A New Paradigm for Philosophy?

“Man is a rational animal.” – Aristotle

“Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal.” – Robert Heinlein

I recently read an article by Jamie Hale titled, “Are We Rational Animals?” To summarize the short article, Hale writes that there is growing evidence to support the idea that we are not the rational animals we think we are. This has been obvious to me for some time, but been on my mind a lot lately, especially after defending Abercrombie & Fitch’s Mike Jefferies in a blog a few months ago and the emotional vitriol against me that followed. Even in my last blog, I took so-called rational atheists to task for not being as rational as they pretend to be. And, if I take myself as an example, I’ll unabashedly tell you I can be as irrational as rational on any given day. Certainly, I don’t want to be irrational, beholden to the potentially negative effects of my capricious emotions, ever. It can’t be helped sometimes, though.

If it is true that we are not the rational animals we think we are, if we think and act more irrationally than rationally, why? Is our incredible capacity for reasoning not as incredible as we think we it is? We can tell ourselves that we indeed have an incredible capacity for reasoning, but is it rational to say so or are we rationalizing the assertion to inflate our egos? With these thoughts in the back of my rational mind, I re-read something that made me suspect that ever since Aristotle’s claim about man being a rational animal, we’ve all been going about philosophy the wrong way. That is, so few problems in philosophy have been solved due to the prevailing top-down approach, an approach that begins from the premise that man is indeed a rational animal and that any one person is egotistical enough to think they alone have figured something out. This approach is why no one can come up with a convincing argument for or against, say, abortion, that convinces everyone.

So, I was reading The Information: A History, A Theory, A Flood by James Gleick in which he begins taking about the early days of genetic theory and some innovative remarks Richard Dawkins made about genes at the time (which can be found in Dawkin’s book, The Selfish Gene). Dawkins basically said that we do not use our genes; our genes use us. Genes are essentially programmed to get themselves (or the genes in its group) into the next generation and it doesn’t matter how; genes aren’t conscious of what they’re doing, they are just trying to replicate. Dawkins said that if you consider this, it begins to explain many types of behavior that we observe. It explains tribalism, violence, rape, and even self-sacrifice. It explains why we tend to honor the unspoken Social Contract and trust people without any grounds for doing so. It explains why I, someone with no desire to have children, wants to contribute something lasting (an idea perhaps) to the human race. I really do try to ignore this feeling, but I am nonetheless compelled by something other than reason. The mission of genes explains why we – all of us – are more irrational than rational.

Left to nature alone with no nurturing to tame it, the mission of genes readily sees population growth go unchecked. When genes are allowed to run rampant, the effect in the animal kingdom is seen when an animal overpopulates its environment and exceeds the land’s capacity to sustain them. To take an example we as humans can identify with, we used to be haunted (now we’re just jaded) by pictures of starving children in Third World countries where there isn’t enough food being grown locally to feed them while there is little or no education to curb population growth. Starving children are considered a problem and the underlying cause is genes running amuck – it’s an irrational situation. Solving the problem hasn’t worked in the traditional ways; politics tend to obstruct aid for…irrational reasons, I’m sure. Meanwhile philosophers tell us what we should do and then don’t act on their convictions. My point is, in doing philosophy, no one (that I know of) is considering our genes as the actual starting point for solving such a problem. If it is the purpose of our genes to get themselves into the next generation and we are simply the vehicles to get genes where they are going, might this be a place from which to start doing philosophy? One reason to even do philosophy is to tame our genes so that we don’t have to see something like children starving. (We also do philosophy that leads to science, which makes products that placates our genes’ need for certain comforts.)

Let’s return to the issue of abortion and begin from the premise that our genes are trying to get into the next generation and we are compelled by our nature to get them there. On the face of it, considering the needs of our genes alone, abortion should not be permissible. Now other factors in the argument for or against abortion can be considered. Should anyone but a pregnant woman have a say in what happens to her potential baby? That may depend on the needs of the group or society that is otherwise going to support her baby, whether through her job, family support, or some other way, what have you. (Of course, how large a group or society should be to have any say, if they have any say, is open to debate; based upon the needs of our genes, of course.) What about a woman that becomes pregnant due to a rape; should she be made to carry a fetus to term? That may depend upon how far into the future a group or society wants a gene prone to such violence to propagate*. See how now we can ask which genes should and should not be allowed to propagate. If we allow all genes to go forward, anything becomes permissible and no philosophy or argument for or against something like abortion will ever do for everyone. Or we can select for some traits in an attempt to subvert others and construct some guidelines for what should be done (taking into account any number of auxiliary circumstances) when a woman becomes pregnant. I’m not saying an issue like abortion isn’t complex, but we cannot debate such an issue if our starting point is whatever position you’ve already taken on the issue. That’s the top-down approach which in any given group or society ultimately kowtows to mob mentality. Mob mentality should never do for a species that considers itself rational.

(* This is assuming there is a genetic explanation or component to rape. I’m sure that on occasion something as horrible as rape it is due to a prevailing culture, but I believe cultures are ultimately the expressions of genes. Culture have to be since without people, there are no cultures.)

We can't do anything to curb being irrational until we admit how irrational we are and why. It's sort of like admitting you're an alcoholic before you can stop yourself. Recognizing what role genes play in our lives - sorry, the other way 'round - can be as much a starting place for philosophy as any other, so why not try it out since all the other starting points have pretty much failed?

 

Since this idea is new to me (and probably even weirder to you) I haven’t yet taken the time to consider to just what extent approaching philosophy in this manner is useful, if at all. If it fails, it fails. No biggie. But, like rational atheists who think a world run by people like themselves would be better than it is now simply because they couldn’t do any worse than the people who have traditionally run the world, I don’t see how this possible new approach to philosophy could do worse than how Western philosophy has played out so far. Not that it’s been all bad…

The Hypocrisy of Rational Atheists

Boy, is theism under assault in the U.S. these days. The current wave of fashionable atheism began over a decade ago and seems to have taken root like never before; various polls show that anywhere from 10-20% of the population consider themselves atheists and those numbers are climbing, even as the birthrate of Catholic Hispanics in the U.S. climbs with it. Under an unprecedented philosophical assault, theists are having a tougher and tougher time contorting arguments to make their beliefs plausible.

Why the assault, though? Presumably, the assault has to do with theism’s historical track record what with its general maliciousness towards non-believers, to say nothing of the way individual faiths may treat certain people within their sphere of influence. Not only is the oppression that is so intimately linked with religion an affront to societies that value individual freedom (or pay lip-service to individual freedom), but the fact that the epistemology of theism is not epistemology at all is also not compatible with societies that value science. [In actuality meaning that theism is not compatible with reason.] And so it is assumed by the stewards of the current atheist movement that there has to be a better way, that perhaps a world full of or run by rational atheists would be better than a world as it has been run by theists.

I don’t necessarily disagree, but my agreement is not without a flaw; that is, where is the evidence that a world full of or run by rational atheists would be any better than the world as it has been under theism? So-called rational atheists have yet to devise or implement a system of governance that can be called remotely successful: If Communism – which in theory is atheistic – is any example, the approximately 27 million victims of communist regimes demand that atheists go back to the drawing board. Is it possible a Humanist system of governance could work? There’s no evidence to go on and there is no reason to assume that any implementation of a humanist government would be peaceful, where bloodshed for the sake of any such humanist government would be in direct violation of Humanist principles. If rational atheists are so hung up on reason, logic, and evidence, they have to demonstrate how any style of governance they devise would be better than the current options. “We can’t do any worse,” is not a reasonable position to start from for a group of people who bow before logic and evidence.

If there is no evidence for the afore mentioned position taken up by rational atheists, we might be inclined to wonder what is really going on. My hypothesis is that their position is an expression of Nietzsche’s Will to Power, where the Will to Power is often expressed as the control of one person or group over another. Rational atheists are taking advantage of a system that allows debate in order to prop themselves up as important ‘intellectuals’ but often acting more like philosophical thugs, disregarding any evidence that theism is ever good because their working premise is that one cannot be a theist and also intelligent (as the two words are mutually exclusive; theist = bad person, intelligent = good person). [‘Thugs,’ of course, is a loaded word used here on purpose, because although the tools rational atheists use to make their points may be valid, in the end their aim is to undermine and devalue cultures that differ in thought, just like the people they seek to overthrow.]

While reason, logic, and evidence has led to many amazing discoveries in science, there is little evidence to support that life is actually better now than before many scientific advancements. (That is, if we’re not counting a longer life span. There’s no reason to as a longer life has not been shown to make people any happier.) And, while reason, logic, and evidence may have led to the Enlightenment ideals that formed the basis for the U.S. Constitution, how the U.S. government has evolved from its beginnings in the 18^th century haven’t exactly played out according to the Constitution’s guidelines. (This may seem odd to say due in part due to much ambiguity in the Constitution.) So, rational atheists cannot point to either scientific advancements or the (alleged) best current example of free citizenry as evidence that, “We can do better.”

As I said earlier, I do not necessarily disagree that a world full of or run by rational atheists would be better than the way the world has been run under theism, but my agreement is based largely on speculation. So what I ask for from the people doing the same thing I am is to provide evidence for their assertion, seeing how they’re so much smarter than me. I mean, if I were going to make such an assertion to anyone besides myself, I would have to have some kind of outline for a system of governance that corrects the flaws in all our current systems of government, or, be able to show that a world full of rational atheists wouldn’t need a government at all. Of course, I would warn rational atheists not to use Humanism as their basis for any such government, though, as several of its principles are objectionable (at least to any rational being). Still, it wouldn’t be a terrible place to start from.

I’m not against giving rational atheists a shot at running the world, but first I want to be reasonably sure they wouldn’t abuse their power. But the evidence indicates that rational atheists are human, and evidence indicates that humans are prone to corruption regardless of their beliefs or alleged rationality.

You're Kidding Me

I do not understand many things, among them the onus a society places upon its denizens to bear children. Actually, I take that back; from an evolutionary standpoint, demands to bear children make complete sense. But with around 7 billion people on the planet now, you’d think people would cut others some slack for not having children or not having children by the proper age as dictated by a given culture. But the nagging persists: “When are you going to get married and have kids? You do want kids, right? How many? Time’s running out!” While I can’t help people whose biological clocks are ticking – their drive towards procreation is on them at least – I wish to help people with nagging relatives and friends. How? By nagging back. (What other solution did you think I was going to propose?)

Let’s face it; it’s 2013 in America and bullying is no longer accepted. Frankly, that’s what nagging someone to have kids is these days; bullying. So no one, when asked, “When are you having kids?” should shrink like a violet. I propose fighting back in the face of such interrogations. If someone asks you, “When are you having kids?” there are any number of clever or snarky replies, such as

* Why is it important to you?

* Yeah, um, whose life is my life?

* Never, seeing how well you raised kids.

* As soon as you stop asking me about it.

* Seven billion people isn’t enough for you?

* When there is such a thing as job security again.

* When you die and need to be replaced.

* When they’re 18.

Personally, I’d reply with “Why is it important to you?” because the person you respond to with it isn’t going to have anything close to a rational answer as to why it’s important to them. I can almost hear the irrational guilt trip answer, “Because I want to have grandchildren before I die,” already. Furthermore, the person wanting to know when you’re having children is probably religious, which opens the door to educate them on why they really think you having children is important – the compulsion of genes to replicate themselves as far into the future as possible.

I have never been for the viewpoint that the pinnacle event in life is to have and raise children, because if so, one is living an arguably pointless existence once a child is born, seeing how a biological parent is not currently necessary to a child’s survival. And if the point of having and raising children becomes the point in life of the children to have and raise children? This is descending into idiocy from a thinking standpoint. (Though, I guess we can’t expect a biologically based drive to be subject to reason.) Besides, after the childbearing years doesn’t a person become useless if having children is all there is to life? Maybe not; I guess someone’s gotta put a dollar in the birthday card.

Yes, families are great and we all love one another and our respective children, but no one should be made to feel they are less of a human being because they haven’t done their procreation duty. Coercion, guilt, shaming – we don’t do these things anymore in freedom-loving Western industrialized countries. That is so last century and two billion people ago. And that’s why I don’t have kids, ‘cause I’m a modern man who loves freedom and free is the last thing you are when you have kids.

[To be more exact, I don’t have children because I think of them mostly as demanding, noisy, germ-infested, stress-inducing, sleep-deprivation machines that never stop when you want them to. Besides, my cats are a pain in the ass and they’re only half the size of a baby. Why the hell would I double my trouble? And no, it wouldn’t be better just because they’re mine. I know me and I sure as hell wouldn’t want to raise even a half of me.]

The Eleventh Cents

The Eleventh the Eleventh, remember the Eleventh…oh, god, just…STFU. I say that not because September 11, 2001 wasn’t a historical day for Western civilization or that I consider the deaths of civilians in New York and D.C. at the hands of terrorists to be trivial. I say STFU because my American brethren basically haven’t learned a single fucking thing since the most devastating attack on U.S. soil over a decade ago.

To wake up on September 11^th is to know there will be the obligatory changing of Facebook profile pictures to some patriotic nut-grabbing machismo fuckshit like “Never Forget!” Never forget what, that the American government, endorsed by the republic that voted it into office, did something to upset a bunch of undernourished, mal-televised Muslims? No, no, no; instead of ever asking, “What the hell did we (as Americans) do to piss off the Sand People so much?” Americans are content to recall nothing more than innocent civilians were killed on 9/11 by people with values completely alien to their own. Of course, that the values of terrorists are completely alien to a number of Americans – well, conservative Republicans at least – is horseshit. They attack us, we attack them, they attack us, we attack them…sounds like shared values to me. No, no; instead of asking what caused 9/11 and waging a war on the hearts of the enemy or trying to change the circumstances that lead to the enemy’s hatred, The United States simply retaliates with force and digs itself in deeper into the Middle East, physically as well as ideologically. This, of course, causes great surprise among Americans that an enemy who feels that they’ve nothing to live for but the rewards of martyrdom will attack them again and keep trying. Indeed, never forget how fucking stupid Americans are.

I am not saying the victims of September 11^th deserved what they got. Don’t be ridiculous; they were civilians and civilians are never legitimate targets, although I guess that depends upon your theory of warfare. (A theory of warfare that should apply to whatever tragedies U.S. foreign policy may have led to, no?) But being more patriotic about 9/11 is not going to cause the enemy to go away, it just makes them madder. Terrorists don’t see American patriotism as resolve and think, “Wow, they’re really motivated. Let’s stop trying to kill them.” Paying lip-service to one’s patriotism doesn’t do anything to solve anything on the geo-political stage. It just makes things worse. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Nationalism is a concept that has really fucked over everyone who isn’t rich or powerful. (And on so many levels; I’m not just talking about sending Joe Blow off to war, though that is the most fucked example).

If you really want to be patriotic and make the terrorists pay for what happened on 9/11, then by all means enlist and go get ‘em! I’m behind ya, really I am. Just don’t keep half-assing it. Either kill all them mother fuckers – I mean, like, the whole fucking Middle East – or STFU and build some bridges instead of burning them. Either take the gloves all the way off or send the Middle East a care package full of kittens. Stop being pussies and have some goddamn conviction on one side of the fence or the other. Just don’t tell me to, “Never Forget,” because every time you do it, I’m going to think – I mean, KNOW – you never gave those trivial words a second thought. And I hate thoughtless schmucks. They wind up being the kind of assholes who fly planes into building full of regular people.

[Want to play the "Never Forget" game? It's easy! Grab some friends and some shot glasses and every time someone comes up with something that shouldn't be forgotten in relation to 9/11, everyone has to do a shot. For example, Never Forget that since 9/11, it's okay for the NSA to monitor all your communications without any reason! Or, Never Forget that your precious freedom is the freedom to drink as much carcinogenic cola as you want just as long as you don't peacefully protest  corporate greed! Obviously, there is no object to the game, much like being 'patriotic' once a year.]

Update: 9/15/13

The Gentleman Tony responded to this entry but Blogger decided his post was too long to qualify as a comment. Before I post his reaction, I would just like to say that sometimes I post entries really to amuse just myself, though any given post will indicate – at least to a small degree – how I actually feel about some things. Sometimes, there is a lot of sarcasm with my words and I do realize that people cannot always or even most of the time know when I am being sincere and when I am not. With that in mind, The Gentleman Tony’s response is posted first, followed by my response to his response…

The Gentleman Tony: Before I comment on your blog, I wish to declare that you've been my best human friend for more than half of my life and will continue to be so. I also wish to acknowledge that, unlike myself, you have in your lifetime made the ultimate commitment to our country and, therefore, speak from a unique perspective that the majority of us Americans do not have. I can also tenuously relate to some of the emotions that led you to write what you did. However, I do have to dissent with the specifics of what you said.

In your first paragraph, you assert that Americans have not learned "a single (expletive) thing since the most devastating attack (ever) on U.S. soil." I have to disagree. Americans have learned something. They have learned that they are under imminent danger of a terrorist attack at any time. Obviously, 9-11 was not the first terrorist attack on U.S. soil and, indeed, not even the first terrorist attack at the World Trade Center. However, for those old enough to have recollections of it, the magnitude of the events of September 11, 2001 will forever remain in the DNA of every American, and will be involuntarily recalled during any future terrorist attack, whether involving a shoe bomber, an explosive device planted in the crowd of the most glorious of all marathon races, or even a failed bungled plot almost comical in its ineptitude.....if not for the perilous horror that would have occurred if it had succeeded.

You then discuss "the obligatory changing of Facebook profile pictures to some patriotic nut-grabbing machismo (B.S.) like 'Never Forget!'" If you had used the quote "These Colors Don't Run," I could have possibly bought the preceding characterization but, to me, "Never Forget" simply means that we should never forget the horrific events of that day, of the lives that were lost and the absolute heroism of so many on a day that represents a dividing line in our history. No macho posturing at all.

Now, the question is, what is appropriate behavior come September 11, 2014 and on September 11ths beyond and, to your point about being people "patriotic once a year," how should we conduct ourselves on days when the calendar does not read September 11? Is merely posting "Never Forget", or a variation on that theme, adequate? For some who post and change their profile pictures on that day, it truly is an honest reflection of the pain and poignancy that they feel on that anniversary. However, for some, posting a picture or a social media update telling us to "Never Forget" is just a clicheous thing to do, typing a two-word phrase inherent with meaning without thinking about the significance of it at all, and then amplifying this thoughtlessness later that day by posting a funny video or meme proving that they were able to persevere through the pain of the anniversary of 9/11 and get on with their lives, oh, about an hour later. After all, if we actually pause to remember the tragedy and attempt to understand its implications throughout the day, the terrorists win. It's not my place, however, to question the motives of each person who does this. I would encourage you, though, Theory, not to make broad, sweeping generalizations or speak in absolutes. Not EVERYONE posts "Never Forget" for the wrong reasons (nor everyone for the right reasons); your blog does not acknowledge this, and I'll wager more people do it for the right reasons.

It was once proposed to make 9/11 a Federal holiday, a sort of National Day of Mourning, and it would have been interesting to see how that would have played out were that to have been enacted into law. Would it truly be a Day of Mourning, or would it have been bastardized over the years? Imagine Walmart having a 9/11 Sale, the official 9/11 Federal holiday falling only on the second Friday of September (three-day weekend! yay!), regardless of the calendar day ala Martin Luther King Day, and family picnics. Memorial Day and Veterans Day (the latter originally called Armistice Day, to commemorate the end of World War I on the Western Front) were enacted to acknowledge the service and sacrifice our soldiers made, especially in wars where the casualties dwarfed the casualties of 9/11, and the majority of American people do not spend those days going to parades or watching documentaries of American history, and this I can confirm personally. When I attended a Memorial Day parade in which my future stepdaughter marched as a Girl Scout ON MEMORIAL DAY, I didn't exactly need to plop a chair somewhere hours before just to get a good vantage point of the festivities, and I will never forget the looks of appreciation veterans gave us just for clapping as we watched them march in a Memorial Day parade on Memorial Day, and there were few with us. I can do a better job of appreciating our veterans, we all can. We can do a better job making our voices heard in matters regarding conditions at V.A. hospitals, the quality of care for our veterans returning from the Middle East, and survivor benefits (not to be confused with demanding more funding for the military-industrial complex). For those who post "Never Forget" on 9/11, how many made their voices heard when First Responders or their surviving spouses had to go through all kinds of technical loopholes to get the payouts they deserve? As I said, we can all do a better job but, then again, my profile picture did not change during 9/11.

As far as what was the proper retaliation for the terrorist attacks of 9/11, yes, absolutely, we should have responded with force. Attempting to learn "What the hell did we (as Americans) do to piss off the Sand People so much?,” as you encourage, is all well-and-good (supporting Israel, which I believe is a moral obligation, is one logical answer), but we absolutely had to go into Afghanistan because you cannot let over 3,000 people die from a terrorist attack and become merely introspective. Getting involved in Iraq, a country without a role in the events of 9/11, is another matter (more anon).

Your concluding suggestion, perhaps somewhat facetiously, of enlistment for those who wish to be patriotic and make the terrorists pay for 9/11 (forget for the moment that we have, largely, made those responsible pay for it) betrays some logical flaws. For one, enlisting does not guarantee where your services will be allocated. You may wish to enlist with the desire to battle the Taliban, and find your ass in Iraq or Syria, fighting a battle you may not believe in. If you wish to fight the terrorists themselves, well, who are they, and where are they at? Compare this to the advent of United States involvement in World War II, when we declared war against a country who attacked Pearl Harbor, whereupon their Axis allies declared war on us. Clearly-defined enemies with clearly-defined boundaries, and a clear moral imperative for the United States to defeat them. Thankfully, we did not ask ourselves what we did to piss off the Japanese so much.

Theory Parker: The Gentleman Tony said that Americans have in fact learned something from 9/11, “They have learned that they are under imminent danger of a terrorist attack at any time.” Attacks are possible, certainly, but the dangers are quite exaggerated. The propaganda campaign by a media that understands that fear sells has been quite successful. There is a much greater chance that I am in danger of getting bit by a shark, struck by lightning, or attacked by a drunk neighbor than be caught up in a terrorist attack. Still, yes, as individuals and a nation we should remain vigilant and have greater situational awareness than is standard-operating-procedure, but let’s not forget that the two most recent spectacular tragedies, Sandy Hook and the Boston Marathon bombing, were not perpetrated by rogue/sleeper cells of terrorists. (Everyone knows it was the Illuminati’s work…THAT’S a joke, btw). Furthermore, the belief that we are always in imminent danger does mean the terrorists have won (a matter of degrees, of course) but the belief has resulted in Americans giving away many of their Constitutional freedoms without so much as a dull roar. So, if indeed Americans did learn something from 9/11, what it really learned is that they do not deserve either security or liberty, to paraphrase a great man. So I concede that Americans may have learned something, but if they did, it wasn’t a lesson with any good result.

What lesson should have resulted then? I believe 9/11 should have caused Americans to think deeply, pause, and reconsider its foreign policies. (After we retaliated against those responsible, naturally. More on that in a bit.)  Unlike, WWII – in which Germany had already declared war on the U.S. and Japan surprised America by bombing Pearl Harbor because they were after our resources in SE Asia – 9/11 was the direct result of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, a policy that props up Israel. Whether supporting Israel is the right or wrong thing to do is largely irrelevant; U.S. policy makers have long known what results from supporting a Jewish state. As I said on that very day, 9/11, “I’m surprised this didn’t happen sooner.” Instead of reconsidering a foreign policy (which is more than just about Israel, duh) that causes a great number of people in the Middle East to hate America, Americans go to the polls and continue to vote people into office who will maintain the status quo, thus perpetuating a fear of imminent attacks upon themselves. While there may be any number of reasons people don’t act in their own interest, this particular instance of turning a blind eye to what may potentially be one’s own destruction, to say nothing of willingly tossing aside liberties thanks to said elected representatives, is a head-shaker, at least to me.

I do agree with The Gentleman Tony that it was the correct move to attack Afghanistan in response to 9/11, certainly. But as always, America stopped short of getting the job done, so to speak. I personally come from the Sun Tzu school of war, not that I ever would want to go to war but if I did, which calls for crushing your enemies completely so you don’t have to worry about them in the future. Granted, such an approach is usually not practical (for example, the Allies considering invading Russia after WWII), but when you’ve got the means, you should literally eradicate your enemies. The current War on Terror is, in my opinion, pussyfooting around with terrorists for reasons I will not speculate here. At any rate, the current administrative modus operandi continues to put U.S. citizens at risk if, again, there really is such imminent danger from terrorists.

All that aside, do some people post “Never Forget” to sincerely commemorate the fallen on 9/11? Absolutely. But I contend that such people are in the minority. No, instead, the sense I get from people attempting to cry, “Never Forget,” is maliciousness, that they are never going to forget what them A-rabs did to us and some day they gonna lynch them a towel head if theys get the chance. Again, people learning no useful lesson from that fateful day, just “Strike back, and if they strike us back for striking them back, we’ll strike back again.” Meanwhile, said people have no real connection to anyone who was actually affected by the events of 9/11. Perhaps they consider themselves patriots, but as I’ve said, nationalism – responsible for killing SO many people – is one of the worst ideas humans have ever come up with.

Do I hope people aren’t as convoluted as I believe they are? Sure, but at the end of the day I do not buy the premise that people are basically good; I believe the opposite. That’s just my opinion, though. I could be wrong.

Goodbye Solipsism

I would like to summarize as clearly and concisely my final argument against solipsism, for the sake of brevity trying to dispense with all the minor details I’ve laid out in my previous blogs on this topic:

1-     I accept that I am solipsistic; I am all there is and everything that is, is me.

2-     My solipsism causes within me a desire to know certain fundamental things about myself; why I am solipsistic and/or how the world (which is me) can be the way it appears.

3-     Despite how strong my desire is for answers about my fundamental nature, I am unable to imagine any reason why I am solipsistic. There cannot be a completely subconscious reason why I am solipsistic if my conscious mind can overpower – to an extent, at least – parts of my being that are reflexive. So, I must be able to know, at least in part, why I am solipsistic but I do not. [The possible objection here is that ‘why’ I am solipsistic is looking for an answer that involves intelligent reasoning. If my intelligence, my ability to reason, etc. are all an illusion, then asking ‘why’ I am solipsistic is not a legitimate question.]

4-     Despite how strong my desire is for answers about my fundamental nature, I am unable to imagine how I can be solipsistic. If I am everything that constitutes the world, the universe, etc., there has to be an explanation for how I arrived at the state I am in. If there is no explanation, if I ‘just am’ then everything just is and requires no explanation since it appears that it cannot be the case that some things or events require an explanation whereas others do not. Although I am willing to hear an argument to the contrary, nothing which is me has provided such an argument. [An untenable objection here is that I may not need to know how a car works in order to accept the existence of a car, meaning, I need not know how I am solipsistic in order to accept that I am solipsistic. However, it is possible for me to know how a car works provided I study to that end; it is possible for me to know the how of anything regardless of how complicated the given subject is. But this does not appear to be possible when considering one’s own solipsism.]

5-     Any other possible explanation that is intelligible for how my mind can make it appear as though it is the entirety of the world must be an explanation that involves input to myself (through what appears to be my sensory apparatus’) from somewhere outside the boundaries of my mind. So, it cannot be the case that my mind, essentially my being, is the only existent thing. [My argument does not suggest the existence of other minds; it is only meant to strongly suggest I am not the only existent thing.]

Of course, the very idea of solipsism may be a contrivance of language. While I may consider myself an individual with some sort of boundary between myself and the world around me, do I not consider at times the universe to be a solitary whole with myself included along with it? I do this as well as other alleged minds, and we never seem to be satisfied with such a view; as soon as we consider the universe as a whole, we go on imagining what lies beyond the universe or imagine other universes altogether. So, it may be unintelligible to question what is a thing and what is not, in which case language has put me and you so far away from the nature of reality that seeking the truth becomes masochistic.

The Miley Cyrus VMA Nontroversy

I’ve avoided putting my two cents in on the 2013 VMA performance by Miley Cyrus and Robin Thicke mostly because everyone paying attention to pop culture has an opinion about it, so why add to the cacophony of drivel? But a day ago, Miley “broke her silence” about the performance (did anyone ask her to speak?) so now I will break mine.

For starters, Miley said of her libidinous VMA performance that too many people are overthinking it; how she violated that foam finger is no different from anything Madonna or Britney Spears has done. She’s wrong on both accounts – there was a point to Madonna’s overt sexuality; her performances were meant to antagonize and draw attention to the institutions that oppressed women, like the Catholic Church. Madonna didn’t act slutty because that was the only way to advance her career during her heyday. So, when anyone compares what Miley did to anything Madonna has done, I don’t think those people have much of a sense of pop music history. (Or, are trying to protect Miley from scorn for who-knows-what reason). Nor is Miley’s performance anything like a Britney Spears performance if just for the fact that love or hate Brit’s music, Brit is ten times the stage performer. [One wonders why Miley would want to compare herself to Brit anyway given Brit’s meltdown a few years ago. But the mind of a teenage girl is nothing anyone can figure out.]

Second, I think it is fair to say that many people who criticized the performance were offended simply because those people cannot divorce “Slutty Miley” from Hannah Montana. Well, I can’t help people who are that narrow minded but Miley didn’t help them by going the easiest possible route it is to go for a female “artist.” Really, we have enough overtly sexual female music performers. How much better would it have been for Miley to have gone all Rage Against the Machine on the audience and called out President Obama for not taking action on Syria? I assure you that had Miley done that, people’s jaws would have dropped all the same and her sales would have increased just as they are now in the wake of her VMA pandering. On the other hand, as I’ve just said, with her sales boosted by her krewting (the attempt and subsequent failure of a white person to twerk), can you really blame her for giving the masses what they want, that is, a slut? Well, yes, because as I just pointed out, she didn’t have to go down that road. Then again, her father is Billy Ray Cyrus, a man lazy enough to steal a dance and call it his own. Really, how else did anyone think Miley’s career was going to evolve given her gene pool?

I certainly have no problem with women expressing their sexuality on stage, but at least don’t half ass the performance or for the sake of the VMAs do something original. Yet the fact is that this particular performance by Miley Cyrus was uninspired and weak (at NO point was she twerking, oh white defenders). Art is often thought of as something people know when they see it. Well, if that’s the case, what Miley did at the VMAs wasn’t art. Art would have been Miley slowly stripping Robin Thicke nearly naked during the melody and him gyrating all over her. See? See how easy it is to be original? It just takes a second of thought.

Finally, let’s not let Robin Thicke off the hook. His failure in the performance certainly complemented Cyrus’ as men are expected to sit back and feast their hungry eyes upon a woman while not being expected to do any work. Sure, no one expects pop artists to be agents of change, but the stale act by Cyrus and Thicke certainly didn’t “make history,” as Miley says they discussed. Take note, Robin and Miley – those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Indeed.

[Got a minute to spare, literally? Read Miley Breaks Her Silence.]

Solipsism: Finally Defeated

[Part Three of my recent investigation into metaphysics and consciousness in an attempt to defeat solipsism. As I’ve said before, it is important that solipsism to be defeated before any other philosophy can begin. While I’ve defeated solipsism on practical grounds in an earlier blog, and practical grounds figure into what I am about to present, the previous victory is admittedly hallow. So I began writing and writing until I came up with an argument that convincingly defeats solipsism. Given the answer I present here, I can look back and see just how much I – and others – have over-thought this problem, mainly because I – and others – initially refuse to accept the premise of solipsism. Solipsism cannot be defeated from the outside; it can only be defeated from within. Can solipsism be defeated? Yes. How? By accepting it. Please read on]

Solipsism is the name given to the idea that one’s own existence – particularly one’s own mental existence – is the only existence there is. Solipsism posits that there are no other minds besides one’s own and that the world of extended objects does not exist either. Although solipsism sounds nonsensical to the uninitiated, I and many others consider solipsism the greatest of all philosophical problems. There really does not seem to be a way to be certain that a world outside of one’s own mind exists.

To tackle this dilemma, it is necessary to accept the premise of solipsism rather than dismissing it simply because a world of extended objects appears obvious. [This assumes a previous acceptance of the idea that I am something that has experiences. And why not? It’s undeniable.] Upon accepting the premise, I – and maybe you if you exist – am inclined to ask some investigative questions, “Why this world and not another? Why would I imagine the world such as it is if I can imagine a better existence for myself? If I am all there is, what could possibly motivate me to perceive anything else?” Given my circumstances, it does not seem logical that my mental creation of the world would be coming from within myself if I have the capability of creating any world I want, assuming I even have such a need. If the world is my mental creation but I cannot create the world I want when I want, there has to be some explanation why not. And so I consider possibilities.

I can only think of one. Could it be that subconsciously I understand I am not ready for such an undertaking? If psychoanalysts, as a figments of my imagination, are correct about how the mind (my mind) works then certainly I have unconscious thoughts. But if I consciously wish that I did not have subconscious thoughts, why are they still there? (Well, I’d have to assume they are there; I can’t be sure if they are unconscious thoughts.) Perhaps subconscious thoughts are a reflex like breathing or my heart beating, but I have some conscious control over those reflexes even if I cannot stop such reflexes altogether. But what control do I have over subconscious thoughts? None and I cannot wish them away if they are there. But I do not consciously accept this explanation; I refuse to accept it on the grounds that I consciously assume that a desire for my life to be better is stronger than (and thus able to override) whatever subconscious thoughts that make or keep my world such as it is.

This Argument from Subconsciousness fails to explain why the world is the way it is if the world is a figment of my imagination. Problematically, I can think of no competing hypothesis other than the one I just presented as to how the world can appear as it is if it is created out of my own mind. Every other explanation I can think of as to why the world is the way it is even if it is all in my mind brings some other entity or element into the equation that must be outside of myself affecting my thoughts. The only way I can bring another entity or element into the equation that allows for control over my thoughts while still remaining a solipsist can only end in a self-manifested case of schizophrenia; that is, I – as more than one mental being – am controlling my own thoughts for undisclosed reasons. But then any such other mental being I am is stuck manifesting a world with their thoughts that I assume would be less than their ideal state, meaning, their situation is simply and likewise a variety of the Argument from Subconsciousness. Thus, this explanation is prone to the same flaw.

At this point I know that the world I perceive cannot be a construct of my own mind simply because of my limited ability to shape the world according to my conscious desires. I could be tempted to raise an objection to that statement and consider that the world I perceive can in fact be shaped according to my conscious desires, if only to a limited agree (that is, to a similar degree I have conscious control over breathing or my heart beating). My response to such an objection would be that I agree, but only in a manner of speaking: If I want more money, I can always work more or change careers or network with the right people, but changing the world in this sense is beholden to the laws of physics my mind accepts as real. On the other hand, if one is arguing for the ability to literally reshaping the world, defying the laws of physics to bring about changes, I would ask why are there limits to what my mind can do if it is my mind making the changes. I would much prefer to have an unlimited capability to reshape the world with my mind if I did in fact have such powers. Again, it’s the Argument from Subconsciousness which I’ve already argued is not a plausible scenario.

To be clear, what I’ve argued up to this point is not that my mind doesn’t create the world I perceive, rather I have argued that my perception of a world of extended objects must be driven by forces external to my mind since I have no reason to believe my mind, which can only be beholden to my will if I alone exist, would create the world such as I perceive it. I can certainly question where the sensory data is coming from that drives my particular perception of reality but it seems nonsensical to think that sensory data could be coming from myself considering my lack of ability to manipulate it. If it were the case that the data were coming from myself, I cannot imagine how or why that would be possible. It is much easier to imagine that a world of extended objects, with all its various qualities, encroach upon my sensory apparatuses (even if there is a sole sensory apparatus; the mind) to create experiences in my mind. While there remains the possibility that those qualities may be forced upon my mind, they are forced upon me from outside my mind’s ‘boundary.’ This doesn’t necessitate the existence of other minds per se, just that something besides my mind exists. That said, if I know something besides my own mind exists, I am no longer solipsistic and the existence of other minds at least appears plausible.

However, if there are in fact no minds other than my own, I can only conclude that I am God. Strangely, not a single figment of my imagination considers me to be so.

Update: 9/1/13

In promoting my blog on Youtube, one gentleman – a fan of philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein – strongly objected to my argument against solipsism, saying first that I was ignorant of the subject and second that just because I cannot provide an explanation for how or why my mind is the only existent thing, doesn’t mean there is a how or why; it just MAY BE or IS the case that my mind is all there is (a very Taoist argument, I must say). 

Since I am unaffected by his attempted ad hominid  attack, which was brought on by a minor slip in language on my part, I’ll get right to his second point. On one hand I agree with my detractor when it comes to the ‘why’ of possible solipsism. Asking ‘why’ something is the case implies a reason why I may be solipsistic (even if I don’t want to be) and reasons imply intelligence. The universe, were it intelligent, might ask itself why it is all there is. But the universe is not an intelligent being, insofar as we are familiar with the term, and thus to imagine the universe asking itself ‘why’ it exists is not a legitimate question. Now, just because I appear to be an intelligent being to myself or at least a sentient being does not mean I am either such thing. So asking myself ‘why’ my mind is all there is certainly may be a nonsensical question. 

On the other hand, asking ‘how’ I may be solipsistic is a perfectly legitimate question. ‘How’ is precisely what science pursues. Even Analytic Philosophy pursues ‘how’ things are (if not the ‘why’), demonstrating how conclusions are drawn from premises. But my detractor believes asking ‘how’ is a nonsensical activity also – at some point, he writes, you just have to accept the description removed from the cause (quoting Wittgenstein). So it seems this detractor believes that some things or events do not have causes or believes in a first cause for which there is no ‘how’ or explanation. The problem with believing that there once was a point for which no ‘how’ exists is indefensible; one cannot argue that everything has a cause – a ‘how’ – except for the first thing. Atheists certainly don’t let theists get away with that tired inconsistency of logic and I’m not allowing it here as an objection to my argument against solipsism. Worse, my detractor’s counter-argument is even weaker if he tries to say some things have causes and others don’t, implying he has arbitrary guidelines for what constitutes a cause and what doesn’t (or his definition of ‘cause’ is derived from Wittgenstein’s philosophy of language, which has its critics). I may not know the ‘how’ of my solipsism but the ‘how’ nonetheless exists as a concept within myself if my mind is all there is. Even if, supposing I am not an intelligent being or at least a sentient being, there is a still a ‘how;’ how is it that my mind is all there is?

So my detractor may be correct that my original investigative questions, “Why this world and not another? Why would I imagine the world such as it is if I can imagine a better existence for myself? If I am all there is, what could possibly motivate me to perceive anything else?” are off the mark. But if I replace ‘why’ with ‘how,’ where the ‘how’ is an explanation intelligible to myself since my mind is everything there is – thoughts, objects, other people, etc. – taking up solipsism is once again shown to be so convoluted that it shouldn’t be assumed that my mind is all there is.