Your Thoughts, My Thoughts

I'm writing this as a response to a post a friend of mine made at the beginning of December. My friend discussed their beliefs, and why they think that they are justified. I want to take a moment to address two of them.

That God or the gods, have reason. That we should not all argue I am right you are wrong. [sic] Just try to get along with our different beliefs. That is true compassion. Respecting and getting along with those who think and see the world differently from you.

I have no problem with people of different religious (or non-religious) backgrounds peacefully co-existing with one another. It's a very admirable goal, and one I support. However, I think that we should argue. We have every reason to do so, and no reasons not to do so.

I want to remind people that an argument isn't necessarily a disagreement. An argument can be a discussion from differing points of view, a method of reasoning from one point to another using logical steps. [Link] Non-believers argue with believers because they feel that (in their view) unjustified belief can cause real damage. And they do. With the fear of free discourse, there can be no free discourse. If our society and our culture are to move forward, we must be ready to have difficult discussions. I think that John Stuart Mill established these ideas fairly well in his work, On Liberty.

In addition, I do not find it acceptable to respect another person's ideas simply because of their faith. Respect implies that there is validity. I will not respect (I may not even tolerate) an idea that I find anathema to good ethics. This isn't to say that I won't respect the person. An individual may strongly disagree with another person's arguments, but may still respect that person. This is a mark of a civil society, and all that a civil society should ask of us is that we tolerate one another.

That people who say religion is bad and it should be gone all together are nieve. [sic] Every one [sic] has the right to belive [sic] what they want. And although I myself am not a huge fan of religion, that does not mean it should be gone. Every one will continue to belive [sic] what they will. Getting rid of the church, or temple or moske [sic] will not stop the faith.

I do not believe that people who say 'religion is bad' and perhaps even 'the world would be a better place without religion' are naive. Some of them are the most intelligent and articulate people I'm aware of. I myself, in the past, have counted among those who thought that the world would be a better place without religion. I may do so in the future. The difficulty is that we live in a world of religion, and we have no world without religion to compare it to. We have no way of knowing if a world without religion would be a better world than the one we live in now. I do agree that everyone has the freedom to believe in whatever they want, and that religious faith will persist.

Together, I think that these are 'Shut up, that's why' arguments. I see aspects of an argument from suppressed premises here. In the first case, I believe my friend neglects why the disagreement exists in the first place. In the second, they neglect to mention why some people think that religion is harmful, or bad. Further, if people are entitled to believe what they wish, as my friend suggests, does that not include the belief that religion is harmful? I don't think so.

I have a few minor disagreements with a few of my friend's other ideas, but that is (perhaps) a discussion for another time.

Brave New Philosophy

Sorry, it's not really about Aldous Huxley or his works.

One thing I've been noticing more and more lately about modern language is that there is often a disconnect between what people say and what they actually mean. I think that peoples' grasp of the English language is degrading. Not to say that its devolving, there's no such thing. The English language is evolving, but not in what I would consider a progressive way. You need only watch Fox News for a short period of time before a pundit uses 'liberal' in a context that is far more suited to perhaps 'socialist' or 'communist.' This is at best the result of ignorance. At worst, it is willful misrepresentation. People are letting connotations carry more weight than actual denotation.

I've also noticed another trend. To put it in a phrase: "You cannot be X because you are Y." People are defining other people not just by who or what they are, but who or what they aren't. More and more an 'Us' and 'Them' mentality is developing. This is frightening. This type of mentality often, and perhaps inevitably, results in conflict. A divided population less attuned to the subtleties of the English language, combined with powerful rhetoric can be dangerous. We have see the results of this combination before. Revolutionary Russia. Israel and Palestine. South Africa during Apartheid. The United States during the civil rights movement. Quebec during the FLQ crisis. There are many other factors involved in each of these scenarios of course, but I believe that these two are common to all of them.

This lack of education and social division are issues that must be addressed by our societies if we wish to progress in a manner that is beneficial to all. (Here come the pundits, calling me a communist.)

I want to make a point. I want to prove that I am not merely 'X.' I can also be 'Y.' Schools of thought are not mutually exclusive. There are merits and drawbacks to every system of thought, and to limit oneself to a single philosophy is foolhardy.

I am a liberal. (But I could also be called a conservative or socialist as far as economic matters are concerned.)

I am an agnostic, and an atheist.

I am a feminist, and an environmentalist.

I am a metaphysical naturalist, an existentialist, a nihilist, a humanist, a rationalist, a neo-objectivist, a materialist and physicalist, a stoic and a skeptic, a hedonist and an epicurean.

P.S. Storyteller, I'm happy that that conversation went as well as it did and I'm glad my honesty is appreciated.

Existential Crisis, Pt. 3

Alternately titled "I Really Hope This is the Last One for Now."

My "Anonymous" commenter has graced my blog once again. I'll block quote him here for simplicity:

It all depends what you mean by "exist" and "true". I don't think the number 3 exists (point to it) in the same sense that you exist. And as for propositions, consider two propositions "Toronto is in Canada" and "There are infinitely many prime numbers". How much of the truth of a statement depends on how we ascertain its truth?

For purposes of my last entry "exist" was defined as "having casual power or a physical location in space." I admit that this is a very restrictive definition of the term that does not allow for the "existence" of numbers or other abstract concepts. That was a mistake. Numbers certainly do exist, even if they are only constructs of the human mind.

[On a side note, I was going to make a joke about how I had become a "numeral agnostic" because of my belief that it was impossible to prove the physical existence of numbers or the mental construct of numbers in my mind or anyone else's. Or possibly that I had rejected number theory and become an adherent of numerical formulation.]



Now, how much of the truth of a statement depends on how we ascertain its truth?

I freely admit that I haven't studied epistemology in depth yet. I think it is fair to say that there are different methods of ascertaining truth. However, if any part of that method is illogical or fallacious, then the result of that line of reasoning is likely to be illogical or fallacious as well. Truth is not a democracy; unalterable facts are not open to debate. (Technically they are, but the decision of a committee won't change the fact itself.)

As a point of interest, I've been reading about Empiricism and Methodological Naturalism lately.

Editor's Note:
I was originally going to write this post based around the joke, but that was over a month ago. As I opened up the draft tonight I ended up addressing the question anyway. It's about time I finished it. Next time: Procrastination, Academia, and angst. (Emo?)

Existential Crisis, Pt. 2

Originally this post was going to be my commentary on equality. However, I've been distracted by end-of-semester finals. Thankfully, an anonymous comment left on my last entry (maybe not so anonymous, I think I know who it is) has provided me with a question to address. It also segways into another topic I had wanted to discuss, but had previously forgotten about. This is what I was asked:

Where do abstract certainties like 1+1=2 or bivalence come into your view?

Now this may seem like a store shelf type of answer, but when I was discussing uncertainty in terms of knowledge, I was referring to the physical universe (or concrete objects, if you are so inclined). I should have clarified that. Abstract ideas make the matter far more complicated.

It can be argued that abstract ideas do not actually exist (and are therefore abstract) because they lack a location in space, the lack of casual power, etc. This puts abstract ideas in an interesting position. Can abstract ideas be true if they do not exist? I see no reason why they cannot. Common tautologies include mathematical proofs. To use an example from above: 1+1=2, 2=1+1

I'm not really sure where to take this entry from here, so I'll leave it up to my readers. Any comments, questions, or criticisms are welcome.

P.S. I know I'm one entry behind. I'll try to come up with something interesting to keep you entertained.

Existential Crisis

I was originally intending for this post to be about equality and it's role in our society, but I was worried that some of my arguments/explanations could be misconstrued. I'm going to take my time to write everything out properly and have it reviewed by at least one of my peers. Instead, I want to talk about existential crises.

For a period, perhaps last May to October, I experienced an existential crisis. Recently, this led me to create this little nugget of wisdom:

"Life is an extended existential crisis - and then you're dead."

This wasn't my first existential crisis, to be sure. I recall strong feelings of cognitive dissonance when I went through a period of depression several years ago.

I spent a lot of time contemplating my place in the universe, who I am (and what I am for that matter), and people watching while nursing a coffee at my favorite cafe. (I usually do that last one regardless of what I'm feeling.)

Going back to my 'nugget of wisdom' I had originally viewed it as a bit humourous, but now I see some truth in it as well. I do not think that it is likely that we, as human beings, can know anything with absolute certainty. I do believe however that we can reduce the amount of uncertainty to a negligible degree. We may accept whatever is ~99.99% true as fact, but there is always the slightest percentage that we are, in fact, incorrect. (Or at least incomplete in our knowledge of the subject in question.)

As such, I've resigned myself to an existence of limited certainty and (begrudging) skepticism. For now, at least. Perhaps numbers are indeed everything, as some would propose. I guess that makes life a gambler's game.

I would like to end by paraphrasing Lisa Hoffman:

"Life is like Pi - natural, irrational,
and very important."

Ozy & Millie

Hello readers. While browsing the internet, as I am wont to do, I came across a link that I'd like to share with you. It's a webcomic, one that (to me, anyway) bears a resemblance to Calvin & Hobbes. It's philosophical, has social commentary, and has the simple humour and wisdom of a pair of young children. Things that I think we are lacking today. It also has an eccentric ex-hippie dragon.

Notable quotes range from the insightful, to the simply absurd:

"To mindlessly do the opposite of what everyone else is doing is merely another way of making oneself a slave to popular opinion."

"Always proactively untwist octagonal hippopotamus pants."

Meet Ozy & Millie: http://www.ozyandmillie.org/index.html


...I want a top-hat and John Lennon sunglasses.