3 posts tagged “philosophy”

At one of the many chats and discussions that take place at Philosophy House, someone asked me about my own philosophy (perhaps that's why it's called Philosophy House -- wow! What a concept!). I was pretty much thrown for a loop by it, too. Not so much because I don't know what I believe, but because I wasn't sure of a label that I could attach to the whole shebang that would make sense to anyone other than me. I don't have any single overriding set of beliefs, and would have to call myself an "eclectic" since I do tend to draw from several fields of thought.

I suppose that ethically I'm pretty much a Stoic in the classical sense of the word. In today's language the term has come to mean someone who's "stiff upper lip" and that sort of thing; kind of a cold-hearted, unfeeling bastard in some usages. However, that's not what the Greeks and Romans meant by the term. A Stoic is one who tries to be rational by controlling their emotions. The Greeks used the term "apathos" (my Greek is almost non-existent, so please don't hold me to that), which we now call "apathetic". In our usage, it means one who really doesn't care about much of anything. To the Greeks, though, it means not driven by their passions ("a", meaning "without", and "pathos", meaning "passion", but probably closer to "suffering" or "pain"). The idea is that emotion, especially strong emotion, leads to false perceptions and interferes with rational thought. Therefore, by keeping a tight rein on one's emotions, one can approach life rationally and logically.

In the Stoic belief system, the self is the only thing which is truly within our power to control. Thus, there is the self and everything else is information, which we may choose to act upon or not, as reason may dictate under the circumstances. In the search for any capital-T truth, there are certainly flaws within this system. But since its beliefs are centered around control of the self rather than around control of the surroundings, its ultimate end would be a harmonious relationship with the world at large by adapting ourselves to the world as we perceive it to be rather than trying to change the world to suit our desires. Perhaps "happiness" might be an accurate term, but it's more more along the lines of eudaimonia ("the virtuous exercise of rationality") than anything else. Keep in mind that "virtue" to the Greeks was something closer to "habitual excellence" than to any sort of cheerfulness. In other words, whatever you're going to do, do it well.

Because the self is the root of everything, this would logically imply the existence of a self. Which more or less leads into a second foundational belief. In order for this to work well, I must accept two concepts: existence and identity. In simpler terms, "I am" and "I am me". Existence is a constant (otherwise I wouldn't be here writing this - of course I could be a figment of your tormented imagination, in which case I would suggest that you are in serious need of therapy because you should be able to come up with a better imaginary friend); identity is not. If we are shaped and molded by our experiences (well, those experiences which we allow to shape and mold us, anyway), then our identify must change to a certain extent. In many ways, I am the same person that I was when I was 10, but in many other ways I am a completely different person than I was when I was 10. I am also a different person than I was when I woke up this morning. It's probably not a noticable difference, but that difference must exist or I would stagnate.

Somone asked if this was a Cartesian view. I suppose that at its core it is ("cogito ergo sum" and all that), but it really isn't. Descartes' next leap was something to the effect that God would not try to deceive him. I can't make that leap. So instead of relying on some divinely given version of reality, I have to rely on what I can perceive. But I must also concede the possibility that my perception might not be an accurate rendering of reality. However, to make that concession, there must also be some degree of probability that it is accurate. Being rather confident of my own perceptive ability (self-centered SOB that I am), I assign it a higher probability of accuracy than its probability of inaccuracy. So, using the example of rain in Dallas that I mentioned in my previous post, if I walk outside and get wet, it is highly probable that it is, indeed, raining. But there is some chance that I am not perceiving the event correctly, so I cannot say with certainty that it is raining, merely that it is highly probable. Sounds a bit Bayesian, but I don't have the head for math to be able to calculate it precisely. Instead, I believe that it is raining, but concede the remote possiblity that I could be wrong.

So, in short, I am certain of my own existence. My identity is somewhat malleable, but I am certain that I have one. All else is probabilities.

First off, let me state that everyone is entitled to their beliefs. I don't particularly care whether you believe in God, Allah, Buddha, the Great Spirit, or nothing at all. If it makes you happy to believe it, then go for it. So what follows is not to belittle anyone's beliefs, but rather to show what happens when people's most important beliefs are challenged or perceived as challenged.

Sunday's topic in the epistemology discussion was "evidentialism". It's not a bad system, as far as it goes. In fact, it pretty much forms the foundation of our legal system. The afternoon discussion went very well, essentially arriving at the conclusion that it leads to no capital-T truths, but is workable enough for dealing with small-T truths (everyday facts and conclusions regarding perceived objects and events). The evening discussion started off well enough, pretty much agreeing that it works when you're talking about "normality", but starts to fall apart when one begins to examine other possible explanations.

The example used was a statement by a friend that it was raining in Dallas. For most of us, a generally truthful person's statement about something of that magnitude is sufficient evidence to accept it as a factually accurate description of an event that we are not capable of experiencing for ourselves. We believe that the speaker is rational enough to know whether it's raining or not and truthful enough that we believe they would not intentionally tell us something that they did not believe to be accurate. But for a person with a less-than-rational outlook (what we might commonly call "paranoid") then those two assumptions may not pertain.

The point was then raised questioning whether an otherwise truthful person's assertion regarding the existence (or not) of God was sufficient to cause someone else to change their belief based upon that assertion. For example, my friend says, "I know God exists." Is that statement sufficient evidence to justify my own belief or changing my own belief in God's existence? And the discussion began to deteriorate from about that point. All in all, not a pretty scene with the topic now being existence or non-existence and replete with "how dare you?" and comments of that sort.

Whether true or not, there seem to be some topics which are real hot-button issues with some people. Especially when taken in a different context from what was originally intended. Back in my college days, I worked as a bartender (among other jobs). The standard rule was to never discuss religion, sex or politics (sometimes sports, depending on who the local favorite was). Being an essentially filthy-minded lecher, I couldn't abide by the sex part. Since my minor was Political Science, I couldn't stay away from the politics part (probably lost more than a few tips in the process, too). But the religion part was a hard and fast rule for exactly this reason - even people who practice the same faith have a hard time agreeing on some aspects of their beliefs. Imagine the problems with people of different faiths trying to persuade each other that their most closely-held beliefs are wrong.

So, I'm back to my "no religion" stance. Believe what you want. You might even be welcome to discuss the topic with me privately. But it probably has no place in any public philosophical discussion unless everyone involved is amenable and agrees to remain civil about it.

On rye with swiss and just a bit of dijon mustard, please.

So what's to tell? I'm exploring this thing called "Second Life" (www.secondlife.com). Being the kind of person who likes to talk about things as an aid to learning, what better way to do it than by blogging it? In real life, I'm a social studies teacher in Texas.

I got onto SL out of curiosity about all they hype I've been seeing for the past few months in the various trade mags that I receive (and seldom have time to do more than skim through). I suppose the biggest draws to SL are the fact that it's free (for now, anyway - looks like they're going to start charging a fee for age verification for users who want access to adult-oriented areas) and it's almost entirely user-built. Linden Labs provides the server space and basically sets the ground rules; the users do everything else. There are currently around 6,000,000 registered users (called "residents"), although that number also includes those users who have more than one account. There have been a bit more than a million and a half logins within the past 60 days, though I don't know whether that is total logins or unique residents logged in. At any rate, it appears to be a rather large user base in spite of the arguments over just how big. There are two Second Life realms (for lack of a better term) available: Second Life and Teen Second Life. Adults, with very rare exceptions, are not allowed in Teen Second Life and minors are not allowed at all in regular Second Life. I'm sure there are at least a few minors in SL. Create an environment where males (adolescent or not) can see cartoon boobies and they'll flock to your site, at least for a while.

At any rate, I can see where SL might fill a void in the online community. Unless you're willing to spend some money, about the only things you can do are sight-see (it is generally quite striking) and chat.In practical effect, it's no different from web-surfing (which can be a lot more educational). IM'ing or hanging out in chat room. Where SL comes in is that it's a 3-D environment, so you actually have something to look at while you're doing it.In that respect, it's pretty decent. And it may sound funny, but an avatar party is infinitely better than reams of text in a chat room. Where it also stands out is with musicians and artists being able to share their work through streaming media.

So there I am - wandering around like any noob. And the first places that I manage to find are the library and a place called "Philosophy House". How's that for being a true nerd? The bad thing about the library is: no books. Lots of notices about events and exhibits, but no books that I could find. Bummer. You'd think they'd at least make their knowledge base available. Think I'll head back there and do some more exploring. It's a very interesting place.

The Philosophy House, though... That's something else entirely. It's not even fair to call it a house - it's just a dozen or so stumps arranged around a fire pit. Works out well, though. The minimalism of the surroundings lets you concentrate that much more on the conversation. And what conversations! I think I have died and gone to heaven.

Start from the premise that I'm not just a nerd -- I'm a super nerd. Pick a subject, any subject; I've probably studied it, at least a little. And if it's in the liberal arts, a lot. Now tack onto that the fact that I'm curious about almost everything. I want to know what it is, why it is, how it works and how it fits into the big picture that we generally call "life". It doesn't matter that it's not relevant to what I'm currently doing. What matters is that at some point it might be relevant or useful. Now add to that mix a group of highly intelligent and articulate people with similar interests and let them start talking. Some of it really makes my head spin, but I haven't had this much fun since arguing with my friends in college.