A Mouth Full of Kale @amouthfullofkale - Tumblr Blog

Posts

#bookreview #challengingthebible by #robertingersoll Is the Bible the inspired word of God? If so what are the criteria that we can expect from it? Is it to be externally verifiable? Internally coherent? Morally superior? These are a few of the questions that Robert Ingersoll poses in his work on religion. “Challenging the Bible” is in fact a selection of his work taken from speeches and notes and edited by Dean Tipton into smaller unified selections. What is most interesting to me is that Ingersoll’s work seems very contemporary, as if it was written by one of the modern new atheists. His unabashed atheism and religious skepticism could come from speakers such as Hitchens or Dawkins, but it shares a brevity and wit similar to his contemporary agnostic Mark Twain. Unlike the deists of the earlier part of the century, Ingersoll shows a contempt for Religion that was reserved for smaller more scandalous groups like the D’Holbachians. This attitude may be the result of changes in many of the early modern sciences that included the discovery of Darwinian evolution and advances in biblical archeology that moved beyond earlier textual criticism. Like Voltaire, however, he does make special note of the lack of unity in church. This includes the early proliferation of competing doctrines or sects within the tradition, the lack of external knowledge of myths contained within the bible, its spread through violence rather than reason and the importance of heresies and liberal interpretations in its continuation. Not only did Ingersoll feel confident enough in these reasons to assert that the bible was not historically or metaphysically reliable, but he also went as far as the earlier atheists to claim that it showed a lack of knowledge of any supreme being. After accepting these ideas as his philosophical basis, Ingersoll begins his attack on the bible. Done largely in form of lists of rhetorical questions, the great atheist orator attacks the validity of the bible as a historical and ethical source book. It is clear to Ingersoll that this is a book written as a sacred history, which is meant more to establish authority of kingdoms than it is to make any universal moral claims. Not only does the bible argue against free thought, but it also explicitly reduces mankind to property. This reduction is not only done in the name of god, as some liberal theologians would claim, but by God himself. God continually punishes those surrounding his target as an attempt to punish them by depriving the victim of property. He kills men, woman, children, and animals to send examples to target, with no regard for the innocence of the lives he using to send this message. These passages along with Jehovah’s tacit support of every crime from Rape to murder, are for Ingersoll the very proof that the bible cannot be our ethical guide, even if Jehovah is a real entity. With all of the these problems set before it, Ingersoll asks that if we are not bound to old science then why are we bound to old religions?

#BookReview #GodandHumanBeings by #Voltaire

Of all the great freethinkers, skeptics and secularists from history that atheists wish we could claim amongst our ranks, the great satirist Voltaire is at the top of my list. Unfortunately Voltaire, who knew many of the great atheists like Diderot and possibly D’Holbach, was like many of my enlightenment heroes a deist, perhaps I would go as far as to say a secular theist. In fact he was often disparaging of the atheists and Spinozists, often ridiculing their lack of moral centers. Apparently in one of the first English translations, “God and Human Beings” gives us a clearer look at Voltaire’s theological beliefs. These beliefs fall largely into the category of natural religion and the deism that was popular among the more moderate circle of enlightenment thought. This includes a belief in a the ability that through reason and observation man can establish a belief in a singular supreme being without many of the trappings and dogmas of the established churches that these thinkers were often rebelling against. Especially, in the case of Voltaire, the Catholic Church whose abuses he experienced firsthand and whose trinity doctrine he lampoons throughout the text. While keeping these deistic themes in mind, I think it is appropriate to divide the book into four sections: Pre-Jewish, Jewish, Christian and deistic content. In the sections on Pre-Jewish mythology Voltaire talks about the various other ancient religions of the world such as the Greeks, Hindus, Mesopotamia and the Chinese. Here he reflects upon the similarities of the religion and how these myths could have formed through various shared natural experiences. The flood myth for example could have formed as a result of the shared human experience of the devastation of flooding and the attempt of a barbarous people to understand it. Two other important points of note here are that we see the early introductions of comparative religious criticism in a more open, although not completely, tolerant society. Voltaire supposes that not only does the antiquity of other religions challenge biblical literalism, but it also presents a cross cultural exchange that may have introduced many of these stories to the Jewish canon, such as the Noah myth being derived from the Sumerian tale of Ziusudra. The largest problem with this section is Voltaire’s geographical limitations. Although well-traveled for his time, Voltaire never to my knowledge left the bounds of Europe, so like the other encyclopedists, he relies heavily on second hand accounts. This fact combined with the limited archeological knowledge of the day limits the scope of his critique and leads him to create an untrue depiction of the Chinese as more noble and enlightened than those of the Mideast. An image that remains today to the exclusion of the people that actually lived under the sagely aristocracy. The next section of content on the Jewish bible reflects, perhaps, the most prominent aspect of biblical criticism of the 18th century, which is a complete rejection of the Jewish scripture and the image of God that it presents. Like Marcion of Sinope, Voltaire and many deists wish to discount the god of the Jews due to his barbarity and viciousness in the Old Testament. For Voltaire this is a matter of grounding the good in a way that the rejects the commands given directly to the Jews from Yahweh, which include direct instructions to slaughter, enslave and rape. The ability of god, or desire to, command such actions are directly at odds with Voltaire’s conception of a universal moral good. As a result, he challenges the historicity of the Old Testament, including the authorship and historicity of Moses, which would have been a fairly scandalous topic in the 18th century and an idea that is still not well known today. Next Voltaire critiques Christianity and the New Testament. Like many satirists Voltaire reveals an ideological weakness in that his harsh criticism of the Old Testament is largely absent from his critique of the New Testament, at least for Jesus. Voltaire seems to want to save not only the historicity of Jesus, largely off the discredited Toledot Jesu, but also his character as an itinerate preacher of the people. This defending of Jesus at the expense of the biblical narrative is in spite of the fact that Voltaire recognizes the thematic construction of the story and the interpolation and other problems of extra biblical sources. He also recognizes a fact that is well accepted now, that the early church had a proliferation of sects and rival gospels. The most interesting point raised by Voltaire for me, is his acknowledgement of the Hellenistic origins of the New Testament. It seems clear to Voltaire that the writers of the gospel are borrowing heavily from the Platonic dialogues. In his opinion this is where the bible gets most of metaphysical content by borrowing from platonic ideas such as forms and objective morality, as well as maybe even Greek concepts of Heaven and Hell. Inevitably Voltaire hopes that this criticism will remove the dogma and leave us with pure religion where we derive an objective good from suppositions of natural reasoning and rationality. Although many agnostics and spirituals may agree with his final conclusions, as an atheist I have to disagree with the conclusion that Voltaire reaches. I think it may be possible to construct a naturalized concept of good, which even later thinkers like Mills and even contemporary philosophers like Chomsky might propose, I think like most deists he builds to much off the suppositions he makes and even this limited scope might give too great of a prescriptive leeway. I would recommend this book however, for anyone interested in the history of biblical criticism or philosophy.

#Voltaire #enlightenment #Philosophy #book #reading #religion #Christianity #atheist #Hitchens #Jesus #uofa #universityofalberta #god #good #guyswithtattoos #YEG #Edmonton

#Voltaire enlightenment Philosophy book reading religion Christianity atheist Hitchens Jesus uofa universityofalberta god good guyswithtattoo

#BookReview #AvindicationoftheRightsofWoman by #MaryWollstonecraft “I do not wish them [women] to have power over men; but over themselves.”_ Mary Wollstonecraft Whether we blame the rise of social media or the culmination of various other social pressures, 2016 appears to be a watershed year for western politics. At the epicenter of this movement appears to be a new and more virulent form of feminist thought, which for better or worse seems determined to influence all aspects of policy, thought and culture. As I find myself personally at odds with this movement, which appears rooted in the idea intersectional feminism that emerged in the latter half of the 20th century, I decided to try and educate myself on the history and the ideology of feminist thought. Although I technically began this process in a form of emergent history, trying to reconstruct historical female figures like Cleopatra and Theodora, but Wollstonecraft holds a special significance still as one of the earliest writers that I have read who explicitly writes from and for the place of women from a women’s perspective. At least in the early modern expression, as Wollstonecraft is in every sense an enlightenment hero for all of the glorious high minded idealism and the inevitable tragedy that it produced. Mary Wollstonecraft was like other middle class women of her day, an emerging self-taught intellectual with little in the way of formal education. With the training she was able to attain, Wollstonecraft did many of the jobs that were open to women, but due to personal drive, she quickly saw the limitations that were placed before her. These limitations came in from of various social conventions that inhibited her financial and intellectual pursuits and the way that these problems impacted her personal life. Although Mary fought hard against these problems leaving a lasting legacy in works, the pressures would lead to her attempting suicide and eventually dying in childbirth to her daughter Mary Shelly (author of Frankenstein (obligatory reference is obligatory)). As mentioned above Wollstonecraft is an important enlightenment figure and contemporary, and debtor as I will show, of great figures like Thomas Paine, whom Mary was an acquaintance of. Although she wrote various books, it is her familiarity with Paine and the revolution happening in France that leads her to produce her most famous work “The Vindication of the Rights of Woman” in 1792. This work is a scathing summation of her experiences and an excellent taking to task of the liberal enlightenment values that elevated the common man, but seemed to still desire the exclusion of women. Surprisingly this book was fairly well received in intellectual circles who were already discussing the problems of women’s place in modern liberal society. This was until her widow, William Godwin, decided to honor his wife by publishing an unflinching memoir that was found to be quiet scandalous in the day, which was not ready to humanize Wollstonecraft as the tragic figure that she was. I took the book as essentially calling out the failings of contemporary thought when it came to retaining a privileged place for men above women. Following the rebirth of western philosophy with Descartes’ Cogito and Lockean Liberalism, the common man began to rise above simple teleological understandings that had dominated thought for centuries. Both ideas seemed to create a concept of person that removed the trappings of body and helped create a concept of right that was both naturally grounded and voluntary entered. This intellectual progress was often denied to women, however, as Wollstonecraft laments that women are treated as toys, pets, children, etc. and excluded from the higher intellectual pursuits. To this extent the book focuses on several important figures, primarily James Fordyce and Jean-Jacque Rousseau, who believe that women should be primarily educated to serve domestic duties to assist men. Rousseau in particular earns her ire, as his idealization of nature elevates men often at the expense of women in writings that would serve as inspiration for French revolution. Instead Mary argues for a surprisingly modern education system that would have children educated in public, non-gender segregated schools and receive their domestic education at home. This includes a very progressive view on discipline, which Wollstonecraft claims degrades the character even when it is extended to animals or servants in view of the children. This education, she argues, is of largely pragmatic concern as it will create a nation of better mothers, wives, and citizens. This denial of educating women is the crux of her argument that stems from the failure of liberal philosophy at the time. In fact Wollstonecraft claims that all of the negative traits associated with women stem from this problem, as they are reduced to children throughout their lives and can never move beyond aesthetic pursuits. This leads them to adultery and otherdebasements, along with being targets of sensualists because they themselves are trained to be sensualists. For Wollstonecraft to have expectations of women is to also confer privileges on them. If we want women to virtuous we must teach them virtue. We do not expect the uneducated to pursue high virtues, but women without any training were expected to excel at ideas they were never introduced to. This also extended to physical health and education of women, which had seen a decline in the period due to false assumptions about the “constitutions” of women. This meant that physical exertion was seen as unfeminine and even unhealthy. This of course led to many problems with confounding variables and stereotyping. For example the common gag of women fainting when under duress actually stems from the oppressive clothing that they had to wear, including cinchers that would shrink the waist to the size of the husband’s hand. In the end for Wollstonecraft this was not about liberating women from men, which is why she is not always considered a feminist, but about removing the artificial trappings that were harming them and allowing them some roll in governance. It is also interesting to look at the reactions to this work. The reactionary critiques can be seen in the attempt to maintain the status quo of then contemporary philosophy. Thomas Taylor for example responded in the form of a pamphlet entitled “A vindication of the rights of brutes” where he attempted to lampoon the pursuit of women’s right in a platonic by claiming it would lead to the pursuit of rights, as women’s rights disrupted the natural order of hierarchies. Taylor’s claims would later be taken up by Peter Singer who responds to them as a literal ethical conclusion. With the eloquence of Wollstonecraft’s work, we are left wondering why they did not have a larger impact at the time. I think the obvious answer is the turmoil of the century and the coming mechanical advances. Both of these issues meant that physical prowess was still needed and this left the world very much in man’s domain. In the areas such as America where nation building was still a concern the more extreme forms of women liberation such as divorce or property rights could have seriously impacted your military and the ability to get a loose people to buy in to a singular social contract. This is obviously most glaringly obvious in the retention of slavery and the 3/5s agreement in order to secure the slave holding south in forming the nation. If the world was yet to overcome these problems, the extension of civil rights to women in way that liberated them from the stewardship of men was obviously a meaningful goal that would be delayed out of pragmatism, for better or worse. In spite of this, Mary Wollstonecraft’s work remains influential and she should proudly be seen as a hero of the enlightenment along with the likes of Paine and Voltaire

#book #book review #female #feminism #feminist #philosophy #philosopher #marywollstonecraft #MaryShelly #wollstonecraft

#marywollstonecraft #feminism #feminist #guyswithtattoos #Edmonton #yeg #philosophy #politics #quotes #women #womenofhistory #liberal #enlightenment

#marywollstonecraft #liberal #feminist #edmonton #philosophy #yeg #quotes #womenofhistory #politics #guyswithtattoos #enlightenment #feminism #women

#marywollstonecraft #feminism #feminist #guyswithtattoos #Edmonton #yeg #philosophy #politics #quotes #women #womenofhistory #liberal #enlightenment

#marywollstonecraft #liberal #feminist #edmonton #philosophy #yeg #quotes #womenofhistory #politics #guyswithtattoos #enlightenment #feminism #women

#marywollstonecraft #feminism #feminist #guyswithtattoos #Edmonton #yeg #philosophy #politics #quotes #women #womenofhistory #liberal #enlightenment

#marywollstonecraft #liberal #feminist #edmonton #philosophy #yeg #quotes #womenofhistory #politics #guyswithtattoos #enlightenment #feminism #women

#marywollstonecraft #feminism #feminist #guyswithtattoos #Edmonton #yeg #philosophy #politics #quotes #women #womenofhistory #liberal #enlightenment

#marywollstonecraft #liberal #feminist #edmonton #philosophy #yeg #quotes #womenofhistory #politics #guyswithtattoos #enlightenment #feminism #women

#BookReview Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism is one of those theories that on a superficial level seems very easy to understand, but upon further dissection allows for an almost unlimited defence and criticism. While not created by Mill, Utilitarianism is perhaps the most celebrated book of the school. In the book Mill lays out the principles of utility and then defends them against common objections. The simplest formulation of the theory is based upon what is known as the greatest happiness principle. That is to say that decisions are moral in that they produce the greatest happiness. This is not merely a hedonistic calculation of how much "pleasure" is produced at any time, but a more complex equation surrounding both the creation of desirable situations in relation to the reduction of painful ones. This leads to the first complication of the theory as even Mills admits that due to the nature of the world we may spend most of our resources in the abnegation of pain. Peter Singer, a famous modern utilitarian, in fact places a huge amount of emphasis on the reduction of suffering claiming that the affluent must reduce themselves to the point of marginal utility or be morally unjustified in their actions. In order to ground such stringent demands on moral decision making, Mill then tries to show how all moral decisions terminate in happiness in some form. Taking virtue for example, he claims that virtue is desirable in so far as it is correlated to happiness. If one is to make a virtuous action that does not produce good it is seen by this theory as a waste. In fact Mill goes out of his way to establish that character is not important to the rightness or wrongness of an action as a tyrant saving a life is still a good act. This places utilitarianism in the theory of meta ethnics known as consequentialism, which judges the rightness or wrongness of an action based upon the end that it produces. This leads to the next problem faced by utilitarianism, which is the belief that it may licence prohibited actions so long as they produce good results. On the positive side we can see how this is a direct response to the deontology of Kant and the problems of perfect duties. For Kant there are certain classes of actions, such as lying, that are morally prohibited regardless of situation. This quickly runs into situations where say lying to Nazis could save a family of Jews. Mill is able to answer this dilemma by an appeal to utility that states that the greatest happiness or good most be the primary concern. However this leaves us with some interesting conundrums when injustice may yield positive results for the most people. Like say the sacrifice of an innocent person for a crime that they did not commit in order to appease a mob and avoid rioting. The dogmatic utilitarian may still defend this pragmatically, but it seems to strain regular moral intuition. This is where Mill made his strongest contribution, however, as he builds into his conception of utility a sense of rights. This leads him to defend a style of rule utilitarianism. Clearly taking influence from kantian deontology, this style of utilitarianism tries to promote rules or classes of behaviours that will produce the best results. This is meant to prevent the worst excesses of the system by prohibiting actions that may lead to mob justice and a tyranny of the majority. Furthermore Mill attempts to ground the theory in humans' social nature, but fails to do so above and beyond an appeal to nature or how it ought to be. All things considered Utilitarianism is one the enduring theories to have emerged from the post enlightenment drive for rational ethical/political systems. In fact Mill's own sentiments about the need for a more humanistic approach saves the theory from its dehumanizing potential. Mill's own important contribution to the development of liberalism includes a human dimension that elevates it above mere moral imposition that say Marxism or deontology has, which would later be further clarified by the likes of Rossian pluralists and more modern less dogmatic utilitarians. Although I am not sure of how the theory may functionally work on the personal level, it does seem to be intuitively how we believe liberal governments should focus. Either way, I am sure that we all share similar sentiments when we are the ones gaining from the sacrifice and not the one making it.

#BookReview The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus "but for men, the best for them is not to be born at all, nor to be made partakers of the most excellent nature; not to be is best for both sexes. This should have the first place in our choice; and the next to this is, when we are born, to die as soon as we can.’ It is plain therefore, that he declared the condition of the dead to be better than that of the living." Silenus to Midas from Plutarch's Morals. In his essay on absurdity "The Myth of Sisyphus", Albert Camus attempts to address what he thinks is the most pressing question; why should one not commit suicide? Camus believes that this question is the most fundamental question facing every rational actor. In part this question arises from Camus' conception of the absurd, which is derived from the human desire to explain an inexplicable universe. This constant thwarting of our intentions leaves us with three options according to Camus. First, we can follow the path of hope, which is manifested most clearly in the religious ideal. This can be seen clearest in Kierkegaard's resolution of the absurd in his leap of faith. Camus deals with this concept at length as he considers it to be a form if philosophical suicide. A resolution of the first term of the absurd by abnegation. I will surrender my attempts to understand the world and instead believe in-spite of reason. Next, we may choose to surrender to the universe. To decide that a hopeless universe is not worth living in and choose the path of physical suicide. This a negates the second term by refusing to deal with the reality of the universe on non human terms or in conflict with the belief of how it "ought" to be. Instead Camus suggests that we should take the third path and live the life of the absurd individual. This allows the individual to seek reason, while still accepting that the universe is at its core unreasonable. This must be the best choice according to Camus. On one hand the teleological view point has suffered tremendous blows since the enlightenment. Authors such as d'Holbach and Hume have eroded the epistemic foundations of such beliefs and opened the door for competing rationalist meta ethical systems. Furthermore anti-theistic challenges had begun to take hold. From Spinoza to Nietzsche the divine command theory had been seriously eroded and even the emergence of the deistic nation of the United States had shown the waning power of the church in the conception of the state. Finally as the Lisbon earthquake had been a profound philosophical awaking for the enlightenment authors such as Voltaire, the devastation of WW2 loomed heavy in at least the continental thought that Camus was working from. That is to say the problem of evil had become an insurmountable theological problem once more. On the other hand, for all of the spectacles, good and bad, that science was able to produce, it had yet to overcome the challenges of Hume, let alone the solipsism of Descartes. If science could not reach a foundation then perhaps it can not provide in any true sense a meaning for life to reconcile itself for having killed God. This returns us to Camus' three options. Since we are stuck in a skeptical position, we can choose to terminate the conflict or accept it. In accepting it we become the absurd hero. Accordingly this entails three further principles according to Camus; revolt, freedom and passion. The revolt is our refusal to surrender to the absurd, but instead to live a life that we know in advance is condemned to death. Freedom comes from our unshackling our minds from the various dogmas that could restrict our thought. These systems accordingly are negated in the sense that their pursuit of knowledge leaves them explicable as descriptions, but they fail to achieve any other foundation that would make them prescriptive obligations. Finally Camus says that the freedom of the absurd individual allows them to live life with passion. They are free to substitute the loss of qualitative experience with quantity. While I appreciate the attempt to create a positive framework, I wonder if his position is really tenable. I sympathize with the inability to ground moral concerns, but I wonder if he might descend to quickly into moral relativism. Camus does try to address the fact that this freedom does not necessitate hedonism of the worst variety, but it doesn't convince me completely. I do not see how the absurd man is played better by Don Juan than by Dolmance. This may be a lingering part of Christian moralism that I still retain. A remanent of slave morality, I guess it could be put. However, I think that to a certain degree we can establish a objective virtue or good that the characters which Camus may promote may just be self justifying villains. But it may be easily countered that I am surrendering to hope and the moral relativist is the true heir to the absurd. Although we differ on the moral concerns, I am sympathetic to his stance on suicide. For some of us suicide seems like an ever present option. The resolution to the pains of life by a simple negation of the vehicle of experience. It is a constant question faced by those who deny teleology. If the future could turn out any way is it not a gamble? If everything will end why start? Camus' answer to this fatalism is just to say that experience is worth it and recognition of outcomes do not negate their value. I think in this we can translate our experiences into something more. We can take the experiences that we treat as mean ends goods and find the intrinsic value or we can accept our circumstances and try to find the beauty in them. In this respite we can do as Camus suggests and imagine a Sisyphus descending the mountain. A Sisyphus unconquered by hell. We can imagine Sisyphus happy. We can imagine ourselves happy.

#albert camus #philosopher #philosophy #book #books #book review #writing #suicide

Book Review: Flying V, Explorer, Firebird: An Odd-Shaped History of Gibson's Weird Electric Guitars

By Tony Bacon

Although this book has a hefty tittle, it does not really give a full picture of the excellent content contained within its 100+pages. Bacon certainly paints an exhaustive picture of the history of the Gibson modern brand which includes the flying V, Explorer, and Morderne. From the early development and removal from the market due to lackluster sales in the 50s and 60s, to their return and reimagining’s in the 70s and 80s. The author also covers everything from developments in electronics, construction methods, patent filling, and materials used. More importantly the author tells a very human story that includes the artists and the consumers that made these instruments into the legendary symbols that they are. Bacon shows how early adopters and collectors found these guitars at their stores and created the market that Gibson was unable to realize in its first production run. In fact it shows something that we in the internet age can see more clearly, the market needs to be treated with respect. It is hard to create a market for an instrument and it is even worse to not realize the demand once it is there. Unfortunately Bacon paints a picture of a Gibson brand that had problems with both of these issues. Not only did Gibson abandon these designs too early, they were also late in getting back into the game which allowed the completion to create replicas and meet the market’s needs. This in turn led to the establishing of companies such as Ibanez, Hamer and Dean who were able to capitalize on this market vacancy. Many musicians have seen this trend continue as reliance on name brand recognition has kept Gibson’s flagship models unreasonably priced and allowed for products such as the ESP eclipse to take a large portion of the mid-range market and PRS and private luthiers to take the higher end market. This problem is central to the book as Bacon introduces the emerging companies and their additions to the market. In introducing these other weird designs Bacon does a great job in telling the brief history of these important companies. Whether it was the competition with Fender in the 50-60s, the emergence of the Japanese lawsuit models of Ibanez, the desire for upper end American designs with better options and tops supplied by Dean and Hamer, and finally the hot-rodded Jackson’s and modern ESPs. Regardless of the fact that new developments are made by entrepreneurs, behind each rival company their appears to be a missed opportunity whether it was a missed marketing opportunity or the lack of attention paid to an important up and coming artist. This is interesting in the face of the rather dire situation that Gibson is encountering in the current market. Not only have they tried to force technology like auto tuners on the market and come twenty years too late to the 7 string game, but they have abandoned the players and the market that loves their product so much. Instead of dreaming of a well-built V, Explorer or Les Paul from Gibson, consumers are likely to turn to their competition for price and quality concerns. In the end this book is a great history lesson on an iconic instrument, with great pictures and even some special interviews with the players who helped to keep it in the public’s imagination.

#book review #book #guitar #flyingv #metal #music #writing

The Politicization of Identity: Self-actualization vs. Affirmation and Liberal Irrealism.

'But I'm not a serpent, I tell you!' said Alice. 'I'm a — I'm a — ' 'Well! What are you?' said the Pigeon. 'I can see you're trying to invent something!' 'I — I'm a little girl,' said Alice, rather doubtfully, as she remembered the number of changes she had gone through that day. 'A likely story indeed!' said the Pigeon in a tone of the deepest contempt. 'I've seen a good many little girls in my time, but never one with such a neck as that! No, no! You're a serpent; and there's no use denying it.

Before anyone criticizes this article they should know that I identify as a trans-able polyamorous giraffe-kin, so all critiques will be considered tantamount to discrimination. So check your privilege

If anyone reads this they might think that my first comment was absurd or a joke, but it seems that as the last days of 2015 fade away it is already being called the year of identity. That is the political climate of the west seemed to be absolutely consumed by identity politics. Whether it was Caitlyn Jenner winning woman of the year, the Yale and Mizzou protests, or the black lives matter movement, identity was a hot button issue. But it wasn't simply about how we are identified and discriminated against, but about how we choose to express ourselves that became center to the political discussion. Just as William James tried to prove that the metaphysical existence of religion can be found in the variety of experience that it produces, the concept of Identity seems to establish its importance in the dizzying multitude of categories and subcategories that Tumblr and the academic community continue to churn out. The strange thing to most spectators seems to be that these identities are arguments in themselves and their marginality is taken by proponents of IP as supporting premises. It seems at certain points the totality of the collective has become subordinate to the whim of the individual expression. That the normative is not an expression of the generality, but an attempt to oppress the minority. Now I am not saying that there is no such thing as oppression, rather it is a notable part of identity politics to define themselves into roles of oppression. Only two bathrooms, what about non-gender? Ethnic food in Ohio, not authentic enough. Teacher writes cordial letter of disagreement on Halloween policy, better surround and berate her husband into quitting. The list could go on for pages with examples of times when groups seemed to search out reasons to be offended and took bizarre or aggressive actions in response. Although there intentions may be good, it seems to me that this community has lost the narrative of what many of the structures they are rallying against represent. In one of the most free and open societies in the history of the world that pew research would find 40% of youth polled in favor of censorship is something that people should be drastically more concerned about. Less than 10 years ago my hero Christopher Hitchens commented on the rise of this culture saying:

"If someone tells me that I’ve hurt their feelings I’m still waiting to hear what your point is. I'm very depressed however in this country you can be told "That’s offensive!" as if those two words constitute an argument or a comment, not to me they don’t, and I'm not running for anything so I didn't have to pretend to like people when I don’t."

Now we have a culture where students degrade academic institutions by claiming that they are not places to learn, but they are safe spaces to learn and grow. Places of breathtaking ignorance, where the most inane comment if voiced loud enough some how takes on moral imperative. This culture of virtue signaling has gotten to the point where it can only be compared to the Cultural Revolution in its fervor for change. Take this change.org petition to have a statue of Thomas Jefferson removed from a Missouri campus.

"The need to project a progressive environment is just as important as food and shelter to survive." "Thomas Jefferson’s statue sends a clear nonverbal message that his values and beliefs are supported by the University of Missouri. Jefferson’s statue perpetuates a sexist-racist atmosphere that continues to reside on campus"

This petition presents a sort of cultural solipsism, which acts like the current intellectual climate is the standard by which we should judge all others. Thomas Jefferson was a great man. A man who changed the world and was a catalyst for the freedoms that we experience. The founder of a country that would go on to shape the next 200+ years of politics. When the statue was put in this university these were the ideas that the members of the Jefferson club were promoting. They were not ignoring the fact that he was a man of his time and for all of his foresight he held views that we have since moved beyond. I am sure if he came back to life and returned to his negative habits the club's first response would be "Hey you, stop that." Not "You have carte blanche Mr. President, do as you please." This petition shows a form of anachronistic egotism that has become par for the course for the soft intellectual exercises of the humanities. As someone who received a degree in history I do not understand what these people expect from historical figures. Who can meet the strict standards that classical figures meet the progressive ethic. Confucius, no. Socrates and Plato, no. Buddha, nope. Julius Caesar or Augustus, no. Muhammad, no. Ghengis Khan, no. How about early modern philosophers like Descartes, Locke, Voltaire, Diderot, or Hume. In all cases they would fail if viewed through the lens of modern progressive values. At the end of this ahistorical culling who are you going to end up with, almost assuredly no one with any influence or historical impact. What you will end up with is either fringe elements, modern scholars, or examples of martyrs because the examples have to be as clean as possible. In this way like it was with communism in the late 19th and earliest 20th century the fringe identity becomes fetishized and your relation to it becomes a mark of your identity. This complete break from the past, that the past is not an area of human progress, but one of failure and ignorance, seems to put the progressive in a place similar to anarchy or Marxism where they feel the need to tear down all social structures and fundamentally rethink the entire system. The problem for me is this need to feel detached from the past ignores the simple fact that many structures exist because they work. Banking has existed for almost the entirety of recorded history because it works, policing works, armies work, governments work. These entities did not form in a void and attempts to radically reform them have not gone well. Although it is easy to point out flaws and seem intelligent, I have yet to see the formulation of a non-utopian ideal that postulates that things will work out solely on the basis of reason. This seems especially true of capitalism, which for all of its flaws, has actually been on the most progressive driving forces for change. Although I believe that moral progress can be achieved structurally, I have to err on the side of Nietzsche and say that the Dionysian reality will always have the final say. You need to look to the past for examples of greatness and while acknowledging flaws you should use it to understand the world you live in and the culture it has produced. If you cannot understand and learn from the past, I simply do not see how you can make a successful plan for the future. It is understandable that different communities have differing experiences of historic individuals or events and those issues need to be addressed not ignored, but I believe it should come at the elevation of the human spirit not the condemnation of it by each new generations current values.

The other form that identity politics has taken is a focus on gender. I agree that restrictions based on sex in society are in most instances antiquated and in some cases severally detrimental. We have seen in the last 200 years the rise of many prolific female thinkers such as Marie Curie, Mary Shelly, Simone De Beauvoir, etc and many female heads of state. In fact it has been codified in California's law since 1959 that women have the right to wear pants. Now in this trouser based anarchy it seems we have begun to question the very nature of gender. The most common argument that I have come across is that gender is performative and sex is biological. From this point it seems that the position of the past relied heavily on a sexual determinism, where your birth sex should map out your identity and that deviations from norms surrounding your sex were in some way pathological. This meant there was a female aesthetic, a female personality or temperament, a female sexuality. This clearly left little room for self actualization, and the terms masculine and feminine were given strict 1:1 binary relations. However, my experience with current gender politics has left with the impression that current thought places a strong emphasis on gender expression over biology. This has lead to an interesting focus on sexual identities that deviate from the norm such as transgender or gender non conforming. In the case of transgender individuals there has been some scientific vindication that there may be a biological basis for their identity. Twin studies have shown that there may exist a neurological and biochemical component to the identity, which may be expressed as a male having a female brain. This goes beyond merely body dysphoria which would simply be a pathological disconnection between the identity and the body. Further examples I found have also seem to show that early castration may not have significant impact on gender identity, even surprisingly if the individual was raised as the opposite sex. These examples however, give credence to the idea that gender is to some degree epiphenomenal and derived from the sex. Although we have clearly codified and represented sex in our cultural structures such as dress, they may stem from a primal reality. For me this means that although it may be harmful to enforce a rigid system that may fetishize the cultural norm, it may be equally harmful to prevent expressions of sexually derived identity. An important part of culture other than just expression is education and it is apparent that the masculine and feminine identity are taught to children in order to fulfill needs that the bulk of them will encounter. This can be demonstrated in studies of male and female preferred partners that have shown remarkable similarities across cultures. Now people do not fall universally into the binary, but is this distinction a thing in itself. This is what I mean by Liberal irrealism. I am a strict materialist, so expression to me is window dressing not a metaphysical property. A human with male sex characteristics is a man. He may not be masculine or attracted to women, but metaphysically he is a man. I do not know what changes to his physical structure would ever go beyond aesthetics to me. It reminds of the Sorites paradox about removing one grain of sand from a heap until it is no longer a heap. Of course I would not wish to limit his ability to express himself, but this has left me with some interesting moral dilemmas. Should a transgendered person be required to disclose birth sex before sexual intimacy? I have always maintained it is the ethical imperative that they should or else they are in some sense committing an act of deception. The intensity of their belief in this case does not change the nature of their knowledge.This has also had important implications in the sports world where despite the protestations of Anita Sarkeesian, sexual dimorphism has important and maybe dangerous consequences. I have seen people claim that having to admit birth sex is a violation of their identity, but must the ability of people to achieve self actualization also guarantee affirmation? Or is withholding affirmation of identity while not impeding self actualization still a tacit form of bigotry? This has also lead to problems with the belief that transitioning is a form of appropriation and that identity is more than performance and aesthetics, but an expression of lived experience. If we look at other forms of trans identities we can see how this can spiral out of control. For example otherkin feel a relation to other entities from animals to even fictional characters. Although they may not be hurting anyone in this expression is it psychologically sound to affirm this? Can it ever move past the aesthetic into true experience? Just because you adopt the persona and aesthetics of an alligator, can you ever have meaningful knowledge of what it means to alligate?

In the end I think these conflicts over identity show that we live in one of the freest periods in which to live. A period in which all of our basic needs are met enough that we can turn to higher pursuits of art and culture. However, I think we must resist three important distractions. First, that our attempt to become so self-actualized that we actually become intolerant of those around us. If our identity is important to us than we must recognize the identity of others is important as well and that we should not use our own pursuits to violate the wills of others. Secondly, that we do not become consumed with the idea that we can identify and control all of the factors of our lives. The dangers of absolutism have had terrible consequences for societies since the enlightenment and need to be resisted at all costs. Whether it was expressed as the end of history in the Utopian Marxism of the USSR or the perfect man of the NAZI eugenics effort, man can simply not conquer destiny to that extent. Unfortunately I see this is the desire for control over minutiae that has taken form in micro-aggressions and vigilante internet justice. Often what seems to be the highest aspirations may just be us disguising our most base urges. Final, we must not get distracted by petty issues so much so that we allow the world to burn. I once heard it said that "reality is conservative, but politics are liberal", which still seems very true to me. It as Nietzsche says in the birth of tragedy the Apollonian urge (culture) is subservient to the Dionysian urge (nature/reality). You cannot have complex expressions in non complex cultures and you cannot have complex cultures if you do not fight for them. Although I agree with many of the goals of identity politics I think that they need not only to ground themselves in reality, but also to find a way that will allow them to strengthen the communities they belong to. So that as the whole world flourishes, so can we as individuals. Not by demanding, not by taking, but by sharing in the prosperity that we create.

#writing #thoughts #blog #trans #transgender #sjw #social justice #social justice warrior #politics #gender #feminist #feminism

Book Review: The Analects of Confucius

Born during the 6th century BCE, Confucius is one of the most well renowned philosophers in human history and certainly, excluding the Buddha, the most widely known Eastern philosophers in the West. The school of thought that bears his name, Confucianism, continued to have an impact on the Chinese culture until its association with the Qing Dynasty and the problems of early modern China made it a target of the Cultural Revolution. However, recent developments, such as Neo-Confucianism, have given rise to the belief that the texts may play an important role in the establishment of a distinct Chinese culture in the face of globalization. This has even lead to the ruling Communist Party beginning to actively promote the Confucian ideas it once prohibited. Although this homecoming to the Chinese mainland may still be in process, the study of Confucian texts is prominent throughout the world. In the West in particular the wisdom of Confucius is tied to work known as the “Analects” or sayings of Confucius. Considered one of the four books of the Confucian tradition, the Analects consists mostly of short disconnected conversational exerts between Confucius and his disciples. The style of the book is already familiar to a western audience through its well-known structure of beginning its responses, in certain translations, with the phrase Confucius, or master, says. This is usually followed by a dense rhetorical analogy or anecdote. Although these arguments are often filled with profound insight about the nature of wisdom and virtue, they can appear to the modern reader to be quiet silly and cumbersome. The main focus of the book is the cultivation of virtue and ethics, especially in the case of the Junzi, or ideal prince. In this sense I found the Analects to be surprisingly analogous to the Socratic dialogues, especially the Republic which promotes a similar philosopher king. However, the similarities do not end there. In both instances very little historical knowledge about the founder of the philosophical school. Like Socrates, and other figures who did not write their own texts like Jesus, much of what we know about Confucius may actually be intellectual creations of later adherents to his school. Although it cannot be determined for certain, Confucius may function in this regard like Socrates as an ideal character rather than an actual historic entity. This would actually make more sense in the case of Confucius as the canon of the Analects is now considered to have been formed over several centuries and representing the synthesis of the many schools and traditions that emerged after his supposed lifetime. Interestingly it also represents a middle path between the more esoteric-mystical philosophies and the blunt legalist traditions of the state minded lords. Similar to downfall of Socrates on the accusations of impiety, Confucianism was also charged with being perhaps pantheistic or deistic in its approach to Heaven by groups like the Mohists that favored a more theistic view. Although Atheism has had a long history of varied use, I strongly doubt that the Confucians were in any meaningful metaphysical naturalists, as they had firm beliefs in social hierarchies that purported moral obligations on grounds like birth, class, rank, gender etc. Importantly, however, I do not think Confucius is as tyrannical in his views of the state as Socrates appears in the republic. When it comes to the desired character of the Junzi, Confucius presents several areas that the leader must focus on to attain/maintain Dao (the right way).These include:

Ren: An ill-defined term that seems to me to be analogous to empathy. That is that a virtuous ruler should put the concerns for others and for the state before himself. Li: A term that seems to denote both the rituals and the practice of these rituals in the kingdom, which are central to the maintenance of the ruler’s character. This could also be expressed as correct behavior. Yi: A term which symbolizes the making of morally correct decisions or having a righteous character Zhi: A word which seems to me not only to signify knowledge, but the love of learning and of correct knowledge. Xin: A devotion to a principled way of life not only towards all of the filial relationships, but also towards the principles of the Confucian school.

These are generally considered to be the five principles of Confucianism and are contained in some form in most of the dialogues. Confucianism seems to place particular emphasis on how these virtues are not only obtained, through good practice and devotion, but also how they are meant to emanate throughout society. Like many early philosophies, Confucianism is hierarchical in that it expects these virtues to be spread through a top-down implementation of the filial structures. It is the virtuous ruler in this instance that will lead to a virtuous society, by disseminating his virtuous character throughout society. This is the only method by which Confucius believes that you can create a stable society, which promotes the creation of an invested citizenry who through the example of their leader will also become virtuous. This belief is clearly derived from the political turmoil that surrounded the formation of the school, which was not officially formalized until the Han dynasty. During the period from Confucius' life to codification of the cannon under the Han dynasty, China was feudal and unstable society. In fact one of the central struggles of the book is how to interact with an unjust society. Confucius seems to favor the belief that one should attempt to withdraw from an unjust society and not serve unjust rulers. This way you are not forced to act in a manner that is not in accord with the five virtues. However, certain passages seem to contradict this, saying that you should try to achieve what you can in your given situation, but these may be later interpolations due to the controversial nature of this preachment. When looking at Confucianism in the modern age, I believe it is interesting to look it not as an oriental-mysticism belonging to a progressive left, but as a philosophy of conservatism. In the modern age where politics seems to have returned increasing to polarized camps that pursue victory over governance, I think it is important to look at the positive and negative attributes of both sides of the political spectrum. Although labeling someone as "conservative" seems to imply that they are axiomatically incorrect, conservative plays an important role in counterbalancing the risks of progress or change. In the case of Confucius we get a very clear example of a thinker who is grounding his beliefs in an understanding of the past. In Li for example, Confucius sees not only the religious system but the cultivation of a system that performed its function to a certain extent. That these rituals may not have been the sole reason that a society rose to prominence, but their institutions provide important social cohesion as they gained power. In Wen the Confucian appreciates the aesthetic achievements of his culture. These are the expressions of the apollonian will, the escape from and taming of nature in order to allow humans to experience the height of a societies self expression. In this sense we can certainly see the Marxist critique of conservatism emerge. Unopposed conservatism can be a policy of stagnation, and in its vulgar expression it can be reactionary movement that promotes an idealized past. This can even be seen in some passages of the Analects, which seem to insinuate that the failure of societies are a result of an inability to build off of the wisdom of the past sage kings, not with the philosophy of the sages. As I stated before, the early age in which this philosophy was developed means that it contains certain hierarchical elements that have been largely eliminated in the modern world. This includes notions of class and rank being related to a person's moral character and that women were to be considered the equals of only the most inferior men. Although these ideas seem foreign to a modern reader, we must remember that these ideas remained in some fashion in the west until very recently. Even many enlightenment thinkers posited various divisions between people and their intellectual capabilities, and certainly none of them would have suggested that women had the same capabilities as men. Still I believe there is something to be said for not only understanding the structures that came before us, but also in the temperaments and the aesthetic values. I do not need to accept the principles of the Roman Empire to accept the wise words of Marcus Aurelius or Cicero. When we are able to understand the limitations of the knowledge that the Confucians had, we can also understand their profound insight into what they did know.

#philosophy #philosopher #book #books #bookreview #book review #confucius

Book Review: The Birth of Tragedy Friedrich Nietzsche. "Art doesn't work without pain; art also exists for compensating pain."-Till Lindemann

What does it mean to art? Is anything produced for consumption, aesthetically or otherwise, in essence "art"? There certainly seems to be a desire to delineate between different art forms and even the products of a single producer/style/form/etc. We could certainly call Cindy Lauper or the Backstreet Boys art that is representative of the culture which produced it, but would we be comfortable referring to their music as "art" in the same sense as Mozart or Bach, even if they represent their own respective periods. This appears to the be the central question that a young Friedrich Nietzsche is attempting to address in "The Birth of Tragedy", that is what is the nature of art in its highest form? For Nietzsche Art in its highest form addresses the entirety of the human condition, which he symbolically identifies as the Dionysian and Apollonian impulses. Roughly he identifies them as the dualistic struggle between the natural impulse without form and understanding (the Dionysian) and the impulse that wishes to impose form and order (the Apollonian). Of these two impulses Nietzsche seems to grant primacy to Dionysian, which he sees as the very essence of nature that is passionate, unpredictable and full of suffering. The Apollonian on the other hand, is rational and attempts to understand and control the world around it, ultimately to no avail. The Dionysian has its place in the moments when rationality fails, periods of suffering and drunken revelry. Therefore, it exists somewhere between the orgy and the slaughter where the companions of Dionysus, the Satyrs and Centaurs, are found. These creatures, especially for Nietzsche the Satyrs, are crucial to our understanding of the Dionysian artistic impulse. These are half-men, primitive, violent, and rapacious. In artistic depictions of these creatures they are presented to varying degrees with animalistic features, including importantly to the Greek artist large-equine phalluses. In this way they are clearly a representation of primitive and brutish man and most likely a real fear of the invasion of Barbarian hordes, as the laws of Apollo extend no further than your walls can keep Dionysius. If the Dionysian is the aggressive masculine impulse that consumes and destroys, than the Apollonian is to be seen as the feminine and creative force. Although Nietzsche has given Dionysius the ultimate veto in the struggle between the two deities, Apollo is responsible for the heights of creativity that man can reach. This includes the highest achievement of the plastic or aesthetic arts. Apollo's domain includes the beauty that we gain from representing the phenomenon of the word in painting and understanding of experience in hindsight. It is in his domain that we attempt to structure our societies, laws, and our intellectual pleasures. He is the god we wish to worship. Beauty, youth, progression away from the discord of chaos just as Marduk slayed Tiamat, which would later be adapted into Yahweh's defeat of the primordial beasts Leviathan and Behemoth. But even in this initial conquering of chaos we know that it is always essentially penultimate, as Tiamat gives births to the dragons and paradise still falls. Even in our Apollonian art according to Nietzsche we know that chaos reigns supreme, but the will wishes to live and we besiege the emasculated god with prayers and hopes. Only to climb Olympus, to get to heaven and see nothing but the void. This is according to Nietzsche the inevitable conclusion when the Dionysian urge becomes unchecked and we experience primal unity of orgy and terror. Just as Ellie Wisel said in "Night" "God Died in Auschwitz", so does is the Apollonian urge experience repeat and cruel passion plays in events like Holocaust or the Lisbon earthquake that shatter our feelings of optimism. However, humans inevitably return to the naivety of the Apollonian god, raising optimism like a Sadian Christ to hoist their ideals and attempt to differentiate themselves from the primitive man through new and old sophistries. Fearing and hiding from reality and turning in the Freudian sense our hopes from initial illusions of hope and control into delusions and expectations, as the will wishes to further itself through illusions.

Having established these two opposing deities, Nietzsche begins to separate his existential problem from what could be seen as pure pessimism. It is not that the Dionysian, although permanent amongst the two, but that proper art forms must exist in a realm that balances both. Particularly Nietzsche sees this balance achieved in the Athenian tragedy. Before the Athenian tragedy it seems that the two forces were separate with the Dionysian being expressed in festivals and folk art and the Apollonian being expressed in the elite plastic art forms. This left the Dionysian expression purposeless and erratic; whereas the Apollonian was meaningless and consumed with the representation solely on the world of appearances. In tragedy the two gods were united giving purpose to the emotive expression and meaning to the symbolic. The Dionysian was represented in the music and the chorus. In music in its rawest form we have an expression of the will, not simply appearance but actual presentation of being. Unlike other forms of language which are reduced to various forms that are only understandable through education, music is universal and can be understood by the primitive nature of man. It can be further harnessed by the Apollonian spirit which can highlight beautiful forms or patterns that are pleasing to the society; however, one must be cautious as this will inevitably lead to the production of plastic and aesthetic art forms. The chorus also represents the ideal Dionysian spectator, that doesn’t represent a critique of the form, which I believe is his faulting of Euripides chorus as overly symbolic, but as a viewer and orator of the holy nature of tragedy. For Nietzsche the Apollonian impulse is left to the dialogue and the other means that give form or meaning to the music. The dialogue may enhance the meaning and expression of the music as the music enhances the emotion of the dialogue, allowing the symbolic impulse to create progressive and intellectual structures. That is the combination of the two allows the music to impose philosophical meaning which Nietzsche hopes exists somewhere between the understanding of the now (the experience of humanity) and the future (the expression of culture and growth). This will make man both free as the natural creature without the trappings of society, like the Satyr, and as the aspiring individual, like the Olympian gods. Nietzsche seems to believe that the only way to truly meaningful aspirations is to ground them in an understanding of the "terrible and secret things of nature", which will prevent them from being wholly based on wishful thinking of an effeminate and weak culture. On the other hand this combination seems to take an almost Hobbesian position on the Dionysian, by claiming that the mitigation of natural freedoms is needed to remove us from the terrors of nature as well as allowing us to develop superior ways to meet our desires. In fact he directly states in later revisions and commentaries on the work that this position leads him to a fairly stoical position, that the only way for humanity to transcend Dionysian is not in denying it, but in affirming it and moving beyond it. We will never be free of death and suffering, so any true structure must be built on a foundation that views these as inevitabilities and comes to terms with them. This is just one way in which Christianity fails according to Nietzsche, as its denial of Dionysian aspects of the world force it to sacrifice everything in the now for an unknown Apollonian future.

In the end "The Birth of Tragedy" has its place as piece of historical philology, which was the area that Nietzsche began his career; however, it shows the great philosophical mind that would be expressed in his later works. In fact it should be noted that the brash critiques and use of dialectical dichotomies became a scandal in its own right and the notoriously conservative nature of the academic community turned against the young scholar. This went as far as rival professors writing pamphlets against the work and encouraging students to boycott Nietzsche's lectures. Some of the arguments presented by his critics, such as the belief that he is imposing to much of his own structures upon ancient thought, still hold true. Although I agree that time seems to mystify ancient symbols (for example I tend to believe that Centaurs are symbols not the depiction of peoples beliefs that men riding horses were actual monsters), Nietzsche's strong symbolic dichotomy between the two gods may be anachronistic and we cannot assume the intentions of authors we cannot speak to. However, as an initial work of existential philosophy as it is applied to art the book makes some very interesting claims about the nature of universal and structural impulses. Further Nietzsche makes some claims about the destructive power of the Socratic-theoretical man, which seems to be represented by science. This is not quiet the Apollonian impulse as it is not artistic, but instead its impulse is one to understand and harness the nature of being. A task that it will ultimately fail to do, but will pursue to the detriment of both the Apollonian hope and the Dionysian expression. This third variable is interesting to me in the expression of music in the second half of the twentieth century, which experiences periods of extreme optimism and pessimism often in the same form. For example science fiction, which is tied directly to our ability to empirically understand the world, has ebbed and flowed with scientific optimism in the forms of Utopian science fiction like Star Trek to the more cynical and pessimistic expressions like Godzilla and Blade Runner. Returning however to the initial examples whether popular expressions of art are "art", Nietzsche's dichotomy would say that they are art if only very plastic and shallow forms. They represent the desperation of the human condition to impose itself on an unyielding nature, the escape into appearances by a society that does not wish to deal with the nature of reality. A sort of self congratulation on the aesthetic achievements of a society whose culture has become entirely void of meaning. I guess what I am trying to say is no matter how beautiful it looked, Avatar was a stupid movie.

#nietzsche #FriedrichNietzsche #book #books #bookreview #philosophy #philosopher #existential #exestentialism #art #artcritic #movies #music

Book Review: The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James Imagine you live in a sandbox…no, wait. Imagine you a tadpole in a pond… no, wait. Imagine you’re a prisoner in a cave facing a wall… Or imagine you see the same reformulation of the platonic cave restated over and over ad nauseam with simple changes made so an author can present it as if it is their own brilliant thought experiment. This is one of my central problems with theology. The tendency to wait a generation restates the same ideas and then fall to the same rebuttals. Every example given assumes that there are additional metaphysical realities in its initial premise. These external areas are known analogously by definition. But can this be writ large to encompass reality itself? In every one of these examples we know there exists an external reality to know. That the limitations of our knowledge in these situations allow for an “external reality” to the self-contained metaphysical unit of which we are currently aware. However, I believe the limitations of our knowledge of reality and mapping of it are not the same as confession that there can exist more than what is. This is my general problem with most theology. That on some level there is always going to be an attempt at special pleading and begging the question. Which after a long and rambling preamble brings me to “The Variety of Religious Experience” by William James. This book was recommended to me by my philosophy teacher as a representative text to modern and more liberal theology and spirituality. At around 590 pages the book spares no effort in trying to present James views on religion as the pertain to his overall philosophical systems. James occupies a very important place in the history of thought. Like Freud, he is very influential in his founding of the functionalist school of psychology, but to a large extent his ideas are outmoded by time. James also made important contributions to the philosophical fields of pragmatism, which along with his psychological and theological work are central parts of the project which he is undertaking in this book. Once again these have the feeling of being antiquated when it comes to the contemporary arguments surrounding them. Due to the sheer size of this book it is probably best to focus on a few points. First, what is the essence of religion that James is trying to articulate in this book? Second, what is philosophical pragmatism and what is its role in this project. Finally what are the successes and problems that emerge from this project? The main concern of the project which James undertakes in the book is to elevate or establish the role of religious experience in the grounding of spiritual knowledge. This appears to be a response to school of British/Scottish empiricism, especially Hume, which laid out the principles of induction as the primary basis and challenge to the grounding of knowledge claims. This school of natural philosophy would eventually morph into what is known as the scientific method in the 20th century, winning the intellectual war by its predictive and fruitful endeavors. This led to several problems which are still argued about in contemporary society, which include the validity and implications of religious knowledge. The serious challenges to the epistemic place of the church had been essentially won by the anti-establishment rationalist community. The works of the deists such as Paine, Voltaire, and Diderot had seen major impacts on the formation of the modern nation states which had severely limited the clerical authority in these areas and in the case of Paine introduced the commoner to one of the first popular cases of biblical criticism. Even explicit atheist works had begun to emerge in the European mechanists like the Baron D’Holbach. In particular the criticisms of David Hume on causation and miracles had caused a great deal of upheaval in the intellectual community of the day. Hume had challenged causation as a constant correlation between events and not a direct observation of cause, which means that we can perhaps never ground causation only expectation. However, the constant observation of correlation perhaps establishes that the cause is present and that we are at least justified in expecting that through repeated exposure that there will be uniformity. It is in this system that Hume questions the validity of miracles as events that defy normative experience and provide only anecdotal evidence to establish their validity. James for his part does not seem to attack this idea by making the claim that apologists such as John Lennox make that Hume is defining miracles out of existence by denying the prescriptive powers of God (I actually believe that Hume is addressing our ability to assess their epistemic character), instead he claims addresses the nature of anecdotal religious experience. Now Hume had already raised questions about the ability of anecdotal evidence to ground metaphysical claims, that they are not cumulative in their quantity nor does their quality change on the basis of adherence, but James wants to state there is still a fundamental character to them and the variety points to a universality of experience. If we cannot ground religious truth in events because we do not have acquaintance knowledge of them then how can we evaluate religion? Here James says that the anecdotal evidence points to an external reality, a “more” that is sensible, but not understandable. Here James tries to establish a character to religious experience in empiricist terms. It should be unexplainable, as it exists beyond the natural, and illuminating, since it establishes new knowledge or thought. From his point James establishes further points of how man relates to these experiences. They should cause surrender to a superior power, a sense of love, be idealistic and bring a sense of elation. This sense of idealism is the main focus of the book and is established by examining the character and examples of various religious experiences across cultures, but mainly focusing on the western and Christian world that he is familiar with. He does not continue to further evaluate particular institutions surrounding these experiences, which he calls over beliefs, that would require more knowledge and judgment than he believed was available to him. Once James has established his psychological view of religious experience, he tries to ground the broader philosophical implications in his theory of pragmatism. Here James takes a middle road between the correspondence theories of truth, which states that truth is relational to the external world, and coherence theories of truth, which state that truth is relational to system of belief. In my interpretation of his argument it seems that James states that the function and utility of a belief points to its relative truth to the individual, whilst pointing to broader implications about the truth of the belief. So if a belief is true it must provide some sort of observable function and that this utility in turn demonstrates that it corresponds to some truth. This means that what he calls the “reality of the unseen” can be demonstrated in the real world impact upon people’s lives. Whether it is the change in people's addictions, temperaments or various other character traits to the exceptionalism of the Saints. Generally it seems that any exuberant characteristic can be seen as stemming from some sort of connection to a spiritual reality in James. In this sense he seems to disparage the empiricist’s dismal of access to knowledge of the more as being somewhat ignorant of the breadth of human experience. He in fact seems to call on the limitations of science in this regard to assert a primacy of the emotive experience of the religious life. This primacy does not provide the religious with more scientific knowledge, but instead provides a sort of general optimism that James says grounds religion as a necessary part of the human experience. This promotes valuable characteristics and also in the case of the health minded movements provides health benefits in the form of psychological and even physiological well-being. Although James is clearly a Christian, making sure to tell his audience in apologetic tones that he is not disparaging Christ, he claims to firmly establish one dogma, instead stating that the science of religion may be able to weed out obvious faulty or fraudulent beliefs. This allows his pragmatic belief to contain a certain degree ecumenism, or even secularism, as he asserts that although he finds certain fundamental principles shared in religious experience he cannot ground one experience over another. At this point the critique of James argument should be obvious from the closing sentence of the previous two paragraphs. For all of the pedanticness and academic rigor of James' effort he achieves very little in the area of actually grounding his ideas. Although he makes some disparaging remarks about the close mindedness of radical empiricism, his pragmatic stance does little to answer the challenge that natural explanations may still be the more rational position. This seems to lead James to the same trap that most theologians find themselves in which is that they expect the reader to accept a certain number of unjustified axioms leaving their arguments seeming to be mostly special pleading. Since James is talking about the emotive or psychological experience his reliance on special pleading can be seen in how he needs to present religious mindset in either nebulus or positive lights. For example he challenges the notion that the eccentric nature of religious geniuses and saints are a sign of a mental flaw, but instead tries to claim that this is what should be expected in a case of a dualistic reality. That in focusing on the secondary world a religious mind may appear detached or unfocused on this world and even in the case of saints dismissive. Although this is an interesting idea, it does not seem to rise above the threshold that would separate it from simple untruth. Even when reduced to a much more vulgar level like the suspension of addictive habits or bad characteristics, the religious attitude may have some pragmatic value, but it provides little justification for anything but the existence of a natural will. This is why Hume placed such an importance on miracles, as they show that the entity being appealed to has a metaphysical existence in a meaningful sense.I have seen it said that miracles are actually placed apart from magic by the very fact that it is how the divine communicates direct intention and will in a physical display. This places it apart from the intellectual appeal by externally grounding the claims of the intelligent and personal God of theism. In this instance for all his examples James does not fully answer the challenge of Hume, who does not deny that people claim that they have religious experiences, rather that the likelihood of misinterpretation of a natural explanation that we have acquaintance knowledge of far outweighs supernatural explanations. But, in this instance at least I have stated before that James is ecumenical, so how could there be further problems? Well even James admits that beliefs are the "rules for actions". James thinks that this is one of the strongest cases for pragmatic adoption of religious mindset, but in my opinion it is one of the weakest. Now I am not incredibly familiar with James' theory of pragmatism, which seems to still place the preeminence on the correspondence theory of truth and the utility of the coherence theory, but it seems to me that right actions in any meaningful sense need to relate to the truth even when it seems counter intuitive. The harm that this can cause is seen every day in the sickly cultural relativism of the west and the tendency of soft intellectuals to quickly assume memes as talking points. Xis religion of peace, X group is anti democratic, X is murder, teach the controversy, etc. Everyone of these statements has with it an opportunity cost that can be measured in time, economics, and even in lives. When we simply agree that we should act relatively in order to protect emotional constructs we often act as if the resources or impacts will either be neutral or even positively divided. For example when we talk about teaching the controversy we are allocating funds to an idea, creationism, which simply does not map the real world and hinders the social benefits of real biological research. I simply do not agree that experience alone can grant knowledge and I have seen the excesses of this in religious through and in the emergence of strange liberal ideas like the progressive stack that seem to promote experience as something in and of itself as a type of knowledge that can have socio-political implications. In this sense I cannot fully blame the religious, as the relativism of the left has gotten to the point of aggressive irrealism promoting and affirming normative values that are beyond the pale to their own societies and often grounding them in the most pseudo-historical beliefs. There is no doubt that this book has had a tremendous impact upon the philosophical discourse surrounding religion. I will even acquiesce to the fact that the it is hard in a single read to fully parse apart James arguments. He has certainly succeeded if not in establishing the reality of religious experience, at least reaffirming the importance that it has to the individual. In the end I think that this was probably James central goal. Growing up in the late 19th century he was clearly in a pivotal moment in human thought. Not only had the enlightenment project spread, and to varying degrees succeeded and failed, but the sciences that questioned a literal bible were in full swing. Darwin's theories had emerged as a cornerstone of the modern scientific thought, Biblical archeology was beginning to explore the pan-Babylonian origins of many of the biblical texts, and empiricism had given rise to a much more naturalistically explicable universe that was beginning to increasingly encroach upon the human experience. In my opinion the theological thought of the twentieth century has been an attempt to either explain away or mitigate these changes to varying degrees, but always in vain. James in this sense represented the emergence of the big tent theology that wished to preserve a special place for religion in spite of its dwindling ability to provide fruitful metaphysical answers. On the side of pragmatism, I think it could be argued by his supporters that we all act pragmatically on the basis of the best information that we have available. This is true and I think at certain point we are called to action, irregardless of the validity of beliefs; however, I think there is something different in James' version of pragmatism. Namely that we can validate our beliefs internally and in relation to a purely emotive expression. We can obviously see how this fails in situations where we are prone to "othering" like homosexual rights, which obviously ground themselves in a sense of personal distaste or religious commandment. Why should anyone's rights be grounded on purely emotive concerns. This means that James' expression of ecumenism would have failures when applied practically in democratic situations. In the end this book is a profound academic work, but in my opinion it fails to elevate personal experience beyond the problems that critics have proposed.

#religion #religions #atheists #atheism #book #bookreview #philosopher #philosophy #theology #antitheism #hitchens

Haha #atheist #atheism #christian #jesus #god #hitchens #funny #dawkins #antitheist #humor

#funny #christian #dawkins #hitchens #atheist #jesus #atheism #antitheist #god #humor

Book Review: Sade my Neighbour by Pierre Klossowski. It is well past the point of cliche at this point to say that period following the end of world war 2 was a period of great cultural strife. The revelations of the holocaust and the Nazi atrocities committed against the Jewish people reasserted mans fallen nature, while the real politik and emerging science reasserted and killed God at the same time. The world seemed to reflect the perversities of the Sadian project that had seemed so shocking that the author would spend almost half his life in prison. This tragedy is the theme that Pierre Klossowski would explore in his book "Sade my Neighbour". In the age following the revelations of the holocaust, and various other tragedies due to immediacy of news media, The Marquis De Sade has taken on almost a prophetic tone. In fact if we were to take the examples laid out by William James in his seminal work "The Varieties of Religious Experience", Sade's lack of control and binding ego make him the perfect candidate for the role of prophet, as he is unencumbered by all of the unnecessary social and moral constraints that impair our epistemological progress. But, here I must heed Simone De Beauvoir's advice and make sure that my admiration of Sade is not simply for ideals that I project upon him. In reality Sade was probably fair less of the maverick enlightenment philosopher and more closely aligned to the sick aging system that was crumbling around him. This critique is more in line with Klossowski's position on the Marquis, which allows for a complex dualistic character to emerge, but still one grounded closer to the egotist than the Saint. My first criticism of the book is that the writing style has a distinct pedantic feel to it. I associate this, rightly or wrongly, with the post war French academy style and more specifically with work in postmodernist and critical theories fields. This means that the author can construct complex imagery and narratives that seem less to do with the text and more to do with their own personal philosophies. It also means that Klossowski can go for pages with little additional content being presented. For example, although I appreciate his attempt to create the idea of "integral monstrosity", I feel the exploration of the theme was actually hindered by the attempt to make this metaphor I still the intended meaning. It is worth noting here that this problem seems to emerge from Klossowski's familiarity with Nietzsche, especially his early work "The Birth of Tragedy". As Klossowski's critique of Sade seems very simliar to the Apollonian/Dionysian opposition, both in its critique of rationality and nature and my inability to properly understand it. Outside of my lexical concerns, I feel the Klossowski has both an extreme insightful and flawed view of the Sadian enterprise. The positive aspects of the book in my opinion lie in Klossowski's understanding of the period. Clearly the author has a good grasp on the general enlightenment project both historically and philosophically, which allows him a special insight in placing Sade in his proper environment. Not only does he acknowledge the importance of popular philosophers like Voltaire, who's books were part of Sade's final possessions, but also the lesser known figures like Baron D'Holbach, who's scandalous work were penetrating the elite Parisian salons and who's natural systems seem to be echoed in Sade's philosophies. He has further success in accessing the historical context that Sade finds himself in. It is interesting that rather than making Sade the romantic revolutionary that some art movements have made him, Klossowski's reaffirms that Sade is simply the regressive tendencies of the elite expressed in a negative form. This gives further credence to De Beauvoir's position that his positive assertions are still largely self serving. That is to say that his rationalism may provide powerful philosophical critiques, but they are simply not practical. Klossowski's expresses the problem with the Sadian ideology as a relationship between individualism and sodomy. For Klossowski's these two ideas are linked in the fact that they are ultimately about the single individual and they would eventually lead to the end of the entire species. These are mans fundamental attacks on nature and must be repeated and habituated until they are purely rational and destructive. Murder for example needs to be rational and calculated, not as the Jacobin's had done in creating a perverse and passionate evil. Robespierre had not created the cold mechanistic destructive state, but it was optimistic in its chaos. This probably betrays his elitist stance and how he had a streak of conservativeness to him as a minor noble. A stance that I think Klossowski does agree with. Which raises the more contemporary questions facing Klossowski about Sade's relation to the ideologies of the holocaust and fascism . This poignant question was expressed perfectly by the Italian film Salo that placed Sade's magnum opus the 120 days of Sodom in fascist Italy. Although this expression of the human perpensity for cruelty is not purely regulated to the modern age, Ivan the terrible and Vlad the impaler being historical Sadian precedent, Sade's particular rational framework seems to be expressly realized in the failure of the enlightened scientific endeavour. A failure that gave us mechanized rational genocide and torture on scales previously unheard of. This allowed a mass expression of cruelty that in a bizarre way still reaffirmed good in the way that was necessary to the Sadian endeavour. The need for hope and justice to be reasserted so that the libertine could transgress them was crucial to the holocaust. "Arbeit macht frei" was emblazoned on camps that would systematically starve, torture and murder millions of, mostly Jewish, people in Europe. Even in this apocalyptic moment there were still normative values that the Sadian character could transgress. Mass rapes, pedophilia, canabalism, vivisection, humiliation, .... All retained a transgressive value where the worst offenders could excell beyond the average soldier in the dark and in places of authority power and strength. Josef Mengele or Ilse Koch, could come straight from the pages of Sade. Cruel, callous, cold and selfish, but still noble and rational. I'm paraphrasing a long forgotten source when I say 'these people (fascists/Nazis) would commit the most heinous crimes against humanity during the day and then go to the opera at night.' This connection to rationality, power/authority and cruelty seems crucial to the Sadian enterprise, with its enlightenment era connections to the aristocracy and salon/secret society cultures, such as the Masonic societies. However, Klossowski notes that unlike these secrets societies and small group of elites, Sade applies his libertinage on all of society. The final area of interest to me, and largely one of Klossowski's main themes, is Sade's atheism which he views as an a integral part of his philosophical enterprise. I am not able to completely parse out Klossowski's worldview from this work, but other writers seem to call him Catholic or post Catholic, by which I assume they mean an agnostic who is culturally Catholic. No matter Klossowski's position, however, he is very critical of Sade's atheism. Generally he focuses on Sade's need to reaffirm the monotheistic principles in able to transgress them. In one sense I am sympathetic to this view, as the church hierarchy and theology play a central role in his narrative structures. It is clear that being raised in the literate French noble class meant that Sade was well versed in the church fathers like Aquinas and the Gnostics, who Klossowski thinks may have had a particular theological impact on Sade's view on women and evil. Although I agree that Sade reasserts the imagery of the church in order to transgress against it, I don't believe this should be taken as a reassertion of the metaphysical implications of monotheism. Even Klossowski's assertion that we live in a culture that grew out of monotheism seems like specious reason to claim that Sade's atheism is theistic. Although I understand his points that atheists still tend towards grounding in absolutes that threaten to defy their materialistic concepts, he is getting dangerously close to CS Lewis levels of projection and straw manning. In the end I can see why this book has emerged as one of the pivotal works of Sadian study's. Although it is somewhat pedantic and lost in its own lexicon, it is one of the first books to seriously explore the fascinating figure of the Marquis De Sade. A man who Klossowski paints as the philosopher villain, the enemy of the general will( the proverbial "neighbour"), rabid individualist, and the abscess of a dying class system.

#sigmundfreud #freud #atheist #thefutureofanillusion #religion #christianity #islam #hitchens #dawkins #antitheist #psychology #bible #kjv #muslim #judaism #theology #book #guyswithtattoos #edmonton #yeg

#freud #judaism #dawkins #hitchens #antitheist #atheist #edmonton #muslim #yeg #christianity #religion #bible #kjv #thefutureofanillusion #theology #guyswithtattoos #psychology #sigmundfreud #book #islam

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

A Mouth Full of Kale