In celebration (or lament), here's a little ditty in praise of my wonted guise.
On Beard
Oh Beard,
let us never part again.
Behind you I am safe.
You hide me
better than hypocrisy.
And when I chafe,
let only bristles of the brain
be sheared.
Monday, July 29, 2013
Sunday, July 28, 2013
Implication: If you're not irrational, then you're not a physicalist.
If my prior argument (that standard forms of determinism imply irrationality) turns out to be sound, there are several further implications. The first one I wish to expound is a clear case of Modus Tollens.
Modus Tollens is a recognizable logical form wherein the necessary condition for the antecedent is denied, proving that the antecedent must be false. Blah Blah Blah.
Let me put it this way: Being a duck implies being a bird, so if you find out you ain't a bird, guess what? You ain't a duck. In this case being a bird is a necessary condition for being a duck. If you don't meet that criterion, your duck-ness just took a serious hit.
Now leaving such a "foul" analogy behind, allow me to apply this form to the case at hand.
Physicalism is more or less the view that the physical world (governed by the principles of chemistry and physics) exhausts reality. All there is in the universe can be accounted for by the so-called "hard" sciences. We, as human persons, are interesting and complex bundles of physio-chemical processes, but things like a soul or a conscience or an immaterial mind are (at most) just conventional ways of labeling what is ultimately part of the natural world.
You can see, no doubt, that physicalism implies determinism. If everything is physical (or material)* and is therefore governed by the immutable laws of chemistry and physics, then there is no room for a human will to deviate from the natural order. One's "choices" then are simply a part of the closed system of material causes and effects. They are not free in any meaningful sense of the word, for they follow necessarily from previous events, conditions, and circumstances.
So here's the simplified argument:
1. Physicalism implies determinism
2. Determinism implies irrationality.
3. Therefore, Physicalism implies irrationality.
4. However, I am not irrational.
Therefore, Physicalism is false.
Modus Tollens baby.
I leave you now with further questions. If there is more to reality than the physical universe, then what is it? If we do have rationality, conscience, or immaterial souls, how do we make sense of them? Whence did they arise? No doubt, some of you already have some great answers.
*For my purposes materialism and physicalism can be regarded as synonymous.
Modus Tollens is a recognizable logical form wherein the necessary condition for the antecedent is denied, proving that the antecedent must be false. Blah Blah Blah.
Let me put it this way: Being a duck implies being a bird, so if you find out you ain't a bird, guess what? You ain't a duck. In this case being a bird is a necessary condition for being a duck. If you don't meet that criterion, your duck-ness just took a serious hit.
Now leaving such a "foul" analogy behind, allow me to apply this form to the case at hand.
Physicalism is more or less the view that the physical world (governed by the principles of chemistry and physics) exhausts reality. All there is in the universe can be accounted for by the so-called "hard" sciences. We, as human persons, are interesting and complex bundles of physio-chemical processes, but things like a soul or a conscience or an immaterial mind are (at most) just conventional ways of labeling what is ultimately part of the natural world.
You can see, no doubt, that physicalism implies determinism. If everything is physical (or material)* and is therefore governed by the immutable laws of chemistry and physics, then there is no room for a human will to deviate from the natural order. One's "choices" then are simply a part of the closed system of material causes and effects. They are not free in any meaningful sense of the word, for they follow necessarily from previous events, conditions, and circumstances.
So here's the simplified argument:
1. Physicalism implies determinism
2. Determinism implies irrationality.
3. Therefore, Physicalism implies irrationality.
4. However, I am not irrational.
Therefore, Physicalism is false.
Modus Tollens baby.
I leave you now with further questions. If there is more to reality than the physical universe, then what is it? If we do have rationality, conscience, or immaterial souls, how do we make sense of them? Whence did they arise? No doubt, some of you already have some great answers.
*For my purposes materialism and physicalism can be regarded as synonymous.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Either you have free will or you're irrational.
Here's my argument:
Premise 1: The belief "There is no free will"(~F) must be based on good reasoning (G) if we are to regard it as true (T).
Premise 2: However, if the belief ~F is true, then everything is determined (D).*
Premise 3: If everything is determined (D), then the belief ~F is also determined (A).
Premise 4: If ~F is determined, then it is not based on good reasoning (~G).
[In other words, if I am merely compelled by a necessary chain of events to believe something, then it is not a result of weighing the evidence, carefully deliberating, and discovering the best explanation of the facts. In such a case I would find "reasons" to be compelling not for their merits, but because I am determined to do so.]
Conclusion: ~F cannot be regarded as true (~T).
Now, for the sake of style I have been a little sloppy with my symbolization. The predicate form would be clearer for those familiar with the discipline, and pure symbol is not convenient in this format. Still, here's a somewhat clarified version:
1. If ~F=T, then ~F=G.
2. If ~F=T, then D.
3. If D, then ~F=A.
4. If ~F=A, then ~[~F=G].
Therefore, ~[~F=T]
To put it more succinctly, determinism implies that one is determined to be or to not be a determinist. End of story. No argument is possible or helpful for one who ascribes to such a view. Common sense, however, suggests that a rational person forms his beliefs upon good reasons. He looks at the evidence, he weighs his own experience, and he judges accordingly. By contrast, all forms of determinism (as generally understood) necessarily undermine rationality by eliminating the principles of deliberation and decision that are intrinsic to any informed judgment. Adherents to determinism, if consistent, must accept that such beliefs are the products of events or circumstances beyond their control. There is, therefore, no good reason for them to hold their beliefs (they simply must), and there is no good reason for us to listen to or adopt their perspective (since, according to them we don't choose our "wrong" beliefs anyway).
I'm amazed sometimes that this simple argument (my articulation of which is definitely not the first) is overlooked for more complex refutations. Determinism is necessarily irrational, and if you believe in humankind's capacity for reason, rational deliberation, and ethical decision making then you must reject it. The implications are significant, but we'll leave further discussion for another time.
Nighty-night.
-------------------------------------------------
*For the sake of this argument I define the word "determined" to mean "part of a closed causal process, either physical of psychological." A closed causal process is one in which each event is necessarily caused by a prior series of events and circumstances. No choice or act of volition can violate or initiate anything except as a part of what the causal process effects. It cannot be otherwise, so it cannot be "free" in the normal sense of the word. A fair analogy might be a chain of dominos each successively causing the adjacent domino to fall (supposing that the impetus in such a series could be construed without personal agency).
Premise 1: The belief "There is no free will"(~F) must be based on good reasoning (G) if we are to regard it as true (T).
Premise 2: However, if the belief ~F is true, then everything is determined (D).*
Premise 3: If everything is determined (D), then the belief ~F is also determined (A).
Premise 4: If ~F is determined, then it is not based on good reasoning (~G).
[In other words, if I am merely compelled by a necessary chain of events to believe something, then it is not a result of weighing the evidence, carefully deliberating, and discovering the best explanation of the facts. In such a case I would find "reasons" to be compelling not for their merits, but because I am determined to do so.]
Conclusion: ~F cannot be regarded as true (~T).
Now, for the sake of style I have been a little sloppy with my symbolization. The predicate form would be clearer for those familiar with the discipline, and pure symbol is not convenient in this format. Still, here's a somewhat clarified version:
1. If ~F=T, then ~F=G.
2. If ~F=T, then D.
3. If D, then ~F=A.
4. If ~F=A, then ~[~F=G].
Therefore, ~[~F=T]
To put it more succinctly, determinism implies that one is determined to be or to not be a determinist. End of story. No argument is possible or helpful for one who ascribes to such a view. Common sense, however, suggests that a rational person forms his beliefs upon good reasons. He looks at the evidence, he weighs his own experience, and he judges accordingly. By contrast, all forms of determinism (as generally understood) necessarily undermine rationality by eliminating the principles of deliberation and decision that are intrinsic to any informed judgment. Adherents to determinism, if consistent, must accept that such beliefs are the products of events or circumstances beyond their control. There is, therefore, no good reason for them to hold their beliefs (they simply must), and there is no good reason for us to listen to or adopt their perspective (since, according to them we don't choose our "wrong" beliefs anyway).
I'm amazed sometimes that this simple argument (my articulation of which is definitely not the first) is overlooked for more complex refutations. Determinism is necessarily irrational, and if you believe in humankind's capacity for reason, rational deliberation, and ethical decision making then you must reject it. The implications are significant, but we'll leave further discussion for another time.
Nighty-night.
-------------------------------------------------
*For the sake of this argument I define the word "determined" to mean "part of a closed causal process, either physical of psychological." A closed causal process is one in which each event is necessarily caused by a prior series of events and circumstances. No choice or act of volition can violate or initiate anything except as a part of what the causal process effects. It cannot be otherwise, so it cannot be "free" in the normal sense of the word. A fair analogy might be a chain of dominos each successively causing the adjacent domino to fall (supposing that the impetus in such a series could be construed without personal agency).
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Blogs aren't worth reading.
Back when I was in grad school, I apparently thought this bit of sarcasm was worth spewing into the World Wide Wasteland. Somehow reposting this here seems an appropriate way to start this new experiment in humiliation. The date is accurate. I have made no adjustments, so take it for what it was.
----------------------------------------
Sunday, August 05, 2007
"Blogs aren’t worth reading"
If you agree with the title of this blog you probably won't now be reading this sentence, and if I was strictly consistent with my own sentiments I shouldn't be writing it. However, for those who disagree or who "accidentally" clicked on the link I shall attempt to be moderately ridiculous and irresistibly persuasive.
While the term "blog" possesses something of a vague if not arbitrary etymology, it nevertheless retains an intuitive onomatopoeic sense which I believe we are all capable of grasping. The word "blog" is perhaps well suited to representing that strange sound which our imaginations might ascribe to the mental and/or emotional equivalent of blowing chunks. To vomit, retch, spew, hurl ones thoughts at the unsuspecting, ignorant, or masochistic is the true nature of the blog.
Certainly there are those who use this tedious medium to express truths regarding which they possess a reasonable degree of authority; however, those accidents of good fortune (of which I am the primary benefactor) cannot be credited to the medium itself.
As evidence of this fact, I shall delineate a few of the grossly indulgent behaviors this intellectual scourge has regrettably proliferated. Each heading shall consist in a label characterizing the description of such a particular behavior which shall follow, no doubt, to your hearty corroboration.
1. THE SAGE
This well-read (and therefore severely confused) blogger is most easily distinguished by the sheer volume (and/or length) of the blogs in question. The Sage's chief purpose is to reflect her own "wisdom," which has unfortunately been elicited by the insistence of one or two mindless flatterers. Quite often she posts daily and sometimes accommodates her insatiable fascination with the "sound" of her own e-ramblings by sending out mass (and massive) e-mails of equal banality. The musings most commonly possess a patronizing flavor, multiple reminders of the apparent inability to make moral judgments, descriptions of life as a journey without reference to a destination, paradoxical reflections on the insignificance of humanity and the ultimate significance of the human perspective, long monologues about the realization and annihilation of self as if they are somehow the same thing, and endless metaphors from nature.
DEFINING FEATURE: A mistaken belief that people actually read (and value) everything he or she writes.
2. THE RANTER/RAMBLER
Perhaps this is the most common form of blogger. Because the large majority of internet junkies are bad writers (not to mention generally void of worthwhile thought processes), these bloggers wait for the explosive power of inconvenience and boredom to spur them to action. These poor imbeciles have helped truly to fulfill the dyspeptic quality of the "blog." Quite often these rants are little more than tantrums abusing such outrageous circumstances as one's boss asking him or her to work harder, the lack of good television programming, the receipt of a speeding ticket, the indifferent attitude of a clerk at Macy's, and even something so atrocious as one's parents refusing to allow him or her stay out past midnight. God forbid.
DEFINING FEATURE: Spelling and grammar errors
3. THE NARCISSIST
Almost every form of blogger also fits in this category - some more than others; however, those who fit no other category generally belong here. The purpose of the narcissistic blogger is simply to glorify (or in his mind, give proper attention to) the supremely significant details of his life. No subject is out of reach so long as it is related to or specifically about him and his priorities. Everyone should take a great deal of interest simply because... well... it's HIM, duh.
Blogs often include everything from picking out an outfit for a concert to making toast.
DEFINING FEATURE: an unreflective sense of justification in taking up your time and energy with quite meaningless and self-aggrandizing narrative.
4. THE GENIUS
The last category which I shall address is the most reprehensible. This poor fellow spends his blogging energies in developing clever ways to criticize others. For instance, The "genius" will dwell at length on the vastly inferior grasp of the English language so painfully exhibited by his peers. Then he will draw absurd, verbal caricatures of a variety of people whose habits he finds (for one perfectly sound reason or another) bothersome. He employs an intentional lack of charity and often fails miserably at providing a sufficient degree of humor to warrant the time each blog takes to write or the strain they place on the readers' patience.
DEFINING FEATURE: willful ignorance of the extent to which his own criticisms apply to himself.
I hope now you will be able to classify and more accurately recognize the various bloggers of whose thoughts you have been made the frequent victim. Now that you are equipped with this knowledge, I am confident that you will be able to avoid such encounters in the future.
A serious waste of time in a time of serious waste.
I'm presently entertaining the idea of trying to keep up a blog. My impulses are mostly selfish, viz. it could be motivation enough for me to write and ponder in other ways than those which my routine outlets determine. My idea is that the content will be mostly heresy, humor, and a little poetry intended for honest reflection and critique. Its presence here in no way implies a quality worthy of your idle perusal or serious consideration. It is best for you to occupy your time otherwise. If you make comments, they should be mostly negative (but intelligent). Now let's see if this actually happens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)