Month: October 2023

From the Mail Bag: Occasionalism

A reader  e-mails:

Great blog, thanks for writing it!

Are you familiar with the writings of the Muslim philosopher Al-Ghazali and his idea now called "Occasionalism"?  It seems to me that the person of faith must give up his/her faith in cause and effect for the supernatural to make sense, and Al-Ghazali seems to be the only person to have ever understood this.

Thanks again for your blog!  It's fantastic!

Am I familiar with occasionalism?  Indeed I am and have given it quite a bit of thought.  I advocate a contemporary version of occasionalism in "Concurrentism or Occasionalism? American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, vol. LXX, no. 3, Summer 1996, pp. 339-359. This post will give the reader some idea of what occasionalism is.

Does the believer have to give up his faith in cause and effect for the supernatural to make sense?  No, at the very most he would have to abandon certain views of causation.  That there is causation in the natural world is undeniable, a 'Moorean fact,' a datum.  Anyone who denies this is a lunatic who belongs in the same 'bin' with eliminativists in the philosophy of mind.   

For if one were to deny causation, then one would in effect be denying that there is any difference between causal and non-causal event sequences.  But surely there is such a difference as all will admit including al-Ghazali and Malebranche.  I flip a switch (e1) and the light goes on (e2).  At the same time as e2 occurs the phone rings (e3).   E1-e2 is a causal event sequence. E1-e3 is not.  Philosophers are not in the business of denying such data as these.  Philosophical questions about causation first arise when we ask what it is for one event to cause another.  That there is causation is a pre-philosophical datum.  What causes what is a question for experience and science.  What causation is is a philosophical question. In particular, what distingusihes a causal from a non-causal event-sequence?  The questions and problems ramify out endlessly from here.  For example, if causation is a dyadic relation, and events are its relata, and if a relation cannot obtain between x and y unless both x and y exist, does this commit us to the tenseless existence of events and the rejection of presentism in the philosophy of time? And of course beyond all this lies the ultimate terminus of the philosopher's quest, the Uncaused.

Some theories of causation are inconsistent with theism, but not all are.  For example, if it is maintained that all causation is event-causation and that there cannot be be agent-causation, then classical theism is ruled out.  For the causa prima of classical theism, God, is obviously an agent-cause. And I should also point out that one can be a theist without holding an occasionalist theory of causation.  For example, once could be a concurrentist.  But this is not the place to go into these details.

Sam Harris on the Moral Difference between Israel and her Enemies

On this topic Harris is right.

The truth is that there is an obvious, undeniable, and hugely consequential moral difference between Israel and her enemies. The Israelis are surrounded by people who have explicitly genocidal intentions towards them. The charter of Hamas is explicitly genocidal. It looks forward to a time, based on Koranic prophesy, when the earth itself will cry out for Jewish blood, where the trees and the stones will say “O Muslim, there’s a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him.” This is a political document. We are talking about a government that was voted into power by a majority of Palestinians.

The discourse in the Muslim world about Jews is utterly shocking. Not only is there widespread Holocaust denial—there’s Holocaust denial that then asserts that we will do it for real if given the chance. The only thing more obnoxious than denying the Holocaust is to say that it should have happened; it didn’t happen, but if we get the chance, we will accomplish it. There are children’s shows in the Palestinian territories and elsewhere that teach five-year-olds about the glories of martyrdom and about the necessity of killing Jews.

[. . .]

What do we know of the Palestinians? What would the Palestinians do to the Jews in Israel if the power imbalance were reversed? Well, they have told us what they would do. For some reason, Israel’s critics just don’t want to believe the worst about a group like Hamas, even when it declares the worst of itself. We’ve already had a Holocaust and several other genocides in the 20th century. People are capable of committing genocide. When they tell us they intend to commit genocide, we should listen.

There is every reason to believe that the Palestinians would kill all the Jews in Israel if they could. Would every Palestinian support genocide? Of course not. But vast numbers of them—and of Muslims throughout the world—would. Needless to say, the Palestinians in general, not just Hamas, have a history of targeting innocent noncombatants in the most shocking ways possible. They’ve blown themselves up on buses and in restaurants. They’ve massacred teenagers. They’ve murdered Olympic athletes. They now shoot rockets indiscriminately into civilian areas. And again, the charter of their government in Gaza explicitly tells us that they want to annihilate the Jews—not just in Israel but everywhere.

Related: America's Betrayal of Israel

Watch this video. That’s a Hamas drone taking down an Israeli Merkava tank. A drone operated by an organization sponsored and trained by Iran applying both Iranian tactics and, most likely, Iranian hardware to attack Israel. This happened weeks after America sent Iran $6 billion, and one week after we learned that the American government had over the past years ceded whole parts of its own intelligence units to Iranian spies.

The stage for this attack was not set in or by Israel. It was set by the United States.

But even worse, and not only for us, is America's betrayal of America. Our borders, Southern but also Northern, are open to every terrorist and every criminal group in the world. They are busy establishing their sleeper cells and installations in the homeland, all with the tacit approval of the Director of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas and his boss Joe Biden. Tacit approval by action, or rather inaction, masked by explicit and brazenly mendacious denial. That is your government at work, with your tax dollars, working to destroy your country and way of life. So long as you remain Democrat you go right along with it.

Our Islamist enemies want to destroy the Little Satan, but even more, the Big Satan. You might want to think about that.

You might also want to think about why there is a mere inquiry into the possible impeachment of Joe Biden which, you know, is not the same as his removal from office, on the ground of bribery and influence peddling when there is a much more grievous "high crime and misdemeanor" for which he ought already to have been impeached and removed, namely, his violation of his oath of office and dereliction of duty. I refer you to the U. S. Constitution which Biden took an oath to uphold and defend:

Article 4, Sec. 4 of The United States Constitution makes it clear the Federal government must stop such an incursion of foreigners into the country exactly like the one we are seeing. Here is what was written by our Founding Fathers concerning our republican form of government.

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

The Lapse of Laïcité: Cause and Effect

Substack leader. In this entry I unpack what I consider to be a brilliant insight of Finkielkraut.

Alain Finkielkraut:

Laicity is the solution that modern Europe found in order to escape its religious civil wars. But contemporary Europe doesn’t take religion seriously enough to know how to stick to this solution. She has exiled faith to the fantastic world of human irreality that the Marxists called “superstructure”… thus, precisely through their failure to believe in religion, the representatives of secularism empty laicity of its substance, and swallow, for humanitarian reasons, the demands of its enemies.

Why Mix Philosophy and Politics?

I have been asked why I intersperse political entries with narrowly philosophical ones.  But in every case the question was put to me by someone who tilts leftward.  If my politics were leftist, would anyone complain?  Probably not.  Academe and academic philosophy are dominated by leftists, and to these types it seems entirely natural that one should be a bien-pensant  lefty.  Well, I'm here to prove otherwise.  Shocking as it will  seem to some, leftist views are entirely optional, and a bad option at that.

I could of course post my political thoughts to a separate weblog.  Now a while back I did effect such a segregation, sending my political rants and ruminations to my Facebook page, so that MavPhil, now in its 20th year, might hew apolitically to the philosophical straight and narrow.  I might have continued had the Facebook bums not gone on a phishing expedition: they demanded my smart phone number  to set up two-factor authentication, "for my protection." Pure bullshit, of course; FB is not a venue for which one needs such protection.  I refused to hand over my smartphone number and so the FB bums blocked me. No loss; I have backups of everything I posted there of value. FB is pretty much of a joke in any case: a site for endless 'selfies,' what-I-had-for-dinner, and other displays of narcissism.  And the comments I received there were of little or no value. 

Posting the political to a separate weblog would also violate my 'theory' of blogging.  My blog is micro to my life's macro.  It must accordingly mirror my life in all its facets  as a sort of coincidentia oppositorum of this situated thinker's existence: Sitz im Leben (Dilthey) – θεατής όλων των εποχών και της ύπαρξης (Plato).

Philosophy is hard enough without being done in a police state, which is what our once great republic is becoming if it hasn't already become. Do you deny the fact, or say you don't care? Then then I have a message for you. 

Cuellar Carjacked

Poetic justice. Henry Cuellar is a Democrat. Democrats are leftists. Leftists have an exceedingly casual attitude toward criminal behavior. It's really no big deal to them. Cuellar's main complaint? "They stole my sushi."

If, for whatever reason, you like crime, then I advise you to vote Democrat early and often.

Related: Leftist activist and do-gooder Ryan Carson was stabbed to death in front of his girlfriend in an apparently unprovoked attack.  Carson was the victim of the very 'progressive' policies that he himself promoted. So he must bear some responsibility for bringing about his own death. And what was Carson doing out at night on the mean streets of NYC without a weapon? 

Cases like this are increasingly common.  Unless you are morally obtuse, you will understand why justice demands capital punishment in such cases. That 'progressives' oppose the death penalty is proof positive that they have a casual attitude toward criminal behavior.  

Democrats are astonishingly stupid people. They supposedly want fewer guns in civilian hands. So what do they do? They promote policies that incentivize concealed carry! There is no common sense on the Left. 

I too want fewer guns in civilian hands. When laws are enforced, civilians will feel safe and won't feel the need to look to their own defense.  

How Long Can We Last?

Historian Hanson wrote in January of 2022: 

In modern times, as in ancient Rome, several nations have suffered a “systems collapse.” The term describes the sudden inability of once prosperous populations to continue with what had ensured the good life as they knew it. 

Abruptly, the population cannot buy, or even find, once plentiful necessities. They feel their streets are unsafe. Laws go unenforced or are enforced inequitably. Everyday things stop working. The government turns from reliable to capricious if not hostile. 

It is now October, 2023, and things are far worse.  We are closer than ever to systemic collapse. We do have it over the Bishop of Hippo in one respect, however: we can watch the decline and fall of a great republic on television! So far it is almost entertaining, and exceedingly stimulating for those of us of an intellectual bent, and it may remain such for a while as long as we can live our lives without being carjacked, mugged, shot to death, raped, and so long as our pharmacies and supermarkets remain open, the grid remains functional, and so on. Not to mention being thrown in prison by the agents of the police state with the tacit support of the useful idiots that make up about half of the population.

But it is only a matter of time before we are all, government functionaries and useful idiots included, swept up in the death spiral if we don't do something pronto.  Is societal collapse inevitable? I say No; my friend Brian thinks me naive. He may be right. (Argue your case, son.)

What say you?  How much time do we have before the sun finally sets on the Land of Evening? How much time do we have before der Untergang des Abendlandes?

We are drowning in excellent analysis when we need action. Trouble is, ameliorative action is out of the question in a nation as divided as we have allowed ourselves to become.

Galen Strawson on Nicholas Humphrey on Consciousness

Substack latest.

Strawson is right against Humphrey, but his own theory is worthless.

See also: The Problem of Consciousness and Galen Strawson's Non-Solution

UPDATE (10/3).  A friend referred me to this article which I judge to be very bad indeed. See if you can make out what is wrong with it.

White Flight and Racism

Does racism explain white flight? Here is an interview with Jack Cashill. Excerpts:

Your book challenges the conventional “white flight” narrative. In brief, what were whites fleeing, if not black Americans moving into their neighborhoods?

I got the book’s title from a childhood friend, the last guy to leave our block. When I asked him why he left, he said, after a moment’s reflection, the neighborhood had become untenable. When I asked what “untenable” meant. He said, “When your widowed mother gets mugged for the second time, that’s untenable. When your home gets invaded for the second time, that’s untenable, too.”

Newark had become untenable for people of all races. Cissy Houston, Whitney’s mother, writes “Our home no longer resembled the safe haven we had envisioned for our children. After the riots, John [Houston] and I started thinking about leaving Newark.” Three years later, they left.

[. . .]

Is there any truth to the conventional narrative that racial unease drove the exodus?

I did not address the South, but in the Northeast and north-central U.S., attachment to neighborhood was a more powerful determinant than racial unease. The unease rarely caused flight until it became tangibly associated with crime and school disorder. Homicides in Newark increased sixfold from 1950 to 1972. That is a hard indicator to dispute or overlook.

[. . .]

What did you think of the depiction of the 1967 riots in David Chase’s Sopranos prequel, The Many Saints of Newark?

Glad you asked. As a major fan of the series, I was stunned by the clumsiness of the film. Chase grew up liberal deep in the Newark suburbs and rooted for the rioters. The George Floyd mania apparently revived his inner wokeness. In 1967, even Alabama police did not behave the way that he accused Newark cops of behaving. As the son, nephew, and cousin three times over of Newark police officers—one of whom gave me a two-day tour of the city for this book—I register a hearty protest.

Here is a review of Jack Cashill, Untenable: The True Story of White Ethnic Fight from America's Cities. Excerpt follows. Note the references to James Burnham and Simone Weil.

What about racism, though? Surely, some taint of it must have been there, but what role did it play, exactly? We’ll never know because no one ever inquired into the motives of the only people who could answer: Bill and Sandy, Artie and Mario, Hannah and Jack.

All the social experiments instituted for our benefit by our betters—forced busing, urban renewal, public housing, interstate highways—cascaded together in Newark in just a few mind-boggling years. They were ginned up in Washington and sold on the basis of social science. But when you attempt to explain, predict, or alter human conduct on the basis of numbers, you make mathematics into metaphor.

When you’ve finished crunching numbers, you move on to crunching people. Little Italy is flattened and replaced by a housing project that’s just a slum in the making; an elevated superhighway is plunged through the heart of Roseville; and more drugs circulate through the schoolyards than in Bogotá. When, at long last, people find all these conditions “untenable,” they leave. The exodus is then labeled “white flight,” and the people leaving get labeled “racists.” But what label should we affix to the geniuses in Washington who conceived and executed the whole cock-up? We call them “experts.”

The experts never pause to talk to Bill and Sandy, Artie and Mario, Hannah and Jack. Why would they? The experts aren’t really there to protect the interests of the purported beneficiaries of their projects. In The Managerial Revolution, James Burnham wrote that all large organizations eventually come to serve the interests of their permanent staffs. Ronald Reagan said that the most frightening words in the English language are, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.” Here to help themselves, says Burnham. They look on the working stiff not as the object of the beneficent program but as an obstacle to it.

Worse than the selfishness of the administrator is his solipsism. The federal agency hardly notices that Bill and Sandy, Artie and Mario, Hannah and Jack actually exist. Before the managerial revolution arrived, back in 1934, Simone Weil, then a Marxist, wrote an article saying that Marx had failed to foresee one form of oppression: bureaucrats could crush working people at least as badly as the most exploitative capitalist. As Weil wrote elsewhere, “Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity. It is given to very few minds to notice that things and beings exist.” Members of the expert class seldom  notice.