The Philosophical Fallacy

Let's retire, for a moment, from the turbulence of these wretched times, and consider philosophy.

John Dewey thought that the most pervasive problem of philosophical thinking is neglect of context. He thought it so pervasive that he called it "the philosophical fallacy."

According to Dewey, the philosophical fallacy, in general, "consists in the supposition that whatever is found true under certain conditions may forthwith be asserted universally or without limits and conditions."

"The philosophical fallacy" is a part of a general critique of philosophical thinking that anticipated, I believe, the criticisms made by later philosophers. Dewey felt that philosophical thinking in large part involves abstraction, reification, and a tendency to treat as insignificant, and perhaps even as less than real (not really real)--or even unreal, that which is non-cognitive or pre-cognitive. (Here I'm paraphrasing Gregory Pappas' interpretation of Dewey on this). It's a form of intellectualism, an emphasis on knowing and what can be known, which is a limited view of our experience. Says Pappas, interpreting and later quoting Dewey: "In fact, we have a qualitative appreciation of our surroundings that precedes, underlies, and cannot be reduced to knowledge. Our intellectual activities always operate within the more general context of the world as encountered, lived, enjoyed, and suffered by humans. In primary experience ‘things are objects to be treated, used, acted upon and with, enjoyed and endured, even more than things to be known. They are things had before they are things cognized.’ (LW 1:27-28)"

I have no idea whether Dewey used the good ole pencil/stick in water chestnut as an example of this fallacy, but I think it is one. You know it, of course. The pencil/stick appears "bent" when placed in water but, in fact, it isn't bent. Therefore, our senses "deceive" us. We can't rely on them to know what is really the case. And that, of course, means....and on we go.

I tend to agree with Dewey. But apparently unlike him I wonder whether the philosophical fallacy and its variants are not merely pervasive in philosophical thought, but an inherent characteristic of it. In other words, is it inescapable? What is philosophy but abstraction, and what is abstraction but, if not the neglect of context, the disregard of it? And if that's the case--whither philosophy?

"Abstraction" is defined as dealing in ideas, not events, of being withdrawn into the mind.  Of course it can be maintained, as I think Dewey would maintain, that ideas occur, and thinking takes place, in context; that one doesn't withdraw into the mind at all as mind is a part of the world just as we and everything else is, and I would agree that's the case.  But while thinking takes place "in context" philosophy at least as traditionally conceived isn't addressed to any particular, specific context, typically.  In saying as he did that philosophy restores itself when it addresses the problems of men rather than the "problems of philosophy" Dewey may have been urging that philosophers apply the tools of philosophy to particular circumstances, to address specific problems.

Well and good.  But that would seem to make philosophy something different from what it has been for centuries.  The problems of philosophy generally aren't problems at all, in that sense that they aren't problems actually encountered in life, i.e. in context.  Who actually doubts their existence in a way that such doubt is reflected in one's conduct in the world?  Who is concerned whether what they see and touch and smell and hear is really what it is and does, to us?  Do I drive my car wondering whether it is in fact a car, and not something else?

But Dewey's criticism of traditional philosophy seems not merely regarding its choice of problems or perhaps more properly creation of problems which are not problems.  It seems to arise from the fact that Dewey believes that what we experience is in large part pre-cognitive and cannot be reduced to knowledge, and that this is ignored by philosophers.  That may mean that philosophy, or at least traditional philosophy, is so fundamentally misguided that it cannot lead to an understanding of the world.

Education is a real problem or involves real problems, and perhaps Dewey was vitally concerned with it because he thought a philosopher could address real problems and not merely philosophical problems by reflecting on education and how to educate.  What else could philosophers do, if indeed they were willing to consider problems outside those of the problems of philosophy?  What would the curriculum of a philosophy department involve, include?

Useful methods of addressing what takes place in a specific context, intelligently, perhaps.  How to think critically.  Perhaps even practical wisdom of the kind the ancient philosophers tried to address.  

Abstraction would certainly be involved, but it would be abstraction employed in addressing problems and issues of the kind which arise in real life, in particular circumstances.  Dewey's awareness of "the philosophical fallacy" may be what led him (in my opinion) to focus on the method of thinking, of inquiring, investigating and making decisions.  It may have influenced him to believe that all conduct and beliefs are subject to revision based on further inquiry.  This has made him a boogieman to those who seek the solace of unquestioned certitude, but his reliance on the scientific method and the similar application of intelligence to non-scientific problems saves him from being a relativist.

Of Tyranny and Idiocy

Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death is the name of an album made by the Dead Kennedys, a rock group which may or may not be properly described as a punk rock group, with a penchant for offensive names and witty, if gritty, songs like California Uber Alles and Holiday in Cambodia.  They lampooned a great deal, including American consumerism.  The title of this album comes to mind irresistibly in connection with "anti-maskers" and so much else associated with these dismal times.

I like to think of myself as fairly imaginative.  But I must admit it's difficult for me to even imagine that anyone would associate the requirement (and even the request it seems) that people wear masks during this pandemic with tyranny.  That there clearly are people who do, like the unfortunate(s) who made and held the sign pictured above, inspires a kind of awe regarding the vastness of our capacity for idiocy.

"Tyranny" is a word used to describe a form of government in ancient Greece, and also used to refer to a cruel, unreasonable or arbitrary exercise of control.   Assuming those who use the word in connection with wearing a mask in these times are aware of the fact that they don't live in ancient Greece, one can assume they mean to refer to the kind of exercise of control that may properly be termed "tyrannical."

If so, the bar on tyranny is being set very low.  Wearing a mask can, just barely, be deemed an inconvenience.  Can there be such a thing as a tyranny of inconvenience?  Are there really people who believe that refusing to wear a little mask is heroic?  What a sad spectacle we must make.

Considering it to be tyranny is to liken it to the tyranny complained of by Patrick Henry, which is to indulge in an absurd comparison, as if not more absurd than the consumerism decried by the Dead Kennedys in their album mimicking his bold statement about tyranny of the British government.

There are those who claim that they may hurt only themselves by refusing to wear a mask, and that therefore to do so is their decision to make.  This claim, of course, is contrary to what most experts maintain--that wearing a mask protects others, not the wearer.  But our Republic has degenerated to the extent that the deluded live in a kind of alternate reality; one in which those with the knowledge needed to pronounce on the need, on the facts, are to be disregarded and even reviled.  Even if they do not live in Never-Never Mask Land, it seems that they feel that their preference in rejecting the titanic effort required to wear a mask, trumps, as it were, the health and well being of others.  How else explain their insistence on the so-called right not to wear a mask even when requested to do so by business owners rightly concerned about their customers and employees, and the possibility that their businesses may be shut down if they are tested positive for Covid 19?

This kind of self-righteous stupidity highlights the fact that the concept of rights has been perverted to the extent that people actually believe that they may do, and think, anything they want, and that this enormously selfish conceit is one they may delight in by virtue of being American.  Thus the belief in a "right" not to wear a small mask that serves to prevent the spread of a pandemic (though of course, for some, the pandemic is a hoax).  The right, in other words, not be be inconvenienced.

It's a notion that would have appalled the Founding Fathers, who strove so hard to create a government which would restrain the opinion of those unsophisticated and uneducated folk they believed made up the great majority of American citizens, and protect the knowledgeable.  For good or ill, the Founders were fearful of the majority.  I suspect that they would be amazed by our current state of affairs.

Perhaps there's more than one pandemic.  One impacts the body, the other impacts the mind.  The one affecting the body may be cured or mitigated.  All reliable evidence indicates wearing a mask will limit its spread, with very little effort.  But the one that affects the mind is such that it convinces those afflicted that wearing a mask is a limitation of their rights.  And nothing can be done with those who are convinced they have a right of some kind, to do or not do something, regardless of whether their exercise of that right is at another's expense--indeed, perhaps, especially because it is at another's expense.

A Hoax of a Hoax

Normally, we hope not to be duped.  These aren't normal times, it seems.

We've grown to expect hoaxes.  That expectation, when intelligent, allows us to avoid being fooled.  There are many who wish to fool us, so the fact we anticipate they'll try to do so is useful.  We're watchful, we're careful to assess claims made.

That expectation, when unintelligent, leads us to be fooled by foolishly believing what isn't a hoax actually is a hoax.  While we believe we're being watchful and clever, we're in fact accepting a hoax--a hoax that inclines us to think a hoax is being perpetrated regarding what we would accept if we were using our intelligence.  We're in effect being duped twice; by ourselves and by others.

Perhaps we've seen so many hoaxes that we see them everywhere.  It's easier now to perpetuate a hoax than it was in the past, as our technology allows each of us to instantly communicate a hoax or create a hoax which will be instantly presented to millions.  We know, or at least most of know or at least suspect, that there are many who seek to provide false information through the Web and otherwise.  We know that those who seek to influence us are able to try to do so much more effectively than in the past.  There's good reason to believe that hoaxes abound.  

The peculiar thing is that despite this knowledge so many of us are so ready, even eager, to believe there are hoaxes without exercising judgment.  On the lookout for hoaxes, we think them omnipresent.  Many of us accept there is a hoax unthinkingly.  Instead of being on our guard against hoaxes, we are persuaded to accept that they exist without question.  It's an extraordinary compulsion to be suspicious that a hoax is taking place to such an extent that we don't suspect that there may be no hoax.

The saying that a sucker is born every minute is ascribed to P. T. Barnum.  The saying that nobody has ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the American public has been attributed to H. L. Mencken.  Has anyone ever said that we are so concerned about being suckers that we necessarily are suckers?

One can speculate that our time is one of unreasonable, excessive suspicion, i.e. of paranoia.  Or, we can speculate that we're more stupid than we've ever been--something admittedly hard to believe, so spectacular is our record of stupidity.  Thus we think climate change is a hoax, or Covid 19 is a hoax, perpetuated by vaguely identified wrongdoers.  But I wonder if there's something even more insidious at work.

We're not stupider than we have been.  But we may have reached or it may be that we're reaching the limits of our ability, or even capacity, to think reasonably.  That may be due to the fact that we've never had to sift through so much information, so much misinformation, so many opinions, fears, emotions, beliefs, claims, allegations, actions, conduct, than we ever have had to in the past.  We're unable to do so in the face of all that we encounter, knowingly or unknowingly.  So, we react without thinking, and thereby fall back on what we accept without thought.

If we've reached the limit of our ability to think, there's some hope that with training in, for example, logic and the arts of rhetoric, we can process the information which overwhelms us with greater efficiency.  But here in our Great Republic, at least, I think it's likely that parents would object to any learning or training which would make their offspring think differently than they do.  

If we've reached the limit of our capacity to think, it's hard to predict what our fate will be, but there may be those who have the capacity left to think of themselves and what would be best for them (something that can be done by thinking in the narrowest sense, of oneself and nothing else) and act accordingly.

Bad Karma

It isn't easy to understand this statute.  For me, at least.

Just what is Teddy Roosevelt supposed to be doing (besides riding a horse)?  Is he going somewhere?  If so, where? Why are an African and a Native American walking beside him?  Why would three such persons and a horse come together in the manner portrayed?

Obviously they wouldn't.  I suppose it would be possible they could meet together in some fantasy novel or movie (I think of Philip Jose Farmer's Riverworld series, where everyone who has ever died comes back to life on the banks of an incredibly long river and must interact).  But it's unlikely that's what the sculptor had in mind.

From what I read, the standing or walking figures are intended to represent continents, presumably North America and Africa.  That TR as he was called has a connection with North America, indeed with both American continents, is obvious.  It isn't clear to me what he had to do with Africa, however, unless he visited it to kill large animals with guns as I assume he did, or perhaps visit the Pyramids.  Personally, I don't think that merits a statute.  

The use of figures to represent continents or cities or peoples was once fairly common in art, and that was the case for a long time.  The Romans were inclined to do this.  Coins or reliefs showing figures representing Britannia, Germania, Judea etc., in chains or kneeling before an emperor or Rome personified were produced in response to many conquests.

Assume these figures with TR represent continents.  What then?  Why is TR riding a horse between Africa and, say, North America?  Is he supposed to unite them in some sense, or lead them?  Is he a bridge between them?

Probably not.  As I confessed, I don't really know what was intended.  I can't speak to the intent of the sculptor or whoever commissioned the statue.  I can merely speak to my impression of it and my impression of it is first that it is weird, and second that it seems to depict the standing or walking figures as lesser than the figure riding a horse between them for God knows what reason.  Indeed, subservient to the rider, in the sense that anyone on foot next to someone on horseback feels at a disadvantage; whenever one sees a person on foot and one on a horse in some movie, the person on foot is in most cases subordinate to the one on the horse.

I would have no objection to the removal of the statue solely because I think it's weird.  But the depiction of a white man riding a horse between a Native American and an African is of course particularly disturbing at this time.

At this time.  It should, of course, be disturbing at all times.  But if what is happening now in the form of protests and statue removal and the reaction to them is any indication, we can hope that this time many if not most of us are offended when others demean or oppress people merely because they exist and are not caucasian, or white.

No rational person, I think, can claim that this nation's treatment of the indigenous peoples and those taken from Africa to be sold and treated as property was not extraordinarily terrible, and remains immoral.  The reasons given for the extermination, oppression and discrimination in the past were always self-serving and incredible, and are being given less and less credence as time passes.  Read John Calhoun's defense of slavery, if you can, and, as they say, weep.

What will happen, this time?  One wonders if there's truth in the doctrine of karma.  As I understand it, karma is the belief that the sum of a person's actions in this and previous existences decides a person's fate in the future.  If karma may be applied to nations, we have much to worry about.  Other nations would as well, of course.  But we're here, and this is now.

Supremely Surprising?

   

There are moments when I feel I can take a certain pride in our legal system.  These moments become less and less frequent, it's true.  Whether this is the case because I grow increasingly jaded as I grow increasingly older, or there is some other reason, I'm not sure.  But regardless, this sense of pride, currently, is due to the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court ("the Supremes") in recent cases addressing the efforts of the current version of the executive branch to abolish what's been called DACA, and the question whether disciplining or terminating employees for sexual orientation or gender identity constitutes sex discrimination.

The pride I refer to arises because the decisions represent, I believe, evidence of the fact that judges and lawyers are at least capable of making decisions without regard to politics (broadly defined), in some instances.  That's what renders the decisions surprising, as both cases seethed with political influences and implications. It was easy to assume that the decisions would be made in accordance with the perception of the conservative majority on the court and how it would act.  But that didn't take place.

Instead, the decisions were resoundingly apolitical in the sense that they were based on very basic rules of the interpretation of laws and regulations which have been in existence for quite some time.  We can't speak to the motivations of the Supremes given the rationales employed by the majority.  We can speculate regarding them, of course.  But it remains the case that the decisions are based on commonplace legal reasoning of the kind you can see every day in courts throughout our Great Republic.  

Where the language of a statute or regulation is clear and unambiguous, and the words used are not subject to technical definition or specifically defined, the language is to be interpreted and applied based on its ordinary meaning. There is to be no recourse to legislative history or the supposed beliefs or intentions of the legislators.  

The 1964 Civil Rights Act forbids discrimination in employment based on race, religion, national origin or sex.  It's impossible to rationally claim that disciplining an employee because he/she is homosexual or transgender is not based on "sex" under that word's ordinary definition.  

The laws governing administrative procedure require that a reasoned explanation be given for the termination of a program such as DACA.  None was given.  

There is a certain irony in the fact that the decisions are based on the premise that the law says what it says, and therefore is to be applied based on what it says and not on opinions regarding what it was meant to say or should say.  Conservatives have claimed for years that what are considered liberal court decisions are not based on what the law actually says.  That argument is now made against the application of conservative beliefs regarding what the law was intended to say or should say.

One can delight in noting that some have been hoist with their own petard, and recalling that there are two-edged swords (and I confess to feeling something like delight).  But for me what is significant from the purely legal perspective (I am one of those who think the law is something different from morals) is that these decisions demonstrate that it is not necessarily the case that judges will decide cases based on personal preference or political allegiance.  Sometimes, they won't, suggesting a "higher" allegiance to the law.  In these times, that can be surprising.