- Why Philosophy ?

In today’s post, I’ve un-apologetically borrowed from a couple of other sights. I will include them at the end for reasons that should be obvious. As I’ve stated many times in previous posts, why beat a point when someone has already made it.

(& rather eloquently I might add)

Harvard University’s Department of Philosophy answers the question:

 “Why Philosophy”?

Philosophy is the systematic and critical study of fundamental questions that arise both in everyday life and through the practice of other disciplines. Some of these questions concern the nature of reality: Is there an external world? What is the relationship between the physical and the mental? Does God exist? Others concern our nature as rational, purposive, and social beings: Do we act freely? Where do our moral obligations come from? How do we construct just political states? Others concern the nature and extent of our knowledge: What is it to know something rather than merely believe it? Does all of our knowledge come from sensory experience? Are there limits to our knowledge? And still others concern the foundations and implications of other disciplines: What is a scientific explanation? What is the status of evolutionary theory versus creationism? Does the possibility of genetic cloning alter our conception of self? Do the results of quantum mechanics force us to view our relations to objects differently?

The aim in Philosophy is not to master a body of facts, so much as think clearly and sharply through any set of facts. Towards that end, philosophy students are trained to read critically, analyze and assess arguments, discern hidden assumptions, construct logically tight arguments, and express themselves clearly and precisely in both speech and writing. These formidable talents can be applied to philosophical issues as well as others, and philosophy students excel in fields as varied as law, business, medicine, journalism, and politics.

You might be surprised to learn that many people have studied philosophy and gone on to success in a variety of careers, from comedy: George Carlin, Woody Allen, Steve Martin, to business: Carly Fiorina, George Soros, to acting: Harrison Ford, Bruce Lee, to literature: T.S. Eliot, Pearl Buck, David Foster Wallace, to politics: Václav Havel, Bill Clinton, to law: Hon. Stephen Breyer, Hon. David Souter, Hon. Beverly McLachlin, to the arts: Phillip Glass, to journalism: Stone Phillips, to social activism: Martin Luther King, Jr., Elie Wiesel, to sports: Phil Jackson, John Elway.

Ten of the greatest: Philosophical principles

By JULIAN BAGGINI, Editor of The Philosopher's Magazine

1. THE HARM PRINCIPLE

by JOHN STUART MILL, 1806-1873

Whenever legislation is proposed that limits our freedoms, someone will reach for Mill's On Liberty and point to the passage that says, 'The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.' What could be clearer? Except it isn't clear: it depends on what you mean by harm. Does hate speech harm minorities? Does sexist language harm women, by making them less credible in the eyes of society? Philosophical principles are like credit agreements: the headlines are convincing, but the small print catches you out.

2. THE PRINCIPLE OF SUFFICIENT REASON

GOTTFRIED LEIBNIZ ­1646-‑1716

The idea that everything is as it is for a reason is the assumption behind most of philosophy. If we thought that things just happened, we would not bother to try to work out their causes. But then nor would we assume that longer days meant more sunshine meant warmer weather. But this principle is crucially different from the one that says everything must have a purpose. There must be a reason why the big bang happened, but that does not mean it happened for any end or goal.

3. THE MEAN

by ARISTOTLE, 382BC-‑322BC

Moral thinking is steeped in sharp dualities: Good v Evil, God v Satan, Right v Wrong, Heaven v Hell. Popular mythology, from humanity's fall from grace in the Garden of Eden to Star Wars, is full of tales of people going over to the dark side. But long before modern psychology told us that we all have our shadow side, an Ancient Greek philosopher came up with an idea that was even more subtle: it is not that there are shades of grey between moral black and white - good and bad aren't opposites at all. Rather, the good is a 'mean' that stands between two bads: that of excess and that of deficiency. Courage, for instance, is the mean between the excess of rashness and the deficit of cowardice. Mercy is the mean between the excess of vengefulness and the deficiency of surrender. It's a brilliant idea that utterly transforms how you look at right and wrong.

4. THE FALSIFICATION PRINCIPLE

by KARL POPPER, 1902-1994

Common sense once held that a theory was scientific if you knew how to prove it. But Popper suggested that a theory is only scientific if you know what would disprove it. That's why conspiracy theories are nonsense: no matter what the evidence, believers insist this proves how tough the cover-up is. Similarly, you could argue that the theory that God does what is best for us is not scientific, because whatever happens, believers insist it must be for the greater good. God's goodness may be a theological claim but it's not evidential.

5. OUGHT IMPLIES CAN

by IMMANUEL KANT, 1724-1804

How often do people insist that 'Something should be done' even though they've no idea what that something is? But unless you have an idea what should be done, how do you even know that it's possible to do anything at all? It makes no sense to say something should be unless it actually can be. Kant is usually credited with formulating this principle: 'Since reason commands that such actions should take place,' he wrote, 'it must be possible for them to take place.' In other words, if a prescription is truly rational, then it must be possible. Which means if it looks rational, but isn't possible, it isn't rational at all, like expecting a system to run on debt indefinitely.

6. THE PRINCIPLE OF EVIDENCE

by DAVID HUME, 1771-1776

'A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence' sounds like advice you know already. But it's more easily agreed with than followed, and the results can be uncomfortable. No wonder David Hume felt the need to restate it. In his essay Of Miracles he says: 'A weaker evidence can never destroy a stronger'. Sounds obvious. But when it comes to the miraculous, has the testimony of any witness ever been stronger evidence than the testimony of all the rest of life, which tells us that nature's laws do not admit exceptions? If not, says Hume, then anyone who claims to base belief on evidence can never believe in miracles.

7. THE PRINCIPLE OF CHARITY

by DONALD DAVIDSON 1917­-2003

Some principles cannot claim to have a single author. The principle of charity is one, although the 20th-century U.S. philosopher Donald Davidson has more claim than most to have set it out clearly and systemically. In its broadest sense it urges us to interpret the meaning of what others claim in ways that make them as rational as possible. It is, if you like, an injunction to give others the benefit of the doubt. If what someone says could be plain wrong or just badly phrased, assume the latter, until proven otherwise. It is, of course, the opposite principle to that followed by politicians, newspaper columnists and militant atheists, all of whom assume their opponents to be bone-headed fools. In other words, it is a principle more needed now than ever.

8. THE DIFFERENCE PRINCIPLE

by JOHN RAWLS, 1921­-2002

If some philosophical principles seem so obvious as not to be worth stating, others shatter consensus. Such is the case with Rawls's difference principle, which the Liberal Democrats once considered adopting as policy. This states that increases in inequality are only permissible if they benefit the worst-off members of society. It sounds radical, but after recent events with bankers' bonuses, fewer people now believe that concern about growing pay at the top of the economic scale is pure envy. The difference principle states that it is fine for the rich to get richer only if the poor always become richer than they would have done had the wealthy been held back. It's a liberal compromise between the socialist demand for equality and the neo-liberal disregard for equality.

9. JUST WAR

by THOMAS AQUINAS, 1225­-1274

Thinkers have long pondered when war is morally justified, but modern theories of just war are little more than amendments to those set down by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. The morality of a war is determined both by the reasons for starting it and its conduct once begun. To wage war, the cause needs to be just, it must be waged by an army with legitimate authority, it must be fought for the right intentions, there must be a good probability of success, the response must be proportionate, and it must be the last resort. Armies must use proportionate force and discriminate between combatants and innocent civilians.

10. OCCAM'S RAZOR

by WILLIAM OF OCCAM, 1288-1348

In an age of five-blade razors, the one wielded by William of Occam is ironically named, for it is the requirement not to multiply entities beyond necessity. So, if you can explain the workings of the world by postulating only the existence of matter, you should not prefer an explanation that also posits ectoplasm, unless that more complicated theory can explain more. The principle is also known as one of economy of explanation: all other things being equal, a simpler explanation is more likely to be true than a complicated one. It's a principle that has even found its way into Sex And The City: if a man is sending a woman mixed messages, the simple answer is he's just not that into her.

We should understand how a machine works, & by extension, it’s ultimate purpose before we wield it, for any reason, let alone a reason that may ultimately harm another. Your intellect just might be the most powerful mechanism you will ever have the freedom to use … Love; S. }:)

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~phildept/undergradprogram_whyphilosophy.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1279320/Ten-greatest-Philosophical-principles.html

- Just Another Broken Record ...

New Freedom At The Berlin Wall

The title is imperative today. You see, we’re raising an entire generation that’s never heard of vinyl records, let alone actually seen one up close & personal. Right before our eyes, a generation of young people, that will one day be responsible for law & foreign policy will have never been to the “Record Store”; & if music has defined you, in the same way it’s defined me, then that is a profound thought.

“Profound”, (adj.) very great, or intense.

“Thought”, (noun) an idea or opinion produced by, or occurring suddenly; in the mind.

An idea or mental picture imagined or contemplated.

I take the time to define these for a very specific reason. Consider that at a time in history when this very generation I speak of has access to more knowledge & information then ever imagined, many more of them, (then ever before), are beginning to question. Now I don’t know about you, but that gets me excited! It makes me damn near giddy inside! Any scenario that sees teachers, parents, government agencies & public officials put on the spot & questioned, makes me want to jump out of my seat, & cheer.

I’m deeply moved by the idea that so many of our youth are making the time; to allow literature and classrooms, to inspire these “profound thoughts”. To let your child go, so that a coach or a teacher can inspire them is; without question, a painful, yet rewarding experience that only a parent can comprehend. I should take the time to note here that this is also, a very important, reason why, we should be fighting governments that would take away rights from our teachers and educators. They are an intrinsic resource and should be celebrated & protected. I digress …

While I find myself excited by the notion that so many of our youth are far more intellectual then at any other moment in history, I fear that I need to point out a very real and tragic trend. There still seems to be this, almost viral bent in some thinking.

This is where the rubber meets the road for me, & its my hope you’ll pause to see it as well. For every one that will never see a record player, or get to smell the inside of “Sam the Record Man”; we must recognize that these may never know of the Jim Jones, or the Marshall Applewhite’s of the world.  You may think I’m a little over the top here, but I’d then suggest that for every free-thinker we turn loose upon this world; there will be one less adult tortured by the bondage so many of us now carry to the grave. There’s your profound thought for the day.

A Quote to Ponder:

The un-philosophical majority among men are the ones most helplessly dependent on their era’s dominant ideas. In times of crises these men need the guidance of some kind of theory; but, being unfamiliar with the field of ideas, they do not know that alternatives to the popular theories are possible. They know only what they have always been taught.

(Leonard Peikoff)

I think one of the most powerful aspects of the law, especially in our time, has been its ability to show the gritty angry parent that birthed it. For the educated among us, that recognize the flavor of truth for what it is, we can see philosophy’s ability to form & phrase an indisputable argument in those landmark moments when a supreme court must pause to imbue the masses w/ the freedoms they've always deserved. This is the place where philosophy wins the day every, single time. Philosophy teaches us that:

"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth".

(Marcus Aurelius)

With this line of thinking, what continues to confound me is the argument behind the idea that there can be no God. In truth, I can readily accept this as a firm possibility, yet to accuse religion, then becomes infantile, especially on the basis that one’s argument is academic in any way. This accusatory posture is finger pointing at its worst. Follow me here. If there is no God, then there can be “no religion”. To accept that there is, or ever has been a thing called “religion”, we must pre-suppose the existence of a God that these "religions" were then designed worship. To suggest anything less is argumentative & begins a circular discussion. What we’re, therefore left with, is that if said God does not & never has existed; than the worship of these perceived deities is the manufactured practice of men. Now, this noted, the ultimate incorporation of these practices was also the action of men, who then obviously recognized a monetary benefit.  Men exploiting men, this crime is as old as humanity, & individuals should be held accountable; not perceived institutions. To blame an imagined bogeyman is to remove guilt from those that deserve prosecution.

Now who can, or would, fault an individual for his or her desire to "give thanks" to the land & the rains for the bounty of a crop; from a plot of earth that has been less then forthcoming for years? An individual's behavior; as the result of personal experience, will always be suspect to those that would pass judgment. There are always those that choose to look w/ a slanted eye, at his fellow man. These will always see difference first, and find roadblocks to the very inclusiveness that grows by leaps & bounds; among men & women alike, today. 

For those of us that remember the Jim Jones, the Joseph Di Mambros & Marshall Applewhites; we also readily understand the difference between The Salvation Army & Scientology. We are the same that can recognize good works for what they are and be appreciative of the goodness in willing hearts. We also recognize controlling, manipulative brainwashing for what it is. From the alcoholic, addictive household to the Church of The Solar Temple, a manipulative personality, meets a submissive one ...

The Baptist Church at the end of the road & its individual membership will put Christmas under the tree of as many family’s as they can help next year. They will never ask me to “believe” anything, as a matter of fact, most of the community will never know who provided the help. Now the Jehovah’s Witnesses that knock on your door each Saturday won’t be doing any charity work. As a matter of fact, they prefer to remain "distant" from public view. Be assured though, they will most certainly expect you to buy into a very specific belief “system” that will eventually distance you from family & friends. One doesn't have to be a scientist to see obvious differences, but one surely can choose to be petty and argue them ad infinitum …

I offer these ideas today because I grew up on the Madeline Murray O'Hare's, the Christopher Hitchens, and the Richard Dawkins of the world. I remember, my horrified sister, in tears, calling my mother at work, after hearing O'Hare and her broken record, rant on Phil Donahue. They espouse great ideas. & Yes, we shouldn't have to pray a Christian prayer in school because our Government deems it a good & wholesome practice. We should have the freedom to learn, & then decide these things for ourselves; yet that’s their end game, to be married to that singular idea & it dead ends there. To be sure, these ideas gained them each a pulpit to preach from, (shameless reference) but that’s all it did, gave them a platform. Murray O’Hare ended up dismembered in a shallow grave, in a farmers woodlot, & is now survived by her Baptist Minister, son. Please, sing about that irony Ms. Morissette. My point is how will history remember these people? Iconoclasts tear down accepted religious symbols or, by extension, established dogma or conventions. These people have instead promoted accepted ideas, old arguments & tragically; passed out more "Silk Screened & Firmly Labelled T-shirts". The “Atheist” from the ‘70’s becomes the “Anti-theist” of today. The “Agnostic”, becomes the “Agnostic-theist”.

When asked: “what do you believe in”? Personally, I see far more value in responding with: “you, I believe in you”. When, that most difficult of days comes, & my children, my wife are asked: “what did he believe in”? I can assure you that they will respond: “me, he believed in me”.

We must never accept a label, because, phonetically, in that moment, it seems to suit the occasion. We must endure beyond that moment. We must query further. If we have questions, we must ask them, yet we cannot accept the most comfortable answer. To claim one is aligned to one form of thinking or, another is to submit to an accepted dogma. It feels to me like we are at a turning point in history and our most valuable resources are those young people and their passionate, inquisitive minds. With all of the access to information they enjoy today, we must never spare feelings while seeking truth. It is my sincerest hope that parents will fight this fight to their dying breath. Our youth must refuse to buy into the self-promoting speakers of the day. Rather than buy their books, ask them why they wouldn't offer this life changing knowledge for free, to all the masses, then wait for that answer. Ask the Oprah’s of the world why they need film crews to build houses in Africa, & when their answer, inevitably, is: "to bring attention to their plight”, call bullshit, cause we've known about it for years. Today the need is far more practical help & far less self-promotion.

Refuse to accept comfortable answers. "Theism", "Atheism" these constructs become too easy, & create more arguments then answers. These are old arguments. More of my generation, then you may be aware of, gave them up years ago. Any good philosophy student will tell you these are circular arguments that have been dumbed-down & fed to the masses to provide fodder while the rest of the world charges forward.

We are a better people today. We are far more intellectual, we are learned and wise. We have the benefit of inclusion, we have cultural savvy, & a unified front never before realized in history. Those in power should expect us. We remain Idle No More }:)

Know this: I Believe … In You !

Love; S.