tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-84980143984748636552024-03-12T21:36:21.895-04:00Wisdom's HavenMikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17553667997271035725noreply@blogger.comBlogger135125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8498014398474863655.post-55603602921010784802016-09-04T12:03:00.002-04:002016-09-05T08:10:52.849-04:00What’s the Deal with the Millennial Generation?<img src="https://henriksenlearning.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/millennials-30-up.jpg" /><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">by Michael S. Russo</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I’ve just finished reading an article in the New York Times by Ross Douthat that left me more confused than ever about the millennial students that I am currently teaching.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
To sum up just a few of Mr. Douthat’s points, members of the millennial generation seem to be living much more prudent lives than those in previous generations:<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;">They are drinking, smoking and using drugs much less.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">They have fewer sexual partners and a lower rate of teenage pregnancy.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">They are less violent and less prone to suicide. </li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
But in other ways they are also much less responsible than other generations:<br />
<br /></div>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;">They are more likely to live longer with their parents.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">They are less likely to get married or have children.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">They more likely to drop out of the workforce.</li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
I found these statistics to be interesting and they seem to support out my own impressions of millennials (which I admit are completely anecdotal).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
On the positive side, I have found my millennial students to be more tolerant, more appreciative of diversity, more open to unconventional ideas, and less prone to racism, sexism and homophobia than students that I had taught in the past. They also seem much more ecologically concerned than older generations. I find these changes to be welcome, indeed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But, I’ve also found that my millennial students have shorter attention spans, less intellectual curiosity, imagination and cultural literacy, and less ambition, drive and stick-to-itiveness than students that I had once taught. They also seem to have more trouble relating to other human beings in an intimate and personal way than earlier students. These negative tendencies, I believe, might have something to do with the overuse of technology on the part of millennials, but this is just a hypothesis. (I can’t tell you, though, how many times during the past five years I have had to use the expression, “Put away your damn cell phones and pay attention.”)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Like many members of my own generation (late baby boomers), I’ve been wondering what it will be like to have adults with these sorts of tendencies running the country in the future. On the positive side, we may have a much more open and tolerant society when millennials are in charge. And that would be a very good thing.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But I admit to also being concerned about having people running things who seem afraid of—or at least uninterested in—long-term commitments and taking on the tedious responsibilities of adulthood. Are we condemned to be governed in the future by selfie-taking, hyper-tweeting, self-fixated, overly-sensitive, perpetual teenagers?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Or am I just being overly pessimistic, like members of all passing generations have been? As Cicero once said somewhere: “Our father’s race more versed in wickedness than were their sires have begotten us, a race more wicked still, duly to beget a even more wicked race.” </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Maybe it’s just inevitable that older generations find younger ones to be incomprehensible. I'm sure that millennials find me fairly incomprehensible as well. </div>
</div>
Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17553667997271035725noreply@blogger.com59tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8498014398474863655.post-63523964203159959942016-08-31T15:22:00.003-04:002016-08-31T15:33:19.875-04:00The Way of the Skeptic<h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 22px; font-stretch: normal; font-weight: normal; margin: 0.75em 0px 0px; position: relative;">
</h3>
<div class="post-header" style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 10.8px; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">
<div class="post-header-line-1">
</div>
</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-4622868888806362751" itemprop="description articleBody" style="position: relative; width: 640px;">
<div class="separator" style="background-color: black; clear: both; color: white; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 1.4; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sqSWi2nlHQA/UgtvDlSdzZI/AAAAAAAAAr0/1gB0dXOaQBU/s1600/doubt2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="color: #fba853; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="263" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sqSWi2nlHQA/UgtvDlSdzZI/AAAAAAAAAr0/1gB0dXOaQBU/s400/doubt2.jpg" style="background: rgb(17, 17, 17); border: 1px solid rgb(17, 17, 17); box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.0980392) 1px 1px 5px; padding: 1px; position: relative;" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 1.4;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 1.4; text-align: center;">
<strong>By Michael S. Russo</strong></div>
<div style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 1.4; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<br />
I’ve been teaching philosophy now for over 20 years, and it always amazes me at how gullible students are. Every year when teaching my Rhetoric course, I come in the first class and inform the students—in a very bad Irish brogue—that I am Fr. Liam McCarthy from County Gallway in Ireland. I then go on with the prepared script:<br />
<br />
“Dr. Russo, I’m afraid, has been deemed ill-suited to teach this class and I’ve been asked to take his place. What I plan to do is examine the leadership styles of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, his blessed Mother Mary, and the saints and martyrs of the Catholic Church, including, but not limited to Saints Perpetua and Felicity, St. Odo of Cluny, and, of course, the blessed Barengarius of Tours. Our text will be the Bible, which I plan to teach to you in the original Greek. Many of you, I fear, will not do well in this course, because you are weak of mind and prone to the frailties of the flesh. I want you to know that I have no problem failing every one of you, if you fail to meet my exacting standards. Does anyone have any questions? Good. Then let’s begin our class with a prayer taken from the Catholic rite of the dead.”<br />
<br />
I say all this with a perfectly straight face, while at the same time trying to the best of my ability to maintain something like a Barry Fitzgerald-style brogue from The Quiet Man. It’s a ludicrous performance, and no one with any sense at all could possibly believe that Fr. McCarthy could be real. But the students all do. And when I can no longer sustain my performance, break out in laughter, and inform them that they’ve been had, most of my freshmen still don’t know how to react: They sit paralyzed for some time, trying to figure out how they could have believed something so patently absurd to be true.</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-4622868888806362751" itemprop="description articleBody" style="position: relative; width: 640px;">
<br />
I know what you’re thinking: how stupid can these freshmen be? But they’re not stupid at all. In fact, only honors-level students take my Rhetoric class. And I would bet that, if you were in this class, you would buy into the reality of Fr. McCarthy, even with his abysmal brogue and his absurd 1950s Catholic worldview. You would accept that Fr. McCarthy is for real, because, like most human beings, you’ve been trained to accept many things on faith that you have no real evidence for at all. <br />
<br />
For instance, <br />
<ul>
<li>you believe that you were born in a certain place at a certain time to certain parents. </li>
<li>you believe that the world you experience with your senses exists as you perceive it. </li>
<li>you believe that this planet that we are on is part of a larger universe that is very, very large and contains many other solar systems. </li>
<li>you believe in God and that when you die your personal identity will live on in some form. </li>
<li>you believe that when you look into the mirror every morning that the person you see staring back at you is the real you. </li>
</ul>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<div style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 1.4;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 1.4;">
Unlike the reality of Father McCarthy, these are all somewhat plausible beliefs, to be sure. You’ve probably embraced many of these beliefs most of your life and people that you trust and love undoubtedly hold to them as “gospel truth.” But how do we really know that any of these so-called “truths” are actually true at all?<div style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 1.4;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 1.4;">
<b><span style="color: yellow; font-size: large;">Mind Games</span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 1.4;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 1.4;">
Let’s play a few mind games. For these games to work, you’ll have to put aside all the beliefs about your life that you have taken for granted are true.</div>
<div style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 1.4;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 1.4;">
We can start with your experience of reading this very text. Your assumption, I’m sure, is that you, __________________ (fill in your name), are sitting down in front of your computer reading the words that appear on the screen. But can you really be certain that this is what you are actually doing? Haven’t you had the experience of thinking that you were enmeshed in some activity—hanging out with your friends, visiting a strange, exotic place, making love to a desirable partner, only to wake up and discover that everything you thought was real was actually nothing more than a dream? But while you were dreaming, the dream seemed totally and completely real to you, didn’t it? Well, how do you know that something similar is not going on right now? Perhaps instead of reading this text on your computer, you are, in fact, in deep REM sleep, dreaming about reading this text. Can you really be 100% certain that this is not the case (remember, while you are in a dream, everything seems completely real to you)?</div>
<div style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 1.4;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 1.4;">
Let’s try another mind game, just for fun. Once again, you are reading this text, imagining that what you are experiencing is real. But I’m here to tell you that the you that you think is you is not really you, and the world that you think is really real is not real at all. You are actually a being of a much more highly evolved species than homo sapiens (You have a body only about 4 feet tall, four fingers on each hand, a huge cranium to support your impressive brain, and no icky genitalia, since reproduction of your species is done purely through mental contact). Every 150 years members of your species go into a coma-like state, called “The Phase” in order to regenerate, and remain in this state for about five years. During that time, it’s not uncommon for beings like yourself to imagine themselves as completely different sorts of creatures on strange new worlds. For example, while you are in your coma-like state, you’ve imagined yourself as _______________ (fill in your name) living in a place called ___________ (fill in your town and country),on a planet called Earth, in a period described as the early 21st century. You’ve even created a bizarre physical form for yourself that is totally unlike the “real” form that you actually possess (pubic hair…yuck!). The further along you are in The Phase, the more elaborate the dream becomes until you no longer even begin to question that it’s real. You establish relationships, develop a career, beget children, etc. But—and here’s the kicker—you are now approaching the end of your five year sleep cycle and very soon will be ripped from mind has created. When that happens, everything you experience in that dream-like state will become nothing more than a vague memory that you will eventually forget completely as you resume your “real” life.</div>
<div style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 1.4;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 1.4;">
I know that you are probably thinking that both scenarios that I’ve described are completely implausible. You know exactly who you are, and you know damn well that what you are experiencing at this very moment is precisely what it appears to be. But can you really be certain that is the case? In fact, the “certainty” that you possess about just about every aspect of your life is actually more like a belief or conviction—something that ultimately can’t be proven or disproven. You could, in fact, be sleeping or you could be an alien creature in comma-like state. How could you ever prove that you’re not?</div>
<div style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 1.4;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 1.4;">
<span style="color: yellow; font-size: large;"><b>The Way of the Skeptic</b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 1.4;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 1.4;">
What’s the point of all this, you’re probably asking by now? The point is to set you on a path that some philosophers have called the ultimate road to self-realization. It’s called the path of skepticism, and its practitioners—called, not surprisingly, skeptics—argue that true liberation comes from embracing the uncertainty inherent in human life. “Dubito”—I doubt—is the motto of all skeptics, and a truly radical skeptic doubts every aspect of his experience. </div>
<div style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 1.4;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 1.4;">
The way of the skeptic is the opposite of that of the dogmatist. Dogmatists believe they have certain knowledge about the nature of reality, the right way to live, how to organize society, etc. Their supposed certainty leads to conflict with other dogmatists who also believe that they hold the truth. Aggression, violence, war, and genocide are the end results of embracing a philosophy that holds that one’s own truth is absolute and everything else is error, lies, and heresy.</div>
<div style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 1.4;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 1.4;">
The skeptic, in rejecting the idea of universal or transcendent truth, avoids the tension and conflict that the dogmatist inevitably experiences when his views run counter to the views of others. When the skeptic encounters someone with an alternative perspective on reality, he simply acknowledges the beliefs of the other and moves on humbly and graciously. He doesn’t get angry or frustrated, because he has no personal stake in the debates dogmatists love to have among themselves.</div>
<div style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 1.4;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 1.4;">
The total suspension of judgment that the skeptic has about what is true or false leads to a kind of inner peace that dogmatist can never possess. Things may “appear” or “seem” to be true to the skeptic, but when he’s shown that this is not the case, there’s no psychic rupture that occurs within him. His beliefs are recognized to be beliefs, and nothing more, and when new beliefs come along that are superior to the ones he’s previously held, he’s capable of embracing them with a cognitive flexibility that the dogmatist could never even imagine.</div>
<div style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 1.4;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 1.4;">
Not convinced? Try suspending judgment for just a week on matters that you’ve always assumed to be true. For just a week, instead of reacting dogmatically when your beliefs encounter opposition, make an effort to remain open to conflicting viewpoints. You just might find that your life has become much more pleasant by giving up some of your certainty about the truth…and you also might find that the world around you becomes a much nicer place as a result.</div>
</div>
<div style="background-color: black; color: white; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: 1.4;">
___________________<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">Dr. Michael S. Russo is a Professor of Philosophy and Ethics at </span><a href="http://www.molloy.edu/" style="color: #f69e47; text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Molloy College</span></a><span style="font-size: xx-small;"> in New York, the manager of </span><a href="http://sophia-project.org/" style="color: #f69e47; text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">The Sophia Project</span></a><span style="font-size: xx-small;">, an online repository of educational resources in Philosophy, and the author of <a href="http://www.sophiaomni.org/ethics.html" style="color: #f69e47; text-decoration: none;">That's Right: An Introduction to Ethical Theory</a>. He can be reached at</span><a href="mailto:mrusso@molloy.edu" style="color: #f69e47; text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">mrusso@molloy.edu</span></a>.</div>
</div>
</div>
Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17553667997271035725noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8498014398474863655.post-14088373451529450832016-06-22T08:28:00.000-04:002016-06-22T08:28:11.493-04:00Considerations on Death<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">A. J. Grunthaler</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
One thing that we can all be certain of is that at some point—today, tomorrow, or in the not too distant future—every single one of us will die. And this is true not just for ourselves, but for every human being who has ever lived or is currently living. Although we can imagine a possible future in which technological advances extend life far beyond the limits that we experience today, it seems unlikely that our species will ever be able to prolong life indefinitely. In this sense death represents that ultimate and necessary culmination of our human experience. The meaning of life, in other words, cannot be separated from the meaning of death. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Death is usually defined as the cessation of biological functions that sustain the life of a living creature. That seems pretty straight-forward in itself. But death is not just a matter of biology for members of our own species. It’s wrapped up with emotions, beliefs, and rituals that give death a significance that is far greater than most of the other events that occur in the lives of human beings. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Objectively, death would seem to be the greatest of all the misfortunates that can befall any individual. It signifies the end to our human project—to all the dreams and plans we had for our lives. Given a choice, most of us would probably chose to prolong our lives, even if we had to endure considerable pain and suffering to do so, because with the continuation of life there is always the possibility that things can get better. Death, on the other hand, represents the termination of all of our hopes for this life. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But does death actually represent the end of our human project, or is it simply the gateway to another possible form of existence? All of the great religions of the world posit the continuation of human existence in another form after death. The religions originating in the Middle East—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—all ascribe to the belief that the soul (the non-material, animating spirit of the human being) continues on in the afterlife. Religions like Hinduism and some forms of Buddhism have a belief in reincarnation or rebirth—the idea that the self or the soul takes on another physical form after death. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The idea that some aspect of our human personality or identity could continue on after the death of the body is the source of considerable consolation for many people. Perhaps this is the reason why we invest so much effort in devising dignified and often elaborate rituals at the end of life—funeral masses, wakes, shivas, cremation ceremonies, and the like. The goal of these rituals is certainly to celebrate the life of the person who has died, but they perhaps serve the even more important function of providing those who remain behind with the hope that the departed loved one still exists in some form. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But we also must consider the possibility that the belief in continuation of life after death is a fantasy or illusion created by our species precisely because death is so terrifying to us. So instead of accepting that death represents the end of who we are, we create the myth of an eternal soul that somehow is able to live on after the body has ceased to function. For atheists death represents the complete and total oblivion of the self. According to this view when the body dies, our personal identity dies with it. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Whether one believes in the continued existence of human beings after death or not, death traditionally was understood to be such a traumatic experience that in the past it was recognized that one needed to be prepared philosophically and emotionally for the reality of one’s own demise. This practice came to be known in antiquity and the Middle Ages as the ars moriendi—the art of dying. In the Middle Ages this practice often involved visiting charnel grounds where the bodies of the dead were allowed to decompose and the creating of gruesome works of art known as danse macabre (the dance of death) to remind Christians of the inevitability of death. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Kf7ZFdn4H3k/V0g9Hf88IoI/AAAAAAAAA30/ELoAvJi6adQ92lEmwANEfGJ95gx9obphgCLcB/s1600/Danse_macabre_by_Michael_Wolgemut.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="337" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Kf7ZFdn4H3k/V0g9Hf88IoI/AAAAAAAAA30/ELoAvJi6adQ92lEmwANEfGJ95gx9obphgCLcB/s400/Danse_macabre_by_Michael_Wolgemut.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Dance of Death by Michael Wolgemut (1493)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
While today we might view the regular reflection on the inevitability of our own deaths as somewhat morbid, consider for a moment our contemporary attitudes towards death. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In the past, people often died in their own homes, cared for until the end of life by family members. And after death, those same family members would wash and dress the bodies of their loved ones, which were then often laid out for viewing in the family living room. Aromatic flowers were customarily brought into the house to try, as much as possible, to cover up the smell of the rotting corpse. Those same family members might also have been responsible for digging a grave for their dead relative, putting the coffin in the ground, and covering it with dirt. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Today, most people die in hospitals, cared for by total strangers. They’re embalmed, dressed, made-up, and laid out in funeral out by morticians. At cemeteries we have professionals now to dig graves, but it’s rarely customary any more for family and friends to be present when coffins are placed in the ground and covered with dirt. So once again, total strangers are paid to do this task. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Far from being morbid, our ancestors probably had a more sensible and psychologically healthy attitude towards death. In the 21st century, we might try to delude ourselves that death is what happens to other people—to old Aunt Sally, to famous men and women in the obituary section of the local newspaper, or some child dying of malaria in Africa—but death, in fact, is what happens to all of us. We can’t escape it no matter how much we may try to delude ourselves to the contrary. So our best bet is to try to appreciate the reality and inevitability of death and to reconcile ourselves as much as possible with it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
After all, what alternative do we have?</div>
Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17553667997271035725noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8498014398474863655.post-12614945254615752682016-05-25T12:00:00.004-04:002016-05-25T12:00:29.091-04:00The Meaning of the Meaning of Life<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-j8OW8T6A-hY/V0XLk4ykBqI/AAAAAAAAA3g/sRSDWhx4eroLnEfEeoDkVWs6bTPSJOx7QCKgB/s1600/the-meaning-of-life.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="497" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-j8OW8T6A-hY/V0XLk4ykBqI/AAAAAAAAA3g/sRSDWhx4eroLnEfEeoDkVWs6bTPSJOx7QCKgB/s640/the-meaning-of-life.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">A.J. Grunthaler</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
One of the most fundamental and important questions in the discipline of Philosophy is “What is the meaning of life?” Maybe you’ve never asked this question in precisely the way I just framed it, but if you’re like most people, you’ve almost certainly reflected about the ultimate meaning of your life, even if you’re not fully aware that you have.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Perhaps, one night, while you were alone at home with nothing to distract you, a thought suddenly popped into your head, unlike any thought you may have had before. A crazy thought like this: “What’s the point of it all?” Believe it or not, most people—assuming they’re not completely shallow—will ask a question like this at some point or another during the course of their lives. And this is just another way of asking, “What is the meaning of life?” </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Even if we grant that life does indeed have meaning, another question arises when we consider whether this meaning is the same for all people or whether it varies from person to person. In other words, is the question of meaning objective (applies to all) or subjective (a matter of individual perspective)? If it’s the former, we might call this a “higher” meaning of life—the idea that life has a meaning that transcends our own beliefs, attitudes, and feelings about it. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But if life does indeed have a higher meaning, this leads to another perplexing question: what exactly is the objective reality or condition that gives life this higher meaning? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Most human being typically ask the question “Does life have meaning?” when they’re confronted with difficult times—when those they love are sick, suffering, or in pain or when they themselves are sick, suffering, or in pain. It’s at such times that some people begin to think about the possibility of the existence of some kind of Supreme Being or God who gives life meaning. If there is a God, then living according to his purposes (following his will, coming to know or love him, or living our lives according to his plan) would seem to fit the bill for a higher, objective meaning for all human life.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For most human beings, living in most parts of the world up to the present time, this belief in this existence of God—call him Brahman, Yahweh, or Allah, if you prefer—provided everything that was necessary to create meaning in life. Indeed, some form of belief in a Higher Power controlling the destiny of mankind has been part of our experience probably since our species began to develop the ability to engage in abstract thought. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But what if there isn’t a God? What would that do to the question of meaning in life?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
One possibility would be that we’d be forced to recognize that life is fundamentally pointless or absurd. After all, what could possibly be more absurd than to endure all the suffering and pain that are an inevitable part of human existence only to cap off our lives with the stark reality of death—which, in the absence of a God, ultimately means total oblivion. But, not just total oblivion for ourselves. In the end, all of our human projects will be swept away by time, until eventually even our species itself will disappear…as will our planet, our solar system, and possibly even the very universe itself. Confronted with the reality of such oblivion, human life cannot help but seem a bit pointless, can it?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But, even if life doesn’t have a higher meaning or purpose, does this automatically mean that our human lives must be fundamentally pointless or absurd? In fact, we in the West are already living in what is commonly called a post theistic age—an age, in other words, in which belief in God seems fairly unimportant for many people. In fact, the number of people describing themselves as atheists, agnostics, or unaffiliated with any major religion has been creeping upward since the dawn of the 21st century, making “non-believer” the fastest growing religion in the United States. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And yet despite this lack of belief or interest in the existence of God, many individuals seem to find meaning in a whole host of significant activities that are part and parcel of our ordinary human lives. We find meaning in relationships with family, friends, and lovers; we find meaning in the simple pleasures of life and in the beauty—both man-made and natural—that surrounds us; and we find meaning in living lives of virtue for its own sake, rather than out of any external compulsions . We haven’t lost a sense of meaning in the absence of God: we’ve discovered that meaning all around us. Admittedly, this isn’t the kind of transcendent, objective meaning that theists think is necessary to provide purposefulness and value to our human lives. But it is meaning nonetheless. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Whether our lives have one objective meaning or multiple meanings that vary from individual to individual, the question of the meaning of life is one that is intimately connected with our very humanity. Members of no other species ask whether their lives have meaning or not. In fact, one could argue that it is our very ability to inquire about the meaning of life that separates humans from all other creatures inhabiting this planet.</div>
Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17553667997271035725noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8498014398474863655.post-50127538490171055292015-12-03T05:43:00.000-05:002015-12-03T05:43:11.075-05:00The Ultimate Question....What's Your REAL Story?<div style="text-align: justify;">
In the past on this site, we've had debates about the ultimate narrative of the human condition ("Your Story," if you will). There are essentially two main stories that we human beings tell about why we are here and where we are eventually going--the theistic story and the scientific story. There are other stories that human beings have told as well throughout our history (existential, nihilistic, pantheistic, panentheistic etc.), but these seem to be the two big options.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The question that you should ask yourself is which story do you accept a the true human narrative and why. This has major implications for the way you live you life and how you view human relationships and human society.</div>
<br />
Here are the two big stories.<br />
<br />
<b>THE THEISTIC STORY</b><br />
<ol>
<li style="text-align: justify;">The universe and everything in it was created by an all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-loving Supreme Being (SB). From before time began, this Being knew that you would come into existence and had a very special plan just for you. You are precious to Him, because you are, in fact, one with Him, and his love for you is constant and all-enduring.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Your life has ultimate meaning because it is part of the SB’s ultimate plan for mankind. This plan, furthermore, has been revealed through the SB’s word as it exists in the sacred texts of your particular faith tradition. All you have to do is follow the blueprint for your life as it has been revealed through this sacred text and interpreted by the SB’s anointed ministers and teachers and you will experience happiness in this life and salvation in the next.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">During your life, you may experience suffering and pain, but these are merely tests to see if you are worthy enough to receive eternal life. Assuming you endure your suffering with equanimity, follow SB’s blueprint for your life, and remain faithful, you can be assured that, despite any adversities you experience, you will receive an eternal reward in the next life. The heavenly bliss that you will experience in the next life, in fact, will make even the most exquisite pleasures of this life pale by comparison.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Of course, you have also been created with the gift of free will and can use the freedom you have to transgress the SB’s law, reject his love, or engage in despair about your condition. If you do this, you will experience misery in this life and unspeakable torment in the next (i.e., eternal separation from the SB, the source of all love and goodness). </li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">The world will come to an end, but the faithful who are part of the SB’s chosen people (i.e., the elect) will continue to enjoy supreme bliss with the SB in heaven for all eternity.</li>
</ol>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>THE SCIENTIFIC STORY</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div>
<ol>
<li>You were born into this life with no control over where you were born, to whom you were born, or in what social and economic conditions you were born. You couldn’t decide to stay in the womb rather than being thrust out into the world naked and screaming, and once you were born, you pretty much were handed a dealt deck in terms of your genetic make-up and your environment. If you were very lucky, you weren’t born in a war zone or to abusive parents or with a life-threatening disability or mentally incapacitated. </li>
<li>For approximately 18-25 years of your life, you grew physically and developed, to a greater or lesser degree, the intellectual, psychological, and social skills needed to navigate your way through life and find your place within human society. </li>
<li>For much of the rest of your life, you put the skills you learned to use working in some kind of job—in all likelihood, one that you didn’t enjoy very much or that didn’t pay you the kind of salary that you thought you deserved. The money that you earned from working, however, enabled you eventually to leave your parent’s home and pay for those items necessary for survival (food, clothing, housing) and those that contribute to human felicity (cars, Iphones, designer handbags, etc.).</li>
<li>Like all animals, you have a built-in desire to procreate and to spread your gene pool as widely as possible to ensure the survival of the species. If conditions were right, you may have found a suitable partner with whom to produce offspring. You would then spend the most productive years of your mid-life providing for those offspring, attempting to ensure their survival into adulthood, and training them—with greater or lesser success—to become autonomous individuals in their own right.</li>
<li>If you were lucky, you didn’t die accidentally, perish from a disease, or get killed, and made it into old age. At that point your body began to break down, you got sick, you suffered physically (and perhaps emotionally as well) and eventually died. Within moments after your death, your body began to decompose, and within a few years, almost nothing was left of you at all.</li>
<li>Within one or two generations of your death, you were forgotten by every other human being on the planet (unless you were one of the ridiculously small percentage of human beings who were skillful or lucky enough to make an impact on human history, in which case, you might be remembered a bit longer). Your grandchildren will probably only have fleeting memories of you and their children will only know who you were through dusty, old photographs that have been left behind (if they haven’t already been tossed away by a careless descendant, that is).</li>
<li>Within a relatively short amount of time—planetarily speaking—humanity itself will be destroyed through some kind of global cataclysm or pandemic and nothing will remain of our species. At some point in time a new species may evolve from the bugs that have managed to survive, but this species will probably have little or nothing in common with our own. Eventually, the planet, and even the universe itself, will simply cease to exist, and all that will remain will be the infinite void. </li>
</ol>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">From: Michael S. Russo, ed. <i>The Problems of Philosophy</i>. New York: SophiaOmni Press, 2012.</span></div>
</div>
Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17553667997271035725noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8498014398474863655.post-71264513901390226422015-10-21T11:36:00.000-04:002015-10-21T11:54:22.243-04:00It's All Bullshit!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7W0YQnWPiS4/VievDv-TbJI/AAAAAAAAAe4/-F7uRXBQttc/s1600/Its-all-bullshit-599x482.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="321" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7W0YQnWPiS4/VievDv-TbJI/AAAAAAAAAe4/-F7uRXBQttc/s400/Its-all-bullshit-599x482.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;">by Alex Romeo</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Anarchist and Performance Artist</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<i>This is my contemporary spin on the ideas of one of my favorite philosophical schools from antiquity</i><span style="text-align: justify;">—</span><i>the Cynics. They were the bad asses of the ancient world and we still have so much to learn from them. </i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
As the philosopher Harry Frankfort writes: “One of the most salient features of our
culture is that there is so much bullshit. Everyone knows this. Each of us
contributes his share. But we tend to take the situation for granted.” (“On Bullshit”)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
American society is pervaded by bullshit. It affects just about every seemingly
important aspect of our lives—politics, religion, family life, education, the arts…you
name it. And bullshit in American
society is so omnipresent that there seems to be no escaping it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
From the moment that we are born to the moment that we die,
we have purveyors of bullshit telling us how we should live our lives, what
kind of education we should have, who we should associate with, who we should
love, how we should raise the children that they automatically assume everyone
should produce, even how we should die. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-align: justify;">These masters of bullshit have determined the exact formula
for “happiness” in life:</span></div>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">Always do what you’re told by “legitimate”
authority (parents, teachers, preachers).</span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">Obey the rules of society even when the rules
seem petty, capricious or even unjust.</span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">Go to school simply to get a job simply to make
money.</span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">Get married to a respectable partner (attractive,
professional, and of the opposite sex), and spawn 2.5 children who have the
same potential for upward mobility that you do.</span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">After the kids are born, try to pretend at least
to believe that there is some kind of higher power that rules over the universe
(preferable the good old Judeo Christian God) and go through the motions of
pretending to worship that higher power…if only for the sake of the kids!</span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">Make enough money to (1) get a house with at
least four bedrooms and two baths in the “nice” part of town, (2) have at least
one SUV park conspicuously in your driveway, and (3) go on regular vacations
with the kids to Disneyworld or some other equally vapid amusement spot.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"> </span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">By the age of 40, your main focus in life should
be to assure that you always have more than your neighbors.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">This is the sacred rule of American society.</span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">Never admit that your life feels empty and
pointless, because then you’ll have to do something constructive about changing
it.</span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">Die without being too much of a burden to anyone
else (i.e., in a hospital, cared for by professionals)</span></li>
</ul>
<o:p></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
If you do all this, the masters of bullshit assure us that
you can’t help but be happy…and, if you’re not, it’s your own damned fault.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
What utter and complete nonsense. Following these sorts of rules is certainly possible,
but only at the cost of your soul. You’ll
become fat, lazy shallow, stupid, and self-absorbed just like the vast majority
of Americans who are too blind to see through the bullshit around them.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So what’s the solution?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Scorn and rebellion. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Make it a point in your life to ridicule and reject everything
that the purveyors of bullshit tell you is so very important in life. Scorn is your weapon: use it like a warrior entering battle against
the forces of evil. Mock those who dare
to tell you how you should live your lives and spit on their disgusting
bourgeois platitudes. Once you’ve convinced
yourself that all social rules, norms, and values are mere bullshit, you are
half-way on the road to liberation: your
mind is now free of the chains dragging it down.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But something more is still required.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
You have to start thinking—perhaps for the first time in your
whole goddamn life—about how YOU want to live, about what will truly bring YOU
happiness and meaning in life. This is
where you become really dangerous. This
is where you become the ultimate societal rebel and outlaw. For a society like ours—so corrupt, so unjust,
so vicious—can’t survive unless all of its citizens buy into the bullshit it
spews and live their lives in sterile conformist fashion.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Once you start to say, “No fucking way” and you begin to
live life the way you really want to, you become the enemy of all the purveyors
of bullshit. Your mommy will ask why you’re
not already married at the age of 30, your friends will make fun of you because
you don’t have a high-paying job like they do, the high priest at the temple
will point his finger at you and call you “heretic”.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So what! You can
handle it. And once you become liberated
from all the bullshit of our society, then you will truly be a force to be
reckoned with. You’ll stand tall, armed
with the knowledge that YOU are living YOUR life in a way that is totally
natural and harmonious to YOU. At that
moment you become like a god among men—someone truly worthy of being admired
for taking total responsibility for his or her own life.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But you won’t do this will you, because you’re so terribly
afraid. You’re afraid to reject the
bullshit that is swallowing you up and become a true rebel. And so you will live your life like all the
other bloated, silly, bores around you and die never knowing what might have
brought you true happiness.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
How terribly sad.<o:p></o:p></div>
Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08087572092964365964noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8498014398474863655.post-21539303933470192732015-10-11T03:33:00.004-04:002015-10-11T03:58:07.316-04:00The Two Jesuses<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
I'll readily admit that I'm a serious Bill Maher fan. Every now and then Maher completely nails it, as he recently did in his analysis of the two Jesus--the real one and the Supply Side Jesus that libertarians seem to worship. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Yes, Maher certainly has a liberal bias. The question is whether he's right in his claim that there is a fundamental contradiction between advocating a libertarian economic philosophy--one that celebrates "wealth creators" (i.e., the rich) and denigrates the poor--and being a follower of the fellow depicted in the Christian gospels.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
You can decide the answer to that question for yourself.... </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/cE0_JhLsgPQ/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cE0_JhLsgPQ?feature=player_embedded" width="640"></iframe></div>
<br />Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17553667997271035725noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8498014398474863655.post-48233395484851301022015-09-23T07:59:00.000-04:002015-09-28T10:23:27.206-04:00Ben Carson was Right (But Not for the Reason He Thinks)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LgdYa_Ko_k8/VglHlxRyd3I/AAAAAAAAA2c/weeFblxWDkI/s1600/o-BEN-CARSON-facebook.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LgdYa_Ko_k8/VglHlxRyd3I/AAAAAAAAA2c/weeFblxWDkI/s640/o-BEN-CARSON-facebook.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
by Michael S. Russo</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Much to my own surprise I find myself in agreement with a position made by Republican presidential contender Ben Carson. Last week, Carson got into a heap of trouble when he stated, “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation.” Expanding upon his remarks, Carson later said a Muslim should not be president because his or her faith would be inconsistent with the Constitution, but suggested that his opposition would apply to any religion that had tenets which would interfere with a president’s abilities to carry out his constitutional duties. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The firestorm that erupted because of these remarks in the media was predictable. On the surface what Carson seemed to be advocating was blatant religious discrimination. In fact, Article VI of the US Constitution specifically states: “No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So how on earth can anyone—and in particular a self-professed progressive like myself—possibly support a position that seems so morally problematic? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
My agreement with Carson’s statements is based upon my understanding that the founding fathers of our nation were products of the Enlightenment and established a government grounded in what they considered rational principles. First and foremost, they believed in the idea of the basic political and economic equality of human beings—a principle that our nation would expanded upon in the 20th century by recognizing the equal rights of women and minorities. They believed that tolerance for diverse viewpoints was essential to functioning democracy and thus emphasized freedom of speech and press. Having liberated themselves from the control of a snooping, intrusive government, our founders also advocated the right to privacy, which means that people have the right to live any way they so choose provided that they don’t interfere with other people’s rights to do the same. Finally, they established an unequivocal right for people to practice the religion of their choice without interference and rejected the idea of any state religion. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
These are not religious principles: they don’t exist in any sacred text that I know of. They’re rational principles—fundamental tenets of political life that our founders thought were absolutely essential to the healthy functioning of any political community. They are also principles that arose out of the Enlightenment, a period in which human beings rejected blind ideology and looked to reason and rationality as tools for organizing government. For products of the Enlightenment like our Founding Fathers, truth was not found in sacred texts or in the pronouncements of religious authority, but in the rational mind’s ability to uncover these truths logically and scientifically.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Unlike Ben Carson and other conservatives who view the Constitution as a sacred document inspired by God, I have no trouble with a president who doesn’t agree with everything in the Constitution (the Second or the Fourteenth Amendments, for example). But I would have problems with anyone running for President who doesn’t understand the basic Enlightenment principles which are the cornerstone of modern Western political philosophy. I would also never support any candidate who thinks that whatever “sacred book” he or she follows should be the foundation upon which to organize political and social life in this country and who takes the words in that sacred book literally. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
With the exception of the Pali Canon—the “bible” of Buddhists—I know of no sacred text of any of the world’s major religions that does not have some crazy talk about the subordination of women, the killing of gays, the support of slavery, and the persecution of non-believers. It’s fundamentalism, therefore, that would seem to be the disqualifier for running for President, not rigid devotion to the Constitution (which is itself another form of literalism and fundamentalism). If it’s true, as some scholars of religion suggest, that Islam by its very nature is a fundamentalist religion—in other words, that it views the Koran literally as the word of God as dictated directly to the Prophet Mohammed—then how indeed could one be a President and a Muslim without rejecting many of the guiding principles of the sacred text of Islam? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But this same principle would apply to any other fundamentalist religions as well, including, but not limited to, Evangelical Christianity, Orthodox Judaism, Mormanism, and Scientology. Adherents of all these sects reject the basic principles of the Enlightenment upon which the United States was founded and are forced to accept many of the toxic, antidemocratic ideas within their sacred texts as literal truth. If a Muslim shouldn’t be President, then neither, I’m afraid, should any current Republican candidate, because they are all religious fundamentalists to one degree or another.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Please note that I didn’t say that one couldn’t be a religious believer and be president. Roman Catholics, Liberal Protestants and Jews, and many Buddhists, do not necessarily have literalist interpretations of their sacred texts. They accept that their scriptures must be read historically, and that the truths contained within them can be interpreted allegorically or metaphorically. They also have no problem using reason, logic, and scientific evidence as bases for organizing society. There seems to be no incompatibility, therefore, between the practice of these religions and the holding of high office in a country like the United States. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, I’m all for Bernie Sanders (a non-practicing Jew) being our next President, but Ben Carson (Seventh-Day Adventist fundamentalist), I’m afraid, just won’t cut it.</div>
Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17553667997271035725noreply@blogger.com30tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8498014398474863655.post-87879367135347433672015-09-03T19:24:00.002-04:002015-09-03T19:52:47.189-04:00Debate on Religion from True Detective<div style="text-align: center;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MftsSs5Ftfc/VejUIGDmdRI/AAAAAAAAA18/3Io6lxdTgDc/s1600/o-TRUE-DETECTIVE-facebook.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MftsSs5Ftfc/VejUIGDmdRI/AAAAAAAAA18/3Io6lxdTgDc/s640/o-TRUE-DETECTIVE-facebook.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>by Michael S. Russo</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Molloy College</b><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I’ve begun watching the first season of the HBO series <i>True Detective</i> and I have to confess
that I’m greatly enjoying the compelling story lines and complex characters in
the series. But even more than that, I’m
really intrigued by the fabulous dialogue, written by Nic Pizzolatto. It certainly came as no surprise to me to
discover, as I did recently, that Pizzolatto was a former philosophy major at
Louisiana State University, because the series, perhaps more than any other I’ve
seen in a long time, is chock full of philosophical ideas at every turn. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The third episode in particular blew my mind with its fairly
sophisticated treatment of theism and organized religion (see the clip below). To set the scene up, two detectives, Rust
Cohle (played by Mattew McConaughey) and Martin Hart (played by Woody
Harrelson) are investigating a ritual murder that leads them to an outdoor
evangelical service. As they listen to
the preacher give his sermon, Rust, an atheist and skeptic, shares his cynical
views about the nature of religious belief to his fairly devout colleague,
Martin, who feels compelled to offer a defense of religion. As the scene plays out, we see these same
characters later on as they continue to reflect on the debate that occurred
between them a decade earlier. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/D7QdZeRZQCI/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/D7QdZeRZQCI?feature=player_embdded" width="620"></iframe><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
From Rust’s perspective, those
who believe in the existence of a supreme being are basically pathetic,
irrational suckers who are so fearful of life that they are willing to accept
ridiculous fairy tales as truth. Martin,
on the other hand, sees religion as a positive element in society, without
which we couldn’t survive as a species. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Rust’s position is basically a
contemporary spin on the psychological critiques of religious belief developed
by the great 19<sup>th</sup> century “Masters of Suspicion”—Nietzsche, Marx,
and Freud. Although their positions on
religion differ slightly, all three see the origins of religious belief in fear
of the sufferings of this world and anxiety over the inevitability of
death. Because we are basically cowardly,
weak and childish, we create the illusion of a benevolent father figure (God),
who loves us unequivocally and who offers us the soothing balm of eternal life
with him after death. True maturity, these
thinkers argue, demands that we learn to accept the world as it truly is—full
of pain and suffering, Godless, and terminal—and start taking our lives here
and now much more seriously.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Martin response is more
sociological in nature than theological.
Notice he never argues directly for the existence of God or the truth of
religious belief, but instead makes the claim that we need religion for three
reasons: (1) It’s a binding force, enabling some semblance of community to
exist among individualistic human beings; (2) It keeps us from acting on our
more vicious natural instincts by instilling in us the fear of divine
punishment; (3) It helps us to function in everyday life, by enabling us to
overcome the existential fear that all human beings—even atheists—possess and
which otherwise would cripple us.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
What is missing in this debate is
a truly theological or philosophical defense of religion of the kind that we
find in great theistic thinkers like Anselm, Aquinas, or even Dostoyevsky. The only remotely theistic argument in the
scene is the one made by the preacher, who seems to appeal to exactly the kinds
of fearful, narcissistic longings that Rust criticizes so well. So we’re left in the end with two very
cynical options: (1) religion is
basically a con game that needs to be rejected outright, though there may be
nothing positive in the end to take its place (Rust’s position) or (2) Religion
needs to be embraced, not because it’s necessarily grounded in anything true,
but because a world without it would be too horrible to contemplate (Martin’s
position). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Perhaps the absence of a strong
theistic defense of religion in the series is intentional. I don’t know what Nic Pizzolatto’s own views
on theistic matters are, but it could be that he gets the religious zeitgeist
of the times pretty well. In the end, we
don’t really give a damn whether something (i.e., God, the afterlife, original
sin, etc.) is true or not. The only
legitimate question for us seems to be “does it work for me?” If I feel better about my life by believing
in a Supreme Being, then I’ll believe in
one. If I think that it’s necessary for
society to be grounded in religious institutions in order to function
effectively, then I’ll support organized
religion. But when religion suddenly
starts to seem like something bogus to me, or when it no longer seems to fulfill
its pragmatic function in society, then I’m going to ditch it like a handful of
smelly dung. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So maybe, like the characters in <i>True Detective</i>, we don’t really care
about religious issues at all. All we
really care about is feeling good. And
if religion makes us feel good about ourselves, then it automatically is valid;
and if it makes us feel badly about ourselves then it is just as assuredly
invalid. But, if this is all that
religion really represents to the theists and non-theists alike, it seems to me
a fairly silly, superficial thing….a kind of spiritual pop psychology for those
who lack the ability to think critically and rationally about the human
condition.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Or am I, like the main characters
in <i>True Detective</i>, missing some
important piece of evidence here? </div>
</div>
Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17553667997271035725noreply@blogger.com96tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8498014398474863655.post-56435194864972810682015-07-05T07:26:00.001-04:002015-07-05T07:27:20.624-04:00On the Love of Books<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I came upon the following sentiment
in the New York Times Magazine and it seemed to capture my own feelings about
why physical books are so important:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: .25in; margin-right: .25in; margin-top: 0in; text-align: justify;">
Reading on-screen tempts us to see things
only through the pinhole of our immediate curiosity. I don’t mean to sentimentalize the Reading of
Books, but as a practical matter, when you hold a book in your hands, it is
very different from what happens when you are [reading something on] a glassy,
featureless screen. Online, your
experience is personalized, but it is also atomized, flattened and
miniaturized, robbed of its landscape.
Physical books require you to literally hold some of the context of what
you are reading, and that is a crucial dimension of understanding.” (Maria Bustillos)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Most of my well-educated friends
have abandoned physical books and have been reading almost exclusively on Nooks
or Kindles, or Ipads. In recent years, I’ve
gone in the complete opposite direction:
not only have I rejected digital texts completely, but I now buy only
those books that I can get in handsome hardcovered version. These are usually first or second edition books
with clean pages, tight bindings, and unmarred jackets. I search for the books I want on Amazon and
buy used editions that usually cost less than either an e-version or paperback
version of the book.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
There’s nothing quite like the
pleasure involved in holding a beautifully-made book in your hands. I actually think that it makes the act of
reading infinitely more pleasurable than reading the same text in an inferior
print or digital version.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I’ve decided that I only want
books around me that I know I will want to re-read in my old age—in the
twilight years between retirement and death.
To this end, I’ve been ruthlessly selling my paperbacks, worn
hardcovered editions, and those books that, while considered classics, I know
that I will never read (sorry Herman Melville). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In my dotage, I see myself in a
large spacious room, surrounded by wall-to-wall bookcases, each of which is
filled with sumptuous editions of the works that I love. Shakespeare is there of course, along with Kierkegaard,
Jane Austen, Seneca, and Henry James….but so is John Kennedy O’Toole (<i>A Confederacy of Dunces</i>), J.R.R. Tolkien
(<i>Lord of the Rings</i>), and of, course, Helene
Hanff (<i>84 Charing Cross Road</i>, the
ultimate book about lovers of beautiful books). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
As I picture my own death, I’m
reading an old favorite—Heller’s <i>Catch 22</i>,
perhaps, or maybe Nietzsche’s <i>Zarathustr</i>a—in
a typically handsome edition. As I near
the end of the book, my heart simply stops and I slump forward, my bald head resting
falling gently onto the pages of the book I have been reading. <o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Could there possibly be a better
way to go?<o:p></o:p></div>
Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17553667997271035725noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8498014398474863655.post-75955886616450203332015-06-29T10:28:00.000-04:002015-07-05T07:27:39.621-04:00The Inferiority of the Self<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CNW-_AsHUR0/VZFV1dC-diI/AAAAAAAAA1c/OmF1-qufNsU/s1600/technology-and-enmeshment.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="425" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CNW-_AsHUR0/VZFV1dC-diI/AAAAAAAAA1c/OmF1-qufNsU/s640/technology-and-enmeshment.jpeg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>“The human individual lives usually far within his limits; he possesses powers of various sorts which he habitually fails to use. He energizes below his maximum, and he behaves below his optimum. . . . it is only an inveterate habit -- the habit of inferiority to our full self.” (William James, <i>The Energies of Man</i>)</b></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I came upon this quote by William James recently, and it struck me that the existential crisis that James described in the early 20th century is even more of a problem today than it was in his own time. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
How do we fall prey to the “habit of inferiority to our full selves” in the 21st century? I can't help thinking that our preoccupation with the seductiveness of technology is what is preventing us from realizing our true potentials as human beings. We’d rather make quips on Facebook or text one another about some inane topic than actually embrace life in all its messy complexity and grandeur. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Cicero describes the most meaningful human relationships in terms of seeing ourselves reflected in the face of the other. If that's true, then many human beings probably don't have deep relationships at all, because they hardly ever spend enough time just being present to their fellow human beings. The use of 21st century forms of technology—the cell phone, the computer, the Ipad—creates an artificial separation between human beings that makes it impossible to see ourselves reflected in the other. And without access to the “mirror of the self” that the other represents, it is very difficult—if not impossible—to mature as a human being. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The same is true with our disconnection from nature. Time alone in nature offers human beings the opportunity to reflect on the meaning of life and our connection to the planet as a whole. By separating us from nature, technology, therefore, stunts the kinds of introspective musing that makes philosophical wisdom possible.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I’m not trying to suggest that we can or should revert to a pretechnological society: that would neither be possible nor beneficial at this point. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t recognize that the benefits of any form of technology always come at a cost. And the price we may have to pay for our overdependence upon contemporary forms of technology may be the inability to develop a truly mature sense of self.</div>
</div>
Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17553667997271035725noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8498014398474863655.post-31682607000381088312015-04-02T10:58:00.005-04:002015-04-02T11:48:59.634-04:00Humane Punishment?<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">by Michael S. Russo</span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Molloy College</span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">I had always assumed that one of the main goals of our
criminal justice system was to try to rehabilitate criminal offenders so that
they could once again become productive members of the larger society.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This
becomes a significant issue in a country like the United States, which <a href="http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2012/us-incarceration.aspx">incarcerates more of its citizens than any nation on the planet</a> (see chart below).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We lock up more of our citizens per capita
than even Russia or China—countries which certainly are not known for their enlightened
social policies.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-D_OzhAm66zE/VR1Ifcpyq0I/AAAAAAAAA0c/qeS6vAMQ4tk/s1600/Prisoner_population_rate_world_map_svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-D_OzhAm66zE/VR1Ifcpyq0I/AAAAAAAAA0c/qeS6vAMQ4tk/s1600/Prisoner_population_rate_world_map_svg.png" height="320" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">I’m not going to address the question of whether the reason
for such high incarnation rates in the United States has to do with the fact
that we’re one of the only countries in the world to turn our prisons into for-profit
enterprises.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are certainly those who
argue that we have a “<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-whitehead/prison-privatization_b_1414467.html">Prison Industrial Complex</a>” in which there is unending
need to maintain prison populations at elevated levels to ensure profits for
the corporations that run them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is a question that deserves its own post,
so I’ll put it aside for now.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Instead, I’ll assume that our elected officials are sincere
in their desire to see fewer of their fellow citizens behind bars and to
provide those who are imprisoned with the rehabilitation they need in order to
succeed once they’ve served their prison sentences.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But, if rehabilitation is indeed the aim of
our criminal justice system in the United States, then we are failing miserably
at achieving this goal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A recent study
of recidivism rates in the United States shows that within five years, <a href="http://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/Pages/welcome.aspx">three-quartersof released prisoners are rearrested</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Any company that had a 76% failure rate would go out of business almost
immediately, and yet we continue to use the same dumb approaches to incarceration
year in and year out in our American prisons.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"></span> </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">But is there another approach that we might want to consider
instead, which might actually improve recidivism rate and provide those
imprisoned with an environment that can serve them better when they are released
into the larger society?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A recent
article on the approach taken in Norway’s Halden Prison seems to offer just
such an enlightened alternative.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">The question that we have to ask is whether such an approach
would work in the United States and would it lead to more preferable rehabilitation
outcomes than the dysfunctional system we currently have in place.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Read the article:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></strong></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span><strong><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/magazine/the-radical-humaneness-of-norways-halden-prison.html?_r=0">“Big Home: TheStrange and Radical Humaneness of Norway’s Halden Prison”</a></span></strong><br />
<strong><span style="font-family: Verdana;"></span></strong><br />
</div>
Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17553667997271035725noreply@blogger.com30tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8498014398474863655.post-81657269235398226852015-03-30T18:02:00.001-04:002015-03-30T18:05:27.631-04:00The Death of American Universities<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>A thought -provoking piece by Noam Chompsky about the current state of higher education. As a faculty member, I can attest to the fact that what he says about the corporatization of higher education is true of most American colleges and universities--even those that profess to being motivated by higher ideals.</i></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><a href="http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/29348-the-death-of-american-universities">THE DEATH OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES</a></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Noam Chompsky</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>As universities move towards a corporate business model, precarity is being imposed by force.</i></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
That’s part of the business model. It’s the same as hiring temps in industry or what they call “associates” at Walmart, employees that aren’t owed benefits. It’s a part of a corporate business model designed to reduce labor costs and to increase labor servility. When universities become corporatized, as has been happening quite systematically over the last generation as part of the general neoliberal assault on the population, their business model means that what matters is the bottom line.The effective owners are the trustees (or the legislature, in the case of state universities), and they want to keep costs down and make sure that labor is docile and obedient. The way to do that is, essentially, temps. Just as the hiring of temps has gone way up in the neoliberal period, you’re getting the same phenomenon in the universities.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The idea is to divide society into two groups. One group is sometimes called the “plutonomy” (a term used by Citibank when they were advising their investors on where to invest their funds), the top sector of wealth, globally but concentrated mostly in places like the United States. The other group, the rest of the population, is a “precariat,” living a precarious existence.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This idea is sometimes made quite overt. So when Alan Greenspan was testifying before Congress in 1997 on the marvels of the economy he was running, he said straight out that one of the bases for its economic success was imposing what he called “greater worker insecurity.” If workers are more insecure, that’s very “healthy” for the society, because if workers are insecure they won’t ask for wages, they won’t go on strike, they won’t call for benefits; they’ll serve the masters gladly and passively. And that’s optimal for corporations’ economic health.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
At the time, everyone regarded Greenspan’s comment as very reasonable, judging by the lack of reaction and the great acclaim he enjoyed. Well, transfer that to the universities: how do you ensure “greater worker insecurity”? Crucially, by not guaranteeing employment, by keeping people hanging on a limb than can be sawed off at any time, so that they’d better shut up, take tiny salaries, and do their work; and if they get the gift of being allowed to serve under miserable conditions for another year, they should welcome it and not ask for any more.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
That’s the way you keep societies efficient and healthy from the point of view of the corporations. And as universities move towards a corporate business model, precarity is exactly what is being imposed. And we’ll see more and more of it....</div>
<br />
<div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Continue reading this piece at <a href="http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/29348-the-death-of-american-universities">Reader Supported News</a></b></div>
</div>
</div>
Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17553667997271035725noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8498014398474863655.post-37244777436060705982015-01-20T17:50:00.002-05:002015-01-24T11:50:54.723-05:00Why Philosophy Still Matters<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Wa4s1DLUubU/VL7UkQGQboI/AAAAAAAAAz0/BkpJs0TtTMo/s1600/skills-gap-artwork.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Wa4s1DLUubU/VL7UkQGQboI/AAAAAAAAAz0/BkpJs0TtTMo/s1600/skills-gap-artwork.jpg" height="481" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>by A.J. Grunthaler</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I was flipping through this weekend's <em>Wall Street Journal</em>, and I found an interesting article about a problem corporate America is having with our current crop of college graduates. It seems that a fairly sizeable percentage of these graduates lack the basic critical thinking skills necessary to do white collar work.<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB21381013828971114515604580403343498088372"><strong>READ THE ARTICLE IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL</strong></a><br />
</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Having taught college students for over 20 years, this weakness in critical thinking doesn't surprise me at all. And I was pleasantly surprised by the article's claim that nine out of 10 business owners were aware of--and presumably concerned about--this deficiency. These same businessmen, however, would probably argue that we need to spend less time focused on liberal arts in colleges and more on basic skills that can be easily transferred to the workplace. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
The problem with this way of thinking is that it is precisely a liberal arts education that trains students to think critically about the world around them. Philosophy, with its emphasis on logic and reasoning ability, obviously accomplishes this end most directly. But I think that the study of literature, history, sociology, and even art, helps sharpen the reasoning skills of those studying these disciplines. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
It's unfortunate that the liberal arts are under siege at the very time that the benefits derived from them are more vital than ever to our economy. Convincing more and more students to major in disciplines like accounting and business management might seem like a prudent thing to do in difficult economic times, but unless these same students are trained to think rationally, the long-term economic benefits to the larger society will probably be nonexistent. </div>
Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17553667997271035725noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8498014398474863655.post-39514153031317282482014-03-10T17:51:00.000-04:002014-03-10T18:37:46.960-04:00The Cult of the Irrational, Part 2<div style="text-align: justify;">
There was a time not very long ago when I believed that most human beings could be reached through reason. You know: you make what you consider a solid and persuasive argument, back it up with hard facts, and you assume that the average person will agree eventually with what you have to say. And if they don't agree, you would hope that it's because they had solid arguments themselves to back up their own positions.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But as I've gotten older I've begun to realize that human beings are influenced much more by things like strong emotions (fear, anger, indignation), ideology, and social prejudices than by logic, reason, or rationality. Case in point: The South. The Huffington Post had a wonderful article recently that shows just how backwards the entire region we call the South is on just about any measure of social progress:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/06/maps-of-the-south-bad-place_n_4855191.html"><strong>READ THE ARTICLE FROM THE HUFFINGTON POST</strong></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
(LOTS OF PICTURES...I PROMISE!)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The South is poorer, less upwardly mobile, more unhealthy, and much unhappier than the rest of the country. One would think that the people who live in these southern states would welcome any sort of governmental assistance that they can get, but that's not the case. In fact, southern states are at the forefront of the movement to cut government programs that assist the most vulnerable members of the society (children, the handicapped, the mentally ill, substance abusers, the elderly, and pregnant women). Reason all you want with a southerner who thinks that government is the problem, but it probably won't convince him that many of the social difficulties that he experiences in his state are in fact the result of too little government, not too much.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Prior to the last presidential election, film-maker Angela Pelosi tried to understand the anti-governmental attitudes of people in Mississippi, one of the most backward states in the Union, according to the data in the <em>Huffington Post</em> article. While the people she interviewed may be more extreme than the average Mississippian, the attitudes expressed seem to be typical, insofar as the citizens of this state continue to vote consistently against their own self-interest: </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/c9kI_rAFuKA" width="640"></iframe>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
I'm not trying to pick on the South here. I'm sure that there are many fine, decent people living south of the Mason-Dixon line. And I don't think that the cult of the irrational exists solely in the south. For example, Pelosi also interviewed citizens of New Jersey after Hurricane Sandy to ask anti-government folks there what programs should be cut from the federal budget. The answers that she received to this question were as painful as they were funny:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/M_vSB6UtEuk" width="640"></iframe>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Keep in mind that these were all people who thought that the size of government ought to be cut substantially, but, when they had to explain exactly which government programs ought to be cut, they seemed to become transformed all of a sudden into New York liberals. Once again, ideology and self-interest trump logic and reason.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, if large segments of our American population seem to be totally impervious to rational arguments and even self-evident facts, how is it possible to persuade such individuals of the "truth"? Either one has to resort to flagrantly rhetorical appeals to emotion (hardly philosophical) or one attempts to engage in rational discourse, knowing that his or her arguments will inevitably fall on deaf ears. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In short, how can philosophical argumentation work at all in a society where the average citizen hasn't been educated to understand the value of reason in the first place? It's a dilemma that I don't have any easy answers for. I can't help thinking, however, that this great love affair that we Americans are currently having with the irrational doesn't bode too well for the future of our country. </div>
Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17553667997271035725noreply@blogger.com63tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8498014398474863655.post-14144013365869901842014-03-02T18:46:00.000-05:002014-03-02T19:30:45.278-05:00Our Love Affair With Darkness<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="font-size: large;">Michael S. Russo</span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="font-size: large;">Molloy College</span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ommNFrdOE3o/UxO9s1z5mqI/AAAAAAAAAvs/0q29a0mmHlk/s1600/darkness.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ommNFrdOE3o/UxO9s1z5mqI/AAAAAAAAAvs/0q29a0mmHlk/s1600/darkness.jpg" height="174" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
Ten years ago if you asked me if I watched TV, the answer would have been a contemptuous, “Are you kidding?” Television in the late 1990s and early 2000s was what it had pretty much always been: a wasteland of vacuous entertainment, aimed primarily at the lowbrow tastes of cognitively-challenged Americans. Actually, television had gotten even worse by the early 2000s than it had been in the past, with an endless parade of inane reality shows—remember “Jersey Shore” and “The Real Housewives”?—that served to do little more than make viewers feel morally superior to the crass and callous individuals whose train-wrecked lives they were watching unfold on their TV sets. Men and women with any degree of taste and sensitivity ignored television entirely and turned to film or fiction if they wanted any kind of intellectually stimulating entertainment. <br />
<br />
But I have a confession to make: I’ve becoming addicted to television again, for the first time perhaps since I was a high school student. Now, I’m not talking about watching shows on network TV, which is still filled with banal drivel (ever see “Two and a Half Men” or “How I Met Your Mother?”). No, what I’m talking about is the veritable renaissance that is occurring on cable TV—what has rightly been referred to as a new golden age of television, one that, in my estimation at least, may actually surpass those two other “golden ages” that occurred in the early 1950s and early 1970s. In fact, Cable networks like HBO, Showtime, and AMC and the Internet giant, Netflix, are producing series that are infinitely richer and more emotionally engrossing than anything that has ever been produced for television in the past. <br />
<br />
There are far too many great programs now on cable TV for me to talk about all of them. Instead, I’ll focus on three in particular that millions of Americans like myself just can’t seem to get enough of: “Breaking Bad,” “Mad Men,” and “House of Cards.” What these series have in common is that they rely on complex story arcs that span over multiple seasons, focus on complicated, morally compromised characters who evolve as these series progress, and have an almost philosophical preoccupation with exploring the meaning of our human condition. <br />
<br />
But there’s something even more important that they all have in common: these series all have at their centers main characters who gleefully embrace lifestyles that can only be described as morally reprehensible and even evil. Walter White (“Breaking Bad”), Don Draper (“Mad Men”), and Frank Underwood (“House of Cards”) are men driven by pure egoistic self-absorption, who don’t give a damn about other people’s feelings or needs, and who will do just about anything they need to (lie, cheat, break the law, and at times kill innocents) to get what they want (sex, money, prestige, and power).<br />
<br />
None of these characters would exist, of course, if David Chase, the creator of “The Sopranos,” hadn’t first demonstrated that audiences could come to care about—even love—a completely immoral central character, provided that character was endowed with realistic motivations and feelings that the audience could relate to. Tony Soprano was not just a vicious mobster—although he certainly could be extremely nasty at times. He was a man who was forced to live up to the legacy of his father, had to care for difficult family members, and had his own web of neuroses and insecurities with which to contend. In short, Tony was just like you and me, although his job frequently compelled him to kill people who got in his way. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cywYki5XwNQ/UxO77ktJMRI/AAAAAAAAAvg/LbrgQ0Yp1AY/s1600/SopranosS1BD_2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cywYki5XwNQ/UxO77ktJMRI/AAAAAAAAAvg/LbrgQ0Yp1AY/s1600/SopranosS1BD_2.jpg" height="452" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Cast of the Sopranos (1999-2007)</span></strong></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But what is it that we love so much about characters like these who, by all counts, would be considered sociopaths were we to encounter them in the real world? Besides being somehow relatable, all of these characters have one other thing in common: they’ve made the voluntary choice to pursue their own selfish wants, needs, and interests at all costs. Don Draper may have an attractive, desirable wife, but that certainly doesn’t stop him from having numerous sexual relationships with other women. When his daughter catches him in flagrante delicto with a neighbor’s wife, it doesn’t cause him even a moment of introspection or generate any desire at all within him to change his ways. He sleeps around with women—single or married—because he enjoys it and because he can….And morality simply does not enter into the equation.<br />
<br />
Walter White, on the other hand, seems to be driven at first by the quite understandable desire to care for his family after he is diagnosed with lung cancer, but this, as we all well know, is just a façade. In a telling scene that occurs towards the end of the series’ run, White meets with his wife, Skylar, one last time in order to provide an explanation for the actions he took that destroyed their family:<br />
<br />
Skyler: If you tell me one more time that you did this for the family...<br />
Walt: I did it for me. I liked it. I was good at it. And I was, really... I was alive.<br />
<br />
Manufacturing and distributing drugs, killing off the opposition, even manipulating those he supposedly cares about—Walter does all these things not out of necessity, but because he loves it, because being a drug kingpin gives him the kind of cool rush and inner satisfaction that nothing else in life can. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3yQhyi20d2o/UxO-4oEsnbI/AAAAAAAAAwA/2XvWMIDqsck/s1600/Heisenberg.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3yQhyi20d2o/UxO-4oEsnbI/AAAAAAAAAwA/2XvWMIDqsck/s1600/Heisenberg.png" height="420" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><strong>Breaking Bad's Walter White</strong></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
What we’re talking about here is Nietzsche’s will to power taken to its logical extreme. In a world in which the decks are stacked against the ordinary individual, where power, money and sex provide the ultimate meaning in life, where God is dead, and morality is a cruel hoax, the smart person lives completely for himself and does whatever he has to to ensure that his own emotional and physical needs are met. Since other human beings are merely pawns to be used in this process, they are completely expendable. Even an innocent child killed during the commission of a crime in “Breaking Bad” becomes little more than collateral damage in Walter White’s never-ending quest for—dare I say it?—self-realization. </div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Without a doubt the character that best embodies this unabashed, unrestricted will to power is “House of Cards” Frank Underwood. Completely understanding the logic of existence in a morality-free universe, Frank has managed to eradicate from his personality any vestiges of humanity and compassion that might make him weak or vulnerable. There is simply nothing that Underwood won’t do to achieve his goal of becoming the most powerful man in the world, and this includes murder if necessary. In Frank Underwood’s universe everyone exists to be used and the ability to effectively manipulate others becomes the highest virtue of all. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-I0ZCD6vs-k8/UxO_goVrTUI/AAAAAAAAAwM/ocOceB8yOVY/s1600/houseofcards.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-I0ZCD6vs-k8/UxO_goVrTUI/AAAAAAAAAwM/ocOceB8yOVY/s1600/houseofcards.jpg" height="425" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><strong>House of Cards' Frank and Claire Underwood</strong></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
So again why do audiences love these completely despicable, utterly ruthless characters so much? The answer, I believe, has to do with the unique times in which we live. In the first decade of the 21st century, the economic crisis that has continued unabated (at least for the bottom 99%) has made ordinary Americans feel like helpless victims in a cruel and uncaring world and totally impotent to effect any positive changes in their own lives. Say what you want about Walter White, Don Draper, and Frank Underwood, but they are certainly not victims and they definitely are not impotent. I think that what we love so much about these characters is that in a world in which most people are inert whiners and complainers, these men DO SOMETHING. They take charge of their own destinies and are willing to do anything and everything necessary to ensure that they will never be part of the anonymous herd. <br />
<br />
Because they act while most human beings remain passive and because they are willing to take risks to master their fates, we are willing to forgive just about anything these characters do, no matter how despicable it might seem. Is it any coincidence that each of these men came from humble origins and had to overcome tremendous odds to achieve what they did? Subconsciously, I think that viewers relate to these anti-heroes because, compared to an economic elite (the top 1%) that caused the entire American economy to collapse and which has actually benefited financially from that collapse, the actions of men like Walter White, Don Draper, and Frank Underwood almost seem reasonable. It’s like one of our own getting back at “the system,” and that, I think, is what makes us root for them. <br />
<br />
By comparison, consider the female characters in each of these shows and how unpopular they are with audiences. <span id="goog_894574105"></span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/opinion/i-have-a-character-issue.html"> Skylar White</a> <span id="goog_894574106"></span>and Betty Draper—like Carmella Soprano before them—are viewed by audiences as passive but also morally complicit in their husband’s immoral activities. None of these women intentionally choose the life of evil; they simply accept the social and economic benefits that accrue to themselves because of the more deliberative choices that their husbands make. They may bitch and moan, but they don’t DO anything. <br />
<br />
In this sense, Claire Underwood fits somewhat outside the mold of the poor, beleaguered anti-hero’s wife. She’s definitively Lady MacBeth to Frank’s MacBeth. Like Lady MacBeth, Claire is an active partner in her husband’s political machinations, but, like Lady MacBeth as well, there seems to be a limit to how far her conscience might enable her to go (Can you imagine Frank shedding tears after destroying someone who stood in his way?). Since the show is still in its infancy, it remains to be seen if Claire Underwood will prove more popular in the long run than her female counterparts. <br />
<br />
Television viewing at its best is a cathartic experience. In the 1950s and 60s we wanted television to soothe us. We wanted to feel like the world was an intelligible place, that our social and political leaders had our best interests at heart, and that hard work and dedication could lead to upward social mobility. Today we know that none of this is true and we question whether anything we do in life—whether individually or collectively—will make any difference at all. Apparently, we need men like Walter White, Don Draper, and Frank Underwood to convince us that, despite appearances to the contrary, the individual still matters and the deliberative choices a person makes can actually produce beneficial results. <br />
<br />
In the end, I would argue, it’s not the darkness per se of these characters that we love, but their willingness to act on the great stage of life…whatever the consequences. That’s what separates them from the rest of us, and that’s the source of our unquenchable fascination with them. </div>
Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17553667997271035725noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8498014398474863655.post-88492449646107356122014-02-27T07:26:00.002-05:002014-02-27T07:26:56.435-05:00The Phoenix Cycle<div style="text-align: justify;">
It's a sad but true fact that for most people philosophy is a fairly dry and uninteresting discipline. I've often thought that was strange, because philosophy--more than any other discipline that I know--deals with the most important questions that any human being could have: What's the meaning of life? What's the right way to live in community with other individuals? What happens to us after death.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-aH5iV6GHDqc/Uw8rCzxSy3I/AAAAAAAAAvI/An1-oOuRnFE/s1600/callopy1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-aH5iV6GHDqc/Uw8rCzxSy3I/AAAAAAAAAvI/An1-oOuRnFE/s1600/callopy1.jpg" height="200" width="125" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Perhaps the problem is not with the kinds of questions that the discipline of philosophy asks, but the approach that philosophers often take to asking these questions. Let's be honest: The ideas of Immanuel Kant are probably as relevant today we when he developed them, but who wants to wade through <em>The Critique of Pure Reason</em> to get at them? For most ordinary folks that would be a fate worse than death.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But there are other ways than important philosophical ideas can be presented--using fiction for example. And that's exactly the approach that Robert Edward, author of the new <em><a href="http://www.philosophiesdead.com/">Phoenix Cycle</a></em>, takes to philosophy. The Phoenix Cycle is a dystopian series in which many of the main character are famous philosophers and deals with philosophical questions in a way that many people may find compelling.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Here is an excerpt from Edward's book for those who are interested:</div>
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.sophia-project.org/uploads/1/3/9/5/13955288/callopy3.pdf">THE PHOENIX CYCLE</a></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span>------------------------------------</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span><em>ABOUT ROBERT EDWARD</em></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span><em></em></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span><em>I have been an avid book reader ever since I was a child. Over the years I gained more interests in the literary world, such as Philosophy and psychology. These interests have lead me to read stacks of philosophy books and Essays, such as the Plato Republic and The Rebel. These types of books are now stacked around my room, no longer able to close and covered in scribbled ink and washes of highlighter.</em></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span><em> </em></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span><em>Now I am writing a book that makes philosophy come to life.<span> </span>I hope that with my series, “The Phoenix Cycle.”<span> </span>I can make philosophy cool.<span> </span>By making it cool I believe more people will become interested in learning about philosophy.<span> </span></em></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span><span></span></span> </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tHkFim-qHdM/Uw8rTBU6lSI/AAAAAAAAAvQ/iCAZEtdyFtU/s1600/callopy2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tHkFim-qHdM/Uw8rTBU6lSI/AAAAAAAAAvQ/iCAZEtdyFtU/s1600/callopy2.jpg" height="266" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span><span></span></span> </div>
Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17553667997271035725noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8498014398474863655.post-89556497548983279852014-02-13T10:46:00.004-05:002014-02-13T11:29:46.542-05:00A Different Way to Think About Happiness<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><b>Michael S. Russo</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><b>Molloy College</b></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I’ve spent the past twenty years thinking about happiness.
My Master’s Thesis was on focused Stoic ideas about happiness, my doctoral
dissertation dealt with the evolution of Augustine’s understanding of
happiness, and more recently, I’ve been doing some work on Hindu and Buddhist
conceptions of happiness. You’d think
that, after almost 25 years fixated on the question of happiness, I’d know by
now what happiness is and what the best way to become happy would be. The sad truth is that the more I explore this
question, the more my own thinking about happiness evolves and mutates. Happiness, I’ve discovered, is one slippery
concept and there’s a reason why philosophical questions about its attainment
have been debated since ancient times.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">But the more I study the problem of happiness, the more I come
to realize that we Americans have some particularly screwy ideas about
happiness that may in fact get in the way of our own long-term happiness. In particular, we seem to think that real
happiness is measured almost exclusively by our present economic conditions
(stuff + now = happiness). Happiness is
typically linked to GDP (Gross Domestic Product), a measure of how much we are
producing and consuming at a given time.
The presumption is that the higher the GDP, the happier the people of a
nation must be. Americans have one of the
highest GDPs in the world, so naturally, we must be among the happiest people
in the world, right?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">But what if the very lifestyle that we are living in the
present is a threat to our long-term sustainable happiness and well-being? Imagine that we Americans are like heroin
addicts. An addict needs his fix all the
time in order to be happy, but the approach that he takes to achieving this
happiness (abusing drugs) all but ensures that he can’t sustain his happiness
in the long-term. What if our happiness
is like the happiness of the heroin addict?
In fact, using GDP to measure a
people’s happiness is like asking a drug pusher whether an addict is happy
while he is dwelling in a drug-induced state.
The addict may think he’s happy, and the pusher would say he’s happy,
but would anyone of sense really believe that this is sustainable happiness?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Fortunately, there’s another way to measure the happiness of
people rather than simply by using GDP. Nic
Marks of the New Economics Foundation has developed what he calls the <a href="http://www.happyplanetindex.org/">Happy Planet Index</a>. Marks takes for granted
that things like a person’s present perception of happiness and his or her life
expectancy are important criteria of happiness.
But he also takes into consideration the impact that an individual’s
lifestyle has on the planet when determining whether that individual’s
happiness is ultimately sustainable. The
formula he uses for making this determination looks like this:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #333333; line-height: 115%;"><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shapetype id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600"
o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f"
stroked="f">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter"/>
<v:formulas>
<v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"/>
<v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"/>
</v:formulas>
<v:path o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect"/>
<o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t"/>
</v:shapetype><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_1" o:spid="_x0000_i1025" type="#_x0000_t75"
alt="http://www.happyplanetindex.org/img/equation.gif" style='width:358.5pt;
height:31.5pt;visibility:visible;mso-wrap-style:square'>
<v:imagedata src="file:///C:\Users\Michael\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.gif"
o:title="equation"/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]--></span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rpLYIUwXozA/UvzvQoYs6CI/AAAAAAAAAu4/owV3-QWFQUw/s1600/equation.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rpLYIUwXozA/UvzvQoYs6CI/AAAAAAAAAu4/owV3-QWFQUw/s1600/equation.jpg" height="37" width="400" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Experienced
well-being:</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">people around the world are
asked to describe on a scale of 1-10 their experienced state of well-being,
with 0 representing the worst possible life and 10 representing the best
possible life.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Life
expectancy:</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">based upon the 2011 United
Nations Development Report.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Ecological
Footprint: basically examines how much of the world’s resources are used by individuals
in different nations to sustain their lifestyles.</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span></li>
</ul>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Here’s the way Marks explains his approach to happiness
during his 2010 Ted Talk.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/M1o3FS0awtk?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">So, if instead of thinking about happiness purely in terms
of the ability to consume in the present, we think about happiness in a more
sustainable way, how does the United States rank compared to other nations of
the world? The Happy Planet Index has a
nifty traffic light score to rank individual nations: green (good), yellow (middling), and red
(bad).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://www.happyplanetindex.org/data/">http://www.happyplanetindex.org/data/</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">As you can see, the results are radically different
depending upon which criteria for well-being we are looking at. But if we’re really concerned with
sustainable happiness, we need to look in particular at the HPI map. As you explore this map, consider which are
the best countries to live in for sustainable happiness and which are the
worst.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I’d like to propose that what Marks says about the happiness
of different countries applies to the happiness of individuals as well. Think about your own life, for example. Do you perceive yourself to be living a happy
and healthy life? If you do, that’s
terrific, but, as Marks points out, you also need to consider whether your
happiness is ultimately sustainable.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">To determine this, take a few moments and complete the
following Ecological Footprint survey.
Try to answer the questions to the best of your ability, and, if you’re
uncertain about the answers to any of the questions, just make the best
educated guess possible.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="https://www.powerhousemuseum.com/online/bigfoot/">https://www.powerhousemuseum.com/online/bigfoot/</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">At the end of the survey, see how many hectares it takes for
you to live the lifestyle that you do.
1.9 hectares would be ecologically ideal, but anything under 2.5
hectares would indicate a more or less sustainable lifestyle. What was your score on this survey? How many planets would it take to sustain the
kind of lifestyle that you live if everyone on the planet chose to adopt it?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The question that we all need to ask ourselves in the end is
whether the perceptions we have about our own happiness correspond with the
reality of whether or not our happiness is ultimately sustainable. Marks seems to suggest that, if there’s a
real dichotomy between the two, our happiness is based upon delusion—a delusion
that I would argue is similar in many ways to the delusion an addict would have
about his own happiness. At the very
least, becoming aware of this dichotomy should make you start to ask some very
fundamental questions about the validity of our Western, materialistic notions
about happiness in a world characterized by an ever-increasing scarcity of
resources. </span><o:p></o:p></div>
Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17553667997271035725noreply@blogger.com53tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8498014398474863655.post-24408412912092795142014-01-30T06:48:00.000-05:002014-02-13T11:40:53.237-05:00It's Fair, But Is It Just?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-oniHAysG2n4/Uo3pZa6r_-I/AAAAAAAAAuA/hzRav1qI_Vs/s1600/guaranteed+income.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-oniHAysG2n4/Uo3pZa6r_-I/AAAAAAAAAuA/hzRav1qI_Vs/s640/guaranteed+income.jpg" height="401" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I came across a really provocative piece in last Sunday's <em>New York Times Magazine</em>. In an article entitled, "Take One Income, Please" Annie Lowrey describes a movement that is growing in Europe to establish a guaranteed minimum wage for all citizens.</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/magazine/switzerlands-proposal-to-pay-people-for-being-alive.html?_r=0">Read Annie Lowrey's Original Article</a></strong><br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
While this may seem like the ultimate liberal solution to the problem of poverty, I was amazed to learn that the great intellectual guru of the right, Charles Murray, has supported a similar idea in his new book, <span id="goog_408380968"></span><em><a href="http://www.blogger.com/">In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State</a></em> (There's an interesting review of this book on the <a href="http://crookedtimber.org/2006/06/01/charles-murrays-in-our-hands-left-or-right/">Crooked Timber</a> blog). Murray's main objective, of course, is to completely undo the entire apparatus and rationale for the modern welfare state, so liberals might be tempted to dismiss him off-hand. But this would be a mistake, because I think that the idea has some merits that might actually bridge the great chasm that divides liberals and conservatives. <br />
<br />
What Murray proposes is indeed to completely eradicate all government welfare programs. In their place, he proposes giving $10,00 a year to every American citizen over 21 years old ($3,000 of which would have to be used to buy health insurance). <br />
<br />
The objection that can be raised to this idea is that some--perhaps many--of the citizens who receive this guaranteed income will spend it foolishly and will actually be worse off than they would be under our current paternalistic system. While I would agree that there will always be those Americans who would squander whatever funds are given to them on gambling, alcohol, drugs, or any other number of vices, I think that a guaranteed minimum income would have the opposite effect: it would unleash the entrepreneurial spirit that most Americans have and give them the capital they need to take control over their own lives. No longer would the poor be the passive beneficiaries of governmental largesse, but rather could decide for themselves how their own money would be spent.<br />
<br />
I think that the main reason why this idea appeals to me so much is that, as I get older, I'm beginning to question whether it's in the interest of human beings to be subject to an all-powerful, all-knowing entity like government that controls such a huge amount of our collective wealth. We've seen plenty of evidence recently that our government often can't be trusted to use the funds that it confiscates from citizens wisely or fairly. Our tax dollars, rather than benefiting ordinary citizens, more often than not seems to be used to prop up the military industrial complex and to line the coffers of multinational corporations. <br />
<br />
Perhaps my libertarian friends are right: the very kind of massive, all-intrusive governments that we've established during the post war period may very well be part of the reason why middle class Americans (and Europeans for that matter) find their economic positions becoming eroded and their civil liberties deteriorating.<br />
<br />
The idea of a guaranteed minimum income certainly meets the condition for fairness. The question is whether a system like this would create greater justice and equality or just produce even more poverty and desperation among the most vulnerable Americans.<br />
<br />
</div>
Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17553667997271035725noreply@blogger.com87tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8498014398474863655.post-85155820668651489202013-12-18T12:33:00.000-05:002014-02-13T09:22:59.643-05:00The Human Condition - Objectively Speaking!<span style="font-family: inherit;">If we look objectively at a human life, there are
certain brute facts about existence that seem to apply to everyone:<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">(<b><u>YOUR NAME HERE</u>)’S STORY<o:p></o:p></b></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: .25in; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">1.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span>You were born into this life with no control over where you were born,
to whom you were born, or in what social and economic conditions you were
born. You couldn’t decide to stay in the
womb rather than being thrust out into the world naked and screaming, and once
you were born, you pretty much were handed a dealt deck in terms of your genetic
make-up and your environment. If you
were very lucky, you weren’t born in a war zone or to abusive parents or with a
life-threatening disability or mentally incapacitated. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: .25in; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">2.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span>For approximately 18-25 years of your life, you grew physically and
developed, to a greater or lesser degree, the intellectual, psychological, and
social skills needed to navigate your way through life and find your place
within human society. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: .25in; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">3.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span>For much of the rest of your life, you put the skills you learned to
use working in some kind of job—in all likelihood, one that you didn’t enjoy
very much or that didn’t pay you the kind of salary that you thought you
deserved. The money that you earned from
working, however, enabled you eventually to leave your parent’s home and pay
for those items necessary for survival (food, clothing, housing) and those that
contribute to human felicity (cars, Iphones, designer handbags, etc,).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: .25in; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">4.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span>Like all animals, you have a built-in desire to procreate and to spread
your gene pool as widely as possible to ensure the survival of the
species. If conditions were right, you
may have found a suitable partner with whom to produce offspring. You then spent the most productive years
of your mid-life providing for those offspring, attempting to ensure their
survival into adulthood, and training them—with greater or lesser success—to become
autonomous individuals in their own right.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: .25in; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">5.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span>If you were lucky, you didn’t die accidentally, perish from a disease,
or be killed, and made it into old age.
At that point your body began to break down, you got sick, you suffered
physically (and perhaps emotionally as well) and eventually died. Within moments after your death, your body
began to decompose, and within a few years, almost nothing was left of you at
all.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: .25in; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">6.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span>Within one or two generations of your death, you were forgotten by
every other human being on the planet (unless you were one of the ridiculously small
percentage of human beings who were skillful or lucky enough to make an impact
on human history, in which case, you might be remembered a bit longer). Your grandchildren will probably only have
fleeting memories of you and their children will only know who you were through
dusty, old photographs that have been left behind (if they haven’t already been
tossed away by a careless descendant, that is).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: .25in; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">7.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span>With a relatively short amount of time—planetarily speaking—humanity
itself will be destroyed through some kind of global cataclysm or pandemic and nothing
will remain of our species. At some
point in time a new species may evolve from the bugs that have managed to
survive, but this species will probably have little or nothing in common with
our own. Eventually, the planet, and even
the universe itself, will simply cease to exist, and all that will remain will
be the infinite void. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">If there’s anything important that I’m leaving out of this
narrative, or if you think that what I’ve written about the human condition is
not universally applicable, please feel free to set me straight.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><o:p> </o:p>How does it make you feel as you read this story—which is
actually YOUR story?</span></div>
Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17553667997271035725noreply@blogger.com23tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8498014398474863655.post-83684025845783960882013-11-26T09:37:00.000-05:002013-11-26T09:38:05.447-05:00The Limits of Loyalty<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-F1C9BLHPpFk/UpSwGvheJgI/AAAAAAAAAuY/bZT2QKCEQDQ/s1600/loyalty2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="395" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-F1C9BLHPpFk/UpSwGvheJgI/AAAAAAAAAuY/bZT2QKCEQDQ/s640/loyalty2.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="justify">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong></strong><strong><span style="color: orange;">Michael S. Russo</span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: orange;">Professor of Philosophy</span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: orange;">Molloy College</span></strong><br />
<strong><span style="color: orange;"></span></strong><br />
</div>
<div align="justify">
I’ve often heard students of mine say things like, “you’ve got to support your family no matter what” or “friends have got to stick together no matter what.” When I hear statements like this in class, I can’t help being impressed by how important the idea of loyalty to friends and family is among the members of the Millennial Generation. I certainly don’t recall members of my own generation—Generation X, if you must know—being all that loyal to anything other than the idea to have a good time in life. So, on one level, I’m greatly pleased that a virtue as important as loyalty is making a comeback in American society.<br />
<br />
However, as a teacher of ethics, I find myself somewhat concerned about the “no matter what” clause that Millennials often attach to their commitments of loyalty. As worthy a virtue as loyalty is, I can’t help but believe that this virtue could never be absolute in the real world. There’s got to be some natural limits to our loyalty, or the fidelity that we show those we care about becomes a kind of blind fanaticism.<br />
<br />
So when ought our commitment to support our friends and family members come to an end? I’m inclined to agree with both Aristotle and Cicero that an intimate relationship of any kind must be terminated if the other party involved turns morally bad or wicked—that is, if they begin to act in such a way that they are causing harm to themselves or to other people.<br />
<br />
Let’s begin with the issue of harm to others, since that’s less controversial. Let’s imagine a friend that you’ve had since childhood suddenly becomes obsessed with money and has developed a scheme to rob UPS trucks of their packages when they are left unattended by their drivers. Your friend has become quite successful at this and has managed to make thousands of dollars from his crimes. He confides in you about his activities one night. What should you do?<br />
<br />
Assuming that you yourself have any moral standards, the answer would be that you should attempt to convince him that what he is doing is wrong and try to persuade him that, at the very least, he has to stop his criminal activities. But what if he chooses not to? I think at that point, were you to continue to remain loyal to your friend, you would be complicit in his crimes. Instead, you’ve got to tell him that, unless he stops what he’s doing immediately, you can no longer continue to see him or be his friend. Any obligations of loyalty that you have towards your friend subsequently would come to an end, until such time that you friend decides to change his ways.<br />
<br />
This is a very dramatic example, of course, but I think that the principle holds in less dramatic ones as well. If your friend was a bully, a bigot, a chronic liar, a cheat, a manipulator—if he repeatedly engaged, in other words, in activities that caused harm to others, especially innocent others—then you would likewise have no choice but to end your friendship.<br />
<br />
The example of self-harm is a bit more problematic, but I think that the principle I’ve laid out holds here as well. Image that you have a friend who has developed a serious substance abuse problem. His behavior is causing him to neglect his job and his responsibilities to his family. You try taking to him about his issues, but he refuses to even acknowledge that he has a problem. So what do you do at that point?<br />
<br />
Certainly, there are those who would argue that it’s wrong to abandon a friend in a time of crisis like this one—that you ought to continue to stand by him and remain loyal for as long as he needs you. But I think that this just makes you complicit in his act of self-destruction. The right thing to do in a case like this is to try as much as possible to get your friend to change, but, when it becomes evident that he has no intention of doing so, you have to put an end to your friendship for the sake of your friend. And any loyalty that you have towards him must be suspended until he agrees to do something about his problem.<br />
<br />
The examples I’ve used above involve friends, but what I’ve stated about the limits of loyalty apply to family as well. If a family member—a parent, a sibling, or a child—becomes to engage in activities that cause harm to themselves or others, I think that we have a moral obligation to terminate our relationship with these family members in order to help them become morally responsible individuals again. To think otherwise would be to imply that family relationships trump all moral duties and obligations that we have in life, and this is simply not true.<br />
<br />
I also think that if we really care about people—whether they are family, friends, or less intimate acquaintances—we would be as concerned about their moral welfare as we are for their physical, financial or social welfare. And the closer individuals are to us, the greater, I believe, are our obligations to care for their moral well-being. In this sense, we should have even higher moral standards for our close family members and friends than we do for other members of society…not because we want to treat them harder than we do others, but because we care about them even more.<br />
<br />
I know that there are those who would reject the position that I’ve laid out on the limits of loyalty. Some would probably argue that I am being overly ridged and moralistic and that no one could adopt the kinds of moral standards towards family and friends that I’ve argued for here. If that’s the case, feel free to challenge what I’ve said in this piece. But consider first how you would respond if you discovered that a friend or family member was involved in the kinds of situations that I’ve described above. And then reflect on whether the continuation of your absolute loyalty towards these individuals—supporting them “no matter what”—would be better or worse for them than the kind of tough love that I’ve argued for.</div>
<div align="justify">
</div>
Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17553667997271035725noreply@blogger.com52tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8498014398474863655.post-55261962478781027272013-09-21T00:00:00.000-04:002013-09-22T09:41:40.411-04:00Religion: America's Drug of Choice<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong>by Alex Romeo</strong></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In a recent post, <a href="http://wisdomshaven.blogspot.com/2013/09/examining-marxs-opiate-of-people.html">Dr. Stephan T. Mayo</a> explores the implications of Marx’s belief that religion functions as a kind of opiate, preventing the masses from changing society for the better by getting them to fixate on their future lives in heaven. Mayo, like many academic philosophers, feels compelled to offer a “fair and balanced” position on religion that avoids offending the delicate sensibilities of any believers who might read his piece.<br /><br />I am not a “professional” philosopher, so, thankfully, I am under no such constraints. I’m a proud activist and an even prouder atheist. And in my mind, it is precisely my atheism that makes me so effective as a catalyst for social change.<br /><br /> There was a time, however, when I wasn’t quite so clear about my position on religion as I am now. As a naïve philosopher major at NYU, I dabbled at one point or another during my college years with most of the world’s major religions. I even had a stint as a Christian, having been persuaded by a classmate that I had the hots for to get involved for a year with the Catholic Worker movement in Manhattan.<br /><br /> But by my senior year I had been immersed in the ideas of Marxism and anarchism and had begun to realize that political activism was my true calling. After senior year, I moved into an anarchist community and began to work with other like-minded friends to change the unjust social structures in our society that condemn millions of Americans to lives of poverty, deprivation, and despair.<br /><br /> After ten years of doing this type of work, I can tell you without any hesitation, that the greatest enemy of social change is religion. Faith in an all-powerful, all-knowing God, and faith in the existence of some warm and fuzzy afterlife induces a kind of intellectual and moral inertia in the hearts and minds of believers that makes them simply incapable of acting collectively to fight against social and economic injustice.<br /><br /> Now, I’m not even talking here about mindless evangelic types, like the ones we have occupying most of the southern portion of the United States. These are people whose religious faith has literally turned them into zombies, rejecting reason, science, and most of the enlightened ideas of the past two centuries. These are people who dismiss climate change as some kind of liberal hoax, even though their communities have been hit hardest by droughts and wildfires that are directly attributed to climate change. And these are people who have placed their trust in the very right-wing politics that have driven them into the underclass.<br /><br />I’m not talking about these types of believers who are, quite simply, beyond all hope and reason. I’m talking here about the average run-of-the-mill, everyday sort of believer. The kind of people who go to church or services on Sundays and who sincerely do their best to try to live according to the dictates of their own faith. These are not rabid reactionaries, racists, or homophobes. They’re decent, ordinary people, who feel badly about the poor and may even be involved in charitable activities, like working in soup kitchens or volunteering at homeless shelters.<br /><br />They are the true enemy and need to be eradicated.<br /><br /> How can I say this, you might be wondering? Because the ordinary believers, no matter how compassionate they might seem, actually work against long-term progressive social change. They opt to engage in charity rather than activism, and aim at amelioration of unjust social structures rather than completely uprooting these unjust social structures And all their efforts do is perpetuate a status quo that has led to greater income inequality, worse working conditions for the poor and middle class, and the degradation of our planet’s fragile ecosystems.<br /><br /> This, I believe, is where Marx’s idea of religion as an opiate for the masses comes into play. The believer—by the very nature of his faith—is forced to see his ultimate destiny as transcending this world. This world is merely a way station on the journey to the believer’s true home—heaven. So no matter how committed the believers might be to social justice, there is always a limit to how far he is willing to go in his quest to fight for those who are the victims of injustice. Acts of charity are fine; political agitation and revolt is not. The very charity that stem from the believer’s faith act as a kind of opiate that eases the conscience of the believer (“At least I’m doing something.”), but at the same time prevents him from engaging in truly valuable forms of political activism (“That’s going too far for me”).<br /><br />And, if things don’t work out quite so well in this world, the believer always has the consolation that the benevolent father-figure he calls God will make things turn out just fine in the next life.<br /><br />In the end Marx was completely correct in his assessment of religious faith of all types. Once the idea of God is dead, and the delusion of an afterlife eliminated, then we have only this world to contend with. The fantasy world of the next life becomes just that—a fiction that I can contemptuously dismiss as a kind of insane temporary delusion.<br /><br /> In the end there is only one real choice: stay addicted to the opiate of religious belief and allow this world—my true and only home—to become a shithole, or I can work with others to change society and make it more just and humane.<br /><br /> What other option is there?</span></div>
Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08087572092964365964noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8498014398474863655.post-87483397189900634082013-09-18T14:44:00.001-04:002013-09-18T14:45:59.465-04:00Examining Marx's Opiate of the People<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-pXGbWQ5fMzM/Ujn0hMBUSMI/AAAAAAAAAtE/cnU0hjQ0IuU/s1600/marx.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="356" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-pXGbWQ5fMzM/Ujn0hMBUSMI/AAAAAAAAAtE/cnU0hjQ0IuU/s640/marx.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Cambria;"></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="font-family: inherit;">Stephan T. Mayo</span></strong></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="font-family: inherit;">Professor of Philosophy</span></strong></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="font-family: inherit;">Molloy College</span></strong></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The great architect of the international workers revolution,
Karl Marx, set out as an objective to critique all of the societal props that
were, in his view, maintaining the Middle-class capitalist dominance over the
oppressed and exploited working class. Religion stood high on his list as a
mythical appeasement mechanism wielded by the ruling class over the workers. It
functioned as “the opiate for the people,” a kind of drug that eased the harsh
pangs of the underlying reality of their subsistent wages, social alienation
and enslavement. Religion provided “pie in the sky when you die” so that worker
disgruntlement under capitalism would not break out into revolt due to the fact
that their sacrifice now would be rewarded in the afterlife. This notion that
religion is merely a sop to tamp down the reality of harsh and emendable
current conditions has recently made a comeback. Recent studies show that
religious belief and practices are highest in the poorest and least
technologically developed countries and that the more developed a country is
the least religious is its population.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>These trends have been used to support the Marxist critique of religion.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Theistic criticisms of the Marxist analysis accuse him of
reduction of religious belief to one of its manifestations, thereby missing the
true essence of religion. Rather than denying outright that religion has the
psychologically comforting effect of ameliorating harsh economic conditions, many
theists grant this consequence of religious belief. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, that leaves standing the actual
evidence and reasonableness of the theistic position. These would still be
present even if religion were more psychologically disturbing and anxiety producing
than an atheistic outlook, as many of the scrupulous can attest.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Using the analogy of patriotism, it is quite clear that the
patriot enjoys positive emotions when singing anthems, saluting the flag,
celebrating national holidays or listening to patriotic oratory. She could also
be comforted that, despite her personal struggles in the current economy, her
Nation is great and doing well. However, patriotism does not necessarily mean
that one is an uncritical jingoist (“my country right or wrong”) One could remain
loyal to the country while descrying the excesses of patriotic fervor and while
being highly critical of one’s nation’s foreign or domestic policies. To draw
the analogy, the religious need not make the comfort they draw from their faith
to be the primary basis of it. To be an enlightened citizen one can appreciate
the strengths of one’s nation and its promise while recognizing its failures
and weaknesses. For the faithful the affirmation of their religion may
recognize its evidential reasonableness while acknowledging the emotional
excessiveness and irresponsible complacency for bad and emendable social
conditions that many religious believers fall into.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17553667997271035725noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8498014398474863655.post-85999623903925678772013-09-09T08:48:00.002-04:002013-09-09T08:57:14.712-04:00A Different Sort of Wager<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hTVqxhvA0FQ/Ui3DLhAHwYI/AAAAAAAAAss/hRjbLx3a0Q4/s1600/wager.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hTVqxhvA0FQ/Ui3DLhAHwYI/AAAAAAAAAss/hRjbLx3a0Q4/s640/wager.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<strong>Michael S. Russo</strong></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<strong>Professor of Philosophy</strong></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<strong>Molloy College</strong></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I remember reading Pascal’s wager
as a freshman in college.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even back then
I thought there was something cold and calculating about the argument.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After the extraordinary leap of logic that
Anselm makes in his ontological argument and the majestic cosmological vision
of Thomas Aquinas’ five ways, Pascal’s wager seemed like a middle class
banker’s approach to the question of God’s existence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I wish that I could say that Pascal’s
argument has grown on me over time, but, if anything, I hate the argument even
more now than I did as a freshman.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span></span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Let’s start with a brief summary
of what Pascal claims are our options with respect to belief in the existence
of God:</span><o:p><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Our first option, he says, is to
assume that God exists and live our lives accordingly (i.e., with as much
faith, hope, and love as we can muster).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>If God does exists, says Pascal, we’ve won the big prize—eternal life
with him in heaven; if he doesn’t exist, on the other hand, nothing much is
lost.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><o:p><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The second option is to live our
lives assuming God doesn’t exist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If, in
fact, he doesn’t, then there’s no problem.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But there’s also the possibility that God does exist, and he may not
take kindly to those who have rejected him (Just think about how hot the fires
of hell must be and how interminably long they’ll last….Yikes!).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><o:p><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">According to Pascal, the sensible
betting man, then, will always choose option 1 (belief in God), since the
rewards for belief are great and the penalty for unbelief is too horrible to
even consider.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><o:p><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In an attempt to show where
Pascal goes wrong, I’d like to offer my wager-like argument.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>My wager makes the exact opposite point of
Pascal’s, but I think that it stands up much better than the French logician’s
argument does.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><o:p><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Once again, let’s assume we have
two options:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(1) believe in God and live
out our lives with faith and devotion or (2) reject the belief in God and live
out our lives as atheists.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><o:p><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Let’s start with the second
option first.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If we reject belief in God
as a silly superstition of a bygone era, there are certainly consequences to
holding this belief, as Pascal maintains.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But what exactly are those consequences?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>If God doesn’t exist, then we are free to live out our lives with
enlightened self-interest.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There would
be no rules we would be forced to follow, except those leading to our own
happiness and the happiness of those we love, no transcendent commands hanging
over our heads, no life lived in fear of damnation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Certainly, all this will come to an end with
death, but at least while we’re alive we’d actually be living, instead of
postponing our ultimate happiness to the next life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And our lives would probably be a heck of a
lot more fun while we’re here, because we’re living for ourselves instead of in
observance of some antiquated religious precepts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><o:p><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">But what if God does exist and
we’ve opted not to believe in him?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Isn’t
the danger involved in this choice so great that it is best to be avoided at
all costs?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That may be true, but only if
we believe in a very nasty and vindictive sort of God—a petty potentate who
punishes his followers who fail to acknowledge his greatness by unceasing acts
of submission and groveling.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is that the
kind of God who really can claim the title “Supreme Being”?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He certainly doesn’t sound all that supreme
to me.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I like to think that a Supreme
Being, if he does in fact exist, would be at least as moral as the most moral
human being imaginable—a Gandhi or an Albert Schweitzer, for example.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s hard to imagine our most moral human
being behaving like a petty potentate when he encounters those who refuse to
acknowledge his greatness.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Rather, our
most moral human being would probably respond to resistance the way a bemused
parent does towards difficult children—with tolerance, sympathy, and, ultimately,
forgiveness.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So, if our God is actually
more like Gandhi than Benito Mussolini, the consequences for not believing in
him—if we are following our consciences, at least—would probably not be all
that horrible.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><o:p><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Now back to the first option: we opt
to believe in God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If he exists, there
seems to be no problem—no problem, that is, if he really is the petty potentate
who demands obedience, even at the cost of the conscience of his followers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That sort of God would certainly reward blind
faith.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But again, let’s imagine that our
God is at least as moral as the most moral human being that we can
imagine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Would such a superior being
reward his followers for believing in him and groveling over him out of fear, or
ignorance, or the desire for reward? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I
think not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, if our God were at
least as enlightened as the most moral human being he would probably respect
the conscientious atheist much more than the groveling sycophant who simply is
covering his bets in order to reap the big reward (eternal life in heaven). </span><o:p><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Finally, let’s say we believe in
God and he doesn’t really exist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Pascal
would say that this is no problem really, because we’d still be living a much
more moral and decent life than the non-believer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But one could argue that possessing faith in
the absence of a legitimate object of faith is the height of folly.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You’d be wasting much of your life praying,
going to services, doing devotions, and following commands, duties, and
obligations that don’t make any sense in the absence of our petty
potentate-like God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even if you only
spend three hours a week engaged in worship and acts of service—and this would
seem to be the bare minimum amount that any serious deity desiring the devotion
of his followers would expect—that would mean that you’ve spent 11,520 hours
over the course of your life focused on appeasing a being who doesn’t actually
exist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In that amount of time just
imagine all the wonderful things that you could have been doing instead—spending
more time with family and friends, enjoying nature, working to make the world
you live in a better place, or just sleeping an extra 42 minutes a day (some
people would kill to have that extra time in bed!). </span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Now, I am certainly not arguing
that God doesn’t exist; nor am I arguing that the life of an atheist makes more
sense than that of a believer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The point
of this exercise is to show that if we opt to follow Pascal and use a
wager-type approach to religious belief, the argument for unbelief is as strong—if
not stronger—than that for belief.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In
the end, the gambler’s approach to matters of faith is as foolish an exercise
as playing roulette by always putting all your chips on black rather than red,
because you’ve heard that black has a higher probability of winning than
red.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even if you do win in the end, the
experience of playing this sort of game is simply not all that much fun.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If, however, you actually derive some deep
satisfaction from the act of gambling itself, if you leave a casino feeling
like you life has a greater meaning and purpose, than by all means continue to
gamble.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><o:p><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Of course, my analogy here is
that religious faith makes sense if it brings greater meaning, purpose, and
happiness to one’s life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And this is
true regardless of whether or not God exists.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>So believe and enjoy, believe and find peace, but please, don’t believe
simply to hedge your bets.</span></div>
Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17553667997271035725noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8498014398474863655.post-26674087361568969922013-09-08T10:41:00.001-04:002013-09-09T08:59:58.134-04:00On the Existence of God<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-f1JqzSEqHQI/UiyL9ptrxwI/AAAAAAAAAsc/V__0v_inu5w/s1600/god.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="232" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-f1JqzSEqHQI/UiyL9ptrxwI/AAAAAAAAAsc/V__0v_inu5w/s640/god.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong>Michael S. Russo</strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong>Professor of Philosophy</strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong>Molloy College</strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div align="justify" style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">As a young student of philosophy,
I remember reading St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument and being simply amazed by
the majesty and elegance of his “proof” for the existence of God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“The being greater than which none can be
conceived”—That’s Anselm’s idea of God, and the reality of this being is so
self-evident that one would have to be an utter fool to think that God does not
exist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Anselm’s argument is, in fact, so
elegant that, as an 18 year old, I could only think, “That’s it, man.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>All questions about God’s existence now must
be put to rest.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">But as the years passed, I
changed—as young men always do—and my certainty about the existence of a
Supreme Being like the one Anselm talks about became somewhat less certain.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I imagine that if I were living
in Europe in the 11<span style="font-size: small;"><sup>th</sup> century, I really would have had to be a fool
not to believe that the universe was governed by an all-powerful, all-perfect,
all-knowing God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Go to any town in just
about any country in Europe today and the first thing you will see, rising
above all the other buildings and smack in the center of town, is a massive
church or cathedral of some sort.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And
when you walk inside one of these European churches, you can’t help but be
impressed by their scale: these are simply monstrous buildings that aim at
inspiring awe and devotion in anyone who enters them.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In the 11<span style="font-size: small;"><sup>th</sup> century,
when Anselm lived, just about every aspect of life was centered around the Church
and on religious practices and devotions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In every country there were mystics and saints who claimed to have experienced
the vision of God and, as a result, were given incredible spiritual gifts to
reward their faith.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Medieval Europe, in
short, was a God-centered place where miracles abounded, and you truly would
have to be a fool not to believe that there was a pretty powerful God behind
everything.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">But we’re not living in the
Middle Ages any more.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We’re living in
the 21<span style="font-size: small;"><sup>st</sup> century and are products of the Enlightenment and the
scientific revolution of the 20<sup>th</sup> century.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We have alternative narratives now that do a
pretty good job explaining the origin and nature of the universe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God, it would seem is no longer needed to
account for why we are here (evolution does that) and where we are ultimately
heading (the answer:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>biological
decomposition).</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Now there are those—evangelicals
and religious conservatives, in particular—who seem to have made it their
mission to reject any and all scientific evidence that contradicts the “sacred
truths” they read in the Bible.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For
these men and women the existence of God is as self-evident today as it was in
the 11<span style="font-size: small;"><sup>th</sup> century.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And , if
scientific fact disputes any “truths” contained in Sacred <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Scripture, then the answer is to reject
science rather than attempt to understand Scripture in a less literalistic
light. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">No, the existence of God can by
no means be considered self-evidently true any longer, and we must acknowledge
that modern science does provide us with a quite plausible way to explain
reality without bringing the idea of God into the discussion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But that doesn’t mean that the belief in
God’s existence is unreasonable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is
nothing logically contradictory about believing that the universe was created
by an all-powerful being, who has existed for all eternity, and who, for one
reason or another, is interested in the well-being of puny creatures like
ourselves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A contemporary scientist might find this idea
implausible, but, if he were truly objective, he would be forced to acknowledge
that God’s existence, at the very least, is not completely and totally outside
the realm of possibility.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I prefer to treat the question of
God’s existence with a healthy balance of skepticism and openness.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We ought to be skeptical about religious
beliefs for the same reason that we ought to be skeptical about all truth
claims—because there is a heck of a lot of nonsense in our world that is being
passed off as “objective” or “eternal” truth and we ought to be suspicious of
it all.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But that doesn’t mean that we
can’t at the same time be open to the possibility that such “truths” could
actually turn out to be quite true.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">“Skepticism + openness.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That should be the philosopher’s motto.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And, when it comes to religious questions
like the existence of God, that same motto should be our guide and our
yardstick.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“God exists;” “God doesn’t exist.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Show me the evidence for either proposition
and then let’s argue about this point the way real philosophers should:
passionately, objectively, and, preferably, over a nice cold pint of beer.</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><br />
<br />
</div>
Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17553667997271035725noreply@blogger.com5