand the arguments on both sides. The more she probed, one could see the light bulb turning on as she made good use of her reason to understand the problems facing her country.
Despite the studies of the neuroscientists, Sr. Burton, reason can advance in the light of rational discussion. Great teachers change minds. They do so with passion and pedagogy but mostly through the use of reason. If we completely removed reason from the public debate, life would indeed be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
7
MADNESS IN THE METHOD?
In discussing rationality the very important difference between deductive and inductive reasoning needs to be made, or a la Kant, between pure reason and practical reason or judgement. A "categorical imperative" of judgement Nietzsche has shown still needs to be informed by a judgement of values which can only be personal, subjective and anchored in emotion and biology. No judgement of value based on the general good stands the test of what the individual finds to be good.
Free will is best understood as Sartre does in "Being and Nothingness" on the level of life orientation or project and not on agency in daily actions. Free will can not be anchored in deductive or practical reason but only in the broader all encompassing reason of deduction and judgement. Here the selection of the appropriate field of experience is itself informed by the emotions which enlarge or reduce the field of experience depending on where they take the individual.
This discussion is rendered more difficult by an observation made originally by Wittgenstein of the inadequacy of language strategies to describe complex experience. We are individuals for whom reason is a late tool in our evolutionary process and our reason will remain subordinate to a reality which surpasses its bounds, our misplaced pride in the achievements of our science notwithstanding.
In discussing rationality the very important difference between deductive and inductive reasoning needs to be made, or a la Kant, between pure reason and practical reason or judgement. A "categorical imperative" of judgement Nietzsche has shown still needs to be informed by a judgement of values which can only be personal, subjective and anchored in emotion and biology. No judgement of value based on the general good stands the test of what the individual finds to be good.
Free will is best understood as Sartre does in "Being and Nothingness" on the level of life orientation or project and not on agency in daily actions. Free will can not be anchored in deductive or practical reason but only in the broader all encompassing reason of deduction and judgement. Here the selection of the appropriate field of experience is itself informed by the emotions which enlarge or reduce the field of experience depending on where they take the individual.
This discussion is rendered more difficult by an observation made originally by Wittgenstein of the inadequacy of language strategies to describe complex experience. We are individuals for whom reason is a late tool in our evolutionary process and our reason will remain subordinate to a reality which surpasses its bounds, our misplaced pride in the achievements of our science notwithstanding.
2
A far too narrowly reasoned piece: with humans and even in the same person, it "sometimes this way and sometimes that way" based on age, circumstance, wellness, or even a family argument, let alone being guided by one's Effexor. There is a capacity to learn and that does modify human response, but not always predictably or consistently. This sentence "If philosophy is to guide us to a better life, it must somehow bridge this gap between feeling and thought." Nonsense. That is neither proven/nor necessarily the case. Sometimes it is charity, anger, education, morality, instinct, being rational & "Sometimes it is & sometimes it isn't." HRS, MD, FACC
1
Man that's deep...my brain hurts....i's that rational thought? Perhaps
If you need to bridge the gap between feeling and thought you might try letting your experience get through the muck...that is...get your brain out of the way....it's hogging all your attention. If you can't enjoy a good meal, no wonder you get depressed.
2
"We describe the decision to jam on the brakes at the sight of a child running into the road as being rational, even when we understand that it is reflexive. However, few of us would say that a self-driving car performing the same maneuver was acting rationally."
Well, if a self-driving car fails to jam on the brakes we send the car to the repair shop or perhaps simply junk it. If a person fails to jam on the brakes he/she is likely to get her license revoked and perhaps also see the inside of a prison.
“The difference between a lady and a flower girl is not how she behaves, but how she’s treated.”
Bernard Shaw in Pygmalion.
Well, if a self-driving car fails to jam on the brakes we send the car to the repair shop or perhaps simply junk it. If a person fails to jam on the brakes he/she is likely to get her license revoked and perhaps also see the inside of a prison.
“The difference between a lady and a flower girl is not how she behaves, but how she’s treated.”
Bernard Shaw in Pygmalion.
1
"Philosophers" can't accept that we have a scientific theory, evolution by natural selection, that provides a framework for re-casting the speculative questions raised in this piece into empirically testable hypotheses, in part by eliminating certain kinds of explanations as bunk.
If mammals have feelings, but only one species of mammals has thoughts," then thought must be modified feeling. They can't be antithetical. The phylogeny of feeling might proceed with (a) zero order feelings in response to changes in internal state (pain, thirst, hunger), (b) first order feelings triggered by external objects (emotions (hate, love, anger, hope etc), (c) second order feelings (thoughts) associated with communication about (a) and (b). Suzanne Langer suggested something like this decades ago.
Libet's experiments do not negate free will. Zero-order feelings and responses should be more rapid than first order feelings and responses, with second order feelings and responses (thought, rational decision) being the slowest. It does not follow that thought is epiphenomenal and we lack free will. A baseball player, through coaching, film study etc., can alter his stance, swing and "approach," even if he can't do it on the spot. That is "free will" --a higher level function regulating/altering a lower level one. What else would or could it be? Similarly, a concert pianists key strokes are not acts of free will. But learning how to do it was free will.
If mammals have feelings, but only one species of mammals has thoughts," then thought must be modified feeling. They can't be antithetical. The phylogeny of feeling might proceed with (a) zero order feelings in response to changes in internal state (pain, thirst, hunger), (b) first order feelings triggered by external objects (emotions (hate, love, anger, hope etc), (c) second order feelings (thoughts) associated with communication about (a) and (b). Suzanne Langer suggested something like this decades ago.
Libet's experiments do not negate free will. Zero-order feelings and responses should be more rapid than first order feelings and responses, with second order feelings and responses (thought, rational decision) being the slowest. It does not follow that thought is epiphenomenal and we lack free will. A baseball player, through coaching, film study etc., can alter his stance, swing and "approach," even if he can't do it on the spot. That is "free will" --a higher level function regulating/altering a lower level one. What else would or could it be? Similarly, a concert pianists key strokes are not acts of free will. But learning how to do it was free will.
1
"It is unlikely that there is any fundamental difference in how the brain initiates thought and action." The failure of rational discourse always starts with a reasonable sounding, but incorrect, assertion. The fact that two processes are related does not imply they are the same. The conclusion that the experience of free will is an illusion is not supported by the argument presented. Free will exists and will continue to do so.
P.S. I freely chose to write this. :-)
P.S. I freely chose to write this. :-)
Nothingness is more comforting than meaning.
2
"Philosophy is dead"? Darn! Here I am late in life, finally reading, discovering and enjoying the philosophic works of the centuries and you're telling me it passed away or passed me by! To the contrary, the stuff sparkles and shines with speculative truths and fun I never imagined. I'm late to the party but it seems to be going strong.
7
Isn't the gap between feeling and thought exactly what religious belief claims to do for people. In order to buy into religious ideas one has to cast aside reason and many people have convinced themselves that their is a heaven and they will be going there after death. There is zero proof of this but they will cling to this belief until the end dragging all along that will also suspend reason for this belief. So this whole question remains one of mystery and needs more study.
1
All you need is love
2
I wish I had a reason for why this article made my brain hurt.
This column seems rather lightweight, on a number of counts. The first is that this is not a new problem generated by neuroscience; the same arguments about determinism and free will are chewed over and again by 18thc rational philosophers (e.g. William Godwin and half the Philosophes) and, in not-so-different forms, by the Greeks. Second, there are all kinds of "philosophy"; some of it system-building, some confined to skeptical analysis of existing ideologies. The system-building kind has indeed been pretty much futile since Hume and Kant. More modest philosophical endeavors have long maintained, with Hume, that attempting any perfectly rational building up of systematic knowledge in some Euclid-like deductive manner runs afoul of contradictions and paradoxes. Philosophy is alive and well applying reason as a corrective to each new enthusiasm of each era.
1
I'm moved to add another comment after reading some of the interesting thoughts contributed by other readers.
On the question of reason versus reflex, we surely slam on the brakes to avoid hitting someone because we know that the consequences of car hitting person are bad for everyone -- the person hit, the driver, and others as well. It's a learned behavior, and in that sense rational. But we don't think through the thing when it happens; we instinctively slam on the brakes. Reflex is perhaps the wrong word if we use the narrow definition of it, i.e., a physical reaction requiring no thought whatsoever. But the meaning of reflex can extend to "instinctive" behaviors based on learning. And that doesn't require reasoning in any philosophical sense. Cave men learned through experience to react in certain ways to certain situations; they didn't need a rational, philosophical basis for their "reflex" actions.
Of course, my hair-splitting above is what so many people object to in what passes for contemporary philosophy. So much of it is tied up in semantic knots. Anyway, the comments today are a lot more interesting that the shaky arguments put forward by this particular author.
On the question of reason versus reflex, we surely slam on the brakes to avoid hitting someone because we know that the consequences of car hitting person are bad for everyone -- the person hit, the driver, and others as well. It's a learned behavior, and in that sense rational. But we don't think through the thing when it happens; we instinctively slam on the brakes. Reflex is perhaps the wrong word if we use the narrow definition of it, i.e., a physical reaction requiring no thought whatsoever. But the meaning of reflex can extend to "instinctive" behaviors based on learning. And that doesn't require reasoning in any philosophical sense. Cave men learned through experience to react in certain ways to certain situations; they didn't need a rational, philosophical basis for their "reflex" actions.
Of course, my hair-splitting above is what so many people object to in what passes for contemporary philosophy. So much of it is tied up in semantic knots. Anyway, the comments today are a lot more interesting that the shaky arguments put forward by this particular author.
1
As usual, in the comments section, everyone is an expert.
3
Philosophy is dead?
I live in America--Land of the Free, Home of the Brave. But America does not seem particularly free or brave when it comes to philosophy or science or just questioning in general. I often hear certain things are dead--like philosophy or literature or art--but in actuality the things that are considered alive in America are safe things like religion or technological advancement without depth of thought and rather obvious political constructs. Controversial philosophers are played down. Certain branches of science are played down (biology, Darwin, evolution). Literature--acute analysis of individuals and society--is played down. Computers, physics (which easily coexists with religion), etc. are played up.
I find difficult not to conclude that Americans are neither particularly free nor brave. I will now perform a basic feat of reasoning--call it philosophy or what you will--as an example. I am told scientific testing on animals to point of harm to animal is necessary for any number of aspects of life in America--from medicine to cosmetics. But in America this sacrifice of animals is far from being played up in American life. We are apparently not entrusted, free, brave enough, to weigh the decision, say, between killing an animal to get our medicine or taking our medicine at all. Why not really show Americans all their life is founded on?
But no, we prefer Disneyland, computer geekery, Stephen Hawking, etc. Philosophy dead or are we just cowards?
I live in America--Land of the Free, Home of the Brave. But America does not seem particularly free or brave when it comes to philosophy or science or just questioning in general. I often hear certain things are dead--like philosophy or literature or art--but in actuality the things that are considered alive in America are safe things like religion or technological advancement without depth of thought and rather obvious political constructs. Controversial philosophers are played down. Certain branches of science are played down (biology, Darwin, evolution). Literature--acute analysis of individuals and society--is played down. Computers, physics (which easily coexists with religion), etc. are played up.
I find difficult not to conclude that Americans are neither particularly free nor brave. I will now perform a basic feat of reasoning--call it philosophy or what you will--as an example. I am told scientific testing on animals to point of harm to animal is necessary for any number of aspects of life in America--from medicine to cosmetics. But in America this sacrifice of animals is far from being played up in American life. We are apparently not entrusted, free, brave enough, to weigh the decision, say, between killing an animal to get our medicine or taking our medicine at all. Why not really show Americans all their life is founded on?
But no, we prefer Disneyland, computer geekery, Stephen Hawking, etc. Philosophy dead or are we just cowards?
2
"Though we don’t know how thoughts are produced by the brain..." Well, actually, we don't know for certain that thoughts are "produced by the brain" at all. The unexamined assumption that mind is a function of the physical body permeates modern culture, just one aspect of its materialist reductionism. It could be quite the other way around: physical reality is the product of mind. I recommend exploring the work of Donald Hoffman, Professor of Cognitive Science at UC Irvine.
4
"Remain relevant?" When exactly was philosophy relevant? To whom?
1
I asked my Rabbi, "What is the meaning of life". He told me the meaning of life, but he told it to me in Hebrew. I don't speak Hebrew. Then he wanted to charge me $100 a month for Hebrew lessons. - Woody Allen
1
Emotion trumps reason -- every time.
1
Two thoughts come to mind... first a favorite saying from an Indian spiritual teacher Sri Nisargadatta who famously said "the mind creates the abyss that the heart crosses." The other is a comment by a professor during a class on statistics who coined the phrase "cookies for the mind."
The mind does what it does, spinning thoughts eternally that we often pick up, examine, frame and re-frame believing that in doing so we are coming to an understanding of this or that, including the meaning of our lives.
I appreciate the distinction made by Ramesh Balsekar, once head of the Bank of India, who in later life followed his teacher into the world of non-duality. He speaks about the "thinking mind" and the "working mind." The working mind makes airplane reservations and doctor's appointments. The thinking mind spins its theories, offering unending entertainment when it is not casting us into the hell of doubt and self-abasement.
I'm especially fond of the quote from Longchenpa, the fourteenth Century practitioner of Dzogchen who said "Since everything is but an apparition, perfect in being what it is... having nothing to do with good or bad, acceptance or rejection, one may well burst out in laughter."
Sometimes we work much too hard at what is simply inhabiting this moment, and this moment... heart open, belly soft, mind relaxed. :-)
The mind does what it does, spinning thoughts eternally that we often pick up, examine, frame and re-frame believing that in doing so we are coming to an understanding of this or that, including the meaning of our lives.
I appreciate the distinction made by Ramesh Balsekar, once head of the Bank of India, who in later life followed his teacher into the world of non-duality. He speaks about the "thinking mind" and the "working mind." The working mind makes airplane reservations and doctor's appointments. The thinking mind spins its theories, offering unending entertainment when it is not casting us into the hell of doubt and self-abasement.
I'm especially fond of the quote from Longchenpa, the fourteenth Century practitioner of Dzogchen who said "Since everything is but an apparition, perfect in being what it is... having nothing to do with good or bad, acceptance or rejection, one may well burst out in laughter."
Sometimes we work much too hard at what is simply inhabiting this moment, and this moment... heart open, belly soft, mind relaxed. :-)
2
There is no "meaning" to life and no use in seeking a conceptual package to explain. We have little choice, but to accept the utter improbability of each human being's existence.
There is no reason, only observation.
How many "illions" of sperm and ova have been washed away; most of which could have become recognizably sentient life?
Questions and explanations of this sort evade rather than deal with the existence of others who affect each of us at one point in time or another. As much as I try, the "visceral sense of meaning" in my life has never been "an involuntary mental state"
The now infrequent use of the term "navel gazing" comes to mind.
Thought does not just come to mind, it evolves and builds, sometimes adding to the lasting mental structure known by others as individual. As thought gains in volume and substance this structure then allows further constructioin until that finally crumbles, is sometime remembered and occasionally sorted in the pile of rubble we all leave behind.
Philosophy is and has never been more than a zombie thought which simply wades through culture taking those who are unwary or bored with existence to places that only exist for the unwary and bored.
We will never know ourselves or even take much time examine our lives. We will just live. To ask for or expect any more may fill pages, but will never bring anyone any closer to the answer of the question.
There is no reason, only observation.
How many "illions" of sperm and ova have been washed away; most of which could have become recognizably sentient life?
Questions and explanations of this sort evade rather than deal with the existence of others who affect each of us at one point in time or another. As much as I try, the "visceral sense of meaning" in my life has never been "an involuntary mental state"
The now infrequent use of the term "navel gazing" comes to mind.
Thought does not just come to mind, it evolves and builds, sometimes adding to the lasting mental structure known by others as individual. As thought gains in volume and substance this structure then allows further constructioin until that finally crumbles, is sometime remembered and occasionally sorted in the pile of rubble we all leave behind.
Philosophy is and has never been more than a zombie thought which simply wades through culture taking those who are unwary or bored with existence to places that only exist for the unwary and bored.
We will never know ourselves or even take much time examine our lives. We will just live. To ask for or expect any more may fill pages, but will never bring anyone any closer to the answer of the question.
1
"When man becomes aware of the movement of his own thoughts he will see the division between the thinker and thought, the observer and the observed, the experiencer and the experience. He will discover that this division is an illusion. Then only is there pure observation which is insight without any shadow of the past or of time. This timeless insight brings about a deep radical mutation in the mind."
- J. Krishnamurti
http://www.staff.uni-giessen.de/~gk1415/core.htm
- J. Krishnamurti
http://www.staff.uni-giessen.de/~gk1415/core.htm
1
Thought will not solve our problems: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxWPGkzG8Lk
Reading this article I was immediately reminded of Heisenberg's book "Physics and Philosophy" in which he discusses the theoretical and empirical results brought about with the development of quantum physics, at the same time giving an insight into the extent to which such results go beyond the scope of pure science and affect fundamental philosophical conceptions of reality and of the place of man in it.
The central theme of Heisenberg's exposition is that words and concepts familiar in daily life can lose their meaning in the world of relativity and quantum physics. Thus questions about space and time, or the qualities of material objects such as their positions, which seem entirely reasonable in everyday discourse, cannot always be meaningfully answered. This in turn has profound implications for the nature of reality and our world view.
It also asserts that certain types of question, which sound perfectly reasonable and meaningful, have no unambiguous answer, such as free will.
I have adopted a pragmatic conception of free will. I strive to live as free of constraints as possible. The only exception should be restrictions that I deliberately and consciously impose on myself, mainly restraints motivated by ethical concerns: do not hurt others and try to leave the planet a better place than you found it. Second, I try to understand my unconscious motivations, desires and fears better. I reflect deeper about my own actions and emotions than my younger self did.
The central theme of Heisenberg's exposition is that words and concepts familiar in daily life can lose their meaning in the world of relativity and quantum physics. Thus questions about space and time, or the qualities of material objects such as their positions, which seem entirely reasonable in everyday discourse, cannot always be meaningfully answered. This in turn has profound implications for the nature of reality and our world view.
It also asserts that certain types of question, which sound perfectly reasonable and meaningful, have no unambiguous answer, such as free will.
I have adopted a pragmatic conception of free will. I strive to live as free of constraints as possible. The only exception should be restrictions that I deliberately and consciously impose on myself, mainly restraints motivated by ethical concerns: do not hurt others and try to leave the planet a better place than you found it. Second, I try to understand my unconscious motivations, desires and fears better. I reflect deeper about my own actions and emotions than my younger self did.
9
Any relationship between the wild west of thoughts and feelings is undermined by a basic premise of being a human being, which is that we have no direct control over our feelings. (When was the last time you woke up and told yourself, "Today I am going to feel optimistic.") Likewise, it is the unique human attribute of language which allows us to navigate the their essential instability.
1
Meaning is meaningless. All you need in life is contentment, and the good news is it's a personal choice. Now pass the red wine or whatever that is you're smoking.
2
"We study the lessons of history, read philosophy, and seek out wise men with the hope of learning what matters. But this acquired knowledge is not the same as the felt sense that one’s life is meaningful." Yeah, or mostly we don't.
In the garden of humanity, 98% is weeds. For most, entertainment, reproduction and income earning take all the energy one has. Groupthink and mediocrity suffice. Self awareness is threatening. A few talented individuals pursue higher things, most watch TV and turn junk food into dung.
In the garden of humanity, 98% is weeds. For most, entertainment, reproduction and income earning take all the energy one has. Groupthink and mediocrity suffice. Self awareness is threatening. A few talented individuals pursue higher things, most watch TV and turn junk food into dung.
4
If philosophy is to remain relevant, it must focus on bridging the gaps between thinking and action, and action and consequences. Anything else is a distraction - and as new industrial grade ideological positions are constructed out of new (and old) materials that can span the gap that separates 'enlightened' thinking from criminal or economically parasitic practices, we witness a whole new generation of crazy and dangerous thinking. So we should give up on enlightening thinking, help people become less clever, and learn to walk around with our eyes open.
This comment may not be relevant to what the author was trying to get to in his essay. I'm not really sure what he is saying, we may even be agreeing with one another.
This comment may not be relevant to what the author was trying to get to in his essay. I'm not really sure what he is saying, we may even be agreeing with one another.
1
So it gets down to defining philosophy. That has too often been a toy for the privileged and a job for propagandists who are tasked with hiding the vacuum at the heart of their dogma. Too often, philosophers work in the absence of adequate data. When are we likely to have sufficient data so that we may discuss free will, the soul, original sin, and eternity sensibly?
1
I cannot fathom why the NYTimes continues to invite scientists to bloviate over the relevance of philosophy. Beginning with his initial, amateurish conflation of mental phenomena with "neurological reality," then his unironic use of rational argument to dismantle confidence in rationality, then his fundamental failure to appreciate even the role philosophy plays in making the scientific method possible - Burton's way out of his pay grade here.
Philosophers of mind can straightforwardly acknowledge that the mental phenomena they investigate and seek to understand may have a surprising and biologically-determined relationship to underlying neurological phenomena. Moral and ethical philosophers can similarly acknowledge that moral intuitions have neurological (and not merely socio-cultural) bases. But this doesn't undermine philosophy any more than it undermines mathematics, logic, or scientific inquiry itself.
We do not declare that "mathematics is dead" just because our brains aren't naturally wired to comprehend n-dimensional space or infinity; we do not throw up our hands at the possibility of scientific inquiry because we realize that our decisions whether the rigors of the scientific method have been met in any given case ultimately rests upon neurologically-determined "conclusions" that we rationalize only post hoc. Similarly, philosophy still has much to do, even in a world where its scope is hemmed in by neurological reality.
Philosophers of mind can straightforwardly acknowledge that the mental phenomena they investigate and seek to understand may have a surprising and biologically-determined relationship to underlying neurological phenomena. Moral and ethical philosophers can similarly acknowledge that moral intuitions have neurological (and not merely socio-cultural) bases. But this doesn't undermine philosophy any more than it undermines mathematics, logic, or scientific inquiry itself.
We do not declare that "mathematics is dead" just because our brains aren't naturally wired to comprehend n-dimensional space or infinity; we do not throw up our hands at the possibility of scientific inquiry because we realize that our decisions whether the rigors of the scientific method have been met in any given case ultimately rests upon neurologically-determined "conclusions" that we rationalize only post hoc. Similarly, philosophy still has much to do, even in a world where its scope is hemmed in by neurological reality.
I would posit that our chemical and physical "brain states" and emotions are the result of thoughts, actions and the meaning we attribute to those thoughts and actions, not the reverse. Since these findings are correlational, not causally proven, it isn't clear to me that the author's thesis is rational. He's putting the cart before the horse. It only appears that the brain chemistry drives our feelings and actions and that, according to the brain science of automaticity, we are just reacting to those brain states.
2
Western philosophical thought foundered on shoals of complexity.
Contemplate Einstein's most famous equation while reading, say, "Being and Nothingness".
The elegance of simplicity is an essential feature of real attainment.
Complexity is, conversely, too often used to obfuscate essential confusion.
Linguistic puzzles may delight the mind but they are junk food, not soul food.
Overthinking is fundamentally unhealthy. It is quite literally bad for you. Moreover, it is unproductive.
Philosophy is not science and it does not progress.
Philosophy is an an art form. It evolves but never gets better.
More complexity, especially, is not better.
Less is better...
Contemplate Einstein's most famous equation while reading, say, "Being and Nothingness".
The elegance of simplicity is an essential feature of real attainment.
Complexity is, conversely, too often used to obfuscate essential confusion.
Linguistic puzzles may delight the mind but they are junk food, not soul food.
Overthinking is fundamentally unhealthy. It is quite literally bad for you. Moreover, it is unproductive.
Philosophy is not science and it does not progress.
Philosophy is an an art form. It evolves but never gets better.
More complexity, especially, is not better.
Less is better...
19
If we cannot know, we should at least be as honest as the ancient Greeks who sought perfection in mind and body by guaranteeing freedom of speech in the Agora, a special area near the market place safe from all religious or political influence. Seeking perfection is not the same as imposing perfection on others.
2
Can and have read Being and Nothingness over several pleasurable weeks. Einstein's equation on the other hand has caused me years of fruitless efforts to understand it and its implications for a disorderly univers, perplexing.
Tao,
I wonder if you ever watched those John Ralston Saul lectures. Voltaire's Bastards subtitled THe Dictatorship of Reason in The West addresses the issues very well. His latest book the Comeback 2014 explores solutions and unlike Voltaire's Bastards is short and concise and not overly complex and looks at the philosophy of our native population. The expression thinking outside the box sure doesn't take into account who we are. I imagine from the perspective of conservatives and neoliberals Saul might be more dangerous than the other Red Menace of most of my life.
I wonder if you ever watched those John Ralston Saul lectures. Voltaire's Bastards subtitled THe Dictatorship of Reason in The West addresses the issues very well. His latest book the Comeback 2014 explores solutions and unlike Voltaire's Bastards is short and concise and not overly complex and looks at the philosophy of our native population. The expression thinking outside the box sure doesn't take into account who we are. I imagine from the perspective of conservatives and neoliberals Saul might be more dangerous than the other Red Menace of most of my life.
1
"Life is a mystery to be lived, not a problem to be solved." S. Kierkegard
16
You say No Matter, I say Never Mind.
6
To ask the question, "What is the meaning of Life", is to simultaneously answer the question. It's that simple.
What is more meaningful, than to bring meaning to what is inherently meaningless? That's the ultimate gift of life.
What is more meaningful, than to bring meaning to what is inherently meaningless? That's the ultimate gift of life.
5
What is the meaning of "meaning", in this context?
I am not totally dismissive of philosophy but can never get out of my mind my husband's college chum's description of it as "the endless elaboration of the perfectly obvious."
10
You should familiarize yourself with Quine's argument that there is no such thing as the "right translation" from one language to another.
This is called the indeterminacy of radical translation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_translation
It is hardly obvious because most of us take it for granted that there is a difference between a book from one language to another translated correctly and translated incorrectly.
Philosophers have come up with some radical ideas which are a bit hard to take in, let alone find obvious.
Here is another puzzle for you. As we know now, an atom is mostly empty space - the nucleus and the electrons take up hardly any room. Now a table is made up of atoms, so why is it that when we see a table we do not see a lot of holes but see something solid?
This is called the indeterminacy of radical translation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_translation
It is hardly obvious because most of us take it for granted that there is a difference between a book from one language to another translated correctly and translated incorrectly.
Philosophers have come up with some radical ideas which are a bit hard to take in, let alone find obvious.
Here is another puzzle for you. As we know now, an atom is mostly empty space - the nucleus and the electrons take up hardly any room. Now a table is made up of atoms, so why is it that when we see a table we do not see a lot of holes but see something solid?
1
What his chum means by "philosophy" is not obvious. :-)
But seriously, philosophy is, in part, the rigorous elaboration of initially vague and ambiguous concepts. See, for example, the discussion of the meaning of "courage" in Plato's "Laches".
"Plato Unmasked: The Dialogues Made New" by Keith Quincy.
But seriously, philosophy is, in part, the rigorous elaboration of initially vague and ambiguous concepts. See, for example, the discussion of the meaning of "courage" in Plato's "Laches".
"Plato Unmasked: The Dialogues Made New" by Keith Quincy.
When I took philosophy in college I heard it referred to as "mental masturbation", a fine way to waste time, but in the end not as satisfactory as the real thing.
1
"In the 1980s the neurophysiologist Ben Libet of the University of California, San Francisco, showed that the brain generates action-specific electrical activity nearly half a second before the subject consciously “decides” to initiate the action. Though interpretations of the results are the subject of considerable controversy, a number of subsequent studies have confirmed that the conscious sense of willing an action is preceded by subliminal brain activity likely to indicate that the brain is preparing to initiate the action."
This is one of the most over-interpreted and misinterpreted research results around. Pre-conscious action is not necessarily a negation of free will. It can certainly be part of free will, since our free will is predicated upon experience and pre-conscious processes can be due to experience-dependent responses to perceptions.
The only way this experiment negates the concept of free will is if you posit a very specific, and really very sterile, definition of free will.
This is one of the most over-interpreted and misinterpreted research results around. Pre-conscious action is not necessarily a negation of free will. It can certainly be part of free will, since our free will is predicated upon experience and pre-conscious processes can be due to experience-dependent responses to perceptions.
The only way this experiment negates the concept of free will is if you posit a very specific, and really very sterile, definition of free will.
11
I agree. The "action specific electrical activity" could just be the precursor, physiologically, to the decision becoming fully conscious and precipitating action or inaction. It proves nothing.
2
The argument for free will arose to counter the philosophical argument for determinism and the related theistic belief in predestination. Philosophical determinism claims that only one course of events is possible, that there is no choice to be made voluntarily, that there is no intrinsic agency in human behavior and that free will is an illusion, a nice story we tell ouselves. The ancient Greeks believed in a pantheon of gods and goddesses who competed to be the determiner-in-chief of individual human lives. As subsequent Western civilizations collapsed the Greek pantheon into an all-seeing, all-powerful and all-knowing single deity, determinism morphed into predestination, which posits that everything that happens (or doesn't) is predetermined by a supernatural God who "works in mysterious ways". Until the past century or two, disputing such beliefs could, and often did, get you killed in Christian societies, and still can in some Western environs and also in all too much of the Muslim world. This reply is proof positive of free will and I can say without hesitation or deception that I, and I alone, is the author.
Recommended reading: "The Power of Myth" (I believe the comment from Socrates was quoting this book) and "The Beginners Guide to Insight Meditation".
2
Not Mark...
I have lived in the US for nearly 30 years, I have traveled to 45 of the 50 states, I have lived in almost every region of the US (West coast, Southeast, the South, Upper Midwest, Southern Midwest, East coast...) and I was an educator and researcher at several colleges and universities (both small and large, private and public)...One thing that few Americans, including this author, pay attention to is the way "practice, policy, research and theory" do not integrate well in reality in the US. Americans coordinate (even that is not done well in many social services)...but they rarely integrate. This is a serious weakness in the way social theories develop and become practice or policies.
When I did qualitative research on an anti-poverty program and looked at several areas of need: like housing, transportation, child care, etc., I was shocked to find that several agencies working on housing needs for the poor, located in the same building, had no clue about each other. In transportation the capitalistic theories on physical mobility were working against the more collective theories on physical mobility...thereby stranding the poor and the disabled. There was little coordination, and certainly no integration whatsoever.
American individualism shows up even in the way systems, departments, rules, laws and policies develop, function and/or enacted.
We pay a lot of attention to coordination, and still do not do it well, but "integration"...not so much.
I have lived in the US for nearly 30 years, I have traveled to 45 of the 50 states, I have lived in almost every region of the US (West coast, Southeast, the South, Upper Midwest, Southern Midwest, East coast...) and I was an educator and researcher at several colleges and universities (both small and large, private and public)...One thing that few Americans, including this author, pay attention to is the way "practice, policy, research and theory" do not integrate well in reality in the US. Americans coordinate (even that is not done well in many social services)...but they rarely integrate. This is a serious weakness in the way social theories develop and become practice or policies.
When I did qualitative research on an anti-poverty program and looked at several areas of need: like housing, transportation, child care, etc., I was shocked to find that several agencies working on housing needs for the poor, located in the same building, had no clue about each other. In transportation the capitalistic theories on physical mobility were working against the more collective theories on physical mobility...thereby stranding the poor and the disabled. There was little coordination, and certainly no integration whatsoever.
American individualism shows up even in the way systems, departments, rules, laws and policies develop, function and/or enacted.
We pay a lot of attention to coordination, and still do not do it well, but "integration"...not so much.
22
'American individualism' is an oxymoron...
So correct.
So often the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing - even in the same organization and particularly if it is a large government organization.
Possible solution: more collaboration and communication (conference calls, published webpages, specific meeting agendas, etc.). But this can easily result in more fruitless meetings.
Wait a minute - what does this have to do with philosophy, reason and meaning in life - RAB's article?
So often the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing - even in the same organization and particularly if it is a large government organization.
Possible solution: more collaboration and communication (conference calls, published webpages, specific meeting agendas, etc.). But this can easily result in more fruitless meetings.
Wait a minute - what does this have to do with philosophy, reason and meaning in life - RAB's article?
1
Too many silos. A lot of waste and squandered opportunity, too. America is hobbled by its absurd cowboy mythology ...
2
Paint a picture instead. Or write a poem.
Don't call it "philosophy".
Don't call it "philosophy".
2
Every word in the dictionary is defined using other words.
Other than Cogito Ergo Sum, "meaning" is not derived from some existential absolute source, because there isn't any. Rather, it is the result of the complex relationships that exist between objects, things, people, ideas, emotions, etc.
Meaning is another word for connectedness.
"Philosophy is dead!", really? I'd like to know where Hawking thinks he would be without philosophy. Exactly nowhere. Try doing physics without the Scientific Method. Aristotle was a philosopher first and foremost.
There will always be people whose lives are driven by deep questions. And philosophy will continue to provide these people the tools, history, and guidance to discover the answers, ancient and new. And as a society, it will always provide a haven in which to solve them.
Philosophy dead? Only if you want to give up the study of ethics, politics, metaphysics, epistemology and aesthetics, etc, etc, etc.
As long as there are people who like to think, and they like to think about thinking, philosophy will endure.
It's a Vulcan approach to the great mysteries of life!
Other than Cogito Ergo Sum, "meaning" is not derived from some existential absolute source, because there isn't any. Rather, it is the result of the complex relationships that exist between objects, things, people, ideas, emotions, etc.
Meaning is another word for connectedness.
"Philosophy is dead!", really? I'd like to know where Hawking thinks he would be without philosophy. Exactly nowhere. Try doing physics without the Scientific Method. Aristotle was a philosopher first and foremost.
There will always be people whose lives are driven by deep questions. And philosophy will continue to provide these people the tools, history, and guidance to discover the answers, ancient and new. And as a society, it will always provide a haven in which to solve them.
Philosophy dead? Only if you want to give up the study of ethics, politics, metaphysics, epistemology and aesthetics, etc, etc, etc.
As long as there are people who like to think, and they like to think about thinking, philosophy will endure.
It's a Vulcan approach to the great mysteries of life!
8
I liked the first line regarding words and meaning...
Suppose I were to ask, "What is the meaning of music?"
Moreover, imagine you've been deaf from birth and have never heard music.
Regardless of the level of critical musical commentary, no matter how poetically, intelligently or humorously a critical review is written, it would inevitably fail to describe the music in a way that was even remotely as rich as actually listening to music for just one minute.
Life is like music...
Suppose I were to ask, "What is the meaning of music?"
Moreover, imagine you've been deaf from birth and have never heard music.
Regardless of the level of critical musical commentary, no matter how poetically, intelligently or humorously a critical review is written, it would inevitably fail to describe the music in a way that was even remotely as rich as actually listening to music for just one minute.
Life is like music...
2
Deaf people can feel the vibrations of music, at least so I have been told by some.
@Barbara: The deaf can read lips, too. Not the same as hearing, though. Similarly, the so-called normal experience of the world is not the same as the deaf experience. Some people, given the opportunity to hear for the first time, hesitate. That is wise, especially if they live in an apartment with noisy neighbors.
The Vedic philosophy of India comes to our aid here. According to the Hindus, a thought is born of fancy (due to lack of knowledge of our true self), and that leads to a desire to act (thought follows the word and an action). The first action leaves an impression in the mind. (The mind, according to the Hindus, is a non-physical entity, and the brain is physical. We have in our subconscious mind many impressions from the past (the theory of reincarnation is helpful here.) Repeated impressions become our habits. The impressions lodged in the mind and brain are responsible for feelings and decisions before a motor action takes place. We have some free will, but limited. We have enough free will to act in such a way that we can consciously reverse our habits by acquiring new impressions through thought, word, or action of ours. So, if we want to be better people, we have to replace bad impressions with good ones, by being mindful each moment and doing the right thing. The difference between people is simply the quality of their impressions and their habits. Constant effort to know the quality of our impressions leads to an examination of ourselves. An unexamined life will continue to accumulate bad impressions and bad habits.
7
It would be a mistake to discard the truism "The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of."
It is valid to study the brain in isolation but invalid to stretch the results to imply that this is what the mind is. In the East, and it appears to be the case also in ancient Greece, the mind was perceived to be throughout the body. There are neurons in the gut, in the heart, and in the brain, so why consider that only the activity of neurons in the brain count?
In Heart Math science, the heart neurons are shown to evaluate and respond to a signal from the brain, only then does the brain act. In early Christianity, the heart played a major role. Only in modern times has the brain been perceived as somehow detached from the body. The Christian perspective: "As a man thinks in his heart so is he" indicates that there is an active, rather than a passive, or determined, mentality in the body. Schizophrenia, which means split at the diaphragm, from its Greek roots, implies a dysfunction that is not just in the head. It implies that neurons in the body are blocked from properly communicating with each other and with the brain.
Reason, as Pascal knew, requires the heart as much as it requires the brain.
It is valid to study the brain in isolation but invalid to stretch the results to imply that this is what the mind is. In the East, and it appears to be the case also in ancient Greece, the mind was perceived to be throughout the body. There are neurons in the gut, in the heart, and in the brain, so why consider that only the activity of neurons in the brain count?
In Heart Math science, the heart neurons are shown to evaluate and respond to a signal from the brain, only then does the brain act. In early Christianity, the heart played a major role. Only in modern times has the brain been perceived as somehow detached from the body. The Christian perspective: "As a man thinks in his heart so is he" indicates that there is an active, rather than a passive, or determined, mentality in the body. Schizophrenia, which means split at the diaphragm, from its Greek roots, implies a dysfunction that is not just in the head. It implies that neurons in the body are blocked from properly communicating with each other and with the brain.
Reason, as Pascal knew, requires the heart as much as it requires the brain.
7
... or as Woody Allen said, "the heart wants what it wants."
Some people waste their entire life trying to find the meaning of it! That in and of itself is silly! Here's the true meaning- Wake up- be a nice person- go to bed and do it all over again the next day- That's all you need to know about life.
5
It doesn't mean anything, and it doesn't mean anything that it doesn't mean anything. Werner Erhard
In other words, life is meaningless. Perhaps it is but one should try to leave the world a better place than you found it.
Given the choice of losing the capacity to reason vs the capacity to feel, I would choose the former. It would count as a disability and there would be plenty of help around. A life without feeling, however, would not be recognized as such but would not be worth living. In whatever we do feeling is present before reason.
2
Reason is unfortunately handicapped due to a non-evolutionary fact: no new emotions. Humans have not increased emotional "feelings" in 200,000 years, but have increased knowledge. If only we had some new stimulus towards heretofore unfelt emotions maybe our life might be complete. Otherwise, we're just overbaked Neanderthal idiots.
1
Maybe, but we weren't around 200,000 years ago to measure how Neanderthals processed emotions, how they did, if they did. How do you know we haven't progressed in that area?
1
Reason is but a scout for the senses and the truth just a marching army of metaphors and metonomys.
2
About what one cannot speak, one must remain silent. L. Wittgenstein
6
"philosophy — which relies most heavily on reason, and aims to foster the acquisition of objective knowledge ".
Seriously? Sure, some schools of philosophy, but certainly not all, arguably not most.
Seriously? Sure, some schools of philosophy, but certainly not all, arguably not most.
4
The philosopher Karl Popper gave a whole lecture on "Knowledge: Objective and Subjective", so Burton exposes his shallowness as a would-be philosopher.
Source: "Knowledge and the Body-Mind Problem: In Defence of Interaction" by Karl Popper, M.A. Notturno.
Source: "Knowledge and the Body-Mind Problem: In Defence of Interaction" by Karl Popper, M.A. Notturno.
2
>> Though we don’t know how thoughts are produced by the brain, it is hard to imagine having a thought unaccompanied by some associated mental state.
>>
Consider that thoughts are not “produced” by the brain. That the brain is a vehicle for transducing Thought--I capitalize to stress the primacy of it in the instant of its creation--into body--of which the brain is a part--experience, while in the lower, animal and vegetative centers, connected via the DNA stream to the origins of creaturely life, it runs and organizes that particular state of consciousness. I call it a “state of consciousness” because without consciousness the whole thing collapses. Not that we are normally conscious at the point of Thought’s creation. But try to imagine any thought without it. It can not be done without an artificial construct--another thought--of which we are conscious. As in the thought "the sound of one hand clapping." Bringing consciousness into the discussion leaves the brain behind--except as an object of contemplation--and enters the precincts of philosophy.
>>
Consider that thoughts are not “produced” by the brain. That the brain is a vehicle for transducing Thought--I capitalize to stress the primacy of it in the instant of its creation--into body--of which the brain is a part--experience, while in the lower, animal and vegetative centers, connected via the DNA stream to the origins of creaturely life, it runs and organizes that particular state of consciousness. I call it a “state of consciousness” because without consciousness the whole thing collapses. Not that we are normally conscious at the point of Thought’s creation. But try to imagine any thought without it. It can not be done without an artificial construct--another thought--of which we are conscious. As in the thought "the sound of one hand clapping." Bringing consciousness into the discussion leaves the brain behind--except as an object of contemplation--and enters the precincts of philosophy.
4
Not if thought is the product of memory, of which the brain is the instrument.
Rationality is a tool like math that helps us create objective knowledge about the nature of things we perceive in the world external to mind. Meaning and value are imaginary abstractions primarily based on cultural conventions, as well as the feeling and emotions we associate with these abstractions in our mind. In general, we should expect that reason will be used to harness arguments in support of what we value, rather than helping to determine what we should value. The free will argument should be discarded pending better understanding of sentient agency, something the study of the mind will help us clarify in the next 50 years.
3
A quadratic equation seems more abstract to me than feeling sad or glad. Feelings may not always be based on facts, but they are very real to the feeler.
2
Is it possible that reason and rationality are different concepts? This article treats them as though they are the same. Perhaps they aren't.
2
You can test your hypothesis by interchanging "reason" and "rationality" in some of Burton's sentences, and then asking if the meaning has changed:
"reason" -> "rationality":
Burton: "Reason allows us new ways of seeing, ..."
Burton': "Rationality allows us new ways of seeing, ..."
Burton: "[Certain scientists] continue to believe in the primacy of reason."
Burton': "[Certain scientists] continue to believe in the primacy of rationality."
"rationality" -> "reason":
Burton: "... the difference in how we assign rationality isn’t dependent upon how decisions are made, ..."
Burton': "... the difference in how we assign reason isn’t dependent upon how decisions are made, ..."
Burton: "... if we abandoned the notion of rationality."
Burton': "... if we abandoned the notion of reason."
"reason" -> "rationality":
Burton: "Reason allows us new ways of seeing, ..."
Burton': "Rationality allows us new ways of seeing, ..."
Burton: "[Certain scientists] continue to believe in the primacy of reason."
Burton': "[Certain scientists] continue to believe in the primacy of rationality."
"rationality" -> "reason":
Burton: "... the difference in how we assign rationality isn’t dependent upon how decisions are made, ..."
Burton': "... the difference in how we assign reason isn’t dependent upon how decisions are made, ..."
Burton: "... if we abandoned the notion of rationality."
Burton': "... if we abandoned the notion of reason."
"Lean not upon thine own understanding." Prov. 3:5
"For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent" (1 Corinth 1:19).
"But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty" (1 Corinth 1:27).
"Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. (John 20:29)
However, note these: "Prove all things." (1 Thess. 5:21). [Undoubtedly, "prove" is used in its original meaning— to test. Newer translations (RSV, Good News) use "test".] "...be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason." (1Peter 3:15)
"For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent" (1 Corinth 1:19).
"But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty" (1 Corinth 1:27).
"Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. (John 20:29)
However, note these: "Prove all things." (1 Thess. 5:21). [Undoubtedly, "prove" is used in its original meaning— to test. Newer translations (RSV, Good News) use "test".] "...be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason." (1Peter 3:15)
2
Edgar Pearlstein Linolcn - It is always so very sad to run into a post that displays the primitive groupthink of attributing scripture to it's source, rather than having the courage to allow the words to stand on their own merit. The reason this tawdry reversion is practiced is, of course, that scripture without the attribution most often reads like the worthless superstitious malarkey that it is.
1
Dear Dr. Burton,
Provocative piece, but reducing our moral, emotional, and intellectual reasonings to iterations of perceptions and sensations ignores the reflexive, reflective, refractive, recursive, circuitous, labyrinthine nature of thought and feeling that do indeed move faster than our ability to understand them, and that is cause for celebration at the glories of our cerebellums and not consolation at the imagined absence of a free will, that, after all, seems pretty liberated both in your exposition and mine.
Cordially,
S.A. Traina
Provocative piece, but reducing our moral, emotional, and intellectual reasonings to iterations of perceptions and sensations ignores the reflexive, reflective, refractive, recursive, circuitous, labyrinthine nature of thought and feeling that do indeed move faster than our ability to understand them, and that is cause for celebration at the glories of our cerebellums and not consolation at the imagined absence of a free will, that, after all, seems pretty liberated both in your exposition and mine.
Cordially,
S.A. Traina
2
Sal Anthony Queens - Zoom right over your head. Read, "The Blank Slate" by Steven Pinker.
1
There are some profoundly important ideas in here - notably, that we simply find ourselves with a sense of meaning rather than reasoning to it. Philosophers have ignored mental states we simply "find ourselves with" for far too long.
On the other hand, there's real confusion here about how far reason extends through the range of mental activity. The scientific method, for example, is utterly saturated with reasoning and would simply be impossible without it. Even our subconscious emotional states are driven by reasoning of a sort - as "my father didn't love me because if he did he wouldn't have yadda, yadda, yadda".
It would be great if we could consider mental activity in nice, crisp, mutually exclusive categories like reason and emotion, but that's just not how things work. Reason is infused through mentation in an almost vascular way. There are fibers of it, however small, in everything the mind is able to do.
It's ironic really. Burton is wise to point out that philosophers' fixation on reasoning has led the field to a strange place. On the other hand, the problem here is one philosophers easily avoid simply because of their facility with reasoning - and if we want to develop understanding of the ties between the mind and the brain, that kind of reasoning skill is going to be vital.
On the other hand, there's real confusion here about how far reason extends through the range of mental activity. The scientific method, for example, is utterly saturated with reasoning and would simply be impossible without it. Even our subconscious emotional states are driven by reasoning of a sort - as "my father didn't love me because if he did he wouldn't have yadda, yadda, yadda".
It would be great if we could consider mental activity in nice, crisp, mutually exclusive categories like reason and emotion, but that's just not how things work. Reason is infused through mentation in an almost vascular way. There are fibers of it, however small, in everything the mind is able to do.
It's ironic really. Burton is wise to point out that philosophers' fixation on reasoning has led the field to a strange place. On the other hand, the problem here is one philosophers easily avoid simply because of their facility with reasoning - and if we want to develop understanding of the ties between the mind and the brain, that kind of reasoning skill is going to be vital.
Dear Dr. Burton,
Provocative piece, but reducing our moral, emotional, and intellectual reasonings to iterations of perceptions and sensations ignores the reflexive, reflective, refractive, recursive, circuitous, labyrinthine nature of thought and feeling that do indeed move faster than our ability to understand them, and that is cause for celebration at the glories of our "celebrations" (sic) and not consolation at the imagined absence of a free will, that, after all, seems pretty liberated both in your exposition and mine.
Cordially,
S.A. Traina
Provocative piece, but reducing our moral, emotional, and intellectual reasonings to iterations of perceptions and sensations ignores the reflexive, reflective, refractive, recursive, circuitous, labyrinthine nature of thought and feeling that do indeed move faster than our ability to understand them, and that is cause for celebration at the glories of our "celebrations" (sic) and not consolation at the imagined absence of a free will, that, after all, seems pretty liberated both in your exposition and mine.
Cordially,
S.A. Traina
At 60 I understand Plato's allegory of the cave in a way I didn't as a college sophomore. Quick wiki, it describes people chained in a cave from birth who can only experience life through the shadows of things they see cast on a wall as being analogous to "the effect of education and the lack of it on our nature." We form our opinions from shadows unless we're dragged into the sun (education) where we are enlightened to the reality of things. But Plato was wrong. We're always only seeing the picture that nature, nurture and circumstance allow us to see, sharper shadows or hazier shadows. We plod through life dealing with the known knowns, the known unknowns, and the unknown unknowns. On the one hand Plato, on the other hand Donald Rumsfeld.
We are judged by our actions, we judge ourselves by our intent. We're our own shadows on the wall.
We are judged by our actions, we judge ourselves by our intent. We're our own shadows on the wall.
4
But most recently, Steven Hawking has waxed philosophical all over again - a delicious dialectical development. He is indeed pondering (which is what philosophy is all about) the fundamental binary of non-existence / existence, the subset of which is this universe. The model of the human as the way in which the universe 'self-reflects' is just not adequate. Here we are positing meaning and demonstrating rational function. It is just what we do along with the other successful bits of science; they are inseparable.
2
"If philosophy is to guide us to a better life, it must somehow bridge this gap between feeling and thought."
Where have you been? The bridge is as old as Plato.
Emotions and motivations, he argued, may be caused by bodily conditions or by value beliefs (reasons, principles).
For Hippocrates the bodily conditions were the four humors--causes of behavior and personality (blood/sanguine, black-bile/melancholic, yellow-bile/choleric, phlegm/phlegmatic). Precursors of the 50 or so recognized hormones--chemical messengers, their sources, receptors, and especially transitional effects--teenagers, menopausal women.
But also appetites (hunger, thirst, fatigue, drowsiness, horniness etc) and some emotions and moods (phobias, depression, mania etc). Often also due to drugs.
Yet motivation and emotion may be principled. Aspirations and ambitions are goals--for noble or personal accomplishment. Embarrassment, guilt, remorse, regret, pride--function as psychological police--enforcing and re-enforcing principled action or lapses.
Value beliefs themselves may be due to reasons, principles logic. Or they may be "stolen" by time (forgetting), pain (denial) or pleasure (wishful thinking).
Furthermore, appetites and hormonal emotions are neither "involuntary" (coerced) nor voluntary (free). These categories are inapplicable. "Non-voluntary" (or non-involuntary) are better.
"Sophists" are idea salesmen. Philosophers are critical (meta) thinkers--of all sophists--even in "science".
Where have you been? The bridge is as old as Plato.
Emotions and motivations, he argued, may be caused by bodily conditions or by value beliefs (reasons, principles).
For Hippocrates the bodily conditions were the four humors--causes of behavior and personality (blood/sanguine, black-bile/melancholic, yellow-bile/choleric, phlegm/phlegmatic). Precursors of the 50 or so recognized hormones--chemical messengers, their sources, receptors, and especially transitional effects--teenagers, menopausal women.
But also appetites (hunger, thirst, fatigue, drowsiness, horniness etc) and some emotions and moods (phobias, depression, mania etc). Often also due to drugs.
Yet motivation and emotion may be principled. Aspirations and ambitions are goals--for noble or personal accomplishment. Embarrassment, guilt, remorse, regret, pride--function as psychological police--enforcing and re-enforcing principled action or lapses.
Value beliefs themselves may be due to reasons, principles logic. Or they may be "stolen" by time (forgetting), pain (denial) or pleasure (wishful thinking).
Furthermore, appetites and hormonal emotions are neither "involuntary" (coerced) nor voluntary (free). These categories are inapplicable. "Non-voluntary" (or non-involuntary) are better.
"Sophists" are idea salesmen. Philosophers are critical (meta) thinkers--of all sophists--even in "science".
2
I am struck by the absurdity and narrowness of this whole approach to rationality. To discuss rationality by using studies that show how thoughts arise or actions are taken or decisions are made in the moment, without any reference to longer experience seems pointless.
As an example, I am teaching my daughter to drive. She doesn’t yet fully understand that she needs to brake well ahead of time if she sees a child beside the road. So she doesn’t brake soon enough (for my taste). After being badgered by her mother for a while, and thinking through the physics and possible consequences for a while, she will begin to brake sooner. By the time someone tests her on whether the decision to brake was a “rational” one or automatic, it will indeed be automatic (if all goes well). That doesn’t mean that reason and rationality didn’t go into the development of this reflex.
Similarly, most of my better decisions and behavior are definitely based on reason, though perhaps not reason in the moment. This is what learning from failure is about. We develop good reflexive behavior (from braking the car in time, to rushing to someone’s aid even at our own risk, to dealing with others compassionately) through time…through repeated experience and opportunities to reflect and adjust our behavior. We are responsible for learning and growing in this way. That’s what free will and responsibility are about.
As an example, I am teaching my daughter to drive. She doesn’t yet fully understand that she needs to brake well ahead of time if she sees a child beside the road. So she doesn’t brake soon enough (for my taste). After being badgered by her mother for a while, and thinking through the physics and possible consequences for a while, she will begin to brake sooner. By the time someone tests her on whether the decision to brake was a “rational” one or automatic, it will indeed be automatic (if all goes well). That doesn’t mean that reason and rationality didn’t go into the development of this reflex.
Similarly, most of my better decisions and behavior are definitely based on reason, though perhaps not reason in the moment. This is what learning from failure is about. We develop good reflexive behavior (from braking the car in time, to rushing to someone’s aid even at our own risk, to dealing with others compassionately) through time…through repeated experience and opportunities to reflect and adjust our behavior. We are responsible for learning and growing in this way. That’s what free will and responsibility are about.
27
I was just mustering my rationality, such as it is, to say what you have said, but you said it better than I would have. Thank you!
3
Friend, until you are able to discriminate between your forms and your Self your are going to be running around in the illusion of materialism. Until "science" is able to discriminate between the forms which energy is directed to assume the energy and the director, it will continue to be a hindrance to rational living.
It is good that you want to preserve two of the ancient hints to understanding the multidimensional Cosmos in which we exist, “know thyself” or “the unexamined life isn’t worth living.”
I suggest that you ponder deeply on them. This will require the turning off of that wonderful data processing intellect you posses and listen for the deeper messages of the heart.
It is good that you want to preserve two of the ancient hints to understanding the multidimensional Cosmos in which we exist, “know thyself” or “the unexamined life isn’t worth living.”
I suggest that you ponder deeply on them. This will require the turning off of that wonderful data processing intellect you posses and listen for the deeper messages of the heart.
1
Using reason to discount reason -- the lack of self-awareness a lot of us have in our attempt to seek truth through means beyond reason is ironic. Mystical traditions across geographies and cultures have overcome this fruitless circular exercise by contemplating and experiencing their way out of the limited prison of rational intellect...over millennia. These traditions and their literature (all pointing to common experiences) are unpopular and scoffed at because we don't want to do the work. It's too hard. The choice to be lazy in this regard is actually the prime example of exercising our free will, and it's our right. But let's not pretend we can answer metaphysical questions at the same level of consciousness that created them.
2
Considering the wealth of material available on the internet and the regular out put of books by Canadian Historian, Philosopher and public intellectual John Ralston Saul I am surprised there is no mention of him in this article. All the more mystifying is Saul's 1992 NYT best seller Voltaire's Bastards (The Dictatorship of Reason in the West) is seldom mentioned especially since its prediction of a Trump like leader is forecast for this moment in history.
All the more confusing is that John Ralston Saul is still with us and is presenting solutions to our present problem with his discard of Western Philosophical traditions and introducing us to other philosophical traditions that might be better suited to our 21st century needs.
All the more confusing is that John Ralston Saul is still with us and is presenting solutions to our present problem with his discard of Western Philosophical traditions and introducing us to other philosophical traditions that might be better suited to our 21st century needs.
1
I often wonder why we are undergoing this rehash of John Ralston Saul's Voltaire's Bastards (The Dictatorship of Reason in The West) 25 years later when John Ralston Saul and the World have moved on. While Saul and others give us solutions the United States seems intent on recreating the sixties.
The last Canadian Federal election was a response to this philosophical querry and John Ralston Saul's The Comeback gave a rather succinct response.
http://news.nationalpost.com/arts/books/john-ralston-saul-the-comeback
The last Canadian Federal election was a response to this philosophical querry and John Ralston Saul's The Comeback gave a rather succinct response.
http://news.nationalpost.com/arts/books/john-ralston-saul-the-comeback
1
.
“Going forward, the greatest challenge for philosophy will be to remain relevant while conceding that, like the rest of the animal kingdom, we are decision-making organisms rather than rational agents …”
Philosophy can de-emphasize reason and remain relevant by developing a more accurate and comprehensive model of human identity – one that takes emotional/irrational/intuitive processes into account. Consider that awareness/perception/consciousness is reason AND instinct, thinking AND feeling – both parts informing the other and leading to a decision (an action or a belief).
This exploration of the irrational aspect of the human experience is possible and useful now that reason has answered so many of the important questions of science, medicine and the natural world. It seems humankind understands the natural world and survival is assured - if we can now solve the problems we have uncovered. The issue is now a question of man vs. man and no longer man vs. nature. In this effort, reason will play its part even as we explore irrational aspects of decision-making.
“Going forward, the greatest challenge for philosophy will be to remain relevant while conceding that, like the rest of the animal kingdom, we are decision-making organisms rather than rational agents …”
Philosophy can de-emphasize reason and remain relevant by developing a more accurate and comprehensive model of human identity – one that takes emotional/irrational/intuitive processes into account. Consider that awareness/perception/consciousness is reason AND instinct, thinking AND feeling – both parts informing the other and leading to a decision (an action or a belief).
This exploration of the irrational aspect of the human experience is possible and useful now that reason has answered so many of the important questions of science, medicine and the natural world. It seems humankind understands the natural world and survival is assured - if we can now solve the problems we have uncovered. The issue is now a question of man vs. man and no longer man vs. nature. In this effort, reason will play its part even as we explore irrational aspects of decision-making.
1
"... the paradox-plagued field of philosophy of mind. ... Consider the argument by the Yale psychology professor Paul Bloom ..."
Apparently, Burton sees no distinction between philosophy and psychology. In contrast, Bloom acknowledges that there is a distinction when he says "this is where philosophy ends and psychology begins."
If Burton wants to pontificate on the "philosophy of mind", he should cite actual philosophers, not psychologists or physicists.
Apparently, Burton sees no distinction between philosophy and psychology. In contrast, Bloom acknowledges that there is a distinction when he says "this is where philosophy ends and psychology begins."
If Burton wants to pontificate on the "philosophy of mind", he should cite actual philosophers, not psychologists or physicists.
Neurology explains how we acted but not why. First, is it not true that reason can only be understood by how the brain (conscious and otherwise) reflects our immersion in social worlds. There is no possible private language or private reason. Even though consciousness does not lead our actions does not mean that those areas are not shaped by our experiences including social rational deliberation. Our world shapes us, but we shape the world; or as my fortune cookie said, "The work will teach you how to do it. It is up to us to shape the world into which we act.
My background exposed me to the sciences, mathematics, psychology, philosophy, computers, and music. I've also had a lifetime of experience.
My basic philosophy is derived from taoism and the basic praxis involves simply following my heart and/or intuition.
Philosophy is essential to me, though.
Nothing is more essential to my life than what I have attained by philosophical reflection, theory and praxis.
The way it manifests is subtle, however.
It is like playing free jazz at tempo in real time. One's performance surfaces one's true level of preparation and attainment.
Knowledge and reason are not relevant during the actual performance of any aspect of life in the great stream.
Thoughts are set aside and one's inner nature rides the waves of the tao.
Western philosophical methods are of real value, however, when crafting a praxis. Throughout life, with development completed only upon death, logic is used as a key tool to objectively surface *error*.
One does not seek truth empirically via reason. Rather, one seeks to falsify one's world view by revealing illusions, surfacing contradictions and then forming a coherent world view that can be clearly articulated.
For example, harmonic concepts in jazz may be described verbally via rules for altering chords and making substitutions.
Such verbal knowledge has nothing to do with the actual performance of the music, though. If such thoughts obtrude while playing, the flow state is lost and the music immediately suffers...
My basic philosophy is derived from taoism and the basic praxis involves simply following my heart and/or intuition.
Philosophy is essential to me, though.
Nothing is more essential to my life than what I have attained by philosophical reflection, theory and praxis.
The way it manifests is subtle, however.
It is like playing free jazz at tempo in real time. One's performance surfaces one's true level of preparation and attainment.
Knowledge and reason are not relevant during the actual performance of any aspect of life in the great stream.
Thoughts are set aside and one's inner nature rides the waves of the tao.
Western philosophical methods are of real value, however, when crafting a praxis. Throughout life, with development completed only upon death, logic is used as a key tool to objectively surface *error*.
One does not seek truth empirically via reason. Rather, one seeks to falsify one's world view by revealing illusions, surfacing contradictions and then forming a coherent world view that can be clearly articulated.
For example, harmonic concepts in jazz may be described verbally via rules for altering chords and making substitutions.
Such verbal knowledge has nothing to do with the actual performance of the music, though. If such thoughts obtrude while playing, the flow state is lost and the music immediately suffers...
3
In this year, 2016, we celebrate the centenary of John Dewey's seminal work, Democracy in Education, and it's worth noting that Dewey covered much the same ground as the author of this piece.
Dewey pointed out correctly that philosophy is simply the theory of education, since how we choose to educate our children is the clearest expression of our values, and the practical means of doing so take up much of our rational thought (and much of our public money).
The key idea in Dewey, though, is that the child being taught should both think and feel that the new material is relevant to their purposes, and that these purposes are largely defined by their relationships with other people. Emotion and reason are closely linked.
It is good to see a modern philosopher reiterating this point. The modern educational bureaucrats and their enablers have largely abandoned it, with their calls for "rigor" and "standards" and all their other half-baked ideas. We don't always see this as the failure of philosophy that it really is.
I'm a practically minded person, and it pains me a little to see theory pulling us back where practice has gone so far astray. But I'll get over it, and in due course I'll have some excellent reasons for having done so. In the meantime, I'm glad this piece was written, and I hope that the Times will offer us more of them.
Dewey pointed out correctly that philosophy is simply the theory of education, since how we choose to educate our children is the clearest expression of our values, and the practical means of doing so take up much of our rational thought (and much of our public money).
The key idea in Dewey, though, is that the child being taught should both think and feel that the new material is relevant to their purposes, and that these purposes are largely defined by their relationships with other people. Emotion and reason are closely linked.
It is good to see a modern philosopher reiterating this point. The modern educational bureaucrats and their enablers have largely abandoned it, with their calls for "rigor" and "standards" and all their other half-baked ideas. We don't always see this as the failure of philosophy that it really is.
I'm a practically minded person, and it pains me a little to see theory pulling us back where practice has gone so far astray. But I'll get over it, and in due course I'll have some excellent reasons for having done so. In the meantime, I'm glad this piece was written, and I hope that the Times will offer us more of them.
12
A neuroscientist: operates machines that create brightly coloured pictures of the human brain; otherwise poorly read and lacks any insight about life.
2
Contrary to Burton's tacit assumption, neurobiologists, neurologists and neurotics have not demonstrated much of anything about how we think, let alone about "mind." At best, some correlations have been shown, but even many of the studies that seem to demonstrate such have been found faulty in their methodology and/or interpretation.
The entire fMRI predicate for conclusions about mind-body relationships is dubious. Are the indications they point to and the conclusions drawn from them wrong? That we do not know. However, neither do we have any substantive evidence that they are right. In a sense, they are using an epidemiological model to draw conclusions, a dubious model for such complex processes. See, for instance, the Times August 27 article, "Do You Believe in God, or Is That a Software Glitch?" of (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/opinion/sunday/do-you-believe-in-god-o...
The entire fMRI predicate for conclusions about mind-body relationships is dubious. Are the indications they point to and the conclusions drawn from them wrong? That we do not know. However, neither do we have any substantive evidence that they are right. In a sense, they are using an epidemiological model to draw conclusions, a dubious model for such complex processes. See, for instance, the Times August 27 article, "Do You Believe in God, or Is That a Software Glitch?" of (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/opinion/sunday/do-you-believe-in-god-o...
2
The evidence accumulates, ironically largely scientific, that the primacy of reason ain’t what we thought it was. A recent article discussed now-revealed data errors with fMRIs that had led, supposedly, to ever-precise localizations between brain areas, and thought and emotion. There are some means to proceed to re-define its place. The psychological and social denial of this demotion are relevant. When I’ve pointed out the above to academics, they nod, having heard about it themselves, but proceed unabated to discuss the value of supposedly emotionally-disconnected reason. In most contexts of debates, presentations, politics, journalism, a bit less so now with males, forms of showing or “being emotional” are negatives to be avoided, even when present. We still rarely see expression of doubt, admission that your answer is just a provisional best shot and your opponent may have a point, or a real effort made to fight one’s powerful confirmation bias. Reason is such a part of our identity that its clout is very difficult to give up. It would also help if we remember, at least in the sciences and most of the social sciences, that the pursuit of truth, however uphill and murky the path, is still the goal. However we’ve forgotten, we’re supposed to continually question. It might also help to deconstruct “emotions;” they can be “good” or “bad,” and this might be situation-dependent. Then there's the behavioral economist Dan Ariely’s teaser that irrationality ain’t all bad.
2
Smiling. Reading these comments. Currently reacting with both emotion and reason. Thinking about my lobotomized grandfather and his daughter, my mother. Then reconsidering that story.
The brain is a gnarly little unknown beast. Kind of squirrely, and birdy, and rebellious, and obedient, and buttery (they say), and easy to divide into parts with an ice pick hammered up under one's eyelids.
Get used to it.
The brain is a gnarly little unknown beast. Kind of squirrely, and birdy, and rebellious, and obedient, and buttery (they say), and easy to divide into parts with an ice pick hammered up under one's eyelids.
Get used to it.
1
Mr Burton, why is it so hard to understand? Emotion, i.e.meaning (from the striate in the limbic system) is also a decision, surely not a completely free one, but a cultivated one nonetheless. Of course no one wants to ‘go without’ reason, as you fear could happen. But to go without emotion is just as dire. You write, ”But what if the word rational leads us to scientifically unsound conclusions?” The word ‘rational’ nearly ALWAYS leads to scientifically unsound conclusions, as long as rational walks the road alone, without the ‘educated’ meaning given it by, yes, emotion, which you correctly call irrational (a moniker which is a compliment). It’s not that reason is bad, or emotion undependable, but that either alone is inadequate.
2
Robert Burton says, "But this acquired knowledge is not the same as the felt sense that one’s life is meaningful." This reminds me of a very important association between what we perceive and how we feel about what we perceive. If I drive you on the road to my house, where you haven't been before, we both perceive the same road, but to me a sense of familiarity accompanies the perception, whereas you will ask, "Where are we?" The same appears to be true of expressions or ideas, whether rational or not. I don't think rationality becomes less important because people may have entirely different feelings about rational thoughts.
2
Plato offered us the metaxy, in reality there is always the tension between opposites. The collapse of that tension by definition leads us away from reality. To know is to realize that we do not know. Hawking, et al., collapse that tension. Science is not philosophy, but the best science is philosophy. Hawking, et al., know, but they need to realize that they do not know. What they know is the limits of their instruments, including those we call language and mathematics. They see themselves and their limits and they call it knowing.
1
I would submit that Dr. Burton is overthinking the issue. There is litlle question that civilization has progressed mightily over the past few centuries since the Enlightenment. The most economical explanation for this progress is the larger role that science and rationality have played, displacing mindless superstition, prejudice and fear. I wonder if Dr. Burton has some emotional block that prevents him from seeing this?
1
"civilization has progressed mightily over the past few centuries since the Enlightenment." No, it hasn't, unless you count technological advancement as civilization.
Humans are, by and large, still as brutish, violence-prone, petty and small-minded as ever.
Humans are, by and large, still as brutish, violence-prone, petty and small-minded as ever.
the definition of stupidity is asking the wrong quwations and expecting the right answers. "I think therefore I am" worked for Descartes because he was a Catholic and because he had one of the information about brain functions we have today at the atomic level, not at the certainty level of faith. There is no reason. Logic, religious, politic, or mathamaticl, require a priori definitions of self-evident axioms. God isn't good if there is no definition of God or Good.
Feeling God or feeling good have both been reasable to philospphers and mystics for ages with the result of cultural bigotry and violence.
Feeling God or feeling good have both been reasable to philospphers and mystics for ages with the result of cultural bigotry and violence.
2
Before 'Science' there was Religion, often based on context, need, and experience (aka, 'Wisdom')
So-called secular societies dismiss religion at their peril, as the oldest and wisest are storehouses of a time-acquired wisdom more than worthy of careful, consideration.
Can/Does/Must/Should that wisdom evolve? Most certainly. But evolution starts with the seed. Without it there is conjecture, groundless bias, and often chaos....
Until we can improve on "Love God (aka, the Good), and your neighbor as yourself (and we are all neighbors)", as a core value it's still about as good as it gets....
So-called secular societies dismiss religion at their peril, as the oldest and wisest are storehouses of a time-acquired wisdom more than worthy of careful, consideration.
Can/Does/Must/Should that wisdom evolve? Most certainly. But evolution starts with the seed. Without it there is conjecture, groundless bias, and often chaos....
Until we can improve on "Love God (aka, the Good), and your neighbor as yourself (and we are all neighbors)", as a core value it's still about as good as it gets....
6
Too bad it is tied into the doctrine of salvation from an eternity suffering in "a lake of fire". That makes "the goodness and mercy and forgiveness and love of God" an IMPOSSIBILITY!
Far from as good as it gets.
Far from as good as it gets.
2
Organized religion is the cause of most of the world's misery.
Philosophy is not thinking something up. It is explaining an insight, a perception, a revelation. Aristotle said "Philosophy begins in wonder." The practice of philosophy in the academic realm (that appears to be the context for Burton's remarks) is mostly an exercise in the construction of argument, a competition, often more akin to a trial or a debate. A "philosophy of life philosophy" (rather than a philosophy of philosophy") does not necessarily posit a conflict between "various forms of perception" and "logic and verification". They go hand in hand. Perhaps that is a kind of faith.
5
Whenever I hear the phrase, "an unexamined life is not worth living" I always wonder, "who would know?"
5
You hit the nail on the head. The Western civilization, if we can call it that, does not make a clear distinction between "reflection and examination".
We examine issues, problems or our environment, hoping to find reality or truth...but we do not reflect. And one cannot examine anything effectively or accurately or meaningfully without both self and social reflection.
We spend so much time teaching our kids to examine (the world around them) we forget to teach them "reflection". Great scientists and philosophers who were accurate (in their theories and axioms) and wise (about their profession, the world around them and life itself) were "good at reflection"...not just examination.
NYT, in many ways, is still stuck in 18th and 19th century male Germanic Jewish intellectualism.
We examine issues, problems or our environment, hoping to find reality or truth...but we do not reflect. And one cannot examine anything effectively or accurately or meaningfully without both self and social reflection.
We spend so much time teaching our kids to examine (the world around them) we forget to teach them "reflection". Great scientists and philosophers who were accurate (in their theories and axioms) and wise (about their profession, the world around them and life itself) were "good at reflection"...not just examination.
NYT, in many ways, is still stuck in 18th and 19th century male Germanic Jewish intellectualism.
1
This may or may not answer your question, but the quote is from Plato's "Apology", and the speaker is Socrates.
https://archive.org/details/apology01656gut
https://archive.org/details/apology01656gut
I'm no scientist or philosopher of mind. Yet given the author's reference to the greatest 30 pages of philosophy I've ever read - Plato's Apology - I offer the following on the value of a broad, philosophical perspective.
In at least two ways, Plato/Socrates gave us our freedom in the Apology - if we will have it. First, Socrates' admission that he is ignorant (not to say stupid) liberated him in a way that many go their graves without ever knowing. The freedom to admit one's ignorance is the freedom to ask questions without fear of looking ignorant, and thus the chance to learn - to cure a little bit of that ignorance. This can't be done if one is trying to appear smart rather than gain actual knowledge, or better yet, wisdom. The freedom that comes from knowing, and not forgetting, that I am ignorant, is priceless.
Second, Socrates said that the philosophical life is a preparation for death. Americans (and maybe all societies) seem not to deal very well with death. We avoid talking about it, and as a result are often completely unprepared when a loved one dies. I saw this in my wife's family when their father died. For my part, realizing years before my folks died that I had been very lucky, for all their shortcomings, to have had parents who loved and did their best for me, prepared me for their passing. In each case, after about three months, I was left with a warm gratitude for having had them for so long, and that they were no longer suffering. Again, priceless.
In at least two ways, Plato/Socrates gave us our freedom in the Apology - if we will have it. First, Socrates' admission that he is ignorant (not to say stupid) liberated him in a way that many go their graves without ever knowing. The freedom to admit one's ignorance is the freedom to ask questions without fear of looking ignorant, and thus the chance to learn - to cure a little bit of that ignorance. This can't be done if one is trying to appear smart rather than gain actual knowledge, or better yet, wisdom. The freedom that comes from knowing, and not forgetting, that I am ignorant, is priceless.
Second, Socrates said that the philosophical life is a preparation for death. Americans (and maybe all societies) seem not to deal very well with death. We avoid talking about it, and as a result are often completely unprepared when a loved one dies. I saw this in my wife's family when their father died. For my part, realizing years before my folks died that I had been very lucky, for all their shortcomings, to have had parents who loved and did their best for me, prepared me for their passing. In each case, after about three months, I was left with a warm gratitude for having had them for so long, and that they were no longer suffering. Again, priceless.
50
You say that a "visceral sense of meaning in one's life is as involuntary mental state that, like joy or disgust, is independent from and resistant to the best of arguments." Most people I know don't have a "visceral" sense of meaning or lack thereof in their lives. There are those who believe in a supreme being and accordingly (and rationally) conclude that their lives are meaningful and those for example who do not believe in a supreme being and who accordingly (and rationally) believe their lives have no meaning. None of these people have a "visceral" sense of meaning or lack thereof in their lives. Furthermore, while disgust is often "visceral" (like seeing a pile of excrement in the street) joy usually is not. So just what the heck are you talking about?
4
"There are those who believe in a supreme being and accordingly (and rationally) conclude that their lives are meaningful . . ."
Is it meaningful to be consigned to "a lake of fire", there to suffer forever and ever with no mercy or forgiveness ever -- aka Hell?
Especially when the author of "love your enemies", more than once, assured that "many" will go there and only a "few" are saved.
"Rationally" concluding that one's life is meaningful in the face of the dreadful odds of The Arithmetic of Hell is quite a trick!
Is it meaningful to be consigned to "a lake of fire", there to suffer forever and ever with no mercy or forgiveness ever -- aka Hell?
Especially when the author of "love your enemies", more than once, assured that "many" will go there and only a "few" are saved.
"Rationally" concluding that one's life is meaningful in the face of the dreadful odds of The Arithmetic of Hell is quite a trick!
"those for example who do not believe in a supreme being and who accordingly (and rationally) believe their lives have no meaning."
Lack of belief in a supreme being is in no way indicitive of a lack of meaning in life - far from it. The removal of the man-made construct of a god from between one's self and the reality of really living a full life in the here and now can confer quite a bit of meaning - if that's what one is seeking.
Lack of belief in a supreme being is in no way indicitive of a lack of meaning in life - far from it. The removal of the man-made construct of a god from between one's self and the reality of really living a full life in the here and now can confer quite a bit of meaning - if that's what one is seeking.
Re "a central prerequisite for the good life is a personal sense of meaning." I think this idea is totally bankrupt. I do not know anybody who bases any substantial part of their life on what their life "means," whatever that means. These discussion sound like a post hoc rationalization of what we did rather than a justification or rationale for doing anything. If you ask any of your friends, what is the meaning of their life, expect nothing back but a quizzical look. This is especially true of Christians who talk a great deal about "how God gives meaning to their life." None I have met have anything to say when I ask "what is that meaning?"
6
MY GRANDFATHER ON MY MOTHER’S SIDE
My grandfather on my mother’s side had a favorite saying.
Live in the moment is what he said.
My grandmother on my father’s side had a favorite saying.
Live for the moment is what she said.
One of my uncles had a favorite saying.
Live by the moment is what he said.
A zen master in a book I read had a favorite saying.
Live as the moment is what he said.
A zen master in another book I read had a favorite saying.
Live with the moment is what he said.
My friend Jeff has a favorite saying.
Live without prepositions is what he says.
So I live moments.
So moments are what I live.
My grandfather on my mother’s side had a favorite saying.
Live in the moment is what he said.
My grandmother on my father’s side had a favorite saying.
Live for the moment is what she said.
One of my uncles had a favorite saying.
Live by the moment is what he said.
A zen master in a book I read had a favorite saying.
Live as the moment is what he said.
A zen master in another book I read had a favorite saying.
Live with the moment is what he said.
My friend Jeff has a favorite saying.
Live without prepositions is what he says.
So I live moments.
So moments are what I live.
3
my conclusion is that your ancestors were zen masters
1
When someone slams on the brakes upon seeing a child in the road, the action is not a reflex. The action is the expression of a habit. There are differences betwenn reflexes and habits. Habits are learned through experience, and they can be unlearned or modified. Reflexes, such pupillary or deep tendon relfexes, are not learned.
This is only one small example of multiple conceptual errors in this article. Many philosophers have investigated human meaning throughout history. It is not a new or neglected topic. All philosophers have not focused only on what is rational.
The author throws around terms such as meaning, feeling, and mental state as if they are synonyms. If their relationships are more complex, one would not know it by reading this article.
Reason is the method of philosophy, not its main or only topic. In accurate reasoning, there must be clairity concerning definitions of terms and the relationships among those terms.
This is only one small example of multiple conceptual errors in this article. Many philosophers have investigated human meaning throughout history. It is not a new or neglected topic. All philosophers have not focused only on what is rational.
The author throws around terms such as meaning, feeling, and mental state as if they are synonyms. If their relationships are more complex, one would not know it by reading this article.
Reason is the method of philosophy, not its main or only topic. In accurate reasoning, there must be clairity concerning definitions of terms and the relationships among those terms.
47
David, I am comfortable with the colloquial use of the word "reflex" to describe split-second habitual reactions, not just true reflexes. The only instances where I'd care about such imprecise language would be when used by a neurologist while discussing the brain's decision-making processes. Oh, wait...
An ontological reductionist in sheep's clothing and an argument as full of holes as swiss cheese. Free will a illusion? Certainly if one means absolute free will. What we are capable of is similar to Kant's idea of imperatives- maxims we adopt to test our decisions against. What we aren't capable of is pointed out by the trouble Kant had in finessing his highest maxim, the categorical imperative, as both necessary and still freely chosen.
But the real problem for the author is rationality. Using a simple Kantian template, we make decisions based on maxims we have adopted over time because we believe they are the best way to improve long term outcomes (don't get into debt over your head). Those who are smarter and more rational are able to develop ever more sophisticated maxims based on a heuristic model and they tend to more successful in life than those who are less 'rational'.
As for "meaning"- as Heidegger would argue- we are hard wired to find meaning. It is an existential element of our being. There of course isn't any objective meaning, we fabricate it because that is who we are.
I'm not sure Hawking, who probably has never read any philosophy, or a neurologist who has a bias toward arguing a simplistic form of materialism should be so bold as to comment on things like rationality and meaning. They seem not only to not have answers but to not even know the questions.
But the real problem for the author is rationality. Using a simple Kantian template, we make decisions based on maxims we have adopted over time because we believe they are the best way to improve long term outcomes (don't get into debt over your head). Those who are smarter and more rational are able to develop ever more sophisticated maxims based on a heuristic model and they tend to more successful in life than those who are less 'rational'.
As for "meaning"- as Heidegger would argue- we are hard wired to find meaning. It is an existential element of our being. There of course isn't any objective meaning, we fabricate it because that is who we are.
I'm not sure Hawking, who probably has never read any philosophy, or a neurologist who has a bias toward arguing a simplistic form of materialism should be so bold as to comment on things like rationality and meaning. They seem not only to not have answers but to not even know the questions.
29
Years ago, a comment by a Times reader on another The Stone column caught my attention. He described philosophy as secular theology. That was when I realized that there is no need to study philosophy to reject its claims to knowledge. Both theology and philosophy are unable to provide verifiable truths. If a subject is unable to do that, it cannot claim to profer knowledge.
But Both do,
religion miracles, philosophy nothingness on the other side of being.
religion miracles, philosophy nothingness on the other side of being.
From the comments, at least so far, lots of folks can’t give up their belief in free will. I understand, it ‘feels’ like there’s an I making a choice when my body is in the cereal aisle staring at the Cheerios.
The question I ask free-willers never produces a credible answer. If people have free will, why do they flunk tests, drive too fast, smoke, why are 70% of Americans overweight or obese? Why can’t they just fire up their free will and choose to do something differently? No, I’m not confusing free will with willpower, if humans possess the former, they can ‘choose’ the latter, but they frequently don’t. They can’t, they have no choice.
The question I ask free-willers never produces a credible answer. If people have free will, why do they flunk tests, drive too fast, smoke, why are 70% of Americans overweight or obese? Why can’t they just fire up their free will and choose to do something differently? No, I’m not confusing free will with willpower, if humans possess the former, they can ‘choose’ the latter, but they frequently don’t. They can’t, they have no choice.
Why are you assuming that people who flunk tests, drive too fast, smoke and are obese are not exercising their free will to engage in those activities? How do you know that they didn't try acing tests, driving real slow, not smoking and dieting like mad, and then they decided they preferred to flunk tests, push the peddle to the metal, smoke like a chimney and imitate Porky Pig? Just because people don't meet your standards of conduct doesn't mean they haven't freely chosen that conduct.
Determinism has its weak points, too, you know.
Determinism has its weak points, too, you know.
"If philosophy is to guide us to a better life, it must somehow bridge this gap between feeling and thought."
Horsefeathers !
The key to a better life is purging of feeling in favor of thought.
Horsefeathers !
The key to a better life is purging of feeling in favor of thought.
4
The key to a better life is self-knowledge, wherein thought knows its place.
This is an example of the conventional wisdom of the moment to biologize all human behavior: Everything can be explained by a twisted molecule or defective gene. Dr Burton, along with his famous peers--Jonathan Haidt, Steven Pinker, E.O. Wilson, Marc Hauser--dismiss ancient concepts such as rationality, free-will, meaning, and purpose that the greatest minds in western civilization--Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Locke, Hume, Kant--have pondered for centuries.
Dr. Burton doesn't cite the arguments of any of these thinkers, nor the work of contemporary philosophers, such as Ludwig Wittgenstein, Bertrand Russell, W.V. O. Quine, and Saul Kripke who have explored the relationship between meaning and language.
He excludes interpretive and hermeneutic approaches to the human sciences and the work of philosophers such as Charles Taylor and Hubert Dreyfuss.
His narrow and contorted perspective nevertheless is "data" for understanding the scientism of our era.
Dr. Burton doesn't cite the arguments of any of these thinkers, nor the work of contemporary philosophers, such as Ludwig Wittgenstein, Bertrand Russell, W.V. O. Quine, and Saul Kripke who have explored the relationship between meaning and language.
He excludes interpretive and hermeneutic approaches to the human sciences and the work of philosophers such as Charles Taylor and Hubert Dreyfuss.
His narrow and contorted perspective nevertheless is "data" for understanding the scientism of our era.
25
Your comment reminds me of a quote supposedly from Aristotle:
The investigation of Truth is in one sense difficult, in another easy. A sign of this is the fact that neither can one attain it adequately, nor do all fail, but each says something about the nature of things, and while each of us contributes nothing, or little, to the Truth, a considerable amount of it results from all our contributions.
One more quote, from North Whitehead:
The Universe is laying the foundation of a new type, where our present theories of order will appear trivial...The Universe is vast!
The investigation of Truth is in one sense difficult, in another easy. A sign of this is the fact that neither can one attain it adequately, nor do all fail, but each says something about the nature of things, and while each of us contributes nothing, or little, to the Truth, a considerable amount of it results from all our contributions.
One more quote, from North Whitehead:
The Universe is laying the foundation of a new type, where our present theories of order will appear trivial...The Universe is vast!
1
Using the pejorative "scientism" to try and equate the untestable claims to truth that philosophy makes with the testable and falsifiable claims derived from the scientific method is false equivalence. And there is no good reason to quote/mention thinkers whose knowledge of science and mathematics was inferior to any reasonably well trained high school student as exemplars of wisdom. They were probably blessed with good (perhaps great) cognitive skills but the sum of human knowledge in their times that was worth preserving is a fraction of what humans have produced since the scientific method became widely used.
One of the definitions of "scientism" is the application of the scientific method to questions to which it is not appropriate. Such questions include whether the universe has a beginning or end, whether God exists, how can He be good and all-powerful if He lets children die, whether life has any meaning, whether people have free will. These are not scientific puzzles, and certainly not ones that can be answered by a falsificationist method. They are metaphysical questions. Contrary to your claim, I was not equating philosophical arguments with scientific ones. They apply to different realms. To claim that the scientific can answer the metaphysical is indeed "scientistic."
2
While we are a "decision-making organism", the "rules" we use to make those decisions are based on evolution and lifetime learning. What we learn, by observation, experience and through education helps define the rules. We can be taught to be deliberative in our thinking and incorporate feelings and "logic" into these rules. Sometimes, in some circumstances. The human ability to tell stories might be one of evolutions greatest achivements and probably contributed to our species success, but it can also lead us to many dead ends and rat holes. To the extent that philosophy becomes useless circular storytelling, than perhaps it should be dead.
3
Philosophy is a slow brain process. Applying your breaks in an emergency is a fast brain process. It makes little sense to compare the two. Culture is the some total of our collective efforts to overcome fast brain processes with slow brain processes. Something may disgust us (e.g., alien cultures or different sexual practices) or attract us (e.g., the guy or gal out for a run) as a fast brain process but it is up to our slow brain to inform us how to behave in these cases. From this standpoint, the article would change if not collapse.
While I'm at it, the notion that free will is a prerequisite to personal responsibility is bass-ackward. Since we are behaving in response to experienced and observed consequences, it is imperative to society that these consequences follow logically; especially in the absence of free will.
While I'm at it, the notion that free will is a prerequisite to personal responsibility is bass-ackward. Since we are behaving in response to experienced and observed consequences, it is imperative to society that these consequences follow logically; especially in the absence of free will.
2
Interesting thoughts, worth pursuing even if no final decisions can be reached as to how things function in one of the most mysterious organs on Earth (and Universe?), the brain. That we tend to disregard theistic religion, for instance, as a make-believe system closed to discussion (dogma), intolerant of any other faith-based group, and whose beliefs demand the suspension of what makes us humans, reason, may need revision as well, as most of our dealings with others, and ourselves, does seem to involve emotions and feelings...in which rational action may be an 'afterthought', just to confirm, or deny, our biases. Perhaps an exercise in humility, given how little we know, is in order, recognizing that a deep feeling of, and with, reality, may not require a rational process for validation (as having faith in certain beliefs can be changed, if there is an open mind, not so a feeling). Still, rational thought is here to stay, a true wonder of nature we, undeservedly, ought to enjoy, irrespective as to our unlimited disability to understand it (and 'free will' is one of them).
2
The ability to use reason in different situations varies dramatically, and is reflected by the ability to comprehend and apply different disciplines in an attempt to make sense of the world around us, and within us. An attribute of reason that is different from emotions or decision making is that it has structures which allow it to transcend the momentary, enabling a consistent interpretation over time regardless of varying emotions or stimuli. Values can also be brought under scrutiny of reason, where for me the most pragmatic approach has been the theory or moral development as outlined by Kohlberg. It even serves as the basis of a number of current ethical tests.
I agree that there are different modes of perception but reason is not one of them, instead it is a means to attempt to make sense of perception. I guess philosophy is still dead.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3104688/
Construct validity of the Moral Development Scale for Professionals (MDSP)
The aim of this study was to investigate the construct validity of the Moral Development Scale for Professionals (MDSP) using structural equation modeling. The instrument is a 12-item self-report instrument, developed in the Scandinavian cultural context and based on Kohlberg’s theory……A minority of respondents >20 years of age (13.5%) scored more than 80% on the highest moral level. The findings support the construct validity of the MDSP and the stages and levels in Kohlberg’s theory.
I agree that there are different modes of perception but reason is not one of them, instead it is a means to attempt to make sense of perception. I guess philosophy is still dead.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3104688/
Construct validity of the Moral Development Scale for Professionals (MDSP)
The aim of this study was to investigate the construct validity of the Moral Development Scale for Professionals (MDSP) using structural equation modeling. The instrument is a 12-item self-report instrument, developed in the Scandinavian cultural context and based on Kohlberg’s theory……A minority of respondents >20 years of age (13.5%) scored more than 80% on the highest moral level. The findings support the construct validity of the MDSP and the stages and levels in Kohlberg’s theory.
For me, one problem with this essay is that rational thought versus emotion is not the only option (no more than free will versus determinism). Freud was surely right to view human consciousness as a psycho-somatic phenomenon, a physical "drive" becoming realized or actualized in a "desire" which in turn results in an action (or refusal to act). Like "judgment," human actions result from different kinds of mixtures of rational, emotional, and physical impulses. It is such mixtures and the way they play out that literature, drama, dance, and poetic expression try to capture.
7
Yes, I have strived for meaning in my life, but this usually just propagated further dissatisfaction within me. The idea of meaning is just a story I made up in response to the things that happened in my life. When I removed the story (or meaning), and what's left for me is the now and possibilities for the future.
Read the Gita as allegory and you will find all of this is there, and much more. For example, what Paul Bloom writes about today was named "maya" thousands of years ago along with the understanding of why maya exists, what purpose it serves and how to discern the truth hidden by illusion.
It's all there. Why do we pretend it isn't there? Why are we reinventing the wheel?
It's all there. Why do we pretend it isn't there? Why are we reinventing the wheel?
2
One flaw in Robert Burton's essay is that he conflates reflexive action with innate, ingrained, genomic action - unreasoned, un-rational action.
He is a former chief of neurology, so he knows that the connections in our brain, the meat of our brain, the substance of the organ, is changed and altered by actions and experience. By memory and learning. The tennis player starts to swing at the sound of the ball because the player made the rational, reasoned, thought out decision to train his brain to start the swing at the sound of the other player's racket.
We train our brain, through our actions and our thoughts, through our learning and our experiences, through our religious education and our observations, to react, sometimes reflexively, in a moral or a rational, or a reasoned manner.
That half second may simply be the firing of connections we built specifically to carry our rational actions.
He is a former chief of neurology, so he knows that the connections in our brain, the meat of our brain, the substance of the organ, is changed and altered by actions and experience. By memory and learning. The tennis player starts to swing at the sound of the ball because the player made the rational, reasoned, thought out decision to train his brain to start the swing at the sound of the other player's racket.
We train our brain, through our actions and our thoughts, through our learning and our experiences, through our religious education and our observations, to react, sometimes reflexively, in a moral or a rational, or a reasoned manner.
That half second may simply be the firing of connections we built specifically to carry our rational actions.
2
Great article. Thank you.
1
Please Turn Off The Diane Rehm Show!
This essay and the accompanying comments (61, when I weighed in) was like being on a mental roller coaster. I knew what was coming next, but it didn't spoil the fun.
Look, I was an undergraduate double major ... Mathematics and Philosophy & Religion (I was going to be a Presbyterian Pastor). Subsequently I became an atheist, spent a summer trying to teach Henry Kyburg the meaning of probability, and read all of the novels of Ayn Rand and Rebecca Goldstein. Hell, I thought I knew it all.
As a single father, I tried to teach my sons why living a meaningful life was a better choice than living a happy life. That inspired my wives to divorce me and my sons to scoff at me.
Where I live, the meaning of life is pretty much tied to survival. You get up in the morning ... you eat something ... and then, with hardly a thought, you go through the day. At day's end, you drink a few beers, fall asleep in front of the TV, and have pleasant dreams that finally ... finally the world has awakened to the fact that Donald Trump is our best choice for president.
The trouble with Robert Burton and the Commenters is that they have let their human characteristics overwhelm their being, first and foremost, animals. If you don't mind, wake me when one of the offspring of Bonzo writes a book about meaningfulness. The old guy seemed to pass a lot about the meaning of life on to his associates... and it certainly served Ronnie well.
This essay and the accompanying comments (61, when I weighed in) was like being on a mental roller coaster. I knew what was coming next, but it didn't spoil the fun.
Look, I was an undergraduate double major ... Mathematics and Philosophy & Religion (I was going to be a Presbyterian Pastor). Subsequently I became an atheist, spent a summer trying to teach Henry Kyburg the meaning of probability, and read all of the novels of Ayn Rand and Rebecca Goldstein. Hell, I thought I knew it all.
As a single father, I tried to teach my sons why living a meaningful life was a better choice than living a happy life. That inspired my wives to divorce me and my sons to scoff at me.
Where I live, the meaning of life is pretty much tied to survival. You get up in the morning ... you eat something ... and then, with hardly a thought, you go through the day. At day's end, you drink a few beers, fall asleep in front of the TV, and have pleasant dreams that finally ... finally the world has awakened to the fact that Donald Trump is our best choice for president.
The trouble with Robert Burton and the Commenters is that they have let their human characteristics overwhelm their being, first and foremost, animals. If you don't mind, wake me when one of the offspring of Bonzo writes a book about meaningfulness. The old guy seemed to pass a lot about the meaning of life on to his associates... and it certainly served Ronnie well.
1
Philosophy hardly matters to most. Few reflect and fewer know how.
1
You are focusing on the trees and missing the forest. Similar to the blind men examining an elephant and trying to extrapolate to the overall creature from a limited sample. Life is, it is not always rational and is always changing. Look at what had meaning to you as a teenager versus what has meaning for you when you are 60. We evolve, we grow, we interact with others and change our behavior based on results. We are not always rational, we hate, we love, we buy an old MG when we know it will be nothing but trouble. We are human beings, with the being, the most important part.
One of my favorite quotes is by Buckminster Fuller: "I seem to be a verb."
One of my favorite quotes is by Buckminster Fuller: "I seem to be a verb."
3
The biological meaning of life is simple and well known: survive until reproduction. A person leaves behind them 2 things: the fruit of their labor and the fruit of their loins: do good work and make pretty babies and the job is done.
We are guided by the pleasure and pain generated by the nerve nets and endocrine glands. But thinking can, and does, question the conclusions we jump to so that we can modify them, improve them, and recycle them through logical systems. Without reason there are no meanings. Feelings influence actions, reason influences plans ands world views. Reason has evolved as an aide to knee jerk reactions and has led to science. Science appears to work: buildings, cars, planes, radios, televisions, mobil phones, the gps system, all appear to work. We get a higher standard of living by reasoning. If improving life, if making a "more perfect" nation and world isn't the meaning of life then we are not reasoning well, are not being reasonable or scientific. I take medicine and science over magic and prayer: God helps them who help themselves. Science and reason are the only successful tools at altering and using the environment we live in for our benefit. "Live long and prosper" is in the genes. Those who didn't follow that objective have disappeared from the Earth.
We are guided by the pleasure and pain generated by the nerve nets and endocrine glands. But thinking can, and does, question the conclusions we jump to so that we can modify them, improve them, and recycle them through logical systems. Without reason there are no meanings. Feelings influence actions, reason influences plans ands world views. Reason has evolved as an aide to knee jerk reactions and has led to science. Science appears to work: buildings, cars, planes, radios, televisions, mobil phones, the gps system, all appear to work. We get a higher standard of living by reasoning. If improving life, if making a "more perfect" nation and world isn't the meaning of life then we are not reasoning well, are not being reasonable or scientific. I take medicine and science over magic and prayer: God helps them who help themselves. Science and reason are the only successful tools at altering and using the environment we live in for our benefit. "Live long and prosper" is in the genes. Those who didn't follow that objective have disappeared from the Earth.
3
Can neurology single handedly usher in the end of rationality as a valid concept?
Dr. Burton's essay is quite provocative and, dare I say, carefully reasoned. It also possesses the appropriate a wisp of nostalgia for a less enlightened, pre-neurological age.
But this essay goes too far. We are being asked to throw away entire traditions of knowledge, from the Upanishads to Plato to Descartes, because we are told that neurologists studying the brain have proven that unconscious thought precedes decision, judgment and action. Not so fast.
Looking at an athlete's reflexes in relation to her conscious decision-making capacity tells us little about the value of reason. Similarly whatever my emotional predisposition about sensitive political topics, such as war, abortion or the death penalty, does not preclude my ability to change through reasoned study. This may not appear to happen amid heated political debates, but yes, it happens often in the classroom, in the solitude of the library, or at an encounter with new ideas in any setting.
No, Dr. Burton, I am not quite ready to surrender to the god of neuroscience. The moral life, the reasoned life is still worth living. I say this even as I struggle with my competing emotions, two horses tied to a chariot pulling in opposite directions, not an original thought but one articulated 2400 years ago.
Dr. Burton's essay is quite provocative and, dare I say, carefully reasoned. It also possesses the appropriate a wisp of nostalgia for a less enlightened, pre-neurological age.
But this essay goes too far. We are being asked to throw away entire traditions of knowledge, from the Upanishads to Plato to Descartes, because we are told that neurologists studying the brain have proven that unconscious thought precedes decision, judgment and action. Not so fast.
Looking at an athlete's reflexes in relation to her conscious decision-making capacity tells us little about the value of reason. Similarly whatever my emotional predisposition about sensitive political topics, such as war, abortion or the death penalty, does not preclude my ability to change through reasoned study. This may not appear to happen amid heated political debates, but yes, it happens often in the classroom, in the solitude of the library, or at an encounter with new ideas in any setting.
No, Dr. Burton, I am not quite ready to surrender to the god of neuroscience. The moral life, the reasoned life is still worth living. I say this even as I struggle with my competing emotions, two horses tied to a chariot pulling in opposite directions, not an original thought but one articulated 2400 years ago.
2
I find myself thinking of an old Woody Allen line:
Sex without love is a meaningless experience, but as far as meaningless experiences go it’s pretty damn good.
Sex without love is a meaningless experience, but as far as meaningless experiences go it’s pretty damn good.
4
Burton says “What then are we to do with the concept of rationality? It would be a shame to get rid of a term useful in characterizing the clarity of a line of reasoning . . .It is hard to imagine what would happen to modern thought if we abandoned the notion of rationality. Scientific method might partly fill the void.”
Yes, if you’re going to use your powers of reason to write article, it would be a little more than a shame to dump the notion of rationality. The follow-up thought that the “scientific method” might fill in the void if we were to do that is nonsensical, since the scientific method is the paradigm of rational thought.
Where we get moral instincts is not a mystery. Like many other species, we are social creatures and we survive because we are programmed to do what is useful for our group and for ourselves. Doing both at the same time is not always possible, so there are conflicts, which we characterize as moral choices. They run across a spectrum of difficulty in terms of resolution and the ones in the middle, in the gray area, present conundrums for philosophers. There aren’t any right answers for these nor any wrong ones, just subject matter for endless debate and college courses.
There may have been a point to this article, or something new in it, but if so, both seemed to me well hidden.
Yes, if you’re going to use your powers of reason to write article, it would be a little more than a shame to dump the notion of rationality. The follow-up thought that the “scientific method” might fill in the void if we were to do that is nonsensical, since the scientific method is the paradigm of rational thought.
Where we get moral instincts is not a mystery. Like many other species, we are social creatures and we survive because we are programmed to do what is useful for our group and for ourselves. Doing both at the same time is not always possible, so there are conflicts, which we characterize as moral choices. They run across a spectrum of difficulty in terms of resolution and the ones in the middle, in the gray area, present conundrums for philosophers. There aren’t any right answers for these nor any wrong ones, just subject matter for endless debate and college courses.
There may have been a point to this article, or something new in it, but if so, both seemed to me well hidden.
1
"... we are programmed to do what is useful for our group and for ourselves."
"Program[ming]" requires a programmer, and what is "useful" depends on judgment, so you are implicitly invoking a higher being. Are you a theist?
"Program[ming]" requires a programmer, and what is "useful" depends on judgment, so you are implicitly invoking a higher being. Are you a theist?
An old idea:
"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them." David Hume
Today's denigration of reason and denial of free will based on observation of time delays between nerve impulses and awareness of deciding misses the obvious: a) consciousness observed as interior monologue and reported to another must take longer than a neurological cascade that constitutes a decision and b) the background context of any given decision, for a mature rational agent, is carefully constructed through experience and education over time, often over a lifetime. Decisions don't happen in isolation from the life experience that builds and conditions personality and neurological pathways and feedback loops.
A tennis player may not in a particular instance say to herself "I will move left and return that 120 mph serve with a topspin forehand" but that does not mean that her execution of that difficult action is not rational or free. The long hard work, willpower and preparation that makes such a feat possible is instantiated in a given point but the action is embedded in a life that includes thousands of decidings and willings.
Agency and free will, as Thomas Reid explained, are the direct experiences upon which our ideas of causation are based. Considering other people's machine based measurements of nerve impulses as having a more epistemically foundational status is putting the cart before the horse.
"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them." David Hume
Today's denigration of reason and denial of free will based on observation of time delays between nerve impulses and awareness of deciding misses the obvious: a) consciousness observed as interior monologue and reported to another must take longer than a neurological cascade that constitutes a decision and b) the background context of any given decision, for a mature rational agent, is carefully constructed through experience and education over time, often over a lifetime. Decisions don't happen in isolation from the life experience that builds and conditions personality and neurological pathways and feedback loops.
A tennis player may not in a particular instance say to herself "I will move left and return that 120 mph serve with a topspin forehand" but that does not mean that her execution of that difficult action is not rational or free. The long hard work, willpower and preparation that makes such a feat possible is instantiated in a given point but the action is embedded in a life that includes thousands of decidings and willings.
Agency and free will, as Thomas Reid explained, are the direct experiences upon which our ideas of causation are based. Considering other people's machine based measurements of nerve impulses as having a more epistemically foundational status is putting the cart before the horse.
20
Well done on the sexist language: "seek out wise men" and "Anyone who’s tried to get his child to eat something". Is being male a neurological necessity too?
I guess the NYT editor (whoever he is) is just as responsible as the author.
I guess the NYT editor (whoever he is) is just as responsible as the author.
1
Good Lord! Life must be an absolute torment for you!
2
The Libet argument presumes too much. The monarch in an effective government has ministers who prepare many courses of action, leaving the final choice to the ruler. The "action potentials" Libet found are the acts of the ministers. The monarch still is the rational chooser of which to finally enact, and as Libet's own research showed, has the capacity to veto the potential actions. Later research has confirmed that action potentials commonly show up also when the person doesn't act. Having an action potential is not determinative of acting. The same with the baseball player. The brain readies the arm for the swing, in case the player doesn't veto it ("oh, that's outside"), and with the player still in charge of what English to put on the bat as it swings, if not vetoed.
2
Tom Robbins wrote something like, "Just because life has no meaning doesn't mean it's not worth living."
I don't see "meaning" in my life, but I love my friends and family and pets and experience deep joy in mountains and forests, ocean and desert. Those things are enough for me.
I don't see "meaning" in my life, but I love my friends and family and pets and experience deep joy in mountains and forests, ocean and desert. Those things are enough for me.
6
humans manufacture whatever meaning there might be in life
every other creature is given theirs at birth and never wavers from it for a moment
Your LOVE of these "things" Give both you and them MEANING.
If what the author says is true, then all those studies showing that cognitive behavioral therapy has a lasting effect on clinical depression must be wrong.
Being rational can get someone hurt. The choice seems to be who gets hurt the most and how will they recover. Then you make your decision. But how can you leave out emotion/bias and what kind of person would only use reason to make all decisions.
If philosophy is to stay relevant, it must stop blabbing about feeling and thought and start dealing with reality. We already have 7.3 billion 'philosophers' on the planet.
I'm not a doctor nor a philosopher, I'm an engineer and architect. Nevertheless, I have the need to think, to understand (to reason, I think).
What happens when we have a dialogue, when we exchange ideas when we even change our own mind faced with a different point of view?
Don't we take time on certain occasions 'to think about it', 'to try to view things from a different angle'? Isn't that reasoning?
Changing one's preconceptions in front of new evidence, new ideas; isn't that reasoning?
Driving a car, giving instant answers to fast questioning, even expressing political or religious opinions might certainly be driven by not rational but automatic responses. But life is not only pressing buttons or answering questions.
Bridges, roads, machines, medicines, and many of the human higher developments were thought, calculated, refined tested, etc. And that process is going on, humankind goes on.
We are not mice trapped in a maze. And yes, not everyone of us has to try too hard, by reasoning, to make a living. But, please, don't kill free will. As many other human endeavors, this one is not simple and linear, there are a lot of things to take into account to describe a human being; we go on automatic on many tasks, but not always, and there many simple and many complex tasks. I repeat, we are not mice in a maze.
What happens when we have a dialogue, when we exchange ideas when we even change our own mind faced with a different point of view?
Don't we take time on certain occasions 'to think about it', 'to try to view things from a different angle'? Isn't that reasoning?
Changing one's preconceptions in front of new evidence, new ideas; isn't that reasoning?
Driving a car, giving instant answers to fast questioning, even expressing political or religious opinions might certainly be driven by not rational but automatic responses. But life is not only pressing buttons or answering questions.
Bridges, roads, machines, medicines, and many of the human higher developments were thought, calculated, refined tested, etc. And that process is going on, humankind goes on.
We are not mice trapped in a maze. And yes, not everyone of us has to try too hard, by reasoning, to make a living. But, please, don't kill free will. As many other human endeavors, this one is not simple and linear, there are a lot of things to take into account to describe a human being; we go on automatic on many tasks, but not always, and there many simple and many complex tasks. I repeat, we are not mice in a maze.
13
The purpose of life is simply to continue to exist. The meaning of life is subjective, it's what you do and how you feel about it while you are existing.
4
reaction to a tennis serve in deed initiated 'early' but is not part of the subliminal firing of the brain as professor puts it. The receiver has already programmed in the act to perform an early swing by associating the movement to swing, receive, with the view of the tennis ball as it is struck by the racket of the server. On the tennis court that might be called survival by habit, what was once a conscious action has been automated.
Finally, the idea of prior subliminal firing by the brain in no way eliminates the individual's desire nor freedom to make a decision to accept responsibility or not for any particular action. That firing is not an argument vs. free will. Existence demands action , and, action requires a brain that is in a state of readiness , i.e. the subliminal firing, for decision making. keeping the neurological apparatus toned or warmed up!
Finally, the idea of prior subliminal firing by the brain in no way eliminates the individual's desire nor freedom to make a decision to accept responsibility or not for any particular action. That firing is not an argument vs. free will. Existence demands action , and, action requires a brain that is in a state of readiness , i.e. the subliminal firing, for decision making. keeping the neurological apparatus toned or warmed up!
9
Don't abandon the importance of verbal reasoning. It's likely that verbal reasoning plays forward from the aftermath of an experience to the anticipation of the next. Our internal or external debriefings serve to reinforce neural networks that predispose for future "instinctive" emotion-based unconscious responses (á la NLP). Keep reasoning!
My guess would be that a good deal of rational thinking went into the writing, and revising, of this article. Not all thinking involves split-second decisions. And Stephen Hawking may believe philosophy is dead, but he obviously doesn't believe that human beings working as scientists are "decision-making organisms rather than rational agents." As to the emotions involved in moral attitudes, I doubt that emotions are strictly separable from any kind of thought process, but their presence doesn't necessarily negate a rational component. Reason can be present in "modes of perception."
20
i still wonder why one needs metaphysics when one has physics?
1
The "argument" in this article goes awry in the first paragraph and continues spinning out of control in subsequent paragraphs. "Acquired knowledge is not the same as the felt sense that one's life is meaningful." True, not the same, but clearly not unrelated either. The religious person's felt sense of a meaningful life is related to their acquired knowledge of religious belief.
Next paragraph, the assertion that spontaneous depression cannot be relieved by any argument is an unproven and doubtful assumption, based on the materialistic reductionist bias of the author. Even the "evidence" that things happen in the brain before conscious decision doesn't show anything except that conscious thinking is related to subconscious/subliminal operations and that all mental operations have physiological correspondences. Alert thinking readers will find other flaws in the argument - just pointing out holes I see.
Next paragraph, the assertion that spontaneous depression cannot be relieved by any argument is an unproven and doubtful assumption, based on the materialistic reductionist bias of the author. Even the "evidence" that things happen in the brain before conscious decision doesn't show anything except that conscious thinking is related to subconscious/subliminal operations and that all mental operations have physiological correspondences. Alert thinking readers will find other flaws in the argument - just pointing out holes I see.
1
To answer questions like that.
I guess I will now have to consider morality on the basis of "positive" morality versus "negative" morality, which I refuse to believe is a matter of personal "taste."
Morality is a learned imposition on our natural state. Morality became necessary when we became farmers rather than hunter-gatherers. Suddenly we had to share our living environment, our village, with people (traders) from other tribes, other societies and the consequence of killing anyone you didn't like (OK when you are a wandering tribe) are not OK at all. How to define that switch from OK to not OK? Morality filled the gap.
Neuroscience lives with a self-induced delusion - the assumption that there is only matter, but no spirit. This assumption is dominated by a related concept that the brain produces consciousness and thinking - there is no other "source".
This is sort of like the cop, who in his investigations finds an obvious suspect and then never pursues with the same rigor any alternative explanations. The facts are that the brain is an organ created to be an interface between spirit (the invisible aspects of Reality) and matter, the physical aspects of Reality.
Thought, when empirically examined as something in Itself, is clearly fundamentally transcendent (Emerson: "Nature is a thought incarnate, and turns to thought again as ice becomes water and then gas. The volatile essence is forever escaping into the state of free thought"}. There actually doesn't need to be any experimental evidence. All that is required is sound thinking.
As conceived by scientific materialism, the brain is a closed system. As such it should not logically be able to create thoughts outside of the closed system, which includes the senses. Yet, consciousness routinely is inventive, and what is invented did not exist anywhere in sense-nature. In fact, the whole of human technological civilization comes from the mind, which is spiritually creative/inventive over and over again.
Think about it.
Joel A. Wendt
author of "I am not my brain - the map is not the territory"
http://ipwebdev.com/hermit/brain.html
This is sort of like the cop, who in his investigations finds an obvious suspect and then never pursues with the same rigor any alternative explanations. The facts are that the brain is an organ created to be an interface between spirit (the invisible aspects of Reality) and matter, the physical aspects of Reality.
Thought, when empirically examined as something in Itself, is clearly fundamentally transcendent (Emerson: "Nature is a thought incarnate, and turns to thought again as ice becomes water and then gas. The volatile essence is forever escaping into the state of free thought"}. There actually doesn't need to be any experimental evidence. All that is required is sound thinking.
As conceived by scientific materialism, the brain is a closed system. As such it should not logically be able to create thoughts outside of the closed system, which includes the senses. Yet, consciousness routinely is inventive, and what is invented did not exist anywhere in sense-nature. In fact, the whole of human technological civilization comes from the mind, which is spiritually creative/inventive over and over again.
Think about it.
Joel A. Wendt
author of "I am not my brain - the map is not the territory"
http://ipwebdev.com/hermit/brain.html
15
Just as we have searched for evidence for the existence of the type of entities referred to as "gods" and found none, there is no evidence at all for the existence of some disembodied sense of self referred to as "spirit" or "soul". The mind is simply what the brain does.
3
Thank you! I'm honestly perplexed that so many in the media think it's appropriate and natural to have neuroscientists weigh in on matters of philosophy. After all, we don't ask physiologists to tell us what makes a dance beautiful. In short: scientific materialism is the wrong tool if our goal is deep meaningful understanding rather than mechanical know-how.
2
Wonderfully true observation (at least to those of us who are willing to admit that our universe has an unseen but real component to it - besides "black matter"). But wow.....what a thought-provoking article on several different levels at once. My brain (rational thoughts, feelings, and all) is reeling from it. I need to sit and think, as deeply and rationally as I can, about it before I can figure out what it means.
Libet is bothersome in that a single data point is being used to determine if there is free will. Come On Man. It's like using quantum theory to suggest I should be able to teleport.
How about suggesting that once the individual has decided upon a certain action, he doesn't need to consciously replay the decision making process over and over again in order to accomplish the action. For example, your tennis player has already decided (free will) to return the serve and is allowing his body to react to the serve coming to him.
Most actions are premeditated (except a knee reflex), philosophy should be looking at the how and why those decisions arise not suggesting that we are all zombies aware of our actions after the fact.
How about suggesting that once the individual has decided upon a certain action, he doesn't need to consciously replay the decision making process over and over again in order to accomplish the action. For example, your tennis player has already decided (free will) to return the serve and is allowing his body to react to the serve coming to him.
Most actions are premeditated (except a knee reflex), philosophy should be looking at the how and why those decisions arise not suggesting that we are all zombies aware of our actions after the fact.
34
In the past, I played these thoughts over and over but now that I have aged, wisely, I have come to the conclusions that these articles are just words, nothing more. The authors of these articles seem to just be 'thinking out loud'.
1
What we call emotion is in fact a cognitive process, involving values and judgements. In other words, feeling IS thinking. At the same time I believe pure reason is nearly impossible. What we call rational - I prefer reflective - thinking is merely thinking with a feedback loop attached.Wherever discourse uses figurative language, like metaphor, feeling is sneaking its nose into the tent. I once made a study of a wide range of scholarly and scientific papers to see if any were free of figurative language. Only one philosopher -Susan Langer - met the test.
In the event, this is why our best guide is experimental science -which is a non rational system of thought.
In the event, this is why our best guide is experimental science -which is a non rational system of thought.
2
Philosophy is an art, an insight into the nature of the sublime. One of many tools , such as the scientific method that illuminate our condition. Philosophy is not a "struggle to stay relevant". The billions of emotional followers of the various mystical rites are not philosophers and never will be. Anyone striving to join their number will be welcomed by the irrational mass. The nobility of rational thought and inquiry does not need a hand wringing lecture in the New York Times, Philosophy exists within you and without you,
4
Brains do not decide anything. People decide. You have taken a philosophical point of view -- an opinion, that is -- and raised it to the level of a fact, which it is not. Brains do not wish or infer or prepare. The idea that they do these things is not an established fact at all, but an interpretation of data. Interpretations are just that and nothing more. And, by the way, brains do not interpret anything either.
6
I think I AM my brain.
4
@ Steve,
Yes. The brain is a concrete object that you can hold in your hand (if removed from the skull), the mind is not.
Of course, if one produces a model of mind, it might be possible to correlate mental activities and brain activities to some extent.
But not content.
Yes. The brain is a concrete object that you can hold in your hand (if removed from the skull), the mind is not.
Of course, if one produces a model of mind, it might be possible to correlate mental activities and brain activities to some extent.
But not content.
1
Why are we being presented with an essay that seems surprised that reason doesn't control, direct or correct our actions? This is old news. This is why philosophy remains irrelevant: still stuck in a mind/body duality. Reason is part of our physical body, it is not a magical transcendent force. But we continue to do philosophy (and ourselves) a disservice to think this discredits reasoning. “An image of thought called philosophy has been formed historically and it effectively stops people from thinking.”
― Gilles Deleuze
― Gilles Deleuze
2
I just think reading this that perhaps rational thought is super-quick. As a ballet dancer who has taken class just about every day for years & yrs, similar to a violinist or pianist practicing for hours daily, we learn to change slightly our reactions and movements all the time. We use the rational input from coaches/teachers to adjust reactions and physical movements. So in the comparison to a driver swerving to avoid a kid, the rational and emotional choice to not crash into someone was translated into a physical fast impulse to swerve. Rationality translates into action very very quickly. Its not like sitting and writing a thought process onto a white board - its a fraction of a second, a very quick computation.
1
Get back to me when all of the "brain activity" studies referred to in this essay have been redone in light of the findings that fMRI scans and software have been programmed in a way that can produce false-positives more than 70% of the time. There was an article right here in the NYT not too long ago about this, citing a devastating, Sokal-esque study that found emotional responses in the brain of a dead salmon that were statistically significant under currently accepted techniques for analyzing "brain activity."
Without a direct and honest response to the recent challenges to this kind of evidence and analysis, I really can't begin to trust the author's claims about neuroscience.
Could the editors of the Stone please encourage their contributors to be a little more vigilant about relevant news items reported in this very paper that directly impact the credibility of their arguments?
Without a direct and honest response to the recent challenges to this kind of evidence and analysis, I really can't begin to trust the author's claims about neuroscience.
Could the editors of the Stone please encourage their contributors to be a little more vigilant about relevant news items reported in this very paper that directly impact the credibility of their arguments?
5
I have some serious problems with a person trained in neurology making sweeping statements about philosophy. In particular, I am deeply concerned about the fact that Dr. Burton fails to even define philosophy, not to mention words like "reason" and "moral."
Let us assume that philosophy is the search to examine meaning by removing all unexamined assumptions. Let us assume that "meaning" is the relation of the self to a standard beyond oneself. Dr. Burton starts by failing to examine the assumptions that ground physical sciences such as, for instance, neurology. He is not alone here. The assumption that a physical science can provide a full "explanation" of human consciousness is a fundamental error that underlies the entire field of cognitive science. This unexamined assumption, that only that is true which is sense verifiable, faces the problem of how it verifies that very statement. Philosophy seeks to find the basis for science itself. If you abandon that project, you end up with the unexamined assumptions that riddle Dr. Burton's claims.
Let us assume that philosophy is the search to examine meaning by removing all unexamined assumptions. Let us assume that "meaning" is the relation of the self to a standard beyond oneself. Dr. Burton starts by failing to examine the assumptions that ground physical sciences such as, for instance, neurology. He is not alone here. The assumption that a physical science can provide a full "explanation" of human consciousness is a fundamental error that underlies the entire field of cognitive science. This unexamined assumption, that only that is true which is sense verifiable, faces the problem of how it verifies that very statement. Philosophy seeks to find the basis for science itself. If you abandon that project, you end up with the unexamined assumptions that riddle Dr. Burton's claims.
44
Bucky Fuller tried talking to these people years ago... no success.
Philosophy is unable to provide a single independently verifiable claim. Therefore, it is unnecessary to study its jargon and literature for anyone to reject it, let alone a trained neurologist who is in the business of examining areas that philosophy claims eminence in. Just as it's unnecessary to study religion to reject its claims.
Thank you for your well-put comment. It is really is astonishing that quasi-philosophical positions that undermine their own rational claim to truth (by undermining *any* rational claim to truth) persist so vivaciously, though I suppose it's no wonder that students of neurology have joined with neo-Darwinists and not-terribly-well-rounded physicists are particularly attracted to such scientism. At least Burton here seems to want to cling, however sentimentally, to what his position actually forces him to abandon!
One thing you wrote rubs me the wrong way: it's not true that "the entire field of cognitive science" is beset by the error concerning consciousness. One can surely study our cognitive faculties of (for example) vision, memory, morality, or language as a cognitive science without claiming any authority to adjudicate on this and questions – even though many scientists do so. No explanation of the way the mind "grasps things" can, in principle, tell us whether these things are there. Cognitive science is misled only when it makes the further claim that it "knows why we think so" – as if that were the end of the story.
One thing you wrote rubs me the wrong way: it's not true that "the entire field of cognitive science" is beset by the error concerning consciousness. One can surely study our cognitive faculties of (for example) vision, memory, morality, or language as a cognitive science without claiming any authority to adjudicate on this and questions – even though many scientists do so. No explanation of the way the mind "grasps things" can, in principle, tell us whether these things are there. Cognitive science is misled only when it makes the further claim that it "knows why we think so" – as if that were the end of the story.
Whether the unexamined life is worth living is best answered by those who don't engage in examination, but there's no doubt that a life subject to constant examination can be an unbearable one.
This author is perhaps confusing the interests and practices of his discipline with the actual uses of self-examination. What if life can't bear a reasoned assessment?
This author is perhaps confusing the interests and practices of his discipline with the actual uses of self-examination. What if life can't bear a reasoned assessment?
“In the 1980s the neurophysiologist Ben Libet of the University of California, San Francisco, showed that the brain generates action-specific electrical activity nearly half a second before the subject consciously ‘decides’ to initiate the action.” So what? In Hebrew psychology (compare the psychology of the ancient Greeks, or any pre-scientific psychology) beings think with their hearts, feel with their bowels, and their flesh longs for God. At what point “conscious decision” comes into play in an action is irrelevant. Would that neurology had any power at all to answer essential questions about freedom and the self. Burton’s neurological man is just a warmed-over “rational animal,” with both terms defined in advance in such a way as to make an understanding of their unity impossible.
9
Early psychoanalytic experiments with free association and galvanic skin response exposed the chicken and egg problem of cognition more than a hundred years ago. Functional MRI technology is a lot more fun and quantifiable. As it turns out, its application to this subject may be so error prone as to throw some basic premises into question: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/opinion/sunday/do-you-believe-in-god-o...
Isn't this exactly why we need philosophy—as a means of sorting out, through rigorous application of rationally-derived premises, what we can safely claim to know? We could use more of philosophy's model of sharing data and defending it publicly if we want to translate scientific discovery into political action.
I think the example of the self-driving car makes a point quite different from the author's. It brakes before hitting a child because of the execution of defined, rational rules. These rules are logical and sequential, but they are also moral—derived through a culturally-defined assumption at the level of machine programming (what psychologists might call "unconscious") that cars must avoid pedestrians. Here the moral reasoning is baked in.
In a political era defined by invective and inconsistent logic, philosophy is more important than ever. Without knowledge of rhetoric we are defenseless against "truthiness."
Isn't this exactly why we need philosophy—as a means of sorting out, through rigorous application of rationally-derived premises, what we can safely claim to know? We could use more of philosophy's model of sharing data and defending it publicly if we want to translate scientific discovery into political action.
I think the example of the self-driving car makes a point quite different from the author's. It brakes before hitting a child because of the execution of defined, rational rules. These rules are logical and sequential, but they are also moral—derived through a culturally-defined assumption at the level of machine programming (what psychologists might call "unconscious") that cars must avoid pedestrians. Here the moral reasoning is baked in.
In a political era defined by invective and inconsistent logic, philosophy is more important than ever. Without knowledge of rhetoric we are defenseless against "truthiness."
19
The ancient knowledge that balanced the two knowledge types - sensory knowledge and extra sensory knowledge was discarded by the Enlightment. We deliberately created a culture which is one directional. Now after about 300 years werealized what a monster we have created by our knowledge. We created massive infrastructure of sensory knowledge and destroyed all infrastructure of extra sensory knowledge. Time has come to rethink the direction of our civilization and rebuild the infrastructure of extra sensory knowledge and return the human civilization to its bLanced mode - a civilization where Homo sapiens is returned to its natural environment and get the balance returned between its physical capability and mental capability both sensory and extra sensory.
5
It would help if you were to elaborate on what you think this revised society would look like.
Rationality is not necessarily conscious and decisions made pre-consciously may be based on rationality. Rationality depends on whether the executive function of the brain is trained to base its decisions on rational database or irrational ones or trained at all. It is rational that a batter's brain would have ordered the muscles to react as soon as the ball is thrown. Rationality can be trained to be unconscious.
21
Deliberative thinking, where one questions one's intuitive reactions and impulses, weighs empirical evidence, looks at other thinkers' opinions on a subject, and reformulates thinking are all akin to the process of learning to play the piano or any other practice which produces a different set of automatic responses. No pianist who is any good will ever think they are perfect, but will constantly tinker with the automatic to reveal further detail and nuance, and may even rip their technique apart and start over. The process of making these deliberative efforts, I think, make a lie of the idea that rationality is not valuable or possible.
The intersection of philosophy and socio-biology is difficult. Our cultures evolve at a much faster rate than our biology does. Often, the innate mental processes we evolved have become incompatible with current social philosophy. This is where we must, as homo sapiens, make use of our extraordinary intellectual capacities to consciously modify our behaviors. This is where what most people thnk of as philosophy comes in. As arrogant as it sounds to say it, Hawking is wrong when he says philosophy is dead.
In fact, even for Hawking, it is the starting place.
In fact, even for Hawking, it is the starting place.
This op-ed piece is shallow and incoherent in the same way as much that is now written on this subject from this point of view. Whatever the scientific method may or may not consist in, it cannot be employed except by human beings making choices for reasons about what hypotheses to test and how, and how to interpret the results of this testing. It is absurd and flagrantly self-undermining to interpret some of the results -- for instance those of neuroscience -- in such a way that these results would render all of us incompetent to do what we must presuppose that we have done in order to reach these results. The task, which may not be easy, is to understand our rational capacities, to get clear on what it is to have real options and make choices for reasons. It does not advance such understanding to say that what we need to understand does not exist.
One surprising point in Bringing Up Bebe, Pamela Druckerman's book examining child-rearing in France, is how much more open to unknown foods French children are than the average American youngster. Some of a kid's revulsion for foods they "don't like" may in fact be culturally learned.
1
I found this op-ed to be better than most of the "Stone" pieces.
But I do disagree with the axioms that Dr. Burton puts forth as the basis of the column.
To me, "reason" when not explicitly defined as a tool of deductive logic gets fuzzy. I believe "reasonable" people commonly place great weight on their feelings and those of others in their conversation and their choice of actions.
As to "free will", I don't see that my choices are less "free" because an electrical signal will predict that I have come to a decision.
I also disagree with the notion that we cannot shake off feelings (hopelessness, disgust, despair, etc) by our own mental efforts. I think of the opening scene inn "All That Jazz", here the protagonist awakens after a night of drinking, looks blearily into his mirror, then slaps his face with both hands and saying, "It's show time!", "pulls himself together.
Obviously, there are people who cannot control their mood, many ending up with a disease label such as depression.
Most, fundamentally, I disagree with the writer in that I see mental phenomena needs to be understood in terms of our subjective experiences and those of others as they communicate them to us. Only then, will we be able to usefully seek to correlate brain activity and mental content.
But I do disagree with the axioms that Dr. Burton puts forth as the basis of the column.
To me, "reason" when not explicitly defined as a tool of deductive logic gets fuzzy. I believe "reasonable" people commonly place great weight on their feelings and those of others in their conversation and their choice of actions.
As to "free will", I don't see that my choices are less "free" because an electrical signal will predict that I have come to a decision.
I also disagree with the notion that we cannot shake off feelings (hopelessness, disgust, despair, etc) by our own mental efforts. I think of the opening scene inn "All That Jazz", here the protagonist awakens after a night of drinking, looks blearily into his mirror, then slaps his face with both hands and saying, "It's show time!", "pulls himself together.
Obviously, there are people who cannot control their mood, many ending up with a disease label such as depression.
Most, fundamentally, I disagree with the writer in that I see mental phenomena needs to be understood in terms of our subjective experiences and those of others as they communicate them to us. Only then, will we be able to usefully seek to correlate brain activity and mental content.
7
Although a major focus is the split second timing of neural reactions, this misses a crucial point about rationality and morality: it is NOT an instantaneous reaction, but rather slowing down to consider the consequences.
1
Intuition is the pathway to spirit, it is the sixth sense.
The right brain, side to side thinking allows intuition to unfold and express.
The linear left, organized brain has dominated civilization, creator of armies, social cohesion, cities and schools. The left marches on with all its oppressive ways.
I used to think, what good is art and the humanities. Well they feed the right hemisphere, empathy, compassion,and love.
The left brain can only think about love, but never feel it.
It is my belief that the over organized left brain has become counter productive, filling our jails, zero tolerance, lawyer infested, big business predators, linear, unfeeling and brutal in its ways.
The right brain, side to side thinking allows intuition to unfold and express.
The linear left, organized brain has dominated civilization, creator of armies, social cohesion, cities and schools. The left marches on with all its oppressive ways.
I used to think, what good is art and the humanities. Well they feed the right hemisphere, empathy, compassion,and love.
The left brain can only think about love, but never feel it.
It is my belief that the over organized left brain has become counter productive, filling our jails, zero tolerance, lawyer infested, big business predators, linear, unfeeling and brutal in its ways.
7
Who describes jamming on the brakes to avoid hitting someone as rational and not reflexive? Of course it's reflexive. I don't know anyone who considers such an action to be the product of rational reflection.
The problem with philosophers is that they really don't have much to do anymore. Western philosophy as a creative branch of thought is basically over. Theoretical was wrapped up with Kant, unless one wants to take seriously the mental acrobatics of the supposedly great minds of the 20th century. What's left is commentary on life and its living -- a sort of "how to" for thinking human beings. But who since Nietzsche has contributed something vital in this area?
The other problem with philosophy is its difficulty with the Either/Or question. Either we are rational, thinking beings, or we live entirely by instinct. It must be one or the other. But in fact Either/Or is a false dichotomy. We are partly rational, partly instinctive. And so it shall ever be -- at least so long as humans are around.
The problem with philosophers is that they really don't have much to do anymore. Western philosophy as a creative branch of thought is basically over. Theoretical was wrapped up with Kant, unless one wants to take seriously the mental acrobatics of the supposedly great minds of the 20th century. What's left is commentary on life and its living -- a sort of "how to" for thinking human beings. But who since Nietzsche has contributed something vital in this area?
The other problem with philosophy is its difficulty with the Either/Or question. Either we are rational, thinking beings, or we live entirely by instinct. It must be one or the other. But in fact Either/Or is a false dichotomy. We are partly rational, partly instinctive. And so it shall ever be -- at least so long as humans are around.
14
I agree. Philosophers don't have much to do...they parry in only words. What about their physical acts, their sinews? The emperor has no clothes. What useful bridges do they leave behind when they die? How do they equip children to live so that they don't fear death?
All their work product is reducible to binary code: ones and zeros.
All their work product is reducible to binary code: ones and zeros.
Its not useful or true to think of philosophy as a self-contained discipline. Philosophical frameworks are useful to other disciplines: physics, computer science, ecology, and global economic theory.
For me it comes to this. Rationality stems from the fact that we live in a "cause and effect" level of reality. We are high order self-aware animals (because all things are aware in varying degrees) living in a Universe where the arrow of (perceptual) time goes in only one direction. Cause, to effect. Rationality tends to naturally boil to the top of that quantum foam that is us, encased as we are in such an existence. And for good reason; it aids in our survival within that Universe. This is not a bad thing is it?
But consider what happens (to you) when you contemplate no thought. Spend time in pursuit of that which all meditation strives to attain. The purity of no thought. You strive to return to that moment of "only now" that held you as a small child. In effect you return to your core, your baseline, condition. Thought is suspended. All is now.
As individuals we are all unique, so your conclusions from such a...reintroduction (to that core) may vary from mine, but you might, might, come to realize that meaning emerges from the quietude of that singularity that is you. You may realize that the reality of your existence is purpose (and meaning) in and of itself.
Just some random.....thoughts? ;-)
John~
American Net'Zen
But consider what happens (to you) when you contemplate no thought. Spend time in pursuit of that which all meditation strives to attain. The purity of no thought. You strive to return to that moment of "only now" that held you as a small child. In effect you return to your core, your baseline, condition. Thought is suspended. All is now.
As individuals we are all unique, so your conclusions from such a...reintroduction (to that core) may vary from mine, but you might, might, come to realize that meaning emerges from the quietude of that singularity that is you. You may realize that the reality of your existence is purpose (and meaning) in and of itself.
Just some random.....thoughts? ;-)
John~
American Net'Zen
There is a fair amount of research suggesting that Morality is actually a collection of beliefs that combines: 1. Basic universal laws that learning computers can figure out (cooperate until someone cheats - then retaliate); 2. sociobiological (you owe debts to kin and near-kin); and 3. rational (I want to be a good person)
There is no reason that living a good life is any different. Balance the Universe with your Friends and Family and Try to be nice.
So Reason is required just not the only consideration - now that is good philosophy that Socrates could have signed on to.
There is no reason that living a good life is any different. Balance the Universe with your Friends and Family and Try to be nice.
So Reason is required just not the only consideration - now that is good philosophy that Socrates could have signed on to.
Where do thoughts come from? How do we know which thoughts are "right?" How do we know which thoughts are even "ours?" As Edgar Cayce said, "Thoughts are things." They have vibratory form. Anyone who has paid attention knows that certain thoughts feel differently and this feeling is registered in the body - most often in the solar plexus or the heart. This isn't new information. Furthermore, thoughts are shared between minds so often it is no longer a question whether or not minds can attuned themselves together like radio receivers to the same channel. Thought is vibratory, just as emotion is. It is not three-dimensional and we cannot measure it with current technologies. But as vibration we can all recognize how thought leaves its own imprint. The brain is a receiver. Thoughts are vibrations that exist everywhere. We just tune and pick them up. We are all one mind and our own mind together at the same time.
1
There are three disciplines requires for a Meaningful life, Science, Philosophy, and Theology. Sadly many people claim that only one is required.
We need to know and understand the facts about life as well as we are able, Science. We need to be able to think and evaluate these facts, Philosophy. We need to have a purpose which enables us to live and make a our lives meaningful, Theology.
Today it seems that people are interested only in justifying themselves, not finding the right purpose and meaning for life. They use sci8ence, philosophy, and even theology( and a-theology) primarily for this purpose, which is wrong.
Philosophy is dead because it is stuck ion the past, based on Western dualism or monism. It has become useless because it has failed to open the new ground which is needed to resolve the science/faith debate.
We need all three, Science, Philosophy, and Theology, or we are lost.
We need to know and understand the facts about life as well as we are able, Science. We need to be able to think and evaluate these facts, Philosophy. We need to have a purpose which enables us to live and make a our lives meaningful, Theology.
Today it seems that people are interested only in justifying themselves, not finding the right purpose and meaning for life. They use sci8ence, philosophy, and even theology( and a-theology) primarily for this purpose, which is wrong.
Philosophy is dead because it is stuck ion the past, based on Western dualism or monism. It has become useless because it has failed to open the new ground which is needed to resolve the science/faith debate.
We need all three, Science, Philosophy, and Theology, or we are lost.
It would be helpful to hear your thoughts on why theology and philosophy are essential. I for one don't believe they are as they don't provide verifiable truths.
1
As comedian Tim Minchin's commencement speech demonstrates so brilliantly, the relevance of one's life need not involve e a great deal of relevant philosophy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoEezZD71sc
As Thoreau wrote in 1854:
"There are nowadays professors of philosophy, but not philosophers. Yet it is admirable to profess because it was once admirable to live. To be a philosopher is not merely to have subtle thoughts, nor even to found a school, but so to love wisdom as to live according to its dictates, a life of simplicity, independence, magnanimity, and trust. It is to solve some of the problems of life, not only theoretically, but practically..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoEezZD71sc
As Thoreau wrote in 1854:
"There are nowadays professors of philosophy, but not philosophers. Yet it is admirable to profess because it was once admirable to live. To be a philosopher is not merely to have subtle thoughts, nor even to found a school, but so to love wisdom as to live according to its dictates, a life of simplicity, independence, magnanimity, and trust. It is to solve some of the problems of life, not only theoretically, but practically..."
1
Point #1: I'm wary of any argument that uses the "Animal, Vegetable or Mineral" motif. It's just plain weak. You might get good zoos or productive gardens or even nice jewelry, but ethical humans? Not so much.
And, Point#2: I had a reflexive action this morning when I knocked my coffee cup over. Instead of pondering my clumsiness I chose, instead, to read your article. That's when I discovered that I probably had deliberately knocked it over, likely to punish myself for never having whacked a tennis ball at 140 mph. When will I ever learn!
Finally, I'm not a great fan of "the concept of rationality". It's linear. Straight-line. Simple. Easy.
It is: A>B>C>D>....
Irrationality is: A>B>cat>
And, Point#2: I had a reflexive action this morning when I knocked my coffee cup over. Instead of pondering my clumsiness I chose, instead, to read your article. That's when I discovered that I probably had deliberately knocked it over, likely to punish myself for never having whacked a tennis ball at 140 mph. When will I ever learn!
Finally, I'm not a great fan of "the concept of rationality". It's linear. Straight-line. Simple. Easy.
It is: A>B>C>D>....
Irrationality is: A>B>cat>
1
I'm horrified that that was mysteriously cut off.
To finish:
Irrationality is A>B>cat>
To finish:
Irrationality is A>B>cat>
1
This comment is in a techno-hole and the Law On Holes is that when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
You're welcome to my shovel.
I quit.
You're welcome to my shovel.
I quit.
2
Robert, so much of the time, this column makes so little sense to me - that when it does - I look at the author's bio...
No one's more clever than philosophers, at staying relevant...
They're in the midst of trying to co-opt neuroscience...
They'll be no more intellectually successful there, than when they tried to co-opt modern physics (manifested in mutant branding, like the "God" particle)...
But - philosophers from everywhere and everywhen do deserve a shout-out, because their tendency to try to think out important matters - vs fighting/jousting them out - was as important as opposable thumbs, standing erect, and speaking the first few guttural phonemes...
So, let's try something...A sort of data-based Turing Test, not about what answers pass muster as reasoned - but in which ratios do humans at (some level of) large select the different answers:
Pick one:
A - You get $10 - and nothing bad happens
B - You get $1000 - and a couple of bad things happen, but beyond your view
C - You get $100K - and several bad things happen to people, but - again - beyond your view
D - You get $10M - and a good number of bad things happen to a good number of people...You'll only see that, though, via TV or the Internet
E- - You get $1B - and people die. and are badly hurt...Widespread enough, that you may see some of this directly - but none of the blood will spatter on you, your bodyguards, or your Gulfstream
Of course, the ancillary question - what is your chosen profession?
No one's more clever than philosophers, at staying relevant...
They're in the midst of trying to co-opt neuroscience...
They'll be no more intellectually successful there, than when they tried to co-opt modern physics (manifested in mutant branding, like the "God" particle)...
But - philosophers from everywhere and everywhen do deserve a shout-out, because their tendency to try to think out important matters - vs fighting/jousting them out - was as important as opposable thumbs, standing erect, and speaking the first few guttural phonemes...
So, let's try something...A sort of data-based Turing Test, not about what answers pass muster as reasoned - but in which ratios do humans at (some level of) large select the different answers:
Pick one:
A - You get $10 - and nothing bad happens
B - You get $1000 - and a couple of bad things happen, but beyond your view
C - You get $100K - and several bad things happen to people, but - again - beyond your view
D - You get $10M - and a good number of bad things happen to a good number of people...You'll only see that, though, via TV or the Internet
E- - You get $1B - and people die. and are badly hurt...Widespread enough, that you may see some of this directly - but none of the blood will spatter on you, your bodyguards, or your Gulfstream
Of course, the ancillary question - what is your chosen profession?
3
The writer of this essay is the author of a book titled, "On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not."
I have a suggestion for you. Before you take anything he says too seriously, take a trip to your local book store and peruse a half dozen of the "neuroscience" books that in various ways present the same theme: "I, the scientist, know the truth (sorry, the Truth). We now know, for certain, that many of the things you believe are not true. Believe me."
After you've recovered from the fact that so many very intelligent yet philosophically illiterate scientists can be thought to be presenting intelligent thought, it might be worthwhile for you to write something that cuts through this neurobabble.
I have a suggestion for you. Before you take anything he says too seriously, take a trip to your local book store and peruse a half dozen of the "neuroscience" books that in various ways present the same theme: "I, the scientist, know the truth (sorry, the Truth). We now know, for certain, that many of the things you believe are not true. Believe me."
After you've recovered from the fact that so many very intelligent yet philosophically illiterate scientists can be thought to be presenting intelligent thought, it might be worthwhile for you to write something that cuts through this neurobabble.
1
If the meaning of a thing or event is constructed rather than intrinsic to the thing or event, then philosophy can serve as a guide regarding how best to construct meaning.
"Going forward, the greatest challenge for philosophy will be to remain relevant.."
Yes, there it is in a nut-shell. It is difficult to imagine the same statement being constructed about neuroscience, or chemistry, or physiology. The art of philosophy is largely irrelevant. Wise men pondering questions do not necessarily make them wise questions.
Yes, there it is in a nut-shell. It is difficult to imagine the same statement being constructed about neuroscience, or chemistry, or physiology. The art of philosophy is largely irrelevant. Wise men pondering questions do not necessarily make them wise questions.
1
Jack--There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers.
1
I dunno, the opening assertion about reason defined meaning of life seems to ignore reams of existential writings from people like Sartre and Camus, if not Marcel and others.
Speaking of biological based fulfillment, there were debates in the Buddhist communities about sensory - sight and sound per virtual and/or augmented realities - to replicate meditative enlightenment. Alas, if one is to study literatures like Bardo Thodol, it is exactly the opposite for which one should strive (perhaps the topic of how misguided Western Buddhism has to be left for another day).
In Buddhism, you have stability and wisdom. In socratic philosophy, you have Plato's chariot. To echo Pascal, the heart has its reason which Reason doesn't understand. Any reductionism will end in absurdum ad infinitum
Speaking of biological based fulfillment, there were debates in the Buddhist communities about sensory - sight and sound per virtual and/or augmented realities - to replicate meditative enlightenment. Alas, if one is to study literatures like Bardo Thodol, it is exactly the opposite for which one should strive (perhaps the topic of how misguided Western Buddhism has to be left for another day).
In Buddhism, you have stability and wisdom. In socratic philosophy, you have Plato's chariot. To echo Pascal, the heart has its reason which Reason doesn't understand. Any reductionism will end in absurdum ad infinitum
6
"We study the lessons of history, read philosophy, and seek out wise men with the hope of learning what matters."
That is hardly correct.
While many people study history, read philosophy, study science and pursue knowledge, most do not.
Most people got sideswiped by religious cults at birth and got advanced degrees in television, sports, Candy Crush and in how to use their dumb-phones and have been reduced to intellectual paraplegics, left to wander the earth with a narrow, spiteful version of Aesop's fables, infomercials, propaganda and video games and as their guide to hell on earth.
Many people have escaped religious prisons, but religion tragically still shapes the 'meaning of life' discussion due to its best-selling 'instant salvation' recipe.
But life has no meaning outside of it being an animal sensual pleasure, not that there's anything wrong with that.
Joseph Campbell articulated it best:
"People say that what we're all seeking is a meaning for life. I don't think that's what we're really seeking. I think what we're seeking is an experience of being alive, so that our life experiences on the purely physical plane will have resonance within our own innermost being and reality, so that we actually feel the rapture of being alive. That's what it's all finally about."
“Life has no meaning. Each of us has meaning and we bring it to life. It is a waste to be asking the question when you are the answer.”
The actions of your life are the meaning of your life.
That is hardly correct.
While many people study history, read philosophy, study science and pursue knowledge, most do not.
Most people got sideswiped by religious cults at birth and got advanced degrees in television, sports, Candy Crush and in how to use their dumb-phones and have been reduced to intellectual paraplegics, left to wander the earth with a narrow, spiteful version of Aesop's fables, infomercials, propaganda and video games and as their guide to hell on earth.
Many people have escaped religious prisons, but religion tragically still shapes the 'meaning of life' discussion due to its best-selling 'instant salvation' recipe.
But life has no meaning outside of it being an animal sensual pleasure, not that there's anything wrong with that.
Joseph Campbell articulated it best:
"People say that what we're all seeking is a meaning for life. I don't think that's what we're really seeking. I think what we're seeking is an experience of being alive, so that our life experiences on the purely physical plane will have resonance within our own innermost being and reality, so that we actually feel the rapture of being alive. That's what it's all finally about."
“Life has no meaning. Each of us has meaning and we bring it to life. It is a waste to be asking the question when you are the answer.”
The actions of your life are the meaning of your life.
122
This is nonsense. If you say 'Life has no meaning' (and I quite agree), then that's the end of the story. Life has no meaning, period.
3
Hmm. Lots of quotes from various men.
Let's also examine the brain activity of women who find themselves imaginatively engaged with the (unknown) fates of their own grown children more powerfully than they are engaged in thoughts about their own bodies, plans, and next yoga session.
We can always revise. Revision trains and directs and corrects thought. Over time. It takes time.
Is anybody studying innate empathy? Or are you guys all just studying hunger and forgetfulness?
Let's also examine the brain activity of women who find themselves imaginatively engaged with the (unknown) fates of their own grown children more powerfully than they are engaged in thoughts about their own bodies, plans, and next yoga session.
We can always revise. Revision trains and directs and corrects thought. Over time. It takes time.
Is anybody studying innate empathy? Or are you guys all just studying hunger and forgetfulness?
In other words...
"Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works.
Let thy garments be always white; and let thy head lack no ointment.
Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity, which he hath given thee under the sun, all the days of thy vanity: for that is thy portion in this life, and in thy labour which thou takest under the sun.
Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest."
Ecclesiastes 9:7-10
Is that what you mean -- ?
"Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works.
Let thy garments be always white; and let thy head lack no ointment.
Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity, which he hath given thee under the sun, all the days of thy vanity: for that is thy portion in this life, and in thy labour which thou takest under the sun.
Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest."
Ecclesiastes 9:7-10
Is that what you mean -- ?
1
As the actions directed by the conscious mind have their roots in the unconscious mind, the rational judgments of an individual too are preceded by subliminal impulsive reflexes. As for the problem of explaining values and purposes through empirical science, the theory of scientific value relativism as propounded by Arnold Brecht in his book "Political Theory" could be the answer, where the values cease to be of absolute nature and viewed in relative terms, and sought to be examined and measured accordingly.
2
Demolished Man 2100.
What? There really is no such thing as free will, reason, rationality and that if I must find meaning, purpose in life I must abandon these concepts or at least dramatically play them down? But I have always known this! People have accused me of being a paranoid schizophrenic for years--they have tried to lock me up which is why I now live in the woods--for saying I do nothing without listening to the voices in my head, that I have no free will but listen to the voices, that my reason is their, the voice's reason, and that the voices are my meaning in life.
People for years have been trying to tell me "No, listen to us, actual people, our concerns, not the voices in your head, and please take your medicine regularly" but of course I know the truth: Those very people are just listening to the voices in their own heads, they're just as crazy as me and I see no reason to obey the voices telling them what to do over the voices in my own head.
Ha! Ha! So now I live in the woods. Listen to the best voices in my head--classical literature, great singers, stuff like that, and just voices, thoughts which come to me which are interesting. I am hearing a voice now...My own? Someone or something else's? I do know people say to listen and this can mean anything from listening to someone else to meditating quietly, just listening for someone, something...I try to listen for the best. I do not do just what people tell me to do. But they do try to tell me what to do.
What? There really is no such thing as free will, reason, rationality and that if I must find meaning, purpose in life I must abandon these concepts or at least dramatically play them down? But I have always known this! People have accused me of being a paranoid schizophrenic for years--they have tried to lock me up which is why I now live in the woods--for saying I do nothing without listening to the voices in my head, that I have no free will but listen to the voices, that my reason is their, the voice's reason, and that the voices are my meaning in life.
People for years have been trying to tell me "No, listen to us, actual people, our concerns, not the voices in your head, and please take your medicine regularly" but of course I know the truth: Those very people are just listening to the voices in their own heads, they're just as crazy as me and I see no reason to obey the voices telling them what to do over the voices in my own head.
Ha! Ha! So now I live in the woods. Listen to the best voices in my head--classical literature, great singers, stuff like that, and just voices, thoughts which come to me which are interesting. I am hearing a voice now...My own? Someone or something else's? I do know people say to listen and this can mean anything from listening to someone else to meditating quietly, just listening for someone, something...I try to listen for the best. I do not do just what people tell me to do. But they do try to tell me what to do.
13
Rationality might be considered a defense mechanism. Lonely and isolating. Medicine for that might be ecstasy, charged perhaps as self delusion. Paul found he could just not be right relying on his egoic self, but could do all things through Christ within. Also, be not conformed to this world, which fits well your case. The Essenes just got out and kept to themselves. Listening as you do seems to be a bit of turn on tune in drop out. Has its satisfactions; probably requires reconciliation with inevitable feelings of loneliness.
Oh, and the self-driving car was rationally programmed to stop. The program was rational and morally designed to protect the inalienable rights of others. It could have been programmed to seek out and run over others, but it wasn't.
There is right and wrong (leftist Marxism).
There is right and wrong (leftist Marxism).
4
This is a side issue, but I hardly think that Ayn Rand, who held up a serial killer as the ideal man, represents the epitome of rational thought. Given that a Rand enthusiast equates "wrong" + "leftist" + Marxism" - perhaps this comment is redundant.
2
I am not demeaning the importance of so many questions or presumptios. Yet I would like someone to show me an example of a long life with no reason--however scrambled or devious that might be.
Is reason a uniform process, or is it contingent (see "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman).
Is the relevance of philosophy amenable to proof, or is it more like religion--an act of faith? Arguments over the validity of philosophy might run into many of the same problems seen for the existence of religion. This would also apply to the (more devious?) world of analytical philosophy.
Dr. Burton draws connections between many loose threads, threads that are amenable to argument themselves. The works of Jonathan Haidt are subject to criticism on several levels: http://www.chronicle.com/article/A-Political-Defector/130450/ . The idea of "scientific method," while certainly part of common public discourse, has been subject to some interesting critiques (see books titled "Ignorance" and "Failure" by Stuart Firestein).
Is reason a uniform process, or is it contingent (see "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman).
Is the relevance of philosophy amenable to proof, or is it more like religion--an act of faith? Arguments over the validity of philosophy might run into many of the same problems seen for the existence of religion. This would also apply to the (more devious?) world of analytical philosophy.
Dr. Burton draws connections between many loose threads, threads that are amenable to argument themselves. The works of Jonathan Haidt are subject to criticism on several levels: http://www.chronicle.com/article/A-Political-Defector/130450/ . The idea of "scientific method," while certainly part of common public discourse, has been subject to some interesting critiques (see books titled "Ignorance" and "Failure" by Stuart Firestein).
2
I was recently listening to the audiobook of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and Pirsig recounts Poincare saying a theorem sprang into his mind as he was stepping onto a bus. It is here (http://www.is.wayne.edu/DRBOWEN/CRTVYW99/POINCARE.HTM), after the section that begins "It is time to penetrate further and to see what goes on in the very soul of the mathematician." I've had similar experiences myself--after thinking hard about a problem for some hours the answer comes in the shower or while walking the dog. Similarly I recall bicycling and the danger of a suddenly emerging traffic situation hitting my consciousness and realizing that my left hand was already applying the front brake harder than I had done in years, so that my rear wheel was already a foot off the ground. There are many parallel processes going on at once in the brain. Neuroscientists have understood some of this for years, realized that most of coordinated activity (like walking) is off-loaded to the cerebellum etc. etc. I think when actively learning something, though that the conscious mind is very much involved. I think that conscious involvement in trying to solve the conjecture was very much necessary to set in motion the neuroactivity that lead to inspiration as he stepped onto the bus. And I think that somehow free will does exist, tied in with the conscious stream of thought that our "narrator" describes.
8
Seriously. Just because our conscious 'narrator' is reacting to decisions that have already been made by our subconscious does not mean that 'we' are not making decisions? Who does not recall a time when it was their instinct to look at something one way, but then after consciously unspooling the logic realized they were wrong? Laughter itself is a reflex caused by disagreement between the conscious and subconscious minds. This is not lacking freewill, it is just an example of the interplay between our multiple neural processes.
It is not Philosophy's job to consider the challenges and limitations humans have in their conscious thought and neural processes. Philosophy (and good religion) must be the guiding light telling us the right way to be, to think, to live. Just because we have a strong sense of disgust in our brains does not let us off the hook to live the right way. That's like forgiving the psychopath for their damaged mental circuitry ... they are still guilty for the harm they create, just as we are guilty if we fail to exercise our free will and find the best philosophy with which to live our lives. The concept of 'Integrity' is our ability to show mastery over our imperfect minds, and do what we believe to be right by thought and reason rather than our animal instincts.
It is not Philosophy's job to consider the challenges and limitations humans have in their conscious thought and neural processes. Philosophy (and good religion) must be the guiding light telling us the right way to be, to think, to live. Just because we have a strong sense of disgust in our brains does not let us off the hook to live the right way. That's like forgiving the psychopath for their damaged mental circuitry ... they are still guilty for the harm they create, just as we are guilty if we fail to exercise our free will and find the best philosophy with which to live our lives. The concept of 'Integrity' is our ability to show mastery over our imperfect minds, and do what we believe to be right by thought and reason rather than our animal instincts.
1
Eastern thought/philosophy leads one away from the rational, not to the irrational, but to the transcendence of both. In that state, one knows that neither are valid, right or wrong, that there is just the state of 'isness'.
A place from which all has come, and to which all will go, including thought, feeling, meaning.
(this eternal state, btw, is joy, ecstasy, love, beyond anything the human mind or emotions can fathom).
A place from which all has come, and to which all will go, including thought, feeling, meaning.
(this eternal state, btw, is joy, ecstasy, love, beyond anything the human mind or emotions can fathom).
5
Rational/irrational, right/wrong...just two sides of the coin of duality. What is that which is AWARE of all that occurs. Thou art that.
Haidt is overrated. Ethics, like gravity, is not a function of rational thought, but rather something to be discovered by rational thought. That means that morality exists even in the absence of rational thought. Those devoid of rational thought, such as animals, can't be faulted for acting immorally because they have no ability to discover morality using rational thought. Once humanity discovers a higher moral path such as when the enlightenment thinkers discovered inalienable rights of all individuals, it behooves the rest of humanity to stand on the shoulders of those thinkers. Just as it would be stupid to deny gravity after its discovery, it would be immoral to deny moral discovery.
For example, after discovery of inalienable individual rights of all people, it behooves humanity to stop cultures that embrace honor killings, or force women to cover themselves or to produce 4 make witnesses after being raped or stoning the rape victim to death for committing adultery.
Ayn Rand reminded us that the smallest minority is the individual. Therefore, you can't be for minority rights (e.g. BLM) while demanding to use the force of government to take from those who earn to provide for those who don't.
While morality requires rationality, feelings require neither. I'm not sure if the author was advocating for the absurd ... That feelings are equal to morality, or that morality is relative, but it's hard to say that there was much of moral or rational value in this piece.
For example, after discovery of inalienable individual rights of all people, it behooves humanity to stop cultures that embrace honor killings, or force women to cover themselves or to produce 4 make witnesses after being raped or stoning the rape victim to death for committing adultery.
Ayn Rand reminded us that the smallest minority is the individual. Therefore, you can't be for minority rights (e.g. BLM) while demanding to use the force of government to take from those who earn to provide for those who don't.
While morality requires rationality, feelings require neither. I'm not sure if the author was advocating for the absurd ... That feelings are equal to morality, or that morality is relative, but it's hard to say that there was much of moral or rational value in this piece.
1
Here’s a different POV: How can we tell if a rule is a moral rule, or just a rule that has no moral content? There is no moral rule that tells us how to distinguish a moral rule. There is no criterion “out there” that we can discover. We make this classification deliberately and rationally; it’s not right or wrong, rather it’s a definition that we create, a classification based on facts. Hence disagreements among philosophers, psychologists, anthropologists, etc. on the question – it’s not because they somehow missed the truth; it’s because they think differently.
Both the learned content (memes) and our hardwired framework for them (determined by our genome) have been produced by evolution. Because most of human evolution took place in similar circumstances, the hard wiring in almost all of us is very similar. So were the memes; but recent diversity has resulted in more inter-cultural variation in the memes. But as Joyce, Haidt, and many others have observed, the content of what every society labels morality concerns four or five kinds or rules, which are about: Harm, Fairness and reciprocity, Respect for authority, and Purity – all applied differently to our in-groups and others.
Aristotle, Kant, Ayn Rand, and others spent lots of energy trying rationally to figure out what the content of moral rules should be. That’s a different question from what they are.
Both the learned content (memes) and our hardwired framework for them (determined by our genome) have been produced by evolution. Because most of human evolution took place in similar circumstances, the hard wiring in almost all of us is very similar. So were the memes; but recent diversity has resulted in more inter-cultural variation in the memes. But as Joyce, Haidt, and many others have observed, the content of what every society labels morality concerns four or five kinds or rules, which are about: Harm, Fairness and reciprocity, Respect for authority, and Purity – all applied differently to our in-groups and others.
Aristotle, Kant, Ayn Rand, and others spent lots of energy trying rationally to figure out what the content of moral rules should be. That’s a different question from what they are.
6
The founding fathers of the USA applied these discoveries to the founding of the USA and that is what makes the USA exceptional. Anything that infringes on the inalienable rights of any individual is immoral. Force is immoral. Lying, cheating, stealing, fraud are all forms of force and are clearly immoral.
Haidt deals not with morality, but rather sensibilities. Having sex with a frozen chicken carcass and then cooking and eating it has nothing to do with morality.
If an action involves forcing (physical force, threats, lying, cheating, fraud, etc.), injuring or murdering individuals in any manner, it is immoral.
Our founding fathers gave us the moral framework. It is such a shame that progressive liberal Marxist Democrats are so intent on forcing us to destroy it.
Haidt deals not with morality, but rather sensibilities. Having sex with a frozen chicken carcass and then cooking and eating it has nothing to do with morality.
If an action involves forcing (physical force, threats, lying, cheating, fraud, etc.), injuring or murdering individuals in any manner, it is immoral.
Our founding fathers gave us the moral framework. It is such a shame that progressive liberal Marxist Democrats are so intent on forcing us to destroy it.
>>>>>>
"The light of reason, which dawned in that impulse and is reflected in the recollecting thought of the human beings, falls, even on the happiest day, on its irresolvable contradiction: the calamity which reason alone cannot avert."
Horkheimer and Adorno
Dialectic of Enlightenment
"Scientific inquiry may be an embodiment of reason, but what such inquiry demonstrates is that humans are not rational animals."
John N. Gray
"The light of reason, which dawned in that impulse and is reflected in the recollecting thought of the human beings, falls, even on the happiest day, on its irresolvable contradiction: the calamity which reason alone cannot avert."
Horkheimer and Adorno
Dialectic of Enlightenment
"Scientific inquiry may be an embodiment of reason, but what such inquiry demonstrates is that humans are not rational animals."
John N. Gray
4
Jamming on the brakes to avoid hitting a child may be reflexive but the responsible reflexes reflect millions of years of learning that lives are precious, particularly young lives.
11
We all are human. No more, no less. So get over such glib notions as that we are rational beings. We are humans. We are decision makers. We are learning what it means to be human and we are struggling with our new found knowledge.
5
I don't see how our brains making a decision to act half a second before we are conscious of it negates our rationality. This sounds like how many angels fit on the head of a pin.
7
In fact, Libet himself came to interpret his experiment as proving we do have a form of free will - or "free won't." This article should be part of an exhibit that demonstrates how fundamaterialism makes intelligent thought almost impossible.
2
I don't think we should compare motor skills of a tennis player or a pianist with rational thought. Being both a scientist and a musician, we have to prepare our fingers and hands and arms to play a particular passage, and the same surely applies to a tennis player.
However, as a musician, as a composer, as one who knows jazz, there are those moments, those unexplained moments when a particular sound comes to my head and I know not where it comes from. These are the most interesting moments to me in my musical development, because, suddenly, I have understood something I didn't recognize before.
Yes, we should try to be logical about our decisions. You are right that life needs meaning to be worth living, and the unexamined life is surely not worth living. What is lacking is that science cannot give you that meaning. It is methods, mechanisms, and processes. Therein, you can only conclude that you are a machine that converts energy of a more complex form into a less complex form.
Perhaps we are simply meat. Certainly that is what science would say. Yet those moments of inspiration are the "salt" that gives life taste. We have been given "life". Whatever it is, whatever restraints may exist on it, this is our chance to make use of it, so do everything you can to search for meaning. Maybe selfishness and greed is better, there is no law about that, but I would say that this is the best thing to do -- whether rational or not.
However, as a musician, as a composer, as one who knows jazz, there are those moments, those unexplained moments when a particular sound comes to my head and I know not where it comes from. These are the most interesting moments to me in my musical development, because, suddenly, I have understood something I didn't recognize before.
Yes, we should try to be logical about our decisions. You are right that life needs meaning to be worth living, and the unexamined life is surely not worth living. What is lacking is that science cannot give you that meaning. It is methods, mechanisms, and processes. Therein, you can only conclude that you are a machine that converts energy of a more complex form into a less complex form.
Perhaps we are simply meat. Certainly that is what science would say. Yet those moments of inspiration are the "salt" that gives life taste. We have been given "life". Whatever it is, whatever restraints may exist on it, this is our chance to make use of it, so do everything you can to search for meaning. Maybe selfishness and greed is better, there is no law about that, but I would say that this is the best thing to do -- whether rational or not.
22
Science would not say we are meat. The materially focused technicians which pass for "science" are already slipping into the dim and rather quaint histories of what we used to think.
1
"... the greatest challenge for philosophy will be to remain relevant ..."
When was it ever relevant?
"The math department is the 2nd cheapest one to supply in the university: All the need are pencils, paper and erasers. The philosophy department is the cheapest. They don't need erasers."
When was it ever relevant?
"The math department is the 2nd cheapest one to supply in the university: All the need are pencils, paper and erasers. The philosophy department is the cheapest. They don't need erasers."
24
Disregarding the intellectual offensiveness of your question, I find it interesting that you feel it necessary to come to The Stone to question philosophy's relevance. I mean, why bother?
30
An excellent observation!
A very nice essay! I very much hope the authors' colleagues' listen. We could all need some philosophy that is actually useful and relevant for our life and not mostly academic elaborations unconnected to our reality.
On the issue of free will though, the author seems to mistakenly believe that we are not responsible for our unconscious thoughts. Of course we are. It's just that actions based on unconscious thoughts can't be dealt with (corrected? prevented?) the same way as those based on unconscious thought. It's still the decision-making 'you' that is responsible for 'your' actions - in any sensible definition of 'you'.
On the issue of free will though, the author seems to mistakenly believe that we are not responsible for our unconscious thoughts. Of course we are. It's just that actions based on unconscious thoughts can't be dealt with (corrected? prevented?) the same way as those based on unconscious thought. It's still the decision-making 'you' that is responsible for 'your' actions - in any sensible definition of 'you'.
2
There's responsible and then there's responsible.