I am writing this particular installment using my own experiences to make a point. It is a subjectively observed, but objectively analyzed, I did my best.
There are a few characteristics of mine which, once known, will make the following post easier to understand, if not easier to agree with.
I prefer objectivity to subjectivity. I enjoy knowing things. I need proof to agree with statements, or at the least some excellent reasoning. I am a hard determinist. I have seen no evidence for gods, and so don't believe in them. My sense of perspective causes me to see most everyday problems as insignificant, and sometimes the people who are involved in those problems as well. I think that faith is a vice. I enjoy comparing things to the rest of the known universe when deciding importance. I will always concede the point if I am wrong, as long as the evidence is conclusive...being loud doesn't mean you are right. I live in Ohio, the son of caring, if unimaginative and religious parents, who disagree with nearly everything stated above...except for the living in Ohio part.
That might cover it.
Now then, I mentioned to my friend Will that enjoy talking to our mutual friend Molly about my philosophical leanings because I feel that she actually is interested in what I have to say. She brings up good arguments, doesn't just agree with me if the point is flimsy, things like that. It is a rare occurrence for me to talk to someone who is not only in agreement with much of what I think, but wants to talk about it. My family does not care in the least about philosophy, particularly my thoughts on it, because if they thought about these things, my conclusions would be repulsive to them. I am an atheist among theists, a (oddly enough) socially-oriented liberal kilt-wearer among every-way conservatives. A determinist among free-willians (awesome).
How does this apply to the title? Just as I considered how irrelevant my career will be, I have also considered how irrelevant I myself am. Ignoring the cosmos for a moment because we are all irrelevant in comparison to the heavenly abyss, I am irrelevant because, idealogically speaking, I represent something to be ignored. Most of my friends are willing to take the conversation only so far, far enough to express their views, but not so far that they might have to change them. Nearly everything that I find fundamental and important is considered frivolous to the people around me. Not only is it frivolous, it is purposefully ignored. It makes people uncomfortable to address questions which might make them reconsider their worldview. I'm not even saying I'm right, or that they might actually have to rethink anything. Oh, also, philosophy on its own, without a classroom or a book deal will not make you money. So, you know, what good is it?
Okay, I've begun to ramble. I may not have quite made my point, but I imagine that should you have made it this far, you're more grateful for the ending than interested in that elusive point anyway. Wait, I got it: A large percentage of people are uninterested in what I have to say, I effect few lives, and in a limited scope. Ergo, I have little relevance to the world.
Part 3 coming soon, in which I hold forth on things which in my opinion are relevant.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Mostly Irrelevant: The Revelation, part I
I don't often think about my place in the world. I tend to think that I have pinned down my niche, and humanity's in general, and after a brief burst of neuronal activity I let it go. After several recent conversations with good friends however, I have been coaxed into looking closer at how my personal life actually fits into the fabric of...well, everything.
It began as I rode in the passenger seat of my friend Adam's car. We were heading down to Akron for some beer, burgers, and generally good times. Being intelligent, we always have good conversations about bio-mechanics and business ideas, relationships and robots. I happened to make a comment about how dangerous speaking in absolutes could be, after doing just that, when Adam told me I was losing touch. Fortunately it was due to a misunderstanding, he thought that I didn't believe there were any absolutes at all, but I disabused him of that notion. The second part is what really struck me though, he questioned my interest in philosophy in general, wondering if it was "relevant". I have to admit, and I did then, that when all is accounted for, it is not relevant. It can change lives positively or negatively, but most people go through their entire lives without thinking about philosophy, or only holding the philosophy they hold because of what they've been told to think (by upbringing, social class, etc.) It is not necessary. More than any other field of study, philosophy seeks out the questions which are beyond most people, and consequently is irrelevant to those people. Those people, like it or not, control the businesses and other major aspects of our lives...making philosophy unnecessary to us at the least. There it is, my chosen profession is unnecessary, and generally irrelevant, but it is what I like...tune in later to see my conversation with Will about my personal life!
It began as I rode in the passenger seat of my friend Adam's car. We were heading down to Akron for some beer, burgers, and generally good times. Being intelligent, we always have good conversations about bio-mechanics and business ideas, relationships and robots. I happened to make a comment about how dangerous speaking in absolutes could be, after doing just that, when Adam told me I was losing touch. Fortunately it was due to a misunderstanding, he thought that I didn't believe there were any absolutes at all, but I disabused him of that notion. The second part is what really struck me though, he questioned my interest in philosophy in general, wondering if it was "relevant". I have to admit, and I did then, that when all is accounted for, it is not relevant. It can change lives positively or negatively, but most people go through their entire lives without thinking about philosophy, or only holding the philosophy they hold because of what they've been told to think (by upbringing, social class, etc.) It is not necessary. More than any other field of study, philosophy seeks out the questions which are beyond most people, and consequently is irrelevant to those people. Those people, like it or not, control the businesses and other major aspects of our lives...making philosophy unnecessary to us at the least. There it is, my chosen profession is unnecessary, and generally irrelevant, but it is what I like...tune in later to see my conversation with Will about my personal life!
Another nail in the proverbial coffin.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090714104000.htm
For those of us who don't feel like reading the article, I will summarize. The Monarch Flycatcher bird on the Solomon Islands is undergoing a genetic split which is causing speciation. The bird is literally evolving into two distinct species right before the eyes of the scientific community. After a mutation caused the birds on the smaller islands to develop chestnut colored breast plumage, the all black Flycatchers have ceased to see males with chestnut feathers as a reproductive threat, and vice versa. If they are no longer reproducing between the populations, their genetics will continue to diverge, creating larger gaps than simple color. I'd like to take this time to remind everyone that the 'Theory of Evolution' is a fact, and that it is called a theory because it uses facts to create a broad explanation of how the world works. No matter what the origins of life were, evolution is not a deniable hypothesis. It has been observed working in viruses, bacteria, rats, birds, and other animals. It would take great faith to deny all of the evidence (I know I didn't present it all here, I have a life, you look it up), but should you manage to do that, congrats, I'm sure your ignorance truly is bliss.
For those of us who don't feel like reading the article, I will summarize. The Monarch Flycatcher bird on the Solomon Islands is undergoing a genetic split which is causing speciation. The bird is literally evolving into two distinct species right before the eyes of the scientific community. After a mutation caused the birds on the smaller islands to develop chestnut colored breast plumage, the all black Flycatchers have ceased to see males with chestnut feathers as a reproductive threat, and vice versa. If they are no longer reproducing between the populations, their genetics will continue to diverge, creating larger gaps than simple color. I'd like to take this time to remind everyone that the 'Theory of Evolution' is a fact, and that it is called a theory because it uses facts to create a broad explanation of how the world works. No matter what the origins of life were, evolution is not a deniable hypothesis. It has been observed working in viruses, bacteria, rats, birds, and other animals. It would take great faith to deny all of the evidence (I know I didn't present it all here, I have a life, you look it up), but should you manage to do that, congrats, I'm sure your ignorance truly is bliss.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Thursday, July 9, 2009
What is an Open Mind?
On several occasions I have been accused of not having an open mind. When this happens, I am generally offended, or at least I was until I realized why this was being said. It became clear when I heard someone on the radio say "People need to have a more open mind and accept others' ideas." I realized then what the problem is. These people are confusing having an open mind with agreeing with them. It seems to me that having an open mind about ideas is the same as having an open mind about food. As long as you are willing to try the food, or examine the idea, you have succeeded in having an open mind. It is not necessary to agree with the person, just as you don't have to enjoy the food.
People with a closed mind do not bother to test your idea against theirs, or even consider what you said on its own merits. This is generally the case when the person has great Faith in their idea, because they already know you are wrong, so why bother hearing you out?
So there it is, open minded means you are willing to consider the idea, close minded means you will not consider the idea, and if you automatically accept an idea as true because you think you're being open minded, you are gullible.
People with a closed mind do not bother to test your idea against theirs, or even consider what you said on its own merits. This is generally the case when the person has great Faith in their idea, because they already know you are wrong, so why bother hearing you out?
So there it is, open minded means you are willing to consider the idea, close minded means you will not consider the idea, and if you automatically accept an idea as true because you think you're being open minded, you are gullible.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
A Quick List of Recommended Reading by an Admitted Book Addict
Reading makes you smarter (according to me), but only if you expand your horizons and read books which provide answers to questions you've never thought of asking, or provide a new angle on old problems. All of these books meet at least one of those criteria. Whether or not you agree with what the books say, it's important to test your ideas against them to see how they hold up.
The World Without Us
The Ethical Brain
Atlas Shrugged
Primates and Philosophers
Catch-22
Cat's Cradle
The Bible
The God Delusion
The Singularity is Near
I guarantee that any one of these books will expand your mind, just keep that mind open and base your judgments on the actual content, not what you think you know.
The World Without Us
The Ethical Brain
Atlas Shrugged
Primates and Philosophers
Catch-22
Cat's Cradle
The Bible
The God Delusion
The Singularity is Near
I guarantee that any one of these books will expand your mind, just keep that mind open and base your judgments on the actual content, not what you think you know.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Unconditional Love: Can We Do It?
An interesting and prevalent, but little thought-on idea is that of unconditional love. As far as I can tell, this was originally a Christian concept, and in the primarily Christian society I live in it is accepted as an unquestionable truth that unconditional love is possible not only as an idea but also in practice. Unfortunately, I've never met an unquestionable truth I did not want to question.
My journey began in my Personality Psychology class. We were covering David Buss, an evolutionary psychologist who has many interesting theories on dating and attraction. The professor always asked us questions at the end of her powerpoint presentations, and one that she asked this day was "Is it possible to love unconditionally?" I immediately wanted to know how she defined "love" because it seems to me that it is important to know what it is. Neuroscientists tell us that we have two basic categories for love, short-term infatuation (such as lust), and longer-term commitments. These are distinguished by the type of neurochemicals released which allow us to feel the emotions. Interestingly, the chemicals which create the short-term infatuation are the same as the chemicals involved in OCD, one of which is dopamine. Long-term love involves the production of oxytocin, a sort of "bonding" chemical. My professor knew none of that, and couldn't answer my question, but it may be the most important question for this topic. Here is the problem: How do you know when you love someone? Perhaps you feel affection everytime you look at them, or feel the urge to protect them and give them stability. That's all well and good, but it seems to me that could just be affection, or the desire to help someone from your part of the gene pool. So what is love? A certain level of neurochemicals? What it truly is is unimportant, but the ambiguity helps my argument and leads to the second problem. No one feels the same way towards anyone else for their entire life. Most of the people I've talked to about this have children, and were adamant that they would always, unconditionally, love their children. While this may sound good in theory, its too easy to point out that sometimes they feel affectionate towards their children, sometimes angry when little Timmy breaks the new vase, etc. Where is the love? Is it simply that they continue to tolerate little Timmy?
Here, for me, is the clincher that seals the deal. Unconditional love is an absolute, meaning it can have no exceptions. Any condition which causes the love to change in any way has proven it to be conditional love. For the sake of argument, I will define a condition as any event, action or state of being which causes phenomenon A (love) to no longer be applied to the subject (your child, etc.). Say little Timmy, age 9, does not break the new, but replaceable and ultimately unimportant vase. Rather he brutally rapes, tortures and murders his little sister Sally, age 7, who you also loved unconditionally. Do you still love little Timmy? Even after waking up to him attempting to suffocate you with your own daughter's intestines? Because it is an absolute, any possible event which might cause you to stop loving little Timmy even for a nanosecond has made the love conditional. Keep in mind also that what the subject does is not the only thing which can change the love...What if you die? Do you still love little Timmy? What if you undergo a lobotomy, or any brain surgery and your memories of little Timmy are accidently removed so that you are not even aware of his existence. Do you still love little Timmy? Of course not. You simply cannot love something which you are unaware of.
As far as theistic unconditional love is concerned, I will be brief. If a god/gods/goddesses loves us unconditionally there can be no Hell, no Rapture, no Judgement Day. Throwing me into a pit of fire for ETERNITY because I didn't believe, even though I still led a good life, has nothing to do with love, and a lot to do with conditions. Were there unconditional love, I could rape, murder, steal, break every commandment every day and regularly piss on the pope, yet still be forgiven and go to live for eternity on the fluffy clouds.
My journey began in my Personality Psychology class. We were covering David Buss, an evolutionary psychologist who has many interesting theories on dating and attraction. The professor always asked us questions at the end of her powerpoint presentations, and one that she asked this day was "Is it possible to love unconditionally?" I immediately wanted to know how she defined "love" because it seems to me that it is important to know what it is. Neuroscientists tell us that we have two basic categories for love, short-term infatuation (such as lust), and longer-term commitments. These are distinguished by the type of neurochemicals released which allow us to feel the emotions. Interestingly, the chemicals which create the short-term infatuation are the same as the chemicals involved in OCD, one of which is dopamine. Long-term love involves the production of oxytocin, a sort of "bonding" chemical. My professor knew none of that, and couldn't answer my question, but it may be the most important question for this topic. Here is the problem: How do you know when you love someone? Perhaps you feel affection everytime you look at them, or feel the urge to protect them and give them stability. That's all well and good, but it seems to me that could just be affection, or the desire to help someone from your part of the gene pool. So what is love? A certain level of neurochemicals? What it truly is is unimportant, but the ambiguity helps my argument and leads to the second problem. No one feels the same way towards anyone else for their entire life. Most of the people I've talked to about this have children, and were adamant that they would always, unconditionally, love their children. While this may sound good in theory, its too easy to point out that sometimes they feel affectionate towards their children, sometimes angry when little Timmy breaks the new vase, etc. Where is the love? Is it simply that they continue to tolerate little Timmy?
Here, for me, is the clincher that seals the deal. Unconditional love is an absolute, meaning it can have no exceptions. Any condition which causes the love to change in any way has proven it to be conditional love. For the sake of argument, I will define a condition as any event, action or state of being which causes phenomenon A (love) to no longer be applied to the subject (your child, etc.). Say little Timmy, age 9, does not break the new, but replaceable and ultimately unimportant vase. Rather he brutally rapes, tortures and murders his little sister Sally, age 7, who you also loved unconditionally. Do you still love little Timmy? Even after waking up to him attempting to suffocate you with your own daughter's intestines? Because it is an absolute, any possible event which might cause you to stop loving little Timmy even for a nanosecond has made the love conditional. Keep in mind also that what the subject does is not the only thing which can change the love...What if you die? Do you still love little Timmy? What if you undergo a lobotomy, or any brain surgery and your memories of little Timmy are accidently removed so that you are not even aware of his existence. Do you still love little Timmy? Of course not. You simply cannot love something which you are unaware of.
As far as theistic unconditional love is concerned, I will be brief. If a god/gods/goddesses loves us unconditionally there can be no Hell, no Rapture, no Judgement Day. Throwing me into a pit of fire for ETERNITY because I didn't believe, even though I still led a good life, has nothing to do with love, and a lot to do with conditions. Were there unconditional love, I could rape, murder, steal, break every commandment every day and regularly piss on the pope, yet still be forgiven and go to live for eternity on the fluffy clouds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
