PHILOSOTROLL.COM
The Chad Elliott Chronicles Part II
And back to business.
Philosotroll: ... that entire thing is a non-sequitur that ignores the substance of the preceding comments entirely. Not exactly sure what's worth responding to at this point. Let's do this again.
"so are u saying space isn't real either but an abstract idea?"
"so are u saying space isn't real either but an abstract idea?"
No. I'm saying that it is real but not concrete. Are you saying that you don't believe the number "4" is real?
"Because u can use the term concrete in a different way...one of the ways is real"
You can use a lot of different words in a lot of different ways; some of those ways are wrong. Saying that "concrete" and "real" are synonymous is false in common use and false for their use in philosophy.
Chad AK Elliott: Haha u can run around in a circle all day but its not the fallacy o reification...I make the claim in my argument that ste is irrational illogical and has no evidence... the opositve [sic] of that is that ste had a finite beginning... in other words time and space had a finite beginning that was caused the uncaused cause or first cause which is the uc option...my argument never makes the claim that time ittself causes anythingthing to exist.
Philosotroll: I think some of your verbs need direct objects, Chad.
Given that time does not sufficiently cause *anything*, as we have already shown, if the statement I posted above is true, it would be deductively true to say that time is not sufficiently caused and, thus, [some semantically sensible version of] STE is true, modus tollens. The proof is in the pudding.
P1. All things which are sufficiently caused sufficiently cause subsequent things.
P2. Time does not sufficiently cause anything.
C. Time is not sufficiently caused. (formally)
And now for the [very] minimal formalization.
P1. ∀x ((a ⊃ x) ⊃ (x ⊃ z))P2. ∃t ~(t ⊃ z)∴ ∃t ~(a ⊃ t) (MT)
"The reason is time is mearly a measurement events... time itself is a biproduct of the creation of the universe which has space"
Again, you're the one claiming that time was sufficiently caused. I'm perfectly fine with leaving it as an indexer;but then time would be non-contingent, and that renders your argument incoherent.
"I think you hang up here is that you are thinking of time being created...but time rather came into existence as bi product of the universe...so in a weird way time was sufficiently caused by not really...it was a bi product of the universe being caused...u get it?"
You seem to think this helps your argument at all. It doesn't. You're claiming that there were extant states of affairs *prior to* the existence of time. Either those states of affairs are logically impossible, because time is an indexer, or time is sufficiently caused. The former has been my position throughout the argument. You took the latter position by claiming that time is sufficiently caused; if you want to switch to the former position, that's fine, but you then have to drop the entire Elliott argument, because [as we've demonstrated] it entails the view that time was sufficiently caused.
Philosotroll: "Those quotes were in error...I didn't know we were being so technical.."
My language has been technically rigorous the entire way through. You want to pose a philosophical argument, then that rigor is to be expected.
".the universe is what is sufficiently caused and when the universe begins to exist then time stats as a product of that cause... so where are we now???"
"as a product of that cause" is a sufficient causal relationship. So you're sitting here claiming that its not sufficiently caused, but the relationship that you're experience is sufficient causation.
And... scene.
The Chad Elliott Chronicles Part I
So, after a discussion with Chad, he has decided that he won the debate, and that I am stupid and did not successfully refute his argument. I think the thrashing I gave it was pretty solid, but, as I said in the actual discussion, that is for other folks to decide. While Chad, like many other apologists, is set on resorting to stairwell wit, I simply want to share the contents of that conversation with you, so that you may enjoy. If you'd like to actually interact with the thread, it is still available on my facebook page.
The thread is stupidly long, largely due to redundancy, and my incessant desire to actually respond to the argument. Anyway, I hope you enjoy the thread. I had fun doing it; it was a nice way to relax between sessions grading papers.
Chad AK Elliott: Wrong I just used your own logic against you and proved it was concrete...all this will be saved and posted.
Philosotroll: Go for it, Chad. So, you're claiming that time has the property of extension? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extension_(metaphysics))
And that's where I'll leave the partition.
NOTE: I pasted the conversation together from 28 screenshots in order to gather the entire content of the conversation, so that all of the data was available to those who want it. I do apologize for the length and my shoddy camerawork., though those who know me know that I'm incapable of being brief, so this is to be expected.
Old Folks Talkin' 'bout Young Folks
The New York Times posted, as a subject in Room for Debate, the subject "When Do Kids Become Adults?" I think it is an important question, and one that the previous generation has failed miserably to answer, at little cost to themselves and great cost to those who have come after. I have a lot of respect for those adults who bring up issues regarding the youth, whether it is about youth prosecution, employment, or the drinking age.
There are seven writers who have articles posted, the apparent youngest of whom got his B.A. when I was 3. I'm reminded of the Issa Panel on Contraception. Really? You have a panel of 7 writers, but you couldn't find one thoughtful writer in their twenties to offer a change in perspective?
I'm not saying that these folks shouldn't comment on these issues; obviously they should, as they're experts on the subject. I'm saying that a diversity of viewpoints matter and, when you are talking about the moral and legal status of a group of people, which is exactly the issue, you need to ensure that those people are part of the conversation.
As a short sidebar: Some will note that these older folks have a greater credibility as commentators and that I should show deference to that. The problem is that intellectual credibility and the thoughtfulness of positions don't track age at all, especially in these sorts of discussions. The damned David Brooks article was a staggering case of the sorts of condescension and stupidity older intellectuals are capable of when discussing the issue
More generally, I find that the value of an intellectual's contribution in no way tracks the age of the intellectual. There are brilliant and insipid people of all ages. Some of the dullest minds I have ever met have been senior professors at institutions; some of the sharpest have been working through their undergraduate careers.
With that said, I want to offer some commentary on the Times' articles, as a 21 year old myself.
University Chancellor John M. McCardell Jr. makes probably the most interesting commentary of the bunch, and writes:
Licensing [drinking of alcohol] would work like drivers education — it would involve a permit, perhaps graduated, allowing the holder the privilege of purchasing, possessing and consuming alcohol, as each state determined, so long as the holder had passed an alcohol education course and observed the alcohol laws of the issuing state.
I'm not necessarily opposed to this, but it is worth mentioning that this can be seen as the condescension of constructing a provisional class of adults. It remains the same poignant second-class citizen bullshit as before, unless licenses were issued to all adults, across the board; if McCardell is actually advocating for equal protection under the law by claiming that all adults should be licensed, then I have no problem with that, but then the argument is about alcohol and not age.
Jenny Cheng makes the well taken point that voter suppression is actually the problem for young voters in this country. I think that the idea of raising the voting age is idiotic for a number of reasons; the most important is that political sentience tracks age not at all. There are an inordinate number of Americans who are politically illiterate; it knows no demographic bounds. Moreover, a significant portion of the most politically engaged people I know are young people, and that should be celebrated, though it is often treated with disdain.
Kevin Noble Maillard makes some good points about sexual activity and the age of consent. I'm of the view that most contemporary discussion of youth sexuality in the political sphere is so incredibly vapid that it is actually a good thing the politicians are useless. Maillard's point about age of consent and statutory rape laws are important; so is discussion of maintaining appropriate channels of information about birth control and STI protection.
Further, so is an educational discussion of sexuality that isn't so heteronormative. I think that one of the greatest failures of the Baby Boom generation is the failure to have an open and honest discussion about the role of sex in American culture; relegating it to the private sphere is fine as far as rights go, but as far as education and public health, it is an incredibly dangerous policy.
Jaime Kitman's discussion of graduated drivers' licenses would be interesting if the requirements didn't seem so arbitrary. I'm open to the discussion, but I want it to be about something, rather than an intermediary step for the purpose of having an intermediary step.
The commentaries by Barbara Hofer and Michael Thompson are the kind of drivel that the discussion could have done without, instead offering some alternate perspectives. Hofer's is a guide for parents, no doubt the target audience of the entire section; Thompson's is a condescending discussion in the same line as David Brooks', that "[American children] are relatively immature for their ages"... The behavioral diversity among adolescents makes hasty generalizations like Thompson's not only intellectually dishonest, but positively absurd.
Unfortunately, Laurence Steinberg's discussion of neurology and adolescence is hopelessly and uselessly superficial. It turns on the same boring cliché's as the deeply scientifically flawed arguments made by a number of other organizations do: Teenagers are cognitively similar to adults, but they're not emotionally mature yet. If Steinberg was writing to a more thoughtful audience and giving himself more space, he might try to be real about it.
The problem with the contemporary legal classifications are that they fail to note that there is incredible diversity in the cognitive capacity of peers of the same age; it isn't simply that there are Sheldon Cooper-esque radical outliers, but that there is an enormous diversity within the cognitive capacities of a single generation such that the fact that the law uses age as the relevant feature for tracking is scientifically irresponsible. Of course, the law doesn't actually care about science; one of many problems with the legal system.
Review: War and Moral Dissonance (French)
War and Moral Dissonance by Peter A. FrenchMy rating: 3 of 5 stars
I had to think really hard to work out how I felt about French's War and Moral Dissonance. I try to make these reviews accurate responses to a book that is fresh in my mind as I've just recently completed it. As I was working through War, though, I had two trains of thought that were carrying on simultaneously; I'll call them the Two-Star Train and the Four-Star Train, because if I had just done one of those in my review, those would have been the rating of the book in the given train.
The Two-Star Train: The most frustrating thing about reading French is that he constantly jumps from topic-to-topic and style-to-style. The level of organization is deeply specious. For me, part of good philosophy is a strong sense of regimentation in argument. While philosophy can be, and often is, an intellectual art form, the construction still needs to demonstrate some organizational competency. Architecture is art, but the building has to have some sense of cohesion, and that is one thing that French's book lacks.
It does a lot of good work in applied ethics and exploring the nuances of military circumstances that make for ethical complications and he does some exploration of technically rigorous theoretical ethics. The problem is that there seems to be no rhyme or reason to his presentation of either. The appendix of one chapter is an exploration of different forms of evil a thematic exchange set it in Hell; clever and thought provoking, but the stark contrast with the rest of the book makes for a frustrating read.
The Four-Star Train: The greatest boon for French's book is that, from paragraph to paragraph, he's a very good writer and a solid philosopher. The work that French does in explaining the actual condition of military service-people is admirable, and his exploration of the conditions is honest. His commentary on higher-order ethics is dry and well-reasoned, as many substantial works of philosophy are.
Overall, French's book is worthwhile for ethicists interested in some of the practical issues of just war theory. The ethics is good and will lead to some interesting discussions, and the content is good. As far as content goes, the text is solid, my only grief is with the organization, though it is a significant one.
View all my reviews
A Day in Medicine
I've got the day off at my day job. I'm going to spend the day at two medical appointments... so that'll likely suck, but it has to be done.
I'm also going to spend the evening working trying to finish my personal statement for the Draper Program at NYU. I am currently working under the assumption that I am going to be rejected from Draper and go to SF State. Most of my work up to this point is not too deeply related to the sorts of research interests that the folks are Draper are engaging, however I think some of it likely will move in that direction over the next few years; my next major project is going to develop in something I think that their program would really like to have.
That said, my motivation for looking at Draper as a serious possibility is simple: it is a part of a phenomenal University which houses the best philosophy department in the world... seems like a good reason to want to be there. Anyway, I'm finally close to finishing up the statement of purpose (some personal issues came up last night that kept me from finishing the draft) and will hopefully get that in. But we'll see how that goes.
Review: Action in Perception (Noë)
Action in Perception by Alva NoëMy rating: 5 of 5 stars
Noë's book had been out for a while when I picked it up. As a student of philosophy of mind, I knew this was going to be a subject area that I already had strong feelings about, and that I was part of the target audience for the book. The book is clearly written for an audience that has a working familiarity with the contemporary discussion in philosophy of mind, and some of the contemporary cognitive science. Having a working knowledge of the referent material is necessary for reading the book.
That said, it is a phenomenal read for those who are interested in philosophy of mind. Noë's ideas are inventive and on the cutting edge. They're controversial, and he adequately represents and addresses the elements that are controversial, often through the voices of his colleagues at Berkeley. He's a good writer, providing the examples with conceptual clarity and precision; he's a good philosopher, with interesting and important ideas.
I strongly recommend Noë to anyone interested in the subject. The "enactive account", as Noë calls it, is something that is very useful for a lot of applied cognitive science and for grounding and exploring a lot of good research; I don't know that I buy all of the stuff that Noë writes in the book, especially the section on color perception, but given how static and stale a lot of those conversations can get, the account that Noë offers does serve often enough as a very important change of perspective, with useful insights.
Action and Perception is an appropriate blend of contemporary cognitive science and analytic and continental philosophy of mind. Perhaps its strongest suit is that it moves so deftly between writers who identify as analytic and those who do not. Noë's familiarity and comfort with the phenomenological tradition, like Merleau-Ponty, is fairly apparent, but he does address a discourse that seems to be very heavily analytic, especially when directly addressing the content of the cognitive science. His ability to engage both sides of the coin, addressing a range from Putnam and Dennett to Searle to Dreyfus, makes for a good articulation of his view of mind in lieu of a diverse field of views.
View all my reviews
Stuff in the Reader Today
Garret Miriam, youtube's SisyphusRedeemed, is interviewed in an interesting article on transhumanism; transhumanism is the idea that technologies are capable of significantly advancing human welfare often, in part, through changing features of the individuals themselves. I'm very interested in a lot of the literature on the subject, especially given some of my current reading in extended/enacted mind.
Simon Critchley has a very interesting series on the Stone on Philip K. Dick and the role of Dick's science fiction, and what it can tell us about philosophy. As someone who likes his science fiction, and has some philosophical views directly informed by Asimov (a literary hero of mine), it was definitely a fun read. Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3
There's a new documentary film out, called The Revisionaries. I'm looking forward to seeing it at some point this summer. It focusses on the battles in the Texas school system over textbook standards, and features Eugenie Scott, a friend of my family who I've been fortunate enough to have lunch with.
My friend Pastor Byron Williams (who, incidentally, joined us for lunch when I first met Genie Scott) has an interesting column about voter ownership of the issues that we (well, not me so much as folks older than me) screwed up at the ballot box. His point about the lack of rationality in the voting process and the often disastrous implications of that fact are worth taking into consideration for those heading the polls soon.
Interesting Point; Unlikely Source
I strongly dislike most of the comments of Baptist preacher John Piper. I have a number of evangelical friends who are big fans of his writing and his views on Christianity. I find them pretty abhorrent, as well as often intellectually lazy and philosophically depraved, but a friend of mine made a note of a video by Piper where he made an interesting point about alcohol.
I could go on and on about the things that Piper says that are just patently absurd. There are many of them, but that's about par for the course in the Baptist movement. But the fact that a young, Jewish atheist disagrees with an old, white Baptist is not going to be of much surprise or interest. (If folks are interested in the things I dislike about John, I can post about it.)
The point about alcohol strikes particularly hard, because I share a similar experience with John; I have many people very close to me who have struggled with alcohol abuse, and so I think that his point about the cultural understanding of the consumption of alcohol is important. Moreover, I think that being complicit in feeding an unhealthy habit is something that we have to take seriously, ethically.
I think the qualification is important, and allows a good deal of nuance that does appear periodically, as in John's view on marijuana. It is permissible to drink alcohol in certain contexts, where it is not constitutive of a harm to another person. Of course, I think that this poses an important challenge to John's teetotalarianism, but I'm sure he has thought about that and has an answer along the lines of the cultural influence that he alludes to in the video.
What's my point, then? Obviously, I don't believe that we should wholly abstain from alcohol; I drink fairly often. But I do believe that there are many situations where it is morally impermissible to consume alcohol, because it is worth considering an indirect harm. Those who consume alcohol in such a way that they fail to meet other obligations, to their spouse or their children, are doing something ethically impermissible; those who facilitate and enable the failure of another individual to meet other obligations are, similarly, complicit in that harm.
Anyway, it is worth thinking about as an ethical issue, and one that I appreciate John discussing in a thoughtful way.
Anti-Semitism Education and Asking Questions
I didn't know who Michael Gove was until this morning; for my British friends and readers, I apologize for my ignorance of the politicians in your country. Those who know who he is know that he is not going to be my cup of tea. But I ran into Gove because of comments he made regarding a question about the origination of anti-semitism. The question is this:
"Explain, briefly, why some people are prejudiced against Jews."
This is an incredibly important question for those interested in sociology and religious studies; it is sort of like "Why do bodies on Earth accelerate at 9.8m/s/s?" for physicists. The question doesn't read "Why should you be prejudiced against Jews?" or "Why are some people justified in being prejudiced against Jews?" It is asking for a descriptive account of the underlying psychology and sociology of contemporary anti-semitism; I've commented at length about the history and some of the underlying causes. To the best of my knowledge, I was not doing anything anti-semitic in presenting that account.
So, what are Gove's objections? The Guardian quotes Gove as saying:
To suggest that antisemitism can ever be explained, rather than condemned, is insensitive and, frankly, bizarre. AQA needs to explain how and why this question was included in an exam paper.
Firstly, Gove's statement seems to imply that one cannot simultaneously explain a thing and condemn it, as if explanations were not often integral to condemnation. At best, this indicates a level of insensitivity to the structure of contemporary argumentation in popular and professional ethics. At worst, it indicates a seriously subpar intellect incapable of grasping the nuances of certain very straightforward speech acts.
Stephen Law, through whom I found out about this incident, has a curmudgeonly and wonderful response, particularly in the post post script, which reads:
I remember as a child finding out about the Holocaust, and wondering why it happened. I also remember, even then, sensing that it was in very bad taste to ask - that it was a question one wasn't supposed to pursue, other perhaps than to say that some mindbogglingly terrible people came to power and did unspeakable things. As if that were an explanation. The "terrible people" explanation creates the impression that the Holocaust could never be engaged in by ordinary people - like us. Again, a dangerous myth that we should bust early on.
I think that "dangerous" is an appropriate term, though I might have made the claim stronger, myself. I think that leaves Michael Gove's arguments pretty squarely in the dust, though the comment was pretty stupid without Law pointing out why.
What struck me, though, was that there are a number of Jewish leaders in the U.K. who also spoke up against the question. Their comments are stupid for all of the same reasons that Gove's comments are stupid, but also one more.
As a Jewish philosopher and, hopefully, (someday) educator, who has spoken publicly on anti-semitism in contemporary American society, I find opposition from the Jewish community particularly troubling. An apparently implied secondary purpose of the question was to garner some reflection on why anti-semitism exists at all. As part of a community that has a problem with it, (and the U.K. does have a problem with it) that is the sort of consciousness raising that should be applauded; that is the sort of consciousness raising that places that experience too much hate need in order to improve their own cultural sensitivity.
Maybe, at some point in my life, I'll have the opportunity to teach a course that attempts to answer that very question; I would jump at the opportunity, because it is a question that sorely needs to be discussed and explored. For Rabbis to oppose the question being asked, in any context, (except, maybe, a math or science final, where it might be a bit out of place) is deeply troubling.
What I'm Reading and Doing
Dr. Craig Bernthal has a couple of posts on the removal of a number of trees from the CSU Fresno campus. It is too bad since, as Bernthal points out, they were one of the most aesthetically pleasing aspects of the campus, and given the heat in the summer, the shade does matter. Anyway, it is sad, and likely very stupid. But this sort of damage is difficult to undo.
There's a powerful post on what it is like to be transgender in a community that handles trans issues... badly, to say that least. Thanks to Libby Anne for the link.
I'm working my way through Alva Noë's book Action in Perception. Hopefully I'll finish it by the end of the day, but we'll see how it goes. Alva is one of the great thinkers working on embodied cognition and extended mind, two areas I'm enjoying exploring.
Also, spent part of the morning messing around with the slide and working through some Robert Johnson licks. Great sound; impossible to recreate, but definitely fun to take a swing at.
