The Real Culture War

Please study the following photographs.  They depict adherents of the 'religion of peace' making such statements as: Behead those who insult Islam; Freedom go to hell; Be prepared for the real holocaust.

Image008

Image005

 

 

Image002 

There is a sort of 'culture war' going on between liberals and conservatives in the West. But this minor culture war, as heated as it has become recently, is, despite its importance, as nothing compared to the major war between the West, with its Enlightenment values, and militant Islam. To put it roughly, we in the West are all or most of us liberals, classical liberals. The touchstone of classical liberalism is toleration, as I recall the famous CCNY philosopher Morris R. Cohen writing somewhere. Along the same lines, savor this admirable passage from Bryan Magee's Confessions of a Philosopher (Modern Library, 1999, p. 183):

Continue reading “The Real Culture War”

Tribute to Morris R. Cohen: Rational Thought as the Great Liberator

Morris r cohen Morris Raphael Cohen (1880-1947) was an American philosopher of naturalist bent who taught at the City College of New York from 1912 to 1938. He was reputed to have been an outstanding teacher. I admire him more for his rationalism than for his naturalism. In the early 1990s, I met an ancient lady at a party who had been a student of Cohen's at CCNY in the 1930s. She enthusiastically related how Cohen had converted her to logical positivism, and how she had announced to her mother, "I am a logical positivist!" much to her mother's incomprehension.

These are timely words. Dogmatism is the basis of all fanaticism.  Dogmatism can be combatted by the setting forth of one's beliefs as conclusions of (valid) arguments so that the premises needed to support the beliefs become evident.  One can also show by this method that arguments 'run forward' can just as logically be 'run in reverse,' or, as we say in the trade, 'One man's modus ponens is another man's modus tollens.'

In Cohen's day, the threats to civilization were Fascism, National Socialism, and Communism. Today the threat is Islamo-totalitarianism. Then as now, logic has a small but important role to play in the defeat of these threats.  The fanaticism of the Islamic world is due in no small measure to the paucity  there of rational heads like Cohen. 

But I do have one quibble with Cohen. He tells us that "Every material proposition has an intelligible alternative…" (Ibid.) This is not quite right. A material proposition is one that is non-logical, i.e., one that is not logically true if true. But surely there are material propositions that have no intelligible alternative. No color is a sound is not a logical truth since its truth is not grounded in its logical form. No F is a G has both true and false substitution-instances. No color is a sound is therefore a material truth. But its negation Some color is a sound is not intelligible if 'intelligible' means possibly true. If, on the other hand, 'intelligible' characterizes any form of words that is understandable, i.e., is not gibberish, then logical truths such as Every cat is a cat have intelligible alternatives: Some cat is not a cat, though self-contradictory, is understandable. If it were not, it could not be understood to be self-contradictory. By contrast, Atla kozomil eshduk is not understandable at all, and so cannot be classified as true, false, logically true, etc.

So if 'intelligible' means (broadly logically or metaphysically) possibly true, then it is false that "Every material proposition has an intelligible alternative . . . ."

Blame Wifey!

Wives have their uses: you can blame things on them.

Can't reach the mayonnaise the instant you open the refrigerator door? Blame wifey for 'hiding' it behind a phalanx of overpriced frou-frou condiments she bought at Trader Joe's. You say your Allen wrenches aren't in their appointed spot in the tool box? Blame wifey for commandeering them for an art project. The toilet seat is not in its default position, namely, UP? Blame wifey. The toilet paper is installed backwards, or, in the patois of the pleonastic,  'ass backwards'?   Blame wifey.

Always and everywhere, up market and down, blame wifey.

If my female readers, all two of them, are offended by this, they may substitute 'hubby' for 'wifey,' or if they are really PC, 'spousy' for 'wifey.' But, to cop a line from Muddy Waters, I'm a man, and a man cannot have a spouse without having a wife. 'Homosexual' when concatenated with 'marriage' is an alienans adjective.

This message is approved by my wife. Blame her for it.

California Grabs Ten Percent More in Withholding

One of the defining characteristics of liberals and leftists is a deep-seated quasi-religious belief in the benevolence and efficacy of big government, the bigger the better, and this despite repeated demonstrations of government incompetence, inanity, mendacity, and trickery.  This from the Associated Press (emphasis added):

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California wage earners will soon notice a little less money in their paychecks. Starting Monday, employers in the cash-strapped state are required to withhold 10 percent more in state income taxes to help ease the budget problems. It's part of a plan to artificially inflate state revenue by $1.7 billion through next June.

Brenda Voet, a spokeswoman for the state Franchise Tax Board, says it's technically not a tax increase since workers will get their money back after April 15. A single wage earner making $51,000 a year with no dependents will get about $4 less a week.

So it's just an accounting trick?  But it is worse than that: an arbitrary seizure of citizens' money 'justified' by the principle that might makes right, that what one can do, one is justified in doing.  You've heard of 'ought' implies 'can'?  This is  'can' implies 'may.' 

It will be interesting to see if  the California taxpayers get their money back.  Where will that money come from, yet another accounting  trick?

The Left’s Death Wish

Something that has long puzzled me also puzzles Michael Liccione. Mike puts it like this:

Shouldn't liberals be the most concerned about Islamic fundamentalism, given that the things they profess to value are the first things they would lose under Islamist pressure? It's hard to avoid the conclusion that this sort of liberal hates political conservatives and orthodox Christians more than he loves his own liberty. And he wishes to cling desperately to his own self-image as a defender of the poor, oppressed minorities, even when some of those poor, oppressed minorities would just as soon see him and his kind swinging from the gallows.

Substantially correct. But if I may quibble, 'Islamic fundamentalism' may not be the right term. Better would be 'militant Islam' or 'radical Islam' or 'Islamism.' A fundamentalist, as I understand the word, is one who interprets the scriptures of his religion literally, as God's own inerrant word. Thus Islam, if I am not mistaken, holds that the Koran was literally dictated by God to Muhammad in Arabic. Whatever one thinks of fundamentalists in this sense, it seems obvious that they should not be confused with militants or terrorists. Although fundamentalists and terrorists are sets with a non-null intersection, there are fundamentalists who are not terrorists and terrorists who are not fundamentalists.

It is important to try to think as clearly and precisely as one can about these issues, distinguishing the different, and forging one's terminology in the the teeth of these differences.   And the more 'hot-button' the issue, the more necessary is clear and precise thinking.

Geen Ketter Sonder Letter: No Heretic Without a Text

Benedict de Spinoza, A Theologico-Political Treatise, Ch. XIV, Dover, 1951, tr. Elwes, p. 182:

. . . a person who accepted promiscuously everything in Scripture as being the universal and absolute teaching of God, without accurately defining what was adapted to the popular intelligence, would find it impossible to escape confounding the opinions of the masses with the Divine doctrines, praising the judgments and comments of man as the teaching of God, and making a wrong use of Scriptural authority. Who, I say, does not perceive that this is the chief reason why so many sectaries teach contradictory opinions as Divine documents, and support their contentions with numerous Scriptural texts, till it has passed in Belgium into a proverb, geen ketter sonder letter — no heretic without a text?

Eminently incorporable in a post contra fundamentalism. 

Seneca and the Consolations of Chess and Philosophy

A correspondent reminds me of the following passage from Seneca's De Tranquillitate XIV, 6-7, tr. Basore:

Will you believe that Canus spent the ten intervening days before his execution in no anxiety of any sort? What the man said, what he did, how tranquil he was, passes all credence. He was playing chess when the centurion who was dragging off a whole company of victims to death ordered that he also be summoned. Having been called, he counted the pawns and said to his partner: "See that after my death you do not claim falsely that you won." Then nodding to the centurion, he said, "You will bear witness that I am one pawn ahead."

A little farther down, at XIV, 10, Seneca pays Canus the ultimate tribute:

Ecce in media tempestate tranquillitas, ecce animus aeternitate dignus, qui fatuum suum in argumentum veri vocat, qui in ultimo illo gradu positus exeuntem animam percontatur nec usque ad mortem tantum sed aliquid etiam ex ipsa morte discit. Nemo diutius philosophatus est.

Here is tranquillity in the very midst of the storm, here is a mind worthy of immortality — a spirit that summons its own fate to the proof of the truth, that, in the very act of taking that one last step, questions the departing soul, and learns, not merely up to the point of death, but seeks to learn something even from death itself. No one has ever played the philosopher longer.

The Epicurean Cure

Epicurus as quoted by Pierre Hadot in Philosophy as a Way of Life: Spiritual Exercises from Socrates to Foucault (Blackwell 1995, p. 87):

We must concern ourselves with the healing of our own lives.

He proposes a TETRAPHARMAKOS, a four-fold healing formula:

God presents no fears, death no worries. And while good is readily attainable, evil is readily endurable.

Continue reading “The Epicurean Cure”

Nocturnal Permission

This sometimes happens: You dream you are amorously entangled with a woman not your wife. But you know you are dreaming, and you  begin philosophizing within the dream about the moral propriety of enjoying the sexual intercourse in the dream.  You ask yourself: Should  I give my nocturnal permission to this nocturnal emission?

If I am not mistaken, St Augustine discusses this question somewhere in his vast corpus.  But I forgot where.

Interesting to note that the permission and the emission occur, if they occur,  in reality, not in the dream.

Charles Hartshorne on Abortion

The eminent philosopher Charles Hartshorne (1897-2000) in Concerning Abortion: Attempt at a Rational View writes:

What is the moral question regarding abortion? We are told that the fetus is alive and that therefore killing it is wrong. Since mosquitoes, bacteria, apes and whales are also alive, the argument is less than clear. Even plants are alive. I am not impressed by the rebuttal “But plants, mosquitoes, bacteria and whales are not human, and the fetus is.” For the issue now becomes, in what sense is the fetus human? No one denies that its origin is human, as is its possible destiny. But the same is true of every unfertilized egg in the body of a nun. Is it wrong that some such eggs are not made or allowed to become human individuals?

Continue reading “Charles Hartshorne on Abortion”

Conservatism, Religion, and Money-Grubbing

This from a reader in Scotland: 

I'm a first year undergraduate philosophy student with some very muddled political views. My father has always been a staunch supporter of the Left to the point of being prejudiced against all things on the conservative or Right side as 'religious' and 'money grubbing' . I never questioned any of his beliefs until perhaps a year or two ago. Now that I have began studying philosophy I cannot ignore this lazy neglect and the time has come to develop my own political views.

The next time you talk to your father point out to him that there is nothing in the nature of conservatism to require that a conservative be religious.  There are conservative theists, but also plenty of conservative atheists.  (I am blurring the distinction between religion and theism, but for present purposes this is not a problem.) Below you mention David Horowitz.  The Left hates him for being an apostate, but his conversion to conservatism did not make a theist of him.  He is an agnostic.  Conservatism at one end shades off into libertarianism, one of the main influences on which is Ayn Rand.  She was a strident atheist. 

Opposition to conservatism is often fueled by opposition to religion.  But surely one can be conservative without being religious just as one can be religious without being conservative.  There is a religious Right, but there is also a religious Left, despite the fact that 'religious Left'  is a phrase rarely heard.  Here in the States a lot of liberal/left mischief originates from the Reverend Jesse Jackson, the Reverend Al Sharpton, and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.  (One may well doubt whether these gentlemen are worthy of the 'R' honorific.)

As for 'money-grubbing,' you might point out to your father that there are money-grubbers on both the Right and the Left, and that there is nothing in the nature of conservatism to require that a conservative be a money-grubber.  In fact, studies have shown that conservatives are much more charitable and generous than liberals/leftists.  See Conservatives are More Liberal Givers.  It is sometimes said that capitalism has its origin in greed.  But this is no more true than that socialism has its origin in envy. 

To feel envy is to feel diminished by the success or well-being of others.  Now suppose someone were to claim that socialism is nothing be a reflection of envy: a socialist is one who cannot stand that others have things that he lacks.  Driven by envy alone, he advocates a socio-political arrangment in which the government controls everything from the top, levelling all differences of money and status, so that all are equal.  Surely it would be unfair to make such a claim.  Socialism does not have its origin in envy, but in a particular understanding of justice and what justice demands.  Roughly, the idea is that justice demands an equal distribution of money, status and other social goods.  Conservatives of course disagree with this understanding of justice. What we have are competing theories of justice.   Just as it is a cheap shot to reduce socialism to envy, it is a cheap shot to reduce a free market approach to greed.

It was namely for the philosophical content that I started reading your blog but I gradually became enthralled with your conservative views . They have uprooted many of my fickle Left-leaning political ideas . Now I am left increasingly uncertain about many political questions that I commonly held as beautifully obvious. I have began noticing the phenomenon of 'political correctness ' at University and am not entirely sure what to think of it.

Are there specific books you recommend for anyone who wants to find some sense in this Liberal climate ? I have been considering picking up some of Horowitz' writings.

I am glad that my writing has had the effect of opening new perspectives for you.  Unfortunately, universities have become hotbeds of political correctness and indoctrination when they should be places where ideas of all sorts are critically and openly examined.  I would recommend Horowitz to you, in particular, Destructive Generation, Left Illusions, Radical Son, and Unholy Alliance.  He has also written a couple of books on the politicization of the universities.  Among academic philosophers, I recommend the works of John Kekes.

Obamacare: Lawyers Win, Doctors Lose

Today's column by Dennis Prager is a must-read.  Excerpt (emphasis added):

If the 1,990-page House Health Care Bill becomes law, the average American will receive worse health care, American physicians will decline in status and income, American medical innovation will dramatically slow down and pharmaceutical discoveries will decline in number and quality. And, of course, the economy of the United States will deteriorate, perhaps permanently.

However, we are also certain that there is one American group that will thrive — trial lawyers. The very existence of a 1,990-page law guarantees years of, if not more or less permanent, lawsuits. And the law actually specifies that states that do not limit attorneys' fees in cases of medical malpractice shall be financially rewarded.