Fear of [an Intelligent] Planet

This week's uproar about the possible bias in Facebook's posting of trending articles  provokes a response of: so what? Who cares?  The fairness Doctrine was abandoned in 1987 and since then the conservatives have done everything to exploit its demise.  This is clearly demonstrated by Fox News and the conservative monopoly on AM Radio.  There is no responsibility for any media outlet to present opposing views, or give equal time.  Since Facebook is not the only website, there are plenty of alternatives to find.  If one is depending of Facebook for a total information picture, then they are already a lost cause.

The political realm has been dumb-ed down by the proliferation of political BS without substance.  In the world of social media, accuracy, evidence, and logical argumentation have become lost. A case in point, here is one particularly unintelligent meme:

Stupidity warning!

It is a self-refuting attempt at an argument which blatantly fails. First, the Obama emblem is a generalization (in a piece trying to condemn generalizations about conservatives).  As an attempt to point out liberal hypocrisy, it is pre-framed to conclude that the liberal position is wrong.  By reasoning that the Islamic position of bigotry should be condemned rather than apologized for, then any actually (if not imaginary) similar conservative position should be condemned as well (which is not the case on the right).  Conversely,  if conservatives should be allowed to freely hold their views, then any similar Muslim views should be freely allowed (the second part of which is clearly not held by conservatives who want to remove all Muslim legitimacy).

Either bigotry is okay, or it is not.  It if is okay, there is no further point to arguing and the anti-liberal position can be labeled as such.  If it is not okay (and the liberals give Islam an unfair pass) then the Republican position presented is also bigotry. A further problem is the equating of Republicanism to Islamic belief (it would have been better to use "Conservative Christian").  They operate on two very different levels of ideology.  A political position is not like a religious belief, which is far more fundamental, and as transcendentally proposed truth, exists deeper.  It is part of one's being and, as it cannot be changed, constitutes identity.  This is why it is a protected class, (like sexuality), unlike political belief, which is fluid and can be changed over time through thoughtful reassessment (there is no cost in the redefining of this world, as it is not a fundamental truth, but contingent). This is significant here, because how one responds to two different types of bigotry is important, and they should not be equated and responded to in the same way.  Both utterances by the liberal denounce "-phobia," so there is consistency, these denouncements both concern fundamental identity (religion, or orientation)  The liberals do not concern themselves with avoiding Republican-ophobia, because it is a different kind of entity, not existing as an inherent property of an autonomous being.  There is admittedly a difficulty in embracing Islamic ideals while condemning anti-bigotry (although that doesn't apply to all Muslims - again, another generalization), but one can avoid dismissing an entire religion while engaging with the specific internal elements which they find problematic.

The defender can say that the Republican position is not really the same as the Islamic one, and that it is just a liberal construction.  After Cruz praised a country for executing gays, (as well as Trump's statements) this seems problematic, but the better argument would be to show why Republicanism is not bigoted, and the burden of proof shifts to the defender.  But, apparently, it is easier to do drive-by attacks on liberalism than construct a solid and valid argument.

As for the liberal response, it must be remembered that it emanates from an American point of view.  That is we live under the Constitution which promotes freedom of thought.  The first actual conclusion we can draw from the meme is that Islamic thought deserves as much respect and autonomy as the Republican position.  We have freedom of religion and if its okay for the conservative Christian to hold views that may be bigoted, then it must be alright for Muslim's to hold their own views.  This is the main problem that the liberal sees happening, and when Republican candidates and endless social media masses argue that certain religions don't have protected status, there is a real problem that the liberal is challenging.  As citizens under the Constitution, we have a legal system constructed to prevent religious beliefs from overtaking the law.  This is why the liberal does not particularly worry about the Muslim position.  The conservative one, on the other hand, exists as an ideology within the political system, and has an effect on the law, resulting in real life discrimination and persecution.  That is why it is more of a priority to challenge.  What Muslims do in their own countries may be reprehensible, but we are not in a position to change it, it is part of the fabric of their social construction.  But what conservatives do here, trying to impose a theocracy, is an immediate threat.  A conservative America that does what Middle Eastern theocracy do is exactly what is to be avoided.  I don't think there is evidence for liberals apologizing to Muslims for their beliefs, only arguing that they should have the same freedom of religion and thought.  If a Muslim was to try to impose bigoted legislation, as the Republicans actually do,  I fully expect the liberal response would be the same as has been.

Ultimately, a better track to take would be to ask why liberals don't challenge the Islamic bigotry as much as its conservative  counterpart, rather than assume liberals are apologetic.  As argued here, they are two different things (as far as our legal experience here in America)  Substituting Conservative Christian instead of Republican would eliminate some discrepancy, but since Christians (of this sort) do not acknowledge Islam as an equally valid viewpoint, that doesn't really help their case, and as there is a Christian wing of the party, but no Muslim wing (of any party), the Islamic view doesn't factor into legislative concerns.  What is ultimately important is the actual effect that bigoted views have in practicality, rather than the ideological presence they have in thought, and it is the conservative position which exerts practical damage.  It is a free country, hold bigoted views if you want, just don't try to enforce them in society. While this cartoon tries to reveal a superficial conservative position held by liberals, it really reveals a spuerficial understanding of liberalism by conservatives.

St Augustine in Hell

From this week's stupid and annoying files:  John Piper has claimed that watching Game of Thrones is like re-crucifying Christ.  Not because it depicts the most horrific methods of violence and an incredible disregard for the integrity of human subjectivity.  No, just because it contains nudity.  After taking a lot of pain killers for my spinning head, I finally think I understand this.  Not that understanding makes the statement any less stupid.  If we take the fundamental theme of Game of Thrones to be power, in a Foucauldian sense of meta-narrative (along with Nietzsche and Adler), then it involves all of life in this world.  Piper would seem to take a Paulian and Gnostic view of Christianity which rejects everything in the material world as evil.  Only the spititaul can be good.  Anything that feels positive would be an attraction to this world, which would seem to be why we can discount violence as a bad thing.  Assuming Piper isn't a psychopath, he apparently isn't attracted to abhorrent violence.  But, he may actually have an attraction to sexuality, and any glimpse of something to which he has a natural affinity (such as the expected female nudity in Thrones) would be a quick trip into the downward spiral that is real life.  Even St Augustine dealt with the natural attractiveness of prurient interests, and took a far less extremist view.  If catching a glimpse of nudity is so severe that is an act of re-crucifying, then I think it's safe to say we shouldn't be dealing with Game of Thrones.  We should be more concerned with rejecting all of popular culture to the point of resisting going out on the street (and certainly not the beach).  If Piper wants to promote a ascetic way of life that's fine (although I would think rejecting a God-given life in God-created reality to live in a self-deluding fantasy in hopes of finally going to another world would be possibly the worst sin imaginable).  But if he is really serious about that, then he should go live in a hole in the desert, or  at least in a monastery and not participate in the cultural world at all.  Directing his remarks to cultural artifacts that are themselves created out of the real history of thousands of years of human atrocities and human desires completely misses the point.  The real problem is Piper himself, who has a motivation to live (as he rightfully should) but rejects it because of extremist ideology. This resembles the movements to outlaw everything fun -sex, alcohol, dancing, etc- because "I want to do it but I can't, so no one else should be able to do it either."  Piper and his ilk should either enter the real world and attempt to make it better - to promote the good, or he should find that hole in the desert and ignore culture altogether while wasting his time waiting to be saved from reality.  Whatever he is doing now isn't helping - either the world at large or the cause of the religion he invokes.  It's just annoying.

On Evil & The Event of Literature

Last Books Read:  

On Evil - Terry Eagleton
The Event of Literature - Terry Eagleton

I:
In On Evil Eagleton examines the nature of evil  in an attempt to give it a precise definition.  He explores the area where literature, philosophy, religion, and political history meet.  This work attempts to undo the circular reasoning that leads to the popular notion that people do evil things because they are evil.  What then does the person have to do with their own actions?  Evil is either of full description of which nothing more can be said, or it is unexplainable.  Eagleton tries to navigate between these extremes.  He attempts to define it in terms of the drive to annihilate.  The desire for pure, infinite freedom requires that nothing exists, that is the lack of anything which can get in the way of the conscious drive.  Here, in his typical fashion, Eagleton links this drive with the middle class desire for freedom and the unquenchable thirst of capitalism.  The technological progression of human history has evolved to the point where more is always desirable and attainable.  This blind drive can have negative and destructive consequences left unchecked.  In its overly ambitious process evil destroys meaning. For the nihilist, annhilation is the only way to get out of the limitations of creation - to transcend, to escape.  Following Kierkegaard, Eagleton notes the "dreadful emptiness and contentlessness of evil." It is purity, and in its totality is empty and begins to come full circle with chaos.  He presents evil as all form with no substance, although this does not apply to evil alone.  It shares these qualities with music and mathematics among other things.  It is this contentlessness that I find in my least favorite things - sports and idle chat - things which present a useless form of existence.  What differentiates formal structures from evil is indeed their usefulness, which mathematics and music possess.  They provide the foundation for content which provides meaning.  It is meaning, Eagleton argues, that solidifies into something.  In the absence of meaning, evil has "no practical purpose.  Evil is supremely pointless...[it] rejects the logic of causality" (84).  Here he compares it to a game, it is purposeful action without an ultimate purpose.  This characterization as well requires careful consideration.  Life itself for the existentialists and the extra-existential absurdists could fit into this definition.  It is absurd because of the disparity between the serious weight given to actions and the ultimate arbitrariness of those actions.  Similarly, as Eagleton argues in The Event of Literature (see below), literature contains an internal logic that makes sense within the internal structure, but is baseless in an external frame of reference.  Once again, these examples rely on the construction of meaning.  Despite the unlikely possibility of a lasting necessity, life and literature make an attempt to sustain meaning.  And meaning is something. Even in the worst case in which it is all that remains, its existence defies nihilism and evil in its project. The lack of "inner depth" is what keeps the nihilist from finding true annihilation, they must remain to counter creation, but they can find no place within it.  "Evil, like religious fundamentalism is . . . a nostalgia for an older, simpler civilization, in which there were certitudes like damnation and salvation, and you knew where you stood" (119).  It is the attempt to synthesize pure order without all the messiness of life, and the ambiguities and fuzzy logic of the world which make things complicated. Eagleton concludes by applying this to modern day ideological conflict and the disillusionment of  "[t]hose who expect too much of human nature, socialists, libertarians and the like" (148).  Conservatives by contrast have much lower expectations and prioritize the sin and not redemption, while liberals over-prioritize the redemption.  Here Eagleton has thrown the generally accepted contrast between socialists and libertarians into question.  In his view, socialism "proved least possible where it is most urgent.  And this is certainly one of the major tragedies of that epoch" (150). In the current era, where terrorism becomes the defining form of blind, mindless evil,  Eagleton points out that the recognition of evil as purposeless in opposition to the reality of "wickedness" (those harmful actions that are performed for a determined goal) is an important factor in ultimately overcoming evil.

II:
In his most recent work, The Event of Literature, Eagleton argues for a complex view of literary theory . In contrast to the emptiness of evil, literature is an immensely deep creation of meaning- of worlds in themselves. This is a dense work, of which much could be said.  However, in an effort to be brief, Eagleton defines literature as a "work" that exhibits these properties: It exists in a moral perspective, that is examines  morality,.  It is non-pragmatic - it contains features that elevate it beyond any pragmatic function it might have (such as poetic language). It is mobile and dislocated -not linked precisely to its point of origin. It invites interpretation, provides connotations, and exists with a double nature - it works on multiple levels.  It contains its own internal logic which does not necessarily correspond to external reality, but is coherent.  It is a language game, it contains only what its language allows.  It involves attempts at questions and answers.  Finally, it can be viewed as an event more than a work.  It is an attempt at "strategy," a problem-solving device,  "[t]he literary work is a a solution to to the question which is itself . . . it establishes a relation to reality by establishing a relation to itself (223). Furthermore, "[t]he literary work can be seen as objectifying unconscious fantasies, converting this shapeless, sublimely terrifying stuff into tangible images" (220). Eagleton ties together the aesthetic, political, philosophical/moral and psychological threads to sum up that "[t]he work of art is an example of human praxis, and therefore how to live well" (224).  Literature is our attempt to record the infinite amount of possible experiences and attempt to make sense of existence and its myriad of perceived meanings.

Talk Talk

Scanning by Alistair Begg on the radio tonight I heard him discussing the "stupidity" of deconstructionism and the "idiocy" in the "ivory towers" of those in the field of postmodernism.  Now, I have to give him credit for bringing up these concepts - where else can anyone hear about them publicly? Unfortunately, I imagine his audience doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.  To reduce these movements of thought to the terms stupid and idiotic is, at best, lazy and at worst deceptive.  It shows his own lack of vocabulary.  For someone so interested in language in order to propagate his message, he should be more interested in how language works.  Does he think the word of God was handed to us in modern English in completely unambiguous terms?  The answer is, of course, yes.  And this shows his own stupidity and idiocy.  He proceeds from the premise that every word and phrase in the Bible has a singular, immutable meaning.  At which point his work diverges from any intellectual pursuit.  

First, given the unending amount of religious media, the massive amount of religious denominations (along with their internal conflicts), the history of religious wars, and the endless "talk" (babble) about this passage and that, its clear that there is no center of Biblical interpretation.  There are as many interpretations as there are readers, and it is constantly reinterpreted in new light.  Otherwise, he would be out of a job and everything would have been decided two thousand years ago.  Second, it is clear that language is a construct of humanity that continues to evolve and that we operate only with concepts found inside this construct.  So, even if the original authors intention was to relate a directly perceived truth, it had to be "encoded" into the language of the time, reduced from a pre-language meaning.  And that meaning has been re-translated though history into new languages as they come into existence.  So, what we have now is a multi-generational copy of the original thought.  Further, there is no indication that the Bible was intended to be such a precise, narrow vision.  Given the factual and logical contradictions that are constantly present, if that was the intention then it is a complete failure.  Alistair's problem is that since he operates from that illogical premise there is no way to reason with what he saying, he has closed off any possibility of negotiating a new and improved conclusion.  He condemns the intellectuals, but since he doesn't work in the rational field of the intellect, he is not proving their arguments to be invalid.  It is comparing oranges and apples, and all he can do is resort to name calling. 

Begg can denounce the deconstructionist for removing meaning, the postmodernist for rejecting the meta-narrative and the atheist for rejecting the existence of God.  But even if this group of miscreants were to proceed without any arguments, reason, or evidence (in the worst un-intellectual case), all they would be doing is coming down to his level - operating from a presumed premise based on belief.  Deconstruction and postmodern thought do not state that anything can mean anything (or nothing), they only reveal the internal contradictions, ambiguities and multiplicities that are inherent in human thought and magnified by the limitations of language.  I understand that Begg wants to believe in a transcendental signifier and must be concerned with the deconstructionists' lack of belief in one.  But, if he wants to discuss deconstruction then he needs to do it on their terms and argue convincingly why there is a transcendental signifier that gives a pre-established meaning.  Calling it stupid is not nearly enough. Perhaps he could start by reading Who's Afraid of Postmodernism and Postmodern Theology.  On second thought, maybe its best if he didn't discuss these concepts, as he only promotes misinformation that may be blindly accepted by his audience.

Jeremiah Blues (3/12)

In the latest developments in the culture wars, this is an interesting look at how the Republican party has been taken over by radicals, turning it into a party of theocracy.

On the other obvious front, here's a piece about the theist/atheist/anti-theist fight.  I think the key part here is that it should not be reduced to a science/religion battle.  Neither side may be right.  As Appleyard notes about Stephen Hawking, "he was contemptuously anti-philosophical."  This, in my opinion, is the flaw in science - it is self limiting and there may be modes of thought that, while remaining rational and logical (or not [1]), are deeper, wider, and higher than science. Another interesting aspect of this conflict is the intensification of ideology in the post-9/11 world.  In this respect both fundamental Christianity and militant neo-atheism share the same tactics and the same goal: the eradication of an impending, alien culture (Islam).


Rush v Rush

Finally, I have to give credit to Peter Gabriel and Rush for standing up against misuse of their music by vile, ignorant, disgusting loud mouths who are always more about creating the problems and less about the solutions.  From a liberal perspective, both of these artists have always promoted the importance of the integrity of the individual.  From a conservative perspective, a la Ayn Rand, comes the importance of individual autonomy - the artist should always have control over their own work and not allow it to be appropriated by other ideologies.







[1] In a Nietzschean view, rationality is only one mode of thought and irrationality may be just as valid

Jeremiah Blues (2/12)

It would have been previously unimaginable to think that 2012 would be the year we fight about birth control, but yet here we are in some kind of regressive loop.  There is a war on freedom of religion.  Unfortunately this war is coming from the side of religion.  Refusing to provide birth control to an employee is a pure form of religious discrimination.  One's employer should not dictate what a worker must find moral or immoral.  This is no different than other labor laws.  If a particular religion found it against their code to employ blacks, would that mean its acceptable for them to racially discriminate?  I can't imagine any sane person thinking so.  If a group wants to do business and employ people than they should all be subject to the same fairness and anti-discrimination laws as anyone else.  Furthermore this is not the case of the religious organization being forced to pay for something they find immoral.  Employer-provided health insurance is provided as a part of the worker's compensation for being employed.  It is absolutely no different than their paycheck - it is the same as giving the employee a paycheck and having that worker spend their money on birth control.  Dictating what one can spend their income on would be totalitarian (and we all know how conservatives feel about private-property rights).  However, I think there is a solution for this.  Why are we forcing the burden of insuring people onto employers?  By going to a single-payer system, where we all obtain insurance through the government, we can free employers from the these kinds of problems, and every American citizen can have access to the same healthcare.

Given the recent surge in Santorum's campaign, I have the a feeling that the right has decided to say "f***-it, burn it down".  Santorum, being both for big government and against personal liberty should be a concern for everyone, particularly conservatives who love to throw around words like liberty and freedom.  Having someone like this in office (especially after dangerous legislation like the NDAA) would risk a danger of creating a fundamentalists theocracy - no better than radical Islam and as dangerous as Hitler.  That's right, I'm already invoking Goodwin's law.  But conservatives, rather than giving in to a candidate that might be somewhat moderate, would rather destroy their own party and reverse their core values just to spite the rest of America. For now, all we can do is watch the Republican party fall into chaos and become a joke

Happy Christmas (The War [on Christmas] is Over)

As usual John Stewart ends up presenting things I would like to, and in a much better way. So, I defer to his commentary on the War on Christmas. Beyoind pointing out the obvious that Christmas is a cultural holiday (I'll save my Robert Bellah analysis for later), I would just like to emphasize that religious freedom is much better today than it was in America's past. It is this freedom and its resulting multiperspectivism that is leading to the reactionary fabrication of the war on Christmas. It doesn't really exist. The conservatives who long for the return of America's Golden Days are deluding themselves and creating some Matrix-style memory construct that isn't real for the purpose of advancing their selfish agenda. Progress makes things better. Fighting it by creating a culture war to benefit one side only leads to mess we are in (NDAA and SOPA for easy examples). So Merry Christmas, or Happy Holidays. Us liberals really don't care what you call it.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
War on Christmas - Historical Fact-Checking
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

The Tide is Turning

As usual, Stephen Colbert continues to point out the idiocracy of the media. I can't let this critique of O'Reilly go unacknowledged, as Bill proceeds to exert the single-minded, misguided, and just plain stupid fundamentalism and anti-intellectualism that goes against everything I stand for. Did Bill really never learn about gravity in elementary school? I guess he was in the super-remedial class. "Gravity?! I don't know what that means. What does it mean? F**k it! F**k gravity!"


Edit: Of course if Bill really wanted to make a useful point, instead of the usual mindless child-like useless drivel he normally pronounces, he could have discussed the anthropic principle, I.e. why do we have a moon that stabilizes Earth's rotation enough to allow life to flourish (See Parallel Worlds by Michio Kaku for a discussion). The answer, however disappointing to many, is of course if we didn't live in the "Goldilocks Zone" where conditions are just right, then we wouldn't be here to question why we live here.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Bill O'Reilly Proves God's Existence - Neil deGrasse Tyson
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

I wish I had Neil deGrasse Tyson on speed-dial.

Invisible Sun

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/12/19/a-holiday-message-from-ricky-gervais-why-im-an-atheist/

http://www.slate.com/id/2278923/

Martin Gardner, 1914

Martin Gardner, 1914 – 2010

It's sad when the world loses one of the good guys.  Martin Gardner exemplified rationality and the ability to explore competing alternatives to choose the best option and answer.  Unfortunately this is exactly the kind of thinking that is quickly disappearing.  Between the ridiculous amount of ghost-hunting shows, UFO watchers (You do know that there are alien fish-people living off the coast of California right?) and religious nonsense (I just learned from the radio the other night that the universe is only a few thousand years old), the world of the 21st century is quickly devolving into a state of superstitious, gullible Neanderthals.

Known for his mathematical ability, Gardner also excelled when he  pursued knowledge beyond his strict intellectual studies.  His avid interest in magic allowed him to debunk the work of many psychics and magicians.  Religiously, he transcended Christianity, and rejected (at least technically) atheism and pantheism.  His position of philosophical theism may contain the only compelling arguments for that direction of thinking.  Socially, he had a good grasp on politics and economics and defended Democratic Socialism over anything else, including Liberalism, believing this was simply the best for everyone.  I have much to say about Gardner's ideas that I just haven't had time to comment on.  I hope to in the future, and hope the world will continue to be exposed to his ideas to help them stay out of the dark world of anti-rationality.

Posted using ShareThis

The Death of God and the Meaning of Life

Last Book Read - The Death of God & the Meaning of Life - Julian Young

In this work, Young presents an excellent history of the development of thought concerning meaning from the pre-modern age to the current postmodern era.  Central to the progression of history from one period to another is the death-of-God, a fundamental change in human understanding. He presents this transition as a stream of thought beginning with Galileo and the advent of science and ending with the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989.  As Nietzsche noted when he originally announced the death of God in 1882, that when Galileo unchained the Earth from the center of the universe, we were placed in a cold, dark void, moving in an uncertain direction with no up or down.  There was no longer any fixed point of reference, and no longer a fixed source of meaning.  We were left with the dangerous possibility of nihilism.  The modern age responded by providing new methods of fixed systems.  The worlds conceived by Hegel and Marx moved the true-world of religion into the future history of humanity.  This true-world was no longer an other-world in space, but existed away from us in time.  But this illusion could only be sustained for so long.  With the end of functioning Marxism in 1989, this revision of religion also became defunct, providing a final death of God.

Young suggests that Continental philosophy deals with the death of God - conservative continental philosophy being the modern-era revisioning of God.  With the end of that came radical continental philosophy, which finds any replacement for God to be impossible.  "A religion is anything that postulates or promises a true world."   Here we have worldviews such as non-theist religions and schools of thought such as Marxism, that all function as religions the same as theism does.  When Nietzsche announced the death of God, he proposed that any of these systems were no longer possible in performing the function that they had done in pre-modern world.

I think that we could view radical continental philosophy as the philosophies of existentialism.  There may be some non-existential worldviews that have subsequently developed in the branch of post-modernism, but I would hesitate to call these complete philosophies, but rather culture theories, at this point. In other words, I think that all philosophy of meaning following the death of God is existential in nature.

Young examines the philosophy of four existential philosophers: Neitzsche, Heidegger, Sartre and Camus, as well as the two postmodernists Foucalt and Derrida. He divides Nietzsche into three distinct periods of thought (early, late and posthumous), Heidegger into early and late and Sartre into two different early versions (ignoring the late).

He begins by tracing the lineage of thought of other-world meaning from Plato to Kant.  Schopenhauer takes Kant's notion of the hidden other-world and applies it to his pessimism, where passing from this world to the other is preferable.  Nietzsche continues this "European Buddhism" and attempts to overcome the implicit nihilism by suggesting that we can experience the other world through art.  Hegel and Marx continue a non-supernatural view of the other-world by relocating it to history.

When Nietzsche finally changes his mind about pessimism, he creates a whole new track of thought - radical continental philosophy- negating all the true-world views. Young then discusses Nietzsche's attempt at creating meaning by creating the self as a work of art, a complete narrative.  However, there is a problem of choice - the question of what life to choose.  He suggests these are the problems of authority and the immoral script.  Young then moves on to Heidegger, discussing historicity and the discovery of the authentic life.  For Heidegger your heritage, your community, are central to the meaning of life. But what if these traditions are not moral or meaningful themselves?  The problems of authority remain.

Sartre is up next. Dividing the work of Being and Nothingness, Young finds two views of  Sartre, based on slightly different interpretations of absurdity, as well as opposing views of humanity's desire to be God.  Sartre-two he dismisses as a nihilist based on this Sartre's understanding that all of life is conflict with others,  making life both meaningless and eternal conflict.  The views of Sartre-one come down to this: "(1) God is Dead. (2)Since there is no God to authorize the good, we have to do it ourselves. But (3) we have no authority over ourselves. Hence (4) we possess no authoritative account of the good, and life is meaningless (and so worthless)."

Finally we have Camus who views life as absurd - that is the disparity between how things are and how we want them to be.  But as many have argued (such as David Cooper and Camus himself ), the absurd hero of Camus' vision accepts this absurdity and happily lives in alienation, and this sets him apart from the existentialists.  Young suggest here that Camus believes life is better with no meaning. There is simply no possibility of a grand-narrative meaning.   What Camus really wants is life full of experience, "an ethics of quantity."  He looks to the "Barbarian Gods" on the beaches of Algeria, living without appeal and a lust for experience. Camus' version of the overman lives without appeal, because there is no divinity to appeal to, but rather lives with strength and majesty in this absence.  Aimlessness is preferable because a project of disciplined self development causes one to be a slave to their goals. Freedom is reduced and one always lives in the future, never in the now.  The absurd hero is indifferent to time and is only concerned with "being there."  Young ultimately rejects Camus' view and his hero as constructing static person that "will not change." Without some kind of goal, one will ultimately have a life that is simply boring.  He regards building one's life through self-defining goals as essential.

After analyzing the traps of existentialism and the unoriginality of the postmodernists, Young returns to Heidegger. He is clearly a Heidegarrian and takes the late un-existential Heidegger track as a means of escape from nihilism. Meaning is discovered rather than created, it is realizing the proper disclosure of the world and your place within it. Meaning comes from facticity - essence and existence become inseparable, according to Young.  Guardianship of the world, of Being, becomes our central task. This "Being" does not exist in a theistic sense,  but it is rather "the god of the poets," immanent in everything. 

Young does a better job at revealing underlying flaws in existential philosophy than other religious anti-existentialists that I have mentioned in the past.  He also provides an interesting and refreshing solution to the problem of meaning, by being non-theist and non-existential.  I am, at this point, however, not ready to dismiss Nietzsche, Sartre or Camus quite as easily.  I think that perhaps Young neglects some of the horrors of World War II and the Cold War, and their effects on modern philosophy, which explain some of the dark, nihilist leanings found within it.  Nevertheless, I believe existentialism is still optimistic and the right direction for finding post-death of God meaning.  As for Heidegger, his final position of Being is at least a non-true-world one.  Therefore, I can only assume that this Being, as sacred but not God, is a form of pantheism.  Of course, this leads to the question if Being is non-true-world, then does that mean pantheism is not religion?  Atheism and pantheism certainly function the same in practice, but any more on this matter will have to wait for another time.

Overall this book is highly recommended as one of the best works on philosophy in recent years.  It is an excellent work on many levels, first explaining the development of modern philosophy, as well as elucidating the existential positions and highlighting their particular details. Finally, it functions as a current state analysis of history by showing the progression from modernism to post-modernism through death-of-God realizations and the failed and desperate attempts at true-world transmutations.

The GOP Has Become a Party of Nihilists

A recent article on Time.com was entitled The GOP Has Become a Party of Nihilists. This may be the best notion I've seen in journalism lately, and I was impressed that it made it to the mainstream. The main point being: "they have been overwhelmed by nihilists and hypocrites more interested in destroying the opposition and gaining power than in the public weal." I would love to see more in-depth analysis of this revelation.

On August 19th, Jon Stewart did an excellent piece on Fox News being the "New Liberals," pointing out how for eight years they have called protesters "loons" and unpatriotic. But now that the protesters are conservatives, civil disobedience and dissension are the patriotic methods. Furthermore, Fox has claimed the mainstream media is liberal and that they are the only alternative voice. So for Fox to really be liberal they would have to part of the mainstream. Of course, while attacking the major media outlets, Fox has at the same time been promoting how much bigger they are than their competing media outlets, claiming to be the most powerful - thereby cementing their "liberal" status.

Finally, to quote Seth Macfarlane from his recent interview in Playboy about Obama's liberalness, "he's a hell of a lot less liberal than Bush is conservative."

And, speaking of Seth, he also said that Carl Sagan was "an antidote to the superstition, fundamentalism and mysticism that runs rampant in this country." Recently I heard the BBC claim that America was a world of "stone-age superstition."  Of course books like The Sceptics Guide to Atheism [1] claim that worlwide theism is going up, only Western views on theism are declining due to the lingering effects of Logical Positivism.  The only truth I can discern from this position is that theism is declining in the West.  Meanwhile, America looks like it is in the stone age because of the reactionary ultra-conservative anatgonism to progress.

[1] Information taken from Philosophy Now, June/July 2009 

Available Light

Play of light
A photograph
The way I used to be
Some half-forgotten stranger
Doesn't mean that much to me

Trick of light
Moving picture
Moments caught in flight
Make the shadows darker
Or the colors shine too bright

Oh the light can carry
All the visions of the sea
Oh the light can carry
All the images to me

Run to light from shadow
Sun gives me no rest
Promise offered in the east
Broken in the west
Chase the sun around the world
I want to look at life
In the available light

-RUSH - Available Light - Presto (1989)


Nevertheless, I'm certain that man will never give up true suffering, that is, chaos and destruction. Why, suffering is the only cause of consciousness
. . . The meaning of man's life consists in proving to himself every minute that he's a man and not a piano key.

- Dostoevsky


Last Book Read: What's It All About - Philosophy & The Meaning of Life - Julian Baggini



There are some who say reading a book like this is a waste of time. Beyond asking what someone knows about the particular book (nothing), I would argue that there is no more important question in all of human experience. There is no point to philosophy or anything else without addressing this question. As Socrates said, "the unexamined life is not worth living." The first consideration is to determine if there is a meaning to life. If there isn't, we are left in a Schoepenhauer-esque world of nihilism, contemplating Camus' question - why don't we just commit suicide? Of course, nihilism doesn't hold up very well, and I doubt it has many adherents. Therefore, we are left with the question of what it is, or where it derives from. Bagginni presents the meaning of life from a humanist point of view, and he argues that this is really the only possibility. Even if we are the creations of a God, we still have to find this meaning for ourselves. His whole point is that this endeavor can be done without the need to rely on the spiritual. Secondly, he reduces the vagueness of this large question, into specific areas.

Baggini anticipates that some regard this as a waste of time, as they think the answer is simple. He replies by showing that the concept of Carpe Diem is not as simple as these "pub philosophers" think it is. He basically equates these people with those found in Kierkegaard's aesthetic stage. Living in the moment becomes unsatisfying because it is made up of unconnected moments. Life is a tragedy because it contains "the inevitability that even the most wonderful experiences cannot be held in our grasp but rather run through our fingers like water. Life is ultimately sad because we are doomed to lose the most valuable of times." He continues on to suggest "that the most intense aesthetic experiences actually have their power precisely because they remind us of our mortality [and they] make the transitory nature of existence evident and thus bring home to us the fact the very possibility of experience itself will come to an end." This profound version of Carpe Diem "draws a necessary link between the joy of the moment and the pain of its passing." So these moments show us the value of life, because moments of experience do have value, but in themselves they contain an emptiness and require a more substantial viewpoint to provide overall meaning.

There are others who think the search for meaning is a waste of time because it cannot be known, it is "opaque." Baggini concludes that even an unexamined life can be meaningful - it may contain elements of meaning - authenticity, love, aesthetic experience, happiness, altruism and success - without the person having actually thought about it. I believe that he is too generous to those who are non-philosophical about life. He even states that this shows "how unreflective much of humanity is." It may be true that they are living meaningful lives, at least on appearance. On the surface they may be, but if they haven't thought about it - have they done the work? It could just as easily be an accident. Without thinking about it, they haven't made the choices to reach their goals. Like doing anything else they may have a finished product, but without doing the construction of it, it seems somewhat empty. Of course the only missing piece is the simple attempt to think about it- to contemplate the possible alternatives. And to do this, Baggini has provided anyone with a good start by reviewing this book.

I'm not sure what viewpoint Baggini comes from, other than humanist. He references much from Sartre, although this is probably because it represents the best humanist viewpoints. However, he only sees authenticity as one of many components to a meaningful life. He also warns against"existential snobbery" of brooding too much over angst, and he downplays the significance of philosophy in examining life as "intellectual arrogance." He concludes, as others have, that meaning and morality are inseparable, and then claims that this is a problem for existentialists, because they "do not provide any guidance on what kinds of moral choices are morally acceptable." First, I think this is a flaw in the development of Existentialism, and it is unfortunate that Sartre did not deliver his promised Ethics before abandoning Existentialism, although, we are left with Beauvoir's Ethics of Ambiguity. But, I would argue that the concept of authenticity entails morally justified behavior through responsibility, where integrity of the self is defined and developed through the awareness of freedom, both of the self and of the other. Therefore authenticity/morality/meaning are all intertwined. This is an area where Existentialism makes a break from other radical viewpoints and continues as a sustainable, coherent and justifiable philosophy. Individual relativists and rebels like Norman Mailer are the ones who are in this indefensible position, where anything can become one's project - even if it is evil and destructive. The arguments against transcendence rely on the historic wealth of thought from Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Sartre, and Camus. So, it would seem to me that Existentialism has the most thorough of all humanistic viewpoints, and has yet to be superceded.

The Varieties of Scientific Experience

Last Book Read : The Varieties of Scientific Experience - Carl Sagan



Back in 1999, I was absolute stunned when I heard about the Great American Think-off. The essay competition for that year was: Which is more dangerous, Science or Religion? Of course, I was enraged that the winner declared science more dangerous, but I was even more appalled that any organization that considers itself intellectual would possibly be able to reach that conclusion. The reason given - that science is blindly accepted by people without question- is the very antithesis of science, and obviously the writer didn't understand the concepts of verifiability and coherence. I think a prerequisite should have been a reading of Carl Sagan.

Sagan's 1985 lectures on natural theology examine just how much evidence there is for the existence of God. He asks why a divine creator did not leave a message in holy texts - an equation of some sort, that when eventually understood would provide evidence of that creator. Our investigation so far has come up empty, and if we simply haven't advanced enough to read the sign, then in the absence of all other evidence, we shouldn't concern ourselves with such matters until we do find it. As for verifiable evidence, there appears to be none, even though people do seem to have religious experiences. Just because there has been millions of UFO experiences, there has not been one trace of compelling evidence, and we would be reckless to assume their existence at this point.

Sagan's use of the Drake equation puts the possible number of civilizations in the galaxy between 1 (us) and one million. Now, there is an immense distance between 0 and 1, and a similar enormity between 1 and many (2 or more). Given the lack of evidence for a second civilization, like the search for God, it seems premature to me to think that there are other civilizations. If we were to discover one, then the likelihood of finding numbers 3, 4, etc would go up dramatically. If we look at the high end of the Drake equation, then the next nearest civilization would be a few hundred light-years away. And, if they happen to be in the vicinity of Polaris, then they will soon be treated to the music of the Beatles, and we can expect a response, possibly an aesthetic critique, in about 860 years. Although, I am on the side of those who think that we should not be broadcasting our existence to the rest of the galaxy. We are ill equipped to handle negotiating with other civilizations and until we have a better understanding of our place in the universe, hiding may be the safest course of action. The prevailing notion is that other civilizations will be far more advanced than us, and therefore will have a more mature moral nature, but I think this is also premature to consider. In fact, I think its possible we haven't encountered transmissions from others because we may be the oldest one. Even though life developed rather quickly once Earth formed, 500 million years, it may be the case that the chemical compositions hadn't reached a critical mass until there was 10 Billion years of stellar evolution to produce the complexity necessary for life.

In terms of the anthropic principle, it seems as though we are in a special time. We have finally reached an adolescence, on our journey to cosmic self-realization, as we begin to understand the universe and our place in it. It may be that this window of time is more important than Sagan realized. A recent article in Scientific America proposes that as time progresses, the universe will expand so much that everything outside of our local Galactic group will be to far away for light emission to reach us. An event horizon will form around us and all information from outside will be inaccessible. The Universal history that we can now look at will be forever lost, and the knowledge of its very existence will be gone.

Sagan notes a reference from Dostoevsky - "So long as man remains free, he strives for nothing so incessantly and so painfully as someone to worship." The will to believe, the want to believe is very strong in people. The burden of existence is then removed from one's shoulders and left to the creator. The question of what to do is then answered by the directives of the divine. Besides this psychological motivation, there is also a political one. Religion provides a sense of contentment, and this is a useful tool for the ruling elite. People are pacified by the concepts of an afterlife and divine justice. The status quo can be maintained easier, of course the danger is that real injustices are not fought. Another quote is presented by Pierre Simon from The System of the World - "far from us be the dangerous maxim that it is sometimes useful to mislead, to deceive, and to enslave mankind to ensure their happiness." He asks why isn't there a commandment to educate oneself. It would seem that intellectual education and scientific awareness of reality are not something valued by religion.

The crucial point in the Drake equation is the longevity of Technical civilizations. Extinction is the rule, not the exception. The difference for humanity is that we have means of our own destruction, which only increases the chances of our extinction. In reference to nuclear weapons, Sagan asks "where are the religions?" There seems to be no larger moral question than our continued survival. Any other endeavor - goodwill to our fellow humans, the elimination of suffering, moral and intellectual development as a species, are completely futile unless we contain our internal destructive tendencies. Not only has religion done very little to prevent catastrophe, but has in some ways increased its likelihood. The conservative, fundamentalist government that has been in power for the last 30 years is ready to use WMDs in the name of their religion, to bring about God's plan prophesied in Revelation. Sagan points out that the non-religious state of the Soviet Union is less inconsistent with their policies of WMDs.

So, what kind of God could exist? Professor Sagan notes that not all of God's qualities can be true. God is either not omnipotent, not omniscient or not benevolent. An immortal creator that would create beings and subject them to suffering and death would be apparently cruel. If he allows civilizations to be regularly destroyed in galactic explosions, then he is at least incompetent. Furthermore, he remarks that the God portrayed by religions is really too small for the universe we know. He is more the God of a planet. He notes that Christians were called "atheists" by the Romans because they did not worship a real god. Something for current to Christians to remember. A more accurate God would be of a pantheist nature, as seen in the ideas of Spinoza and Einstein, something related to the universe and the physical laws governing it.

I think the best response a theologian could enact would be the Kierkegaardian existential leap of faith, and not try to justify their beliefs rationally. Sagan does acknowledge that religion could exist purely in this realm, but then they should not challenge the findings of science and make claims that our ultimately false. I'm not sure I entirely agree with him on the problem of evil - I think it's still conceivable that this is the best of all possible worlds, but only if we realize how important our own future is, as he argues.

I have been asked many times why an atheist would earn a degree in Religious Studies. A question that, to me, seems like an easy one. First, it would be impossible to study the entire sphere of humanity - philosophy, art, politics and history itself without an understanding of God and religion. Secondly, it would be just as hard to understand those disciplines external to humanity without the same ideas. The works of Einstein, Sagan, and Hawking constantly refer to the concept of God- it is inseparable. I'll end with a quote about professor Sagan from the foreword, "he took the idea of God so seriously that it had to pass the most rigorous standards of scrutiny . . . His argument was not with God but with those who believed our understanding of the sacred had been completed."

God Part II

Here's several hundred arguments for the existence of God. I think my favorite is the Velikovsky one.

Consider Me Gone

On the passing of Jerry Falwell, I will only present a quote from Christopher Hitchens:

"It's a shame that there is no hell for Falwell to go to, and it's extraordinary that not even such a scandalous career is enough to shake our dumb addiction to the 'faith-based'"