Contra Mundum

I'm bemused from time to time by the view that the world (as in "reality" or the universe) is, in part at least, our creation, or perhaps is created by each of us for himself/herself.  One sees this view in the writings of a variety of thinkers, in a variety of manifestations.  This philosophical view has been taken up by non-philosophers rather as philosophers have taken up various scientific views or theories, though it's prudent to take the result with the proverbial grain of salt.  It's not necessarily the case that the original view, philosophical or scientific, has been understood.

I find the philosophical position in question so counter-intuitive I may have difficulty understanding it; may have not yet understood it, in fact.  To the extent I can understand it, it appears to be little more than the unsurprising claim that we are human beings, and as such interact with the world as human beings do.  I don't think Kant, for example, says much beyond this.  He contends, it seems, that humans have certain characteristics which necessarily preclude them from knowing the "things-in-themselves" which we interact with on a daily basis.  Others, metaphorically or otherwise, seem to go further, claiming we actively shape the world.

Of course, we shape the world all the time through our interaction with it.  We change the world quite frequently by making and destroying, getting and spending as Wordsworth would say.  But it's doubtful this is what is intended by those who extrapolate from what Sellars called the "myth of the given."  It's equally obvious that our physiology will impact on the manner in which we perceive and interact with the other parts of the world of which we are a part.  Again, though, one is inclined to assume something more is intended by those who think they shape the world.

In struggling to understand, I tend to refer to the fact that the world has shaped us for quite a long time even as we have shaped it, and that shaping (I prefer "interaction") has resulted in what we are now.  Therefore, we experience, perceive, interact with the world precisely as we should.  We can't do it differently without being non-human, or un-human (inhuman?).  It seem rather silly to give a great deal of consideration to this, as certain philosophers appear to do.  This doesn't mean that we fail to know the world, nor does it mean we cannot know the world, though it may have the result that we can't know the world as other creatures do given their physiology.  We are able to create devices which enhance our interaction with the world, though.  Regardless, there doesn't seem to be anything to complain about, or anything which would merit dwelling on the subject to any great extent.

Except perhaps in a context, i.e. under certain circumstances.  There may be instances when it would be useful to remind ourselves of our limitations in this respect.  To ponder it in abstract, though, seems unproductive.

I wonder if our tendency to engage in such theorizing is yet another example of our self-conceit.  Are we so fond of ourselves, so assured of our importance, we minimize the role other parts of the world play in our lives, even to the extent of maintaining we determine the world, merely by existing, experiencing?  There is a danger in such a point of view, because it can encourage if not contempt for the rest of the world then the belief that it is in some sense inconsequential, of secondary importance, next to us (or perhaps even me).

There is arguably nothing more harmful to us as a species, or as individuals, than the belief in our own exceptionalism.  This has led us to lay waste to the world, it being for our benefit, after all, just as other creatures exist for our benefit.  It has led us to conceive of the divine as being peculiarly human, or particularly absorbed in human affairs, a position which is untenable given the nature and extent of the universe.  It has played its part in extreme nationalism and racialism as groups of us come to believe that they are the best and most worthy of humans, and therefore especially entitled to the benefits of the world.

O tempora! O mores! Part IV

As I've noted before, more and more there are those among the politicians, pundits and preachers who delight in instructing us some who indulge in pronouncements regarding our depraved state.  I received an email recently from a friend referencing declamations from a few of them which note, rather surprisingly I think, the expensive silliness engaged in by members of the GSA, and the fact that members of the Secret Service recently consorted with prostitutes in Columbia, as examples of that depravity.  I find this surprising as I find neither activity particularly shocking.  It may be that I am simply too depraved myself to be shocked, but I suspect that the shock evidenced by the commentators in question is more a function of the fact that they are Republicans than of the nature of the activities themselves. 

There are some disturbing things takings place, however, and some very disturbing things as well.  I question whether this has not been the case in the past, though, and so am not personally inclined to think we have reached new lows (those who think in that fashion seem unable to to avoid mentioning the Roman Empire when they beat their breasts in horror at our immorality; I suspect because Hollywood has taught them that empire fell due to lack of morals, and they are eagerly awaiting our downfall which they hope to be at least as much of a spectacle).

But it won't do, really.  We are no better and no worse than what we have always been (for example at the time Cicero uttered those famous words which appear in the title of this post) and likely will always be.  We are, though, much better informed than we were in the past.  We can now know everything, and even see everything, immediately.  Our cruelty and stupidity have never been so much on display, so accessible.  In the past, not even the Shadow could know with such completeness and detail the evil that lurks in the hearts of men.  Now each of us can transmit it around the globe when we see it by use of smart phones.  And there are more of us, much more.  More people, more cruelty and stupidity.  That is the way of it; of us.

One can't disagree with the claims being made that we must do better, even when made by those ponderous, self-righteous souls whose business it is, or who have made it their business, to tell us so.  One can maintain that they should practice what they preach, of course, but preachers seldom do so, and this doesn't stop them from preaching.  But one should also give consideration to what can be done.  It may be our curse and our doom that when we do so we always seem to come to the same conclusions.

Those conclusions seem typically to be religious in nature, or rather that we become more religious in nature (the spirit of Chesterton seems to have taken hold of me).  There are problems in this approach, though, not the least of which is that religion no longer provides a detriment to evil behavior, if indeed it ever did.  The fear of hell is no longer prevalent.  It won't be coming back.  Even when we believed in hell, we managed to be immoral.

As a practical matter, it may be that the best we can do as individuals is control ourselves, and refrain from controlling others, or seeking and being governed by things which the Stoics taught us are beyond our control.  I think this may have been their primary contribution to theories of the manner in which we should conduct our lives.  It's a time for quietism.

From Monkey to Man

The title of this post is taken from an amusing song of Elvis Costello which deals whimsically with the topic to be addressed, and that is the law recently adopted in the state of Tennessee by virtue of its governor's failure to veto it.  That law has been called the "Monkey Bill" by some, one supposes to honor in an ironic way Tennessee's claim to fame, or infamy, as the site of the Scopes Monkey Trial.  I've also seen it referred to in the media as the "Anti-Science Law."  Some of us have, apparently, an irresistible inclination to create derogatory names for legislation with which we disagree.  A state of our glorious union recently failed to adopt environmental legislation dubbed by its opponents the "Polluters Against the People Law."  Wit and subtlety play very little part in our politics.

If one takes the trouble to read the law in question, however, on its face it's rather difficult to describe it as "anti-science."  Instead, it's drafted in such a fashion that its supporters may maintain, as they evidently have, that it is pro-science and is intended to promote "critical thinking" regarding science topics as taught in primary and secondary schools.  The sponsors of this law are not, politically at least, fools, nor are the lawyers involved in preparing the law, nor are the legislators who supported and voted for it.  There is no mention of creationism, nor is there any language which indicates the law is intended to promote religion or the teaching of religion in any sense.  In fact, it contains language stating that it is the intent of the legislature not to do so.  Rather, the law provides it is intended to promote the objective teaching of science and as I noted "critical thinking" regarding it.

The law doesn't require the teaching of anything, in fact.  Instead, it provides that teachers who allow the discussion and criticism of  defects or weaknesses in scientific positions may not be subject to discipline of any kind for doing so, and also provides essentially the state educational system at its many levels should encourage the consideration of strength and weakness in topics taught in science classes and, of course, "critical thinking" regarding them.

So, I think the media has in some cases at least mischaracterized the law, as have certain of the law's opponents.  This is not uncommon when it comes to controversial laws.  The language of the law itself is relatively innocuous.  However, concerns arise when one gives thought to the consequences of the law in light of what is likely to take place in classrooms, especially given the tendency of many of today's parents to micro-manage the lives of their children.  Also, how is a teacher to determine what should appropriately be considered legitimate objections or criticisms regarding a scientific position being taught?

For example--a class is addressing evolution in general or perhaps specific instances of the transformation of species over time.  It's unlikely any student will raise anything resembling a scientific critique of the theory of evolution (if there is any), but not quite as unlikely that other questions may be raised, and those questions if they involve criticism would likely be to the effect that evolution either does not take place in some or if not all cases or, if it does so, it does so pursuant to a certain purpose.  How does the teacher determine whether the possibility of a "purpose" should be discussed?  Are all criticisms equally appropriate for discussion?  What kind of evidence is a teacher to present in support of any such criticism?  What would be the nature of any purpose?  As least as to this topic, it would seem inevitable that the notion of creationism and a creator would end up being addressed in some manner, in a classroom at a public school. 

If it does end up being addressed, is a teacher presumptively immune from discipline if the class ends up coming to the conclusion that the world and all in it was created in 7 days?  I suspect teachers will, rather understandably, be looking for some guidance regarding just what is "protected discussion" in this respect in a classroom, and unless the intent is to leave this completely in a teacher's discretion then the state educational system will be eventually obliged to come up with regulations addressing what is or is not discussion/debate subject to protection under the law.

One would think that it would be the desire of any government and any teacher or parent that a school teach the best science available, and as the general consensus seems to be that the best science available indicates creationism as commonly understood is not defensible, the consideration of its possibility would seem out of place in a classroom regardless of one's religious beliefs.  If one's religious beliefs encompass it, however, the question then becomes whether its consideration is appropriate due to that fact. 

The state of Tennessee has not only adopted a law which will inevitably be challenged, but will also I think render the lives of students and teachers in that fair state much more complicated and unrewarding.

Thoughts on Easter

This event, like Christmas, inclines some to ridicule the religions and religious among us, but my inclination is to give it the credit it is due as an extension of an ancient human response to the yearly renewal of life in the spring.  This renewal was celebrated long before Jesus walked the earth, of course, in various forms, as was the winter solstice.  To resent it or ridicule it is like resenting or ridiculing Spring itself, or at least the human view of it.  That view has long been spiritual if not religious in nature, and has been informed by the longing for immortality which is typical of us mortals.  And Easter like Christmas can be a joyous event for children as well, for reasons which are not religious.  Joy is not something to complain of either.

We're naturally inclined to make this and other events all about us, of course.  The Passion, death and resurrection of Jesus was for our benefit only; as, apparently, was the creation of the universe itself according to some traditions.  The extent of our self-absorption can be astounding.  But this is the case not only with our religions and religious--one can see the same mistake being made by those who believe themselves to be the only measure of reality, or as "shaping" reality in some selfish sense.  It's entirely appropriate for us to focus on human problems, but we're better able to do so if we acknowledge ourselves to be parts of a vast and complicated universe rather than God's special favorites. 

It's a matter of perspective.  If we believe ourselves to be all-important, we tend to impose our opinions and desires on nature and even conceive them to be determinative of the way in which we should interact with others and with our environment.  This is the beginning of totalitarianism.  Selfishness is the cause of most of our problems, and self-conceit.  Our gods and our views regarding what is naturally right and appropriate tend to be very much like ourselves, and absolute.  Once we are convinced of the absoluteness of our opinions we consider it our duty to enforce them on other creatures and the universe as a whole, to the extent we can.

It's natural to celebrate the Easter season as it is natural to honor and take joy in nature when it delights us.