The Asshats of Philosophy

Philosophy has a major problem, namely, the number of people who consider themselves capable of doing philosophy with any amount of integrity. I’ve got news for those of you who think you’re doing philosophy when you’re reading jokers like Aristotle or Kant: You’re not doing philosophy. Doing philosophy is reading Aristotle or Kant and thinking about why they are right or wrong (Aristotle or Kant are both wrong on several accounts, but what philosopher isn’t?). Instead, what appears to happen is that a person reads something from someone like Aristotle or Kant that sounds clever or that they agree with (because they already thought the same thing) and end their thinking at that point. In cases where they don’t end their thinking about a given philosopher’s assertion or general idea on the table, their thinking is routinely searching for arguments to strengthen what they already agree with, dispensing with the skepticism that is necessary to do good philosophy since any amount of skepticism will probably undermine what they are comfortable believing. Presumably this is due to the need to believe something at some point, which often results in sloppy thinking.

I routinely challenge the assertions of so-called rational atheists on atheist-related threads and what happens on a routine basis are ad hominem attacks against me simply because I choose to challenge what they believe or the reasons why they believe certain things. Basically, if you don’t kowtow to the party’s line, you’re evil in their view. As we all know, this is what theists do to outsiders and what many atheists proclaim to hate about theists. Meanwhile, many atheists do the exact same thing and don’t even seem to realize it. Not a socially uber-liberal femi-Nazi supporter? Evil. Support a single viewpoint with an opposing political party? Evil. Don’t think theists are necessarily worse people than atheists? Evil. But, people are arrogant and love nothing more than to proclaim their righteousness no matter how wrong they may be; atheists are no exception. And like the attitude of theists atheist claim to hate, so-called rational atheists are just as pig-headed and stubborn, unwilling to budge on their beliefs.

If you don’t believe me, ask a so-called rational atheist what it would take to change their mind about the existence of God. (Atheists often employ this kind of question against theists. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, someone once said.) Their answer is always the same as a theist’s when such a question is posed to them: nothing. Why? One answer would be that they have no way of telling a god apart from a sufficiently powerful or knowledgeable alien. That is, if the god in question appeared to violate the laws of physics in some way, we as a species do not possess sufficient enough knowledge to know whether the laws of physics have actually been broken (which harkens back to not knowing how much a knowledgeable alien knows). Another answer would be that even if said being could prove they created us, creation does not entail that the entity in question is a god. (Do we program or even expect robots to view human beings as gods because we created them? Only in the movies.) The point is, you cannot call yourself rational if you are unwilling to change your mind.

This is where any so-called rational atheist will roll their eyes because no one is willing to change their mind that one plus one equals two. It’s a stubborn belief because it appears so rational to the point it is intuitive, but one can easily think of counter-examples if one takes one plus one out of its prevailing mathematical context. Sure, one plus one equals two, but one has to rely on context to make that assertion true. Not changing one’s mind on the existence of God is much the same way as many atheists view God existence in the same context, as that of a (supposedly) physical being like you or me. Myself? I am willing to change my mind on God’s existence, which upon internal examination would have more to do with me wanting to believe in a god than the arguments for God’s existence, almost all of which I find specious. Perhaps as an exercise in critical thinking, a future blog will try to come up with arguments in favor of God’s existence. You will not see any so-called rational atheist taking on such an assignment, though. It’s because they are not the philosophers they think they are.

Here’s a quick test that strengthens my assertion. Ask a so-called rational atheist if they are a Humanist. (Some will answer “yes,” some will say “no.”) For those that answer yes, ask them if they subscribe to the Humanist notion that all people have inherent worth. (They must, if they identify as a Humanist.) Now ask them where that inherent worth comes from. They cannot say; their belief that all people are born with inherent worth is simply what they wish to believe. Or are they going to say that worth is inherent from the mere act of being born? Really, says who? Is that some kind of instinctual desire, not unlike the instinctual desire to beat stupid people about the head? It’s a nonsensical belief backed by no scientific evidence or rational reasoning. But, like the theist who will not admit they’re pretending to know something they do not, the so-called rational atheist does the same thing, just with a different belief.

This is what makes some people asshats. Take George W. Bush for example, when asked who his favorite philosopher is, answers, “Jesus.” Jesus was not a philosopher – he said such-and-such is the way it is and there is no room for doubt. That’s not philosophy and that’s why GWB is an asshat. So the next time you think you’re doing philosophy and you think you’ve come to some concrete answer, it’s no longer philosophy; you’ve either entered the realm of science or are completely wrong. My money is on the latter.

WWJD? No, Seriously.

Have you ever found yourself in a certain situation and come to the terrifying revelation that, by golly, you just didn’t know what to do? Like the other day, I was in the city and I happened upon Doctor Octopus rampaging through the waterfront district. Having never fought a super villain before, I didn’t know exactly what to do. But what I do know is that Spiderman has fought Doc Ock on many occasions and under many circumstances. So naturally I asked myself, “What would Spiderman do?” The rest as they say is history as Doc Ock is resting comfortably behind bars at this very moment.

There routinely comes those moments in our lives where having never found ourselves in particular situations we seek guidance from sources outside of ourselves. Sometimes we call these people heroes, being that they provide stellar examples of the kind of behavior we ourselves would like to imitate if we were unfortunate enough to find ourselves in scenarios such as those our heroes have faced. We might also call upon the stories of our heroes in situations we are already familiar with in hopes of acting with more grace and dignity then we may have had previously.

            For the Christian, the hero they are supposed to be channeling is Jesus Christ. While they can surely have other heroes besides, their primary source of inspiration is, as they claim, the son of God as characterized in the Bible’s New Testament. Frankly, there is a comedic element involved for many a Republican-lovin’ Evangelical who enjoys claiming this much. That is to say, Evangelical Christians act in a manner that is often inconsistent with the words of their main man, Jesus of Nazareth.

            Let’s take a look at, oh I don’t know, George W. Bush. He’s a Christian isn’t he? He claims to be and there’s no arguing that Evangelicals made up the majority of his constituents. Though, I can’t help but get the feeling that good ol’ George never seriously asks himself, “What would Jesus do?” when confronted by difficult choices. I really wonder if, on the eve of the US invasion of Iraq, President Bush asked himself, “Would Jesus invade a country that poses less than half the threat than North Korea does?” Even if Iraq or any other country did pose a dire threat to the United States, doesn’t Jesus state in Matthew chapter 5 verses 39-44 to love your enemies and do good by them? A theist partial to the Bible may object and claim that God’s enemies are nonetheless condemned to Hell, but that is a judgment reserved for God (as stated at least twice in the Book of Matthew).

            We’re not done with making an example out of Mr. Bush yet, hero worshippers. It is quite clear as well that the former oil businessman turned leader-of-the-free-world had close ties to the financially well-to-do and multi-billion dollar corporate interests while in office. But doesn’t Jesus say unequivocally in Matthew 19: 23-24 that it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven? Why is President Bush hobnobbing with rich people if Jesus is his favorite philosopher? “Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you,” lamented Jesus in James chapter 5 verses 1-5. Why is the Republican Party known for pandering to the upper class if Christians are their constituents?

            To be fair, George W. Bush isn’t the only offender among those who claims to adhere to the words set forth by Jesus and then acts in a radically different manner. Let’s take Rush Limbaugh for example. He’ll tell you he’s a fan of Jesus, just not a very big fan if his actions are any indication. I mean, gee, wasn’t Rush addicted to pain killers for a while there? Yet in Matthew 5:29-30 Jesus tells us that it would be better to pluck out our own eyes and cut off our hands if it meant keeping us from sinning or giving into vice. Should Rush have cut off his hands in order to keep himself from popping pills? While the Bible may have nothing to say about whether or not being addicted to pain medication is good or bad, Limbaugh surely thinks it is a vice as he had routinely criticized drug addicts before his hypocrisy was revealed. [See Luke 6:41 for Jesus’ warning against hypocrisy, Rush.] But maybe Limbaugh was speaking in parables. Oh dear, he was following Jesus’ example after all.

            Okay, well then, what of Jim Bakker, the former leader of the Praise The Lord (PTL) Ministries? Hmm, if history recalls correctly, wasn’t he the guy who tried to buy his press secretary Jessica Hahn’s silence about her sexual services to him? I’m pretty sure that Christians generally agree that, citing Jesus’ supposed celibate lifestyle and Paul the Apostle’s views on sex, what Jim did was a big no-no. And as we all know, Jim Bakker is hardly the only Christian leader guilty of sexual misdeed. Jesse Jackson, cough, cough. Archdiocese of Boston, Portland, and Tucson, ahem, ahem. Damn this sore throat. Why didn’t any of these people ask themselves, when faced with such great temptation, “What would Jesus do?” Would Jesus cheat on his wife? Would Jesus sire a love child? Would Jesus molest little children? Would Jesus try to cover it up?

            There’s also the matter of the Golden rule. In the Book of Luke chapter 6 verse 31 Jesus says, “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.” In other words, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, which sounds like decent advice in most instances (sans you crazy sadomasochists out there). Seriously now, when’s the last time Jerry Falwell treated a homosexual or non-Christian with respect? “If you’re not a born again Christian, you’re a failure as a human being,” said Falwell in an attempt to sugarcoat reality. He must’ve skipped the Book of Luke entirely because Jesus also said therein, “Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.” Perhaps Jerry Falwell would be best off asking himself whether or not Jesus would read the Bible before claiming to be a Christian.

            On any given day, your typical Evangelical can be seen living in a manner contradictory to the teachings of Jesus. In Matthew 5:5 Jesus says, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” Uh, are we still talking about Evangelicals here, the same people trying to turn America into a Christian version of Israel? In Matthew 5:34 Jesus states, “Swear not at all,” in forbidding the taking of oaths. Okay then, what the heck are Christians doing in the courtrooms?! In Matthew 22:37-40 Jesus gives a new commandment that is second only to the first one of loving God above all else. “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” he tells his audience. Well, that’s certainly not advice good Christians like Fox News parrots Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Cal Thomas, and Fox News president and founder Roger Ailes follow. "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity,” replies a demure Ann Coulter about Muslim countries on a typical day. That’s right, nothing says love like a religious conversion at the end of a gun barrel.

While I don’t qualify as an expert on the Bible, I can certainly say that I know the Bible better than 9 out of 10 Christians I come across. If you ask me, no one has been able to logically defend the outrageous positions Evangelicals typically take on everyday living, especially when you consider that they are supposed to be taking the words and gospels of Jesus into account when living their lives, otherwise a person would have no business calling themselves a follower of Christ. Yet call themselves Christians is exactly what they do! Would Jesus call himself the son of God if he really were not? What would Jesus do; would the King of Kings lie? 

I know what I’d do. Whatever life holds in store for me, I will never forget these words: "With great power comes great responsibility." This is my gift, my curse. Who am I? I'm Theory Parker.

George W. Bush: Terrorist? No, Idiot.

“George W. Bush: Terrorist.”

I’ve seen you, you pseudo-intellectual college students and aging hipsters of the “Free Love” generation, wearing one of those witty t-shirts in recent years. Those t-shirts are without doubt so clever they induce in your conservative Republican opponents a sort of quasi-introspective trace, don’t they? “George W. Bush is a terrorist? I never thought of it that way. Perhaps I should,” they’ll tell themselves.

I can understand why someone might want to think of President Bush as a terrorist. Let’s assume for a moment the culturally sensitive perspective of a foreigner whose country has been invaded by US forces and has seen fellow civilians killed or harmed by the US military. Why wouldn’t they think of the American Commander-In-Chief as a terrorist? After all, he is using force to achieve political or ideological objectives while he wears the “disguise” of a civilian. Though, I don’t know how much of a disguise a business suit is. Maybe it’s the inflammatory red ties he always wears.

While I am no fan of rednecks, ah, red neckties, calling George W. Bush a terrorist broadens what it means to be such a radical, perhaps to the point of even cheapening the word “terrorist” (at least they don’t try to avoid their duty). Perhaps such name-calling is to be expected though from people who merely wish to pray for world peace instead of taking action as means to achieve their visions of utopia. And while these same opponents of President Bush call for his impeachment (its all the rage these days for American presidents), they cannot do so on the grounds that George W. Bush is a terrorist. The President may be many things—and we can be unfriendly about that—but he is not a terrorist. Breath.

Now that any liberal rage you may have had has passed, let’s think about what defines a terrorist.

We’ll begin with the kind of actions that are to be reasonably expected from someone who is called a terrorist; in other words, they terrorize. Now, causing another person great harm can be either mental or physical in nature. However, a terrorist’s method-of-operation is specifically and primarily physical in nature, and typically targets civilians. If terrorist attacks were instead psychological in nature (instead of an expected result of the primary physical attack), then it would be reasonable to expect to find Catholic and Jewish grandmothers imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay.

The purpose of this physical violence against civilian populations is to install fear in a target populace as a method of coercing a population to meet the political or religious demands of the terrorist or the organization they represent. If the population does not give into the coercion, is expected that terrorist attacks will continue. In this way, the acts of terrorists follow a systematic pattern with which to weave a quilt of destruction.

Moreover, a terrorist characteristically masquerades as a member of the society in which they wish to attack. This tactic is designed to avoid capture by either military or civilian police opposition. This disguise technique causes a target population further concern, because they do not know who the enemy is, much less when and where the unknown assailant(s) will attack. Thus, in an attempt to gain security, a society might lobby their government to give into terrorist demands, such as was the case with the Madrid, Spain train bombings in March 2004. Who knows where they read it, but terrorists certainly make abuse of the phrase, “Better safe than sorry.”

So does President Bush fir the bill of a terrorist? In sending US troops to invade Iraq, the President did not call for specific civilian targets to be engaged. Though civilians might be killed as a matter of collateral damage, they are not the primary focus of any intended violence. In fact, the term “collateral damage” is applied to civilian casualties during military operations exactly because they would be spared any harm if it could be avoided, ideally speaking. If a government’s military intended to kill civilians, they would just go ahead and do it (though it would perhaps be wise to kill all the local reporters as well). Because the US military does not go out of it’s way to kill civilians, their Commander-In-Chief is spared the label of “terrorist.”

It is also exactly because George w. Bush is recognized worldwide as The United States’ Commander-In-Chief that he is not a terrorist. Regardless then of whether he is dressed in a suit and tie or a flight suit stuffed to the nines, he cannot be considered a terrorist because he has explicit ties to the military. Terrorists rarely if ever are connected to a country’s military or governing body, and even when they are, it is not known or disclosed who these people might be.

In order to clear President Bush of any further accusations of being a terrorist, allow me to paraphrase terrorism expert A.P. Schmid who in 1992 defined to the UN what terrorism is: “Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by clandestine individuals/groups, for religious or political ideals, whereby… the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The victims of violence are chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (symbolic targets) to serve as a message generator.” If we use the Iraq War as an example, President Bush commanded the US military to engage non-random, practical military targets, not civilians. Furthermore, George W. Bush can hardly be considered a clandestine individual.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but George W. Bush is emphatically not a terrorist. He doesn’t fulfill any of the qualifications used to define what a terrorist is. Call him what you want (I prefer the term “Errorist”), but he is not a terrorist.

So yeah, about those t-shirts with The President’s picture on them, branding him a terrorist? Feel free to go ahead and put those unsightly little t-shirts away. You wouldn’t want to be accused of terrorizing the fashion industry, now would you?