Fallacies, Miracles, and Fun

language


 

1. A two part discussion of David Hume’s argument against miracles. Here.

2. A discussion of fallacies at the SEP.

3. Philosophers’ Breakup Letters Throughout History from The New Yorker (like the one below):

For our entire relationship, I was absolutely and irrevocably miserable. I can see now that you used me purely as a means to an end. Don’t you know how that makes me feel? It is imperative that you reflect on the meaning of universal law, and stop doing that thing you did with your tongue. I hated that.—Immanuel Kant

4. Remember Phineas Cage?

Stretch your horizons

ODIP: The Online Dictionary of Intercultural Philosophy

m-c

Description:

The Online Dictionary of Intercultural Philosophy offers brief and understandable definitions of non-Western philosophical terms. It aims to promote a shift from Comparative Philosophy to World Philosophy enabling a genuine plurality of knowing, doing, and being human. The Online Dictionary of Intercultural Philosophy 1) collects key-concepts from several regions and 2) presents those concepts in a succinct fashion. It is meant to be an inspiring and stimulating resource for philosophers who aim to expand their horizons and think interculturally.


Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

  1. Cosmology: Methodological Debates in the 1930s and 1940s (George Gale) [REVISED: June 4, 2015]
    Changes to: Bibliography
  2. Emergent Properties (Timothy O’Connor and Hong Yu Wong) [REVISED: June 3, 2015]
    Changes to: Main text, Bibliography

    Word Meaning (Luca Gasparri and Diego Marconi) [NEW: June 2, 2015]

  3. Skepticism (Peter Klein) [REVISED: June 2, 2015]
    Changes to: Main text, Bibliography, notes.html
  4. Quantum Approaches to Consciousness (Harald Atmanspacher) [REVISED: June 2, 2015]
    Changes to: Main text, Bibliography, notes.html
  5. The Revision Theory of Truth (Philip Kremer) [REVISED: June 2, 2015]
    Changes to: Main text, Bibliography
  6. Convention (Michael Rescorla) [REVISED: June 1, 2015]
    Changes to: Main text, Bibliography
  7. Hermann Weyl (John L. Bell and Herbert Korté) [REVISED: June 1, 2015]
    Changes to: Main text, Bibliography
  8. Fallacies (Hans Hansen) [NEW:

Otto was a farmer – repost

wheatMy step-father was a dry-land farmer. He worked with his hands all of his life. He worked with mules, horses, and later tractors. Otto was primarily a wheat farmer. He took pride in his farming. Straight rows [once when my brother was home on leave during WWII, and was new to farming, Otto had him working in a field where he was supposed to drive the tractor at an angle across the face of a hill, Bud’s rows got so crooked that he decided to fix the line by working up and down the hill to correct the line! The result was a disaster as the rows now ran up and down the hill side instead of across its face.], sowing at the right time, cultivating, knowing when to harvest. There was a German Lutheran toughness to him and a real pride in growing crops and beasts to feed the people.

It was a real shock to him when he made his first trip to the east coast. He went up to the top of the Empire State Building and looked out over the city. He noticed barges in the Hudson River that were dumping their loads into the river. He asked what they were dumping. He was told they were dumping excess wheat and also milk. He could not believe it.

Why would they do that he asked. For the futures market he was told. Too much wheat brings the prices down now and in the future.

When he came back to the farm he was changed. Those barges had stolen his life’s purpose.

At about the same time Camus was writing his Notebooks 1951 – 1959. He writes (35) :

According to Melville, the remora, a fish of the South Seas, swims poorly. That is why their only chance to move forward consists of attaching themselves to the back of a big fish. They then plunge a kind of tube into the stomach of a shark, where they suck up their nourishment, and propagate without doing anything, living off the hunting and efforts of the beast.

The remora reminds me of the Wall Street speculators of today. They do not produce any wheat or corn – they merely bet on its price in the future. And they don’t manufacture anything to use for anything – they specialize in gambling. Oh, and gas prices? Betting on the futures is responsible for a large share of the price.

Oh, yeah, and Otto paid his fair share of taxes.

More stories.

Racist Hume?

The Renaming of David Hume Tower

David Hume, eighteenth-century philosopher and historian, published racist views towards non-white peoples in one of his essays. Hume’s racism has led the University of Edinburgh to remove his name from the campus’s tallest building, previously called David Hume Tower.

This panel event brings together staff and a student of the University to discuss the renaming of the tower and Hume’s legacy on our campus.

Please direct any questions about this event to the organisers:

  • Jonny Cottrell: j.cottrell@ed.ac.uk
  • Jennifer Marusic: jennifer.marusic@ed.ac.uk

What do you think?

What Matters?

What Matters?

By Bob Lane

“I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

– Umberto Eco

The truth about stories is –

that’s all we are.

– Thomas King

Massey Lectures 2003

 

My general notion of literature includes these claims: literature is about the world, interpretation is a creative act, intention is a necessary condition for writing of any kind, there are four focal points for any work of literature: poet, text, world, and reader.  The biblical text is complex and sophisticated narrative exhibiting many layers of intention in its final form. In the second book of Samuel, for example, we read the exciting love story of David and Bathsheba, and learn how David, driven by desire for the beautiful Bathsheba, brings her to his bed and makes her pregnant while her husband Uriah is in David’s army fighting the enemies of Israel. David eliminates Uriah by sending a letter (carried by Uriah) to the commander telling him to place Uriah in the fiercest fighting and then to fall back leaving him alone to be killed. After Uriah is killed Bathsheba mourns for him for the appropriate time and then David brings her into his house and takes her as his wife. (2 Sam. 11,12)   Shortly after this we are told “what David had done was wrong in the eyes of the Lord.” And then, as we read in the King James Version:

 

And the Lord sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto

him, and said unto him, There were two men in one city; the one

rich and the other poor.

  1. The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds:
  2. But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb,

which he had bought and nourished up; and it grew up together

with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and

drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a

daughter.

  1. And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he

spared to take of his own flock and his own herd, to dress for the

wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man’s

lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him.

  1. And David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man;

and he said to Nathan, As the Lord liveth, the man that hath done

this thing shall surely die:

  1. And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did

this thing, and because he had no pity.

  1. And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man.

 

 

David will pay for his lust; the child he conceived in sin will die and the other threats will also come to pass. The punishment will fit the crime: the child conceived in sin will die; the man who could not control his sexual appetites will be punished by having his wives taken in front of everyone. Note the layers of narrative here. Nathan tells David a parable. David is moved by the story. He sentences the fictional man to die. Nathan tells David that he is the man. The story is used to get the king to see himself and to judge his own acts. Just as Uriah carries his own death warrant to Joab in the form of a letter of execution, David comes to issue a death sentence on himself through Nathan’s story. When Joab opens the letter carried by Uriah he will see David’s intention; when David “opens” the story carried by Nathan he will see the Lord’s intention.

 

Nathan relates a fictional narrative in order to get the king to see the truth about his own situation. Nathan’s intention is clear – he uses story to reveal truth. Once he gets David to see that the rich man in the story has done wrong then all he has to do is get him to see that he is like the rich man in the appropriate moral way. Self-delusion, though powerful in human affairs, can be broken by story. David has then judged himself. But there is another layer of intentional meaning here also. “The Lord sent Nathan…” adds a layer to the narrative which reveals another story of alleged divine intervention in the understanding of the events. And this story in turn is related by a writer or editor who is shaping the larger story of the books of Samuel for his audience. We get the sense that David would never have admitted guilt for killing Uriah in order to have Bathsheba, but he is able to see and respond to characters in stories. As readers we too are to respond to the stories and to that end have been given narrative access to the larger story pointed to by phrases like “The Lord sent Nathan….”

 

One of the most interesting assignments I gave to students was to have them write their own creation myth. What they learned was that what they valued was what they put into the story. Their papers were always a way into a discussion of the two creation myths that are redacted into one in the book of Genesis. In one male and female are created equal and in the other, better known story, man is created first and woman made from his rib. The Genesis story emphasizes authority, hierarchy, creation by divine order, and a transcendent divine. Other creation stories from, for example, North American Indians, emphasize cooperation, the feminine, and the equality of all animals. As Camus asks in a notebook entry, “What would the human face look like if we had not been told for two thousand years that we are evil?”

 

One way of approaching these early stories is to think of them as maps. They were constructed after the fact as ways of explaining and charting the unknown past of how and why. In that respect they are backwards looking. But they also contain a perspective from the present projecting into the future. They contain within them a story about how we ought to be. And the language of these stories is often the language of dream – symbolic language – a language that means more than it says, a language that is found in poetry and in children. When our immediate family experienced the first death in the family which our kids experienced it happened like this: the phone call came saying that Grandpa Jim had died and that his funeral would be in a military cemetery in a few days. Margaret, our daughter, was about three years old. She heard her mother on the phone and guessed that something was wrong. She asked her older brothers (seven and eight) what was going on. “Grandpa Jim is dead.”

“What does that mean?”

“They will put him in a hole in the ground.”

“And put dirt over top of him.”

“And you will never see him again.”

 

She was puzzled. Later she went off to bed without saying much of anything. In the middle of the night I heard her weeping quietly in her crib. I went to pick her up and held her against my chest. She was in that state between sleeping and waking and was sobbing over and over again: “I don’t want to go down in that hole; I don’t want to go down in that hole.” That is symbolic language. What heart knew head guessed. The stories of the Bible are written in that kind of language. At the level where the human cry of mortality and mystery emerges is to be found the story line of the best of the stories from the Bible collection. At another level, of course, is the official line, which offers an explanation, a reading of the stories, proclaims an interpretation, an ordering conceptual map.

 

A valuable approach as reader is to consider that reading a text is a performing art. I do not mean by this that one needs to learn to be an oral interpreter, although that is a good skill to develop. I mean that in reading a text one must engage every bit of creativity, of sensitivity, of intellect and feeling that one possesses. The story is in the text, but its full experience is in the mind of the reader. The story provides form and directs responses, and the reader completes the communicative act. Think of the text as a musical score and yourself as a performing musician. The notes are there – are in the score – and you must be able to perform them on your musical instrument. You need to bring technical skill, sensitivity to nuance, and knowledge of the language of musical notation to the task.

 

God, like beauty, is to be found in the stories, the works of art, of the Bible. When our first son was about four he went to play school one day and immediately went over to an easel and stood there holding a brush ready to start painting. The teacher came up behind him and said, “What are you going to paint?” “God,” he said. “And do you know what God looks like?”

 

     “I will when I finish the painting,” he said as he began to paint.

 

In some sense we are all and always looking for Eutopia. Eutopia means the good place and is to be distinguished from Utopia which means no place. Eutopia is a place in which human society, natural conditions, etc., are so ideally perfect that there is complete contentment.  Philosophers and poets have over the years given us glimpses of what Eutopia might be like. In my Eutopia human solidarity would be seen not as a hoped for after-life but as a goal in the here and now. It is to be achieved not by further inquiry but by imagination, the imaginative ability to see strange people as fellow sufferers. Solidarity is not discovered by contemplation but created. It is created by increasing our sensitivity to the particular details of the pain and humiliation of other, unfamiliar kinds of people. We need to come to see other human beings as “one of us” and not as “them” – story can help us in this quest.

 

Let me end with an example of a story, the truth of which, I do not know. I relate it because its truth is not important. It changed my attitude. For years I have been prejudiced against a certain group of humans. Even long ago as a college student I used to shy away from members of this group. Confronted with them I withdrew with fear and repugnance. I knew I was wrong to do so but I could not seem to get what I knew incorporated into what I do.

 

A few years ago, at the Seattle Special Olympics, nine contestants, all physically or mentally disabled, assembled at the starting line for the 100-yard dash.

At the gun, they all started out, not exactly in a dash, but with a relish to run the race to the finish and win. All, that is, except one little boy who stumbled on the asphalt, tumbled over a couple of times, and began to cry.

The other eight heard the boy cry. They slowed down and looked back. Then they all turned around and went back.  Every one of them. One girl with Down’s syndrome bent down and kissed him and said:  “This will make it better.”

Then all nine linked arms and walked together to the finish line. Everyone in the stadium stood, and the cheering went on for several minutes. People who were there are still telling the story.

Why?  Because deep down we know this one thing: What matters in this life is more than winning for ourselves. What matters in this life is helping others win, even if it means slowing down and changing our course.

Each of us creates a narrative in our life, writes a STORY as we walk toward the grave. Choose your stories with care, for “the truth about stories is – that’s all we are.”

 

From “Reading the Bible”

To read is to interpret. To interpret is to seek intention. Good readers offer consistent readings of texts. Biblical heroes are good readers who read Yahweh’s intentions. Who is this Yahweh that we read of from the very beginning of the text?

“In the beginning of creation, when God made heaven and earth…” is the first thing we read. Not only is there a time indicator functioning like “once upon a time” but also it seems right to call it the time indicator – not once in time but at the beginning of time. “In the beginning of creation” signals an ongoing creation, a continuous creation in time, and not just a creative act of instantaneous power inserted and withdrawn.

In the Genesis 1 creation story we find authority, brevity, and solemn majesty presented in the character of God, the transcendent and creative commander of the universe. But already in Genesis 2 we meet a sudden switch in form and style. Now the relationship of the characters rather than the tabulation of events or commands is primary. Here is a personal God, immanent and knowable, instead of transcendent and imperial. The language is picturesque and flowing: this God breathes life into dust sculpted man and plants a garden, this God responds to the loneliness of Adam and creates Eve, this God walks in the garden and talks to his creations. The God who issued commands in Genesis 1 speaks only once here and then to himself, “It is not good for man to be alone.” While in Genesis 1 God appears as a being who stands outside of his creation and controls it with his mighty word, in Genesis 2 the portrait of God is very different. Here his immanence, personal nearness, and local involvement on the human scene are basic features. Yahweh is not a detached sovereign overlord but a god at hand as a loving master. He is a god with whom man has a ready contact. He molds with his hands like a potter; he breathes into the mouth of a clay model, he searches through the garden for Adam and Eve, he converses.

Photo by Eduardo Braga on Pexels.com

Read the book here.

Still relevant

ARTSWORLD
By BOB LANE


A recent Sydney Harris column on paranoia was most
instructive. Harris wrote, “everyone knows that the
mental disturbance called paranoia gives the patient a
distorted sense of reality, he sees through a glass darkly
and what he sees ·is mostly the product of his own
emotions, ” . .
Now I suppose that most of us suffer in varying degrees
from this affliction ..we often see not what is there, but the
reflection of our own emotions. This happens when looking
at paintings with preconceived ideas of ‘Visual presen-
tation. It.happens when we think that the RCMP officer is
looking at us when we meet on the highway, when most of
the time he-she is not thinking about us at all but about
lunch or domestic problems.
The world is given to us in emotions. We feel happy or
sad, morose or ebullient, and respond to our family or’
friends depending upon our mood. We respond to the world’
depending upon our ‘feelings.’ . .. .
One time we feel like hugging the family cat another
time we want to throttle it.
Luckily, most of the time we can channel our feelings,
our fears and anxieties so that we at least have some sense
of a commonly perceived reality. Imagine the chaos if in
fact the world were different for each of us.
If we are to strive together for common goals then
clearly we have to eliminate cheap subjectivism and
paranoia. .
What we most desperately need now, as always, is a
sense of moral imagination. We need to be able to imagine
the world from the other person’s point of view, to try to
see what he or she sees and believes before we pass a
judgement.
How often have you seen good people – full of energy,
commitment, and talent – strike out at each other in
senseless and destructive ways when, at rock bottom; they
were Interested m the same thing?
How often.have you been hurt by people who were unthinking

or insensitive and there, when you had a chance, struck back in kind?


All but the saints among us are guilty of these and
other foibles.
Arts groups it seems are particularly susceptible to
these afflictions. Good, talented, sensitive people end up
tearing-away at each other in public displays of hysterical
outrage. I met a cynic once who claimed the best way to
kill any idea was to give the idea to a committee of artists.
What is’ the answer to all of this paranoid self destruction?

Probably the oldest remedy on this earth is
still the best one: common sense. It preaches give and
take, acceptance, tolerance, and cooperation.

(originally published in the Nanaimo Free Press)