| Tuesday, October 29, 2002 | |
 |
Mountains of Mail (and Snow Too)
By Diana Hsieh @ 10:26 PM   
The mountains of e-mail piling up in my inbox will simply have to sit for a while, as Paul and I are headed to Front Sight for a repeat of the Four Day Defensive Handgun Course. (Sorry folks!) Unfortunately, I haven't yet gotten any sort of reply from Piazza about my most recent e-mail to him. (For those who don't know what I'm talking about, go check out my Front Sight, Ignatius Piazza, and Scientology? mini web site.) Nevertheless, I hope to be able to talk to Naish while I'm there -- if only to turn my Ambassador Program materials in to him.
 E-mail Diana Hsieh
 PermaLink
 Comments (Popup)
 BloggerThis
|
| Monday, October 28, 2002 | |
|
Original Sin
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:31 AM
Arthur Silber has served up an excellent post on original sin. Having been raised an atheist, I've never managed to wrap my mind around the moral monstrosity that is the doctrine of original sin. How anyone could look at a newborn baby and declare him or her sinful is beyond me. But John Calvin managed:
The two things, therefore, are to be distinctly observed, viz., that being thus perverted and corrupted in all the parts of our nature, we are, merely on account of such corruption, deservedly condemned by God, to whom nothing is acceptable but righteousness, innocence, and purity. This is not liability for another's fault. For when it is said, that the sin of Adam has made us obnoxious to the justice of God, the meaning is not, that we, who are in ourselves innocent and blameless, are bearing his guilt, but that since by his transgression we are all placed under the curse, he is said to have brought us under obligation. Through him, however, not only has punishment been derived, but pollution instilled, for which punishment is justly due. Hence Augustine, though he often terms it another's sin, (that he may more clearly show how it comes to us by descent,) at the same time asserts that it is each individual's own sin. And the Apostle most distinctly testifies, that "death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned," (Rom. 5: 12;) that is, are involved in original sin, and polluted by its stain. Hence, even infants bringing their condemnation with them from their mother's womb, suffer not for another's, but for their own defect. For although they have not yet produced the fruits of their own unrighteousness, they have the seed implanted in them. Nay, their whole nature is, as it were, a seed-bed of sin, and therefore cannot but be odious and abominable to God. Hence it follows, that it is properly deemed sinful in the sight of God; for there could be no condemnation without guilt. (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Chapter 1, Section 8, emphasis added Oh yes, Christianity is a religion that loves humanity! E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Sunday, October 27, 2002 | |
|
Jesus The Scientologist?
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:38 AM
I just got my first pro-Scientology e-mail from someone called "Beka," under the subject "Jesus The Scientologist":
If Jesus came back to Earth what would he see. He would see folk being electroshocked in asylums rather than being shown a little kindness and allowed to recover. He would see the education system decaying with the students being prescribed drugs rather than having their study problems addressed. He would see drug-crazed kids going on shooting sprees wiping out their teachers and classmates. He would be in grief with what he saw.... (The post on the message board also added this tidbit: "Jesus would look around for those people in society who were doing something effective to handle the situation and he would find the Church of Scientology. And Jesus would become a Scientologist himself.") I wrote her this note in response: Hi Beka, E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Saturday, October 26, 2002 | |
|
Hypocricy and the Marketplace of Ideas
By Diana Hsieh @ 1:57 PM
The ever-insightful Arthur Silber has an interesting post on hypocrisy and public intellectuals. His basic argument is that the question of whether an idea is true or not is wholly and entirely separate from the question of whether the advocates of the idea consistently practice it. From a purely logical reasoning perspective, I agree with Arthur. Simply put, tu quoque is a fallacy. Critics of hypocritical intellectuals should focus on the failures of their ideas, not on upon the failures of their personal lives.
That being said, we should be aware that a more complicated picture emerges when we consider the process by which people rationally investigate ideas. There are countless intellectuals in the world all vying for our attention. But there simply isn't enough time in the day to consider all of these ideas equally. So we use various heuristics to weed out the likely bad ideas. For example, we generally don't bother listening to people who are unfamiliar with the major research in a given field. Of course, it is possible for someone to do brilliant work without being familiar with all of the relevant research. But it far more likely that such a person will make elementary mistakes. All else being equal, we're far better off attending to the ideas of those knowledgeable of their field than ignorant. (Advanced degrees are at least a sign of being well-versed in a given field, which is why they are taken fairly seriously.) Of course, none of this reasoning constitutes proof by any stretch of the imagination. But it is a useful heuristic that allows us to more effectively manage the flow of ideas in our life. Similarly, we tend to pay less attention to ideas advocated by people who fail to live up to them. Why would that be? First, intellectuals commonly advocate all sorts of loopy ideas that could never consistently be practiced, such as genuine altruism. So by looking at whether the adherents of an idea actually practice that ideal may serve as a rough estimate of whether the idea is at all consonant with the facts of reality. After all, doesn't the whole priest-pedophelia scandal in the Catholic Church tell us something about the ideal of chastity and the Church's actual concern for children? At least that information should raise doubts. So hypocrisy in public intellectuals is a sign (but again, not proof) that something is amiss with their ideas. Second, intellectuals sometimes advocate ideas as a means of controlling others rather than because they believe the ideas themselves. For example, some people argue that religion is false -- but necessary for the stupid unwashed masses. Without the fear of God, such pragmatic elitists argue, the filthy hordes would run amok with no moral constraints at all! But of course, educated and refined people have no need for such delusions. So the fact that such intellectuals do not practice what they preach is a consequence of some rather nasty underlying views about humanity. Third, intellectuals will sometimes advocate ideas because they fulfill some pathological psychological need, rather than for their relation to reality. For example, someone might argue that its morally acceptable to steal from corporations because to condemn the theft would be to condemn their father, who routinely stole from work. Or a woman might stridently argue against pre-marital sex due to her own guilt about lying to her fiancee about her virginity. Here hypocrisy alerts us to the possibility of non-rational motives for advocating an idea. So to ignore certain intellectuals due to their hypocrisy is not irrational. We have limited time to spend investigating ideas, so we ought to use that time wisely. That being said, I agree with Arthur that critics of ideas ought to focus their attention on the ideas themselves rather than the personal conduct of its advocates. But once the ideas have been demolished, the hypocrisy may well be noteworthy, as something of icing on the cake. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
|
Scientology Update
By Diana Hsieh @ 10:36 AM
I've just updated my "Front Sight, Ignatius Piazza, and Scientology?" mini web site. The most important addition is my third e-mail to Piazza. There I provided links to reliable information about the misdeeds of the Church of Scientology, argued that Piazza's personal involvement the Scientology would likely seriously damage Front Sight as well as the gun rights movement, and let Naish know where my line in the sand is on this issue. I would urge anyone who thinks Piazza's personal involvement with the Church of Scientology isn't all that important to read that e-mail.
Piazza's reply will be critical for me, I suspect. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Thursday, October 24, 2002 | |
|
An Update on "Michel Paquerot"
By Diana Hsieh @ 9:07 PM
The largely one-sided dialogue with "Michel Paquerot" continues. In response to his previous inquiries as to whether his comments constituted enlightenment, I simply responded, "No. Anything enlightening requires more periods."
I have since received two e-mails from him. On Tuesday, he simply wrote, "i wonder if such is the case inasmuch as interpretative labor may be enlightening". (Normally I wouldn't put the period outside the quotes, but I want to quote him exactly.) Then today, he wrote: the first e-mail I sent can be given the following summary or rather analysis.Remember that we anted to argue that the empirical is the logical.The argument has two clauses.According to the first of these clauses for a theory of what is proof ( logic or epistemology )we can only adduce as empirical,proof that is truth-conditions.According to the second a theory is in every case a theory of what is proof or its own logic(epistemology).Taking into account the first clause we may infer what was to be argued for.I`d like a comment of what may be grossly said to be the content of the argument rather than such formalities as punctuation marks. I'm not sure what my reply will be. Any suggestions? E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Wednesday, October 23, 2002 | |
|
Coercive Pacifism
By Diana Hsieh @ 1:21 PM
Eugene Volokh has some interesting comments on coerced pacificism, namely the will to ban others from defending themselves. After some examples of this view, he writes:
Pacifism is not my view of the world, but at least those who practice nonviolence in their own lives are just taking their own lives into their own hands. If they tell me (as some friends of mine have) that they don't think they could pull the trigger to kill someone who's trying to rape or even kill them, that's their choice. But the proposal on the list isn't just pacifism: This is an attempt to force nonviolence on others, by threatening to imprison them for exercising what I see as one of their most fundamental rights. Let's call it the pacifist-aggressive approach. I don't like it. Me neither! E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Monday, October 21, 2002 | |
|
Enlightenment? Not!
By Diana Hsieh @ 10:25 PM
Someone calling himself "Michel Paquerot" sent me these two messages under the subject heading "enlightenment" while I was away. Anyone who can make sense of them deserves a gold star.
Sunday's message: consider the possibility that there is identity of the logical and the empirical first because in logic or in epistemology proof-or truth-conditions are all the empirical we can adduce and second inasmuch as we consider that any theory is a theory of what is proof or as we may otherwise say a proof apparatus or that each theory is its own epistemology or logic and as such by our first clause can adduce as empirical proof-or truth- conditions.I wonder whether you will deem this enlightenment. Monday's message: imagine that a criteriological device or proof apparatus is quantification over truth values no matter how much then there is a higher order such criteriological device or a meta-criteriological device addording to which every fully general theory of what is proof is a theory of what is the proof of all such theories. Wow. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Thursday, October 17, 2002 | |
|
Up Up and Away
By Diana Hsieh @ 11:10 PM
I'm headed out of town tomorrow morning for a Camp Indecon meeting. I'll be back on Monday evening.
Console yourselves while I'm gone with this hysterical parody of Objectivism. (Thanks to Eric Barnhill for the link.) If you are looking for something a bit more weighty, read Testimony: The Autobiography of Margery Wakefield. It's sad and disturbing. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
|
An Announcement
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:50 AM
I have created a mini web site devoted to the issue of the involvement of Front Sight's Ignatius Piazza with Scientology. I chose to do this not because I have an ax to grind, but because (1) I think the issue is terribly important, (2) the information is scattered around on the web, and (3) too much of the debate is polarized. So in my Front Sight, Ignatius Piazza, and Scientology?, I will be carefully and judiciously gathering and weighing evidence.
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Wednesday, October 16, 2002 | |
|
Captives
By Diana Hsieh @ 9:28 AM
I have been following the story on the ordinary Japanese citizens abducted by the North Korean government on Expats of late. A new entry reports that those citizens who are still alive after these 24 years of denials have been allowed to visit home. But their children are still being held captive in North Korea, so they will have to return in a week or so, presumably without saying anything untoward about their kidnappers. Deplorable is not a strong enough word. I'm not sure one exists.
The Japanese government is doing nothing, even proclaiming victory. Victory would be invading North Korea, installing a constitutional democracy, and allowing all North Koreans the freedom to come and go as they please. Incomprehensible stories like these make me grateful to be an American -- at least until I think of the American women trapped in Saudi Arabia. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Tuesday, October 15, 2002 | |
|
The Face
By Diana Hsieh @ 9:38 PM
Wow. The human face is an amazing thing -- so different and yet so the same over the course of a person's lifetime.
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Monday, October 14, 2002 | |
|
Problems with Blame Assignment Problems
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:35 PM
In response to my post on The Four Steps of Purposefulness, Robert Campbell sent me some interesting comments via e-mail. What follows is his comment and my reply.On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Robert L. Campbell wrote: In Artificial Intelligence jargon, what makes step 4 hard is called a "blame assignment" problem. When you fail at some project, is it because your overall goal was unrealistic? Or was the overall goal OK, but one or more subgoals weren't? Should you work harder--or work smarter--or change your overall goal--or abandon it? One thing that I think you can get AI and robotics types from every school of though to agree on: there is no algorithm for resolving most blame assignment problems. Thanks for giving me a name to put with the error! The basic problem of blame assignment, I think, stems from the fact that we are attempting to reach valid inductions under the worst of conditions. We often can't afford to repeat our mistakes in a quest to discern the exact cause of failure. Additionally, we are often dealing with such complex situations (particularly when multiple other people are concerned) that we cannot effectively test whether X or Y or Z is to blame because so many of the variables are changing all the time without our even knowing. Such problems do make the blame assignment problem inherent difficult. But for a great many people (particularly those that would benefit from Branden's book), such problems of induction are never even encountered. These people are mired in their own beliefs about the rightness of their action, so they simply keep repeating the same bad strategy over and over again. For such people, to have the "blame assignment" problem would be a big step in the right direction! Nevertheless, I do wonder what sort of methodology would be most effective in dealing with the inherent problems of blame assignment. There may be no single overall methodology, as situations may vary so greatly in their risks and complexity as to require radically different approaches. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
|
Critical Delights
By Diana Hsieh @ 1:09 AM
This gem quoted in Nordlinger's Impromptus was just too good to pass up:
“Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you are a mile away and have their shoes.” E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Friday, October 11, 2002 | |
|
New Information about Front Sight and Scientology
By Diana Hsieh @ 4:45 PM
As a result of yesterday's posting, I was pointed to some further information about Ignatius Piazza's connection to Scientology. Some of the information below comes from a "First Family Members Only" thread entitled Please Beware ... ! ! ! on the Front Sight Alumni Board. The rest comes from the public archives of the API list.
Perhaps most importantly, Piazza has repeatedly and clearly stated that Front Sight itself is not and will never be involved with any religion, Scientology included. Based on my own and others' experience, there is no reason to doubt him on this. But Piazza himself is another story -- and an important one. He does admit that he has been involved in Scientology. He says that he is "Clear," which means that he has probably spent over $100,000 to reach the alleged state of "total erasure of the reactive mind." (He also says that he has "attended Scientology services," although that is trivial.) Strangely enough however, Piazza also claims to be a Catholic. Piazza also admits that Front Sight uses "some of the business technology developed by L. Ron Hubbard." He lists other companies who do so as well, including Allstate (which had a disastrous run-in with the management system) and EarthLink (which is under fraud investigations as a result of its deep association with Scientologists). He claims that "Hubbard Business Management is the most used system of management in the world," but I have a sneaking suspicion that that's a ridiculously inflated claim. Perhaps most worrisome is Piazza's apparent evasion of multiple polite questions as to whether he is or is not a Scientologist. And also worrisome is his apparent denial of being substantially involved in Scientology in this post: Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20021004103153.03754e60@pop3.norton.antivirus.> Obtaining "Clear" is no small feat. It is not "some Scientology services," but rather part and parcel of being a Scientologist. Perhaps Piazza doesn't see it that way. Perhaps he doesn't understand the absurd contradiction of being a "Clear Catholic." I'm not sure. I'm going to write him an e-mail tonight, asking him a few blunt questions about his views on and support of Scientology. I'll explain to him why my professional integrity as a philosopher and relationship with Front Sight requires me to inquire, although I would prefer not to do so. I do hope this situation resolves well enough. Front Sight is an amazing place for firearms training, after all. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Thursday, October 10, 2002 | |
|
Front Sight and Scientology?!?
By Diana Hsieh @ 10:46 PM
Background
As some of you know, I am a supporter of Front Sight, a superb firearms training facility outside of Las Vegas. As a bit of background, Paul and I went to our first course (Four Day Defensive Handgun) this past April and were completely blown away by the experience. I attended the kickoff of the Ambassador Program in August. And Paul and I are returning to Front Sight in early November to repeat the Four Day Defensive Handgun course. Both Paul and I are also "First Family" members, which means that we paid a certain amount of money up front in order to be able to take certain set of classes for free. Last night, I learned that Front Sight has something of a PR brouhaha on its hands. Ignatius Piazza send out an e-mail reporting that as of last June, "a former Front Sight instructor suddenly began to circulate hate-group propaganda to some of our staff and students on the Internet and by rumor, attacking both Front Sight and me personally." That person is former Front Sight Instructor and Range Master Dean Gamburd who has posted an article entitled "The Fourth Secret" on Arnie Lerma's anti-Scientology web site, Lermanet. The basic accusation of the article is that Ignatius Piazza "is a hard core Scientologist using the Front Sight Firearms Training Institute as his personal Scientology recruiting ground, cash generator, and to further the ultimate goals and presence of Scientology." The result has been some debate and speculation on various gun forums, like in this thread on Glock Talk and this thread on the Front Sight Alumni message board. In the e-mail, Piazza denied these allegations by saying: I am aware that he [Dean Gamburd] is attempting to establish his own firearms training organization and has taken the irresponsible approach of spreading false rumor, misrepresentation, disparagement, slander and libel to damage the good work and outstanding reputation Front Sight has established. In other words, we reasonably believe he is lying for his own personal gain, to siphon off our students and staff, and to interfere with our ability to serve you and the Second Amendment. Some current Front Sight Instructors and Range Masters have also offered their testimony in support of Front Sight. On Glocktalk Bill Carns wrote, "I've never ... had Scientology brought up in any conversation I've ever had there." Bill Haag wrote: No one at Front Sight, or connected with Front Sight or with any Front Sight affiliated organization has ever approaced me with any information about Scientology. On Front Sight Alumni, John Woo wrote: Throughout my entire career at Front Sight, there has NEVER been any mention, attempt to recruit, or even a slight indication that Scientology was an influence. Indeed, in all the conversations and interactions I have ever had with Front Sight staff have been regarding firearms training, or some common social issue. (John Woo was our superb Range Master in our April Four Day Handgun course. I have no doubt that he is telling the absolute truth.) The Lack of Evidence This whole episode is rather disturbing to me, particularly as a philosopher who cares about little things like logic and evidence. Far too many people commenting in the thread on Glocktalk seem quite eager and willing to believe Dean Gamburd's accusations without any sort of solid evidence. One person called the information "interesting and highly disturbing." Another simply commented "scary." Yet another said "When I first heard he charged such and such for his different levels of membership, I had a feeling that the guy was not legit." Oh good, thanks for the "feeling"... Others are posting false rumors of their own. One said, "The way I hear it is that all of the main range masters must attend some scientolgy classes in order to keep their jobs." Another wrote, "Lets just say that in order to go up the instructors ladder they have some suited people give you readings,alone,you are not to let anyone know where you are for a week period of time, like just happen to one of their up and coming instructor. plus one instructor keeps scientology books and material out for others (wogs) to study on." No evidence whatsoever for these claims was given. The worst aspect of such comments is that they are almost entirely from people who have not actually ever attended Front Sight courses. Yet they seem determined to think ill of Front Sight; these accusations are just the latest excuse. (I've seen this pattern with respect to other issues as well, where the harshest critics of Front Sight are those with no direct knowledge of the issue or even experience taking the courses at Front Sight.) Those who have been to Front Sight were uniformly more reasonable in their assessments of the accusations. I was delighted to see that they restricted their claims to subjects of which they were actually knowledgeable. One writes: I have taken two classes at Front Sight in the past year. I was expecting the "sales pitch" to be rather hard. It was not. Basically, Piazza tells you how Front Sight started and his plans for it in the future. He then reviews the membership plans and that's it. There is no hard sell there folks. Another writes: I am not an instructor at Front Sight but have taken several classes there in Handgun and Shotgun. I can recommend it without reservation. The training and instruction is top notch. Another writes: I'm not affiliated with Frontsight in any way but I have been there a couple of times, most recently the weekend of 27-30 Sept. I totally agree with the statements made by Bill Haag. There was absolutley no mention of any religion, cult etc. The training is awesome, the instructors are great. The briefings on Frontsight givien by Piazza are given at lunch break and are purely optional. No one is forced to listen and they are very low key. The place is great and I have no reservations in going back. For the record, let me add that I have never heard any talk of Scientology at any Front Sight event -- ever. So given this range of uninformed and informed opinion, let's take a look at the strength of the actual accusations in Dean Gamburd's article "The Fourth Secret." 1. Gamburd claims that Piazza is a Scientologist. He references a document ("Scientology's Auditor publication #296 dated October 2001" published "published by 'ASHO' in Los Angeles California") in which Piazza is claimed to have reached "clear.") The problem is that we do not have any access to or even verification of the existence of this document. There is no online version, either as text or as a scanned image. In fact, it's unclear to what document or publication Gamburd is actually referring, as there is no proper publication title or publisher. 2. Gamburd claims that Piazza is "very short on Scientology conversions." Thus Gamburd claims that Piazza was "about to launch a full assault to help him move up the Scientology ladder, through the Front Sight First Family Ambassador Program and other soon to be announced programs." The problem is that the testimony of multiple Students, Instructors, and Range Masters offers no indication whatsoever of any recruitment efforts or even discussions of Scientology by Piazza or anyone else at Front Sight. I attended the big initial meeting of the Ambassador Program in Las Vegas. There was no mention of Scientology or presentations of any concepts of Scientology whatsoever. (I am familiar with and detest Scientology, so I would have noticed!) 3. Gamburd claims that Piazza spoke to him directly about being a Scientologist, send him and his wife some books, and offered to send them to Scientology classes for free. There is no independent confirmation of these facts. Given Gamburd's other groundless claims, we have good reason not to take him at his word. Independent verification would be needed, but none is offered. 4. The rest of Gamburd's article consists of innuendos about Piazza's handling of the finances of Front Sight, the curriculum at Front Sight, and more ludicrous claims about the Ambassador Program. (BTW, The management guru brought in for the Ambassador Program was Chet Holmes. He has no discernable association with Scientology whatsoever.) Dean Gamburd clearly has an ax to grind against Front Sight. He has no evidence to back up his claims. They should be dismissed as ludicrous. One Nagging Question That being said, I did have one nagging question about Piazza's e-mail. So I wrote to Ignatius Piazza about it directly. Here's the entire letter: Hi Naish, Naish only responded with "Thanks Diana." As I have expressed my concern about the wording and my views on Scientology, this matter is closed for me unless some actual evidence turns up. I don't entertain arbitrary hypotheses. However: Don't make the mistake of confusing dismissive my attitude towards baseless speculations with not actually caring about whether organizations and people I support are involved with Scientology. Given my views of Scientology, I would abhor being unknowingly associated with the Church of Scientology or any Scientologist. (After reading Monica Pignotti's My Nine Lives in Scientology, I could never be "whatever" about Scientology.) It is precisely the gravity of such situations that requires a careful and rational approach to judgment, not leaping to conclusions as so many have been all-too-willing to do. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
|
Notes on Descartes
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:26 AM
I'm pretty pleased with how my paper on Cartesian substance dualism paper turned out. But don't take my word for it, go see for yourself. (I've also posted my paper on Aristotle's view on substance in the Categories.)
In retrospect, I'm actually quite glad that my professor refused my proposed paper topic. I enjoyed delving deep into Descartes' reasoning in the Meditations, particularly since I've never looked in detail at his arguments in that work before. Also, it proved to be a valuable lesson in bad philosophical method -- despite Descartes' great attempts to be careful and rigorous. In the paper, I decided not to discuss Descartes' errors in adopting a "diaphanous model of the mind" because in reading David Kelley's comments on Descartes in Evidence of the Senses, I realized that a more fundamental and interesting point could be made. Kelley points out that Descartes' Evil Demon Hypothesis in the First Meditation requires the mind to be something capable of existence independent of any physical world or external reality. As a result, Descartes has committed himself to substance dualism long before he officially broaches the subject in the Sixth Meditation. Interestingly enough, in my research on the Meditations I found no other commentator on Descartes who noted this presumption hidden in the Evil Demon Hypothesis; Descartes' skeptical worries in the First Meditation were seen as unproblematic. That David Kelley guy is one smart cookie! I'm not entirely sure, but Bob Campbell seems to have made similar point about Descartes' presumptions in the comments: Descartes not only believes that mind is diaphanous and identity-less, he also assumes that it is able to know about itself without knowing anything about the external world. Isn't this "prior certainty of consciousness" assumption anti-biological per se? If I understand what Bob means, yes. Descartes can't possibly have a view of the mind as dependent upon the physical, biological organism if the mind must be capable of existence independent of the physical world. Thus, as I note in the paper, it makes sense that Descartes never considers the option that the mind might be an action or attribute of the brain or organism as a whole. Such an option would have been incompatible with his capacity to doubt body but not mind. In writing this paper and listening to Binswanger's tapes The Metaphysics of Consciousness, I feel like I'm finally starting to get a handle on what a philosophy of mind ought to look like. It's about time! E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Wednesday, October 09, 2002 | |
|
Updates and Apologies
By Diana Hsieh @ 10:59 PM
Let me offer my apologies to everyone I have been ignoring lately. My excuse is that I have been totally mired in my paper on Cartesian substance dualism these past few days.Delightfully, I have no classes tomorrow, thanks to fall break. So at least I'll have time to catch up with some household chores and philosophical work in these next few days. So I should be blogging frequently, hopefully on both philosophy of mind and philosophical method. In fact, in a few moments I'll be posting some notes on that paper that sucked up so much of my time in the past week. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Saturday, October 05, 2002 | |
|
Outline of Paper on Cartesian Substance Dualism
By Diana Hsieh @ 4:08 PM
I'm having trouble structuring my paper on Cartesian substance dualism. So perhaps a bit of blogging will get me going.
The paper topic is: Are minds and bodies essentially different substances that nevertheless causally interact? First, briefly spell out and explicate the basic steps of Ren´ Descartes's argument in the second Meditation for the thesis that he is essentially a thinking thing. Second, briefly spell out and explicate the basic steps of Descartes's arguments in the sixth Meditation for the "real distinction between the mind and the body" and for causal interactionism (you can also use the excerpts from the Passions of the Soul). Third, answer the following question and give detailed reasons for your answer: Is Cartesian substance dualism true? So there are essentially four issues to examine in this paper: So here's my basic game plan: Gilbert Ryle's essay "Descartes Myth" shows the absurdity of substance dualism by painting a clear picture of it as "the dogma of the Ghost in the Machine." Ryle's substantial philosophical arguments in this essay are thin, however, in that they largely consist of the suggestion that to speak of mind and body as a substance dualist does is to commit a category error. (Ryle's substantial arguments for the category mistake later in The Concept of Mind rest upon a behaviorist conception mind and body that need not be accepted in order to reject Cartesian substance dualism.) However, by looking more closely at Descartes' own philosophical premises and methodology, we see that many of the absurdities of substance dualism are the result of two basic problems with Descartes' arguments about body and mind: (1) Descartes repeatedly argues from epistemological premises about what can and cannot be doubted to metaphysical conclusions about what is possible or necessary. Descartes uses these methods to show that he is essentially mind, essentially a thinking thing. As such, he does not even consider the possibility that the mind might be an action or property of the body, such that having a mind would necessarily imply having a body as well. We need not accept the hidden premise of this methodology that we are infallible about what can and cannot be rationally doubted. If we are mistaken about the basic nature of something (as Descartes may be with respect to mind), then we may sometimes be mistaken about the doubtfulness of the existence of those things. With such fallibility established, we cannot accept Descartes' inferences from epistemology to metaphysics. (2) Descartes understands consciousness as essentially diaphanous, without identity. This diaphanous model of the mind is clear in Descartes' definition of mind in terms of what body is not, not in terms of what mind is. As a result, mind and body seem far more ontologically distant than they actually are. Additionally, coherently explaining the causal interactions between a body and a diaphanous mind is nearly impossible. A diaphanous mind could not have effects in the physical world, nor could the physical world have effects on a diaphanous mind. These two basic errors in Descartes reasoning about mind and body substantially contribute to his strange and unscientific account of the relationship between mind and body. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Friday, October 04, 2002 | |
|
More on Censorship
By Diana Hsieh @ 4:47 PM
Thinking for a moment about the censorship of the ARI by the Canadian government, I'm not sure which aspect of the situation angers me more:
Both are revolting, but the second is worse, I think. Anyone with half a brain knows that Canada doesn't have much respect left for individual rights. (According to the article, "Goods that constitute hate propaganda under the Criminal Code are those which advocate or promote genocide or promote hatred against an identifiable group distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin.") E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
|
Evil Made Visible: ARI Censored by Canada
By Diana Hsieh @ 4:31 PM
One frequently-heard critique of Ayn Rand's politics, even occasionally among alleged Objectivists, is that Rand too-narrowly construed the concept "censorship." Such people argue that the concept should apply to any action of preventing someone from speaking his/her mind to a particular audience.
In her essay "Man's Rights" in The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand herself summarized and argued against this view: Potentially, a government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims. When unlimited and unrestricted by individual rights, a government is man's deadliest enemy. It is not as protection against private actions, but against governmental actions that the Bill of Rights was written. Later, in the essay "The Cashing-In: The Student 'Rebellion'" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Rand correctly identified the attempt to broaden the concept of censorship to the actions of private actions as a package-deal. Speaking of "the obliteration of the difference between private action and government action," she wrote: This has always been attempted by means of a "package-deal" ascribing to private citizens the specific violations constitutionally forbidden to the government, and thus destroying individual rights while freeing the government from any restrictions. The most frequent example of this technique consists of accusing private citizens of practicing "censorship" (a concept applicable only to the government) and thus negating their right to disagree. Sadly, Rand has been vindicated in a distressingly personal way to the Objectivist movement, as Arthur Silber blogs and the National Post reports. The Canadian government has confiscated Ayn Rand Institute pamphlets defending Israel's moral right to exist on the grounds that they may be "hate speech." The pamphlets were on the way to the University of Toronto, as Yaron Brook will be speaking on the subject of Israel on Sunday. (I attended this talk in Denver. It was excellent. I only hope that this publicity will bring an overflow crowd to the event.) No person is forced to read this pamphlet or hear Yaron Brooks' speech. Contrary to the claims of some, that's not censorship. No news media is required to report on the event. That's not censorship either. No private organization is required to host the event. No printing company is required to print the pamphlet. No private shipping agency is required to ship the pamphlets. No airline is required to transport Yaron Brook to Toronto. Such things are not censorship. Such actions, if they occurred, might prevent Yaron Brook from gaining as wide of an audience as easily as he would like. But they would not prevent him from expressing his opinions. Only the government can accomplish that vile task, such as by confiscating pamphlets at the border! To equate private acts of refusal of association or refusal of attention with the forcible suppression of speech and thought by the government is to equate the normal actions of everyday life with the most insufferable violation of the human mind possible. It is a monstrosity, a monstrosity that gives the government censors a slippery slope of moral justification for their actions. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
|
Binswanger on Philosophy of Mind
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:05 PM
Speaking of philosophy of mind, my Binswanger tapes on philosophy of mind and related subjects (ordered from The Ayn Rand Bookstore) arrived mere moments ago. I'm particularly eager to hear his three tapes entitled "The Metaphysics of Consciousness," as the description promises a discussion of "the consciousness-brain relationship" among other issues. I'll post a review and commentary once I've heard them.
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
|
More Philosophy of Mind
By Diana Hsieh @ 11:52 AM
Bob Hanna, my philosophy of mind professor, graciously refused my proposed paper topic. He said that it was paper-worthy, but too big of a topic to tackle in a week. He's probably right, unfortunately enough. Ah well, at least by writing on a standard topic, I'll be able to watch football on Sunday.I'm electing to write on Cartesian substance dualism, as such a paper will at least give me an understanding of the problems of a classic view in the history of philosophy. The topic is: Are minds and bodies essentially different substances that nevertheless causally interact? First, briefly spell out and explicate the basic steps of Ren´ Descartes's argument in the second Meditation for the thesis that he is essentially a thinking thing. Second, briefly spell out and explicate the basic steps of Descartes's arguments in the sixth Meditation for the "real distinction between the mind and the body" and for causal interactionism (you can also use the excerpts from the Passions of the Soul). Third, answer the following question and give detailed reasons for your answer: Is Cartesian substance dualism true? I'll surely be blogging arguments against substance dualism this weekend that will later magically transform themselves into arguments for the paper. I still would like to look at the issues in my proposed paper topic at some point in the future. But it certainly wouldn't hurt me to have a bit more study under my belt before really attempting to sort out what the Objectivist view on these subjects ought to be! (Next semester, I'll be continuing my studies in the philosophy of mind with a course on mental causation, again with the excellent Bob Hanna.) On motivation for working on these issues sooner rather than later is that I really would love to submit a paper on philosophy of mind for the 2003 Advanced Seminar. The proposal and first draft would be due in late January, so I would have Christmas break to put something together based upon my writings this semester. Of course, thanks to Will Wilkinson and Robert Campbell for their comments! I'll have time to look at the particular suggestions after I complete this paper, which is due on Tuesday. Update: Due to serious philosophic and moral objections, I am no longer associated with The Objectivist Center in any way, shape, or form. My reasons why can be found on my web page on The Many False Friends of Objectivism. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Wednesday, October 02, 2002 | |
|
Philosophy of Mind
By Diana Hsieh @ 7:47 PM
I've been struggling to come up with an interesting paper topic for the first paper of my Philosophy of Mind class. The material is fascinating to me, but I'm feeling a bit lost in all of it. The standard topics are simply analyses of the articles that we've read on types of consciousness, intentionality, substance dualism, and behaviorism. None of the topics is grabbing my interest because the questions are so rigidly structured and because the philosophical methodology of the articles is so deeply flawed.
Most interesting to me, of course, is the question of what an Objectivist philosophy of mind should be. Is it a materialist theory? An emergentist theory? A dual-aspect theory? Although there are certainly theories that I can rule out at this particular point in time as grossly incompatible with Objectivism (like dualism and eliminitivism), I am still groping for even the outlines of a correct theory. The current debate in academic philosophy is mind is between materialism and dualism. This debate is so pervasive that alternatives are not merely seen as implausible, but impossible. A theory must either be a materialist or a dualist theory! As an all-too-brief overview, materialism argues that mind is reducible to matter -- if it exists at all. Dualism argues that minds are real and autonomous from matter. Most philosophers are materialists, so many of the debates in philosophy of mind focus on the varieties and details of materialism. Given Objectivism's radical departures from standard analytic philosophy in both metaphysics and epistemology, the idea that the majority analytic philosophers would have gotten philosophy of mind correct by advocating materialism seems quite far-fetched. Additionally, materialism seems to be premised on faulty ideas about the requirements of science, as well as a terrible metaphysics in which smaller things are more real than bigger things which are themselves more real than mental things. So it seems wise to at least temporarily shelve materialism. Objectivists tend to have an affinity for John Searle -- and after reading the first few chapters of The Rediscovery of the Mind I can see why. He takes a common-sense approach to his subject, accepting self-evident facts about the nature of consciousness. He regards the debate between materialism and dualism as seriously mistaken in fundamentals. His writing is clear and lucid, with plenty of fun polemics. Although clearly an analytic philosopher, he does not use the more silly methods of analytic philosophy such as possible worlds. As far as I understand, Searle is an advocate of emergence theory, which argues that the mind is an emergent property of the brain. Many Objectivists take emergence to be the Objectivist position in philosophy of mind, although I wonder how carefully considered that position tends to be. I haven't studied emergence in detail, but I do wonder whether it is compatible with the top-down causality that we routinely experience in exerting free will. In class on Tuesday, we briefly discussed dual-aspect theories, which I found quite compelling. Dual-aspect theories reject a premise common to both materialism and dualism, namely that fundamentally mental things are non-physical and that fundamentally physical things are non-mental. Dual-aspect theories instead argue that there are at least some things in the world which have both mental and physical aspects. Some, like Spinoza, have argued that all things have such a mental and physical aspect. Others, including my professor Bob Hanna, more reasonably argue that only some creatures (like humans, cats, dogs, and so on) have such a mental and physical aspect. In searching for information on dual-aspect theory, I was delighted to find long-time Objectivist Roger Bissell's article (published in Reason Papers in 1974) A Dual-Aspect Approach to the Mind-Body Problem. I do have many questions and doubts about whether his approach is correct or not. I fear that the argument is circular -- or worse, that it implies a form of idealism. I'll definitely have to read and analyze the paper more carefully to see if such criticisms are correct, however. So I've proposed a paper topic on dual aspect theories, including Roger Bissell's "dual perspectives" theory, as I call it. I'm not sure if my professor will approve it, but I hope so. (It would be a nice counterpart to this paper to write on emergence for my second paper.) That proposal is below: The basic purpose of the paper will be to explore whether materialism and dualism exhaust all possible relationships between mind and body. In other words, are dualism and materialism the only possible answers to the question: "How can we explain the existence and specific character of the mind in the physical world?" One final note: The only bigwig Objectivist philosopher who seems to have done direct work in philosophy of mind is Harry Binswanger. I just ordered a bunch of tapes of his on this subject from The Ayn Rand Bookstore. I hope they prove interesting! E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Goodies |
NoodleFoodlers
Guest NoodleFoodlers
Blog Stuff
Recent Comments
RSS Feed by E-Mail
Ask a Question
Blogger Trackbacks
Technorati Trackbacks
Blogger Trackbacks
NoodleFood RSS Feed
Reader Map
Ayn Rand Lexicon
Ayn Rand Society
Activism
The Objective Standard
The Undercurrent
Individual Rights in Medicine)
Family
Blogroll
Archives
