Why do we celebrate birthdays? Or anniversaries? Or any thing of the sort?
We make time. We mark the passing of time, the arrival at milestones.
What is a milestone? These vary by culture: bah mitzvahs, confirmation, adulthood. They help us to understand the questions we might face at a particular time in our lives. Adolescence is like this, and young adulthood is like this. You are accepted into the community now.
Being accepted into the community is a major aspect of our lives, and the responsibilities that come along with it change with each milestone. This is why we should be wary of a nation that doesn't let its people drive until their twenty-one but keeps pushing back the age at which they will prosecute someone of an adult crime. We violate our own milestones for convenience and not for any rational purpose.
Birthdays are mile markers for the milestones. When I'm thirteen, I get to do this, and sixteen this, and etc, etc.
But they also help us to remember that each day is a birthday. Each day we can be new. Each day is new to us.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Aggressive Man
Are human beings naturally aggressive? What does it mean to say yes or no to this question? What are we really asking? In part, we seek after the nature of evil in ourselves. So one could reframe the question as "are human beings naturally evil?" That is, is evil part of our nature?
Now when rephrased as I just suggested, then the question becomes easier to answer. Rousseau would argue that evil arises, not from nature, but from nurture -- that is, that it comes from society. But, as we know, human beings evolved as social animals in social groups. So we cannot really distinguish something that is natural prior -- either logically or temporally -- to society for us.
Further, anything that we do do must have some natural basis in ourselves. That is, we are creatures of nature -- we have a nature. THe question becomes to what extent does that nature allow us to do things. And certainly one of the things our nature allows is for us to harm other members of our own species and even of our own groups, sometimes of our own families.
Does that mean anything else like we cannot help ourselves? Certainly not, for just as we have within our nature a possibility of harming others, we have a possibility of helping others. Otherwise, how could we survive as social animals?
It certainly does not suggest that we are depraved in an Augustinian-Lutheran sense. Nothing of nature could be depraved in a way that it has no moral value or no possibility for morally right action. What would it even mean to think of human beings that way when we speak about what is in us by nature? We have to hold open the idea that human beings come with a certain nature that allows a range of actions from ones that hurt to others that harm. And many more besides.
Now when rephrased as I just suggested, then the question becomes easier to answer. Rousseau would argue that evil arises, not from nature, but from nurture -- that is, that it comes from society. But, as we know, human beings evolved as social animals in social groups. So we cannot really distinguish something that is natural prior -- either logically or temporally -- to society for us.
Further, anything that we do do must have some natural basis in ourselves. That is, we are creatures of nature -- we have a nature. THe question becomes to what extent does that nature allow us to do things. And certainly one of the things our nature allows is for us to harm other members of our own species and even of our own groups, sometimes of our own families.
Does that mean anything else like we cannot help ourselves? Certainly not, for just as we have within our nature a possibility of harming others, we have a possibility of helping others. Otherwise, how could we survive as social animals?
It certainly does not suggest that we are depraved in an Augustinian-Lutheran sense. Nothing of nature could be depraved in a way that it has no moral value or no possibility for morally right action. What would it even mean to think of human beings that way when we speak about what is in us by nature? We have to hold open the idea that human beings come with a certain nature that allows a range of actions from ones that hurt to others that harm. And many more besides.
Soul 4: I, Robot
Could robots have souls? Wherever I've taught human nature, people have objected that robots were not persons because they didn't have souls, and we know they didn't have souls because they weren't created by God. But how does that follow?
St. Augustine writes that souls were not created at the beginning of the world and wait someplace for a body. No, he says, instead either they are created by God at the time of conception or they are produced through generation from other souls just as bodies are produced through generation by bodies.
From what I have said before here, that form and matter can never be separated, then the only logical position is to hold that souls are generated, they are not specially created by God. And why should we expect them to be specially created by God? It would indeed be an inefficient system if, every time a body is conceived, God had to interrupt His time listening to the Angels sing His praises to created a new soul. Much more efficient, and much more Godly, would it be to have the soul arise from natural generation.
And in fact, that is the way it has to be. If bodies cannot exist without forms, and a soul is a form, then bodies cannot come into existence without a soul. THe moment the genetic material from the sperm combines with the genetic material of the ova to produce a double helix with 46 chromosomes, we have the presence of a new body and soul -- a living body.
This understanding of generation is the only logical one to prevent abortion. And it is the only logical one to help us understand how evolution works.
So what about robots, then? Well, we cannot say that robots do not have souls because they were not created by God. The question would be, when do robots become living -- if in fact they do. Once we have a living robot -- a living body -- then we have evidence of a soul. Does it matter when it happened? Perhaps, if we start stowing away robotic embryos tro harvest for replacement parts later, just as we intend to do with stem cells. But then we wouold have to look more carefully into the generation of living robots.
I for one agree with Hubert Dreyfus who, in his Why Computers Cannot be Human, argues that robots will never be persons.
Still, it's fun science fiction and fun to play around with philosophically. It helps us understand our own limits.
St. Augustine writes that souls were not created at the beginning of the world and wait someplace for a body. No, he says, instead either they are created by God at the time of conception or they are produced through generation from other souls just as bodies are produced through generation by bodies.
From what I have said before here, that form and matter can never be separated, then the only logical position is to hold that souls are generated, they are not specially created by God. And why should we expect them to be specially created by God? It would indeed be an inefficient system if, every time a body is conceived, God had to interrupt His time listening to the Angels sing His praises to created a new soul. Much more efficient, and much more Godly, would it be to have the soul arise from natural generation.
And in fact, that is the way it has to be. If bodies cannot exist without forms, and a soul is a form, then bodies cannot come into existence without a soul. THe moment the genetic material from the sperm combines with the genetic material of the ova to produce a double helix with 46 chromosomes, we have the presence of a new body and soul -- a living body.
This understanding of generation is the only logical one to prevent abortion. And it is the only logical one to help us understand how evolution works.
So what about robots, then? Well, we cannot say that robots do not have souls because they were not created by God. The question would be, when do robots become living -- if in fact they do. Once we have a living robot -- a living body -- then we have evidence of a soul. Does it matter when it happened? Perhaps, if we start stowing away robotic embryos tro harvest for replacement parts later, just as we intend to do with stem cells. But then we wouold have to look more carefully into the generation of living robots.
I for one agree with Hubert Dreyfus who, in his Why Computers Cannot be Human, argues that robots will never be persons.
Still, it's fun science fiction and fun to play around with philosophically. It helps us understand our own limits.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Soul 3: Of Buffy and Anita Blake: Vampires and Zombies
Do vampires have souls? An interesting question.
In the Buffy-verse, they do not have souls. One of the plots hinges on Angel getting his soul back which would bring about the destruction of the world. In the Anita Blake-verse, Anita is not sure (as of book 6) whether vampires have souls. She was originally convinced that they do not.
From a philosophical viewpoint, this causes immense conceptual problems. The vampire is undead. Sometimes it is referred to as the living dead, along with zombies. But how can something be living and dead? The key point being that, from an Aristotelian point of view, only living beings have souls. So if the vampire or zombie is living, it has a soul. If it is dead, it does not.
Does this suggest that vampires are not possible? Not necessarily. It means we need a better understanding of vampires and zombies. We may need a less physical understanding of life. Vampires grow in power, reproduce through blood-sucking, and have a metabolism (they move), and adapt to their environments as much as other life. Zombies are on less firm footing, because they are controlled by other beings -- the animator. Perhaps zombies are on the border with viruses.
If we so no to vampires, what does this mean about immortality for us human beings....
In the Buffy-verse, they do not have souls. One of the plots hinges on Angel getting his soul back which would bring about the destruction of the world. In the Anita Blake-verse, Anita is not sure (as of book 6) whether vampires have souls. She was originally convinced that they do not.
From a philosophical viewpoint, this causes immense conceptual problems. The vampire is undead. Sometimes it is referred to as the living dead, along with zombies. But how can something be living and dead? The key point being that, from an Aristotelian point of view, only living beings have souls. So if the vampire or zombie is living, it has a soul. If it is dead, it does not.
Does this suggest that vampires are not possible? Not necessarily. It means we need a better understanding of vampires and zombies. We may need a less physical understanding of life. Vampires grow in power, reproduce through blood-sucking, and have a metabolism (they move), and adapt to their environments as much as other life. Zombies are on less firm footing, because they are controlled by other beings -- the animator. Perhaps zombies are on the border with viruses.
If we so no to vampires, what does this mean about immortality for us human beings....
Soul 2: Immortal Souls
If we understand soul as the animating form of a body with the potential for life, what does that mean about immortality?
Aristotle did not believe that human beings had immortal souls. In this, he differed with his teacher Plato. St. Thomas, of course, did believe that human beings had immortal souls.
Plato, St. Augustine, and St. Thomas used the same basic argument for the immortality of the soul which showed that only rational souls were immortal. The rational soul is capable of grasping eternal truths. We all know that, for instance, "2+2=4" and "nothing can both be and not be at the same time in the same manner" (the principle of non-contradiction). Both of these are universal truths: they do not depend on time or place.
Now, nothing can hold something which is larger than it. Or, a thing cannot grasp that which is larger than it. (In Dungeons and Dragons, for instance, we let huge creatures, such as dragons have a plus to their grapple attack, whereas we subtract from the grapple attacks of smaller creatures.) So, the mind, or rational soul, could not hold an eternal truth unless the mind itself were eternal. This is a qualitative argument, not a quantitative one. The rational soul is capable of grasping an eternal truth, but that is only possible if the mind itself were eternal -- qualitatively equal to -- the truth itself.
This is an interesting argument, but also unworkable today. Human minds do not grasp eternal truths. We need to seek a firmer philosophical (as opposed to theological) ground for belief in the immortality of the soul.
(NB: I did not say that truth was not eternal, I said that human minds do not grasp eternal truths. We live in traditions.)
Aristotle did not believe that human beings had immortal souls. In this, he differed with his teacher Plato. St. Thomas, of course, did believe that human beings had immortal souls.
Plato, St. Augustine, and St. Thomas used the same basic argument for the immortality of the soul which showed that only rational souls were immortal. The rational soul is capable of grasping eternal truths. We all know that, for instance, "2+2=4" and "nothing can both be and not be at the same time in the same manner" (the principle of non-contradiction). Both of these are universal truths: they do not depend on time or place.
Now, nothing can hold something which is larger than it. Or, a thing cannot grasp that which is larger than it. (In Dungeons and Dragons, for instance, we let huge creatures, such as dragons have a plus to their grapple attack, whereas we subtract from the grapple attacks of smaller creatures.) So, the mind, or rational soul, could not hold an eternal truth unless the mind itself were eternal. This is a qualitative argument, not a quantitative one. The rational soul is capable of grasping an eternal truth, but that is only possible if the mind itself were eternal -- qualitatively equal to -- the truth itself.
This is an interesting argument, but also unworkable today. Human minds do not grasp eternal truths. We need to seek a firmer philosophical (as opposed to theological) ground for belief in the immortality of the soul.
(NB: I did not say that truth was not eternal, I said that human minds do not grasp eternal truths. We live in traditions.)
Soul 1: Every Living Being has a Soul
So we discussed the notion of "soul" in class today.
In Western philosophy Aristotle defines the soul as "the form of a body with the potential of life." In other words, every living being has a soul, from the lowliest of animated unicellular organisms to human beings and elves. But what does that mean?
The notion of "form" comes from Plato. For Plato, every material object partook in some form. So there was, as an example, a form of bookbag. Every bookbag, from the leather one I carry to the plastic one my daughter wears, from the shoulder strap variety to the backpack variety, from the small to the large, all partake in the form of bookbag. That's how we recognize them as bookbags. They are material instantiations of this immaterial thing. The form was most real, whereas the material object was less real (it changed, and the immaterial did not change).
Aristotle rejected the idea that forms existed out there by themselves, but kept the notion of soul. We need something to tell us (1) why different material objects are of the same kind (bookbag) and (2) how change occurs (the bookbag turns yellow or turns to ashes). The form combines with prime matter to make the object. Form and matter do not and cannot exist without each other. Think about this : everything you experience, you experience as some kind of thing.
Now, the form of living, as opposed to nonliving, bodies has a special name -- soul. Living souls come in three types: vegetative, sensate, and rational. For Aristotle, as for St. Thomas who adopted this metaphysics, the higher soul contains the nature of the lower soul. In other words, one cannot have a rational soul without having senses and growth. (I am avoiding for the moment the issue of non-material entities like Angels and God because they do not have souls but are spiritual substances sui generis). So plants have vegetive souls, animals have sensate souls that include the ability to grow and reproduce, and human beings have rational souls.
Many people become concerned about this because it seems like animism or pantheism. In one sense of animism, St. Thomas and Aristotle would be guilty, but neither of them believed that non-human entities had rational souls. Pantheism would not apply to either and has nothing to do with the discussion.
I will write more about souls later. The real point is that every living being has a soul.
In Western philosophy Aristotle defines the soul as "the form of a body with the potential of life." In other words, every living being has a soul, from the lowliest of animated unicellular organisms to human beings and elves. But what does that mean?
The notion of "form" comes from Plato. For Plato, every material object partook in some form. So there was, as an example, a form of bookbag. Every bookbag, from the leather one I carry to the plastic one my daughter wears, from the shoulder strap variety to the backpack variety, from the small to the large, all partake in the form of bookbag. That's how we recognize them as bookbags. They are material instantiations of this immaterial thing. The form was most real, whereas the material object was less real (it changed, and the immaterial did not change).
Aristotle rejected the idea that forms existed out there by themselves, but kept the notion of soul. We need something to tell us (1) why different material objects are of the same kind (bookbag) and (2) how change occurs (the bookbag turns yellow or turns to ashes). The form combines with prime matter to make the object. Form and matter do not and cannot exist without each other. Think about this : everything you experience, you experience as some kind of thing.
Now, the form of living, as opposed to nonliving, bodies has a special name -- soul. Living souls come in three types: vegetative, sensate, and rational. For Aristotle, as for St. Thomas who adopted this metaphysics, the higher soul contains the nature of the lower soul. In other words, one cannot have a rational soul without having senses and growth. (I am avoiding for the moment the issue of non-material entities like Angels and God because they do not have souls but are spiritual substances sui generis). So plants have vegetive souls, animals have sensate souls that include the ability to grow and reproduce, and human beings have rational souls.
Many people become concerned about this because it seems like animism or pantheism. In one sense of animism, St. Thomas and Aristotle would be guilty, but neither of them believed that non-human entities had rational souls. Pantheism would not apply to either and has nothing to do with the discussion.
I will write more about souls later. The real point is that every living being has a soul.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Religion
So to what extent is religion a necessary aspect of human nature? Probably all of us know someone who is atheist or agnostic. But we also know people who have some other aspect of what we would consider a "normal" human being missing -- whether from some handicap or some genetic disorder or what have you. The point is, I know of no culture that has lacked a religion.
Even pre-homo sapiens, such as neanderthals and homo habilis could be seen as having some form of religion. They buried their dead, which suggests they believed in some sort of after life, which, in turn, suggests that they had some sort of religious understanding of the world.
So what does it mean for human nature that we've always had religion? Could we really ever evolve to not having a religion, the way that Roddenberry originally imagined the Federation of the future?
And if we cannot what is the point of a book called The God Delusion?
Finally, if religion is inherent to human nature, is there a gene for it? What would it mean that there was such a gene (or set of genes) that made human beings believe in God?
Even pre-homo sapiens, such as neanderthals and homo habilis could be seen as having some form of religion. They buried their dead, which suggests they believed in some sort of after life, which, in turn, suggests that they had some sort of religious understanding of the world.
So what does it mean for human nature that we've always had religion? Could we really ever evolve to not having a religion, the way that Roddenberry originally imagined the Federation of the future?
And if we cannot what is the point of a book called The God Delusion?
Finally, if religion is inherent to human nature, is there a gene for it? What would it mean that there was such a gene (or set of genes) that made human beings believe in God?
Friday, January 11, 2008
Of authority and magesteriums -- The Golden Compass II
The bad guys in the movie The Golden Compass are the Magesterium. While is is not overtly stated in the first movie of book of the series, the Magesterium obviously represents the Catholic Church and religion in general. Throughout, we are to admire Lyra for following her own beliefs and defying the authority of the Magesterium. That is, for defying their authoritarianism -- which is not the same.
The good guys of the movie are those associated with Jordan College -- higher education, who defy the Magesterium in two ways at great risk. First, the fund an expedition to seek out and study "dust" a metaphysical substance the Magesterium doesn't want discussed. Second, the head of Jordan college gives Lyra a golden compass -- the only one left, all others having been destroyed by the Magesterium.
Obviously, the Golden Compass is part of the Enlightenment attack on religion, established churches, and authority in particular. As such, it is peculiar in this day and age to watch it given the fact that the Enlightenment has failed. It is as if Pullman were trying to channel Voltaire in his writings. But Voltaire was never so naive.
For Voltaire would have known that authority in all guises -- whether Church, state, or education -- should be contested.
But the real problem is that human nature is not so simple. You've heard of the Millgram experiments?
Millgram conducted an experiment to see how far people were willing to follow authority. His decisive conclusion showed that ordinary Americans -- yes Americans -- would kill someone if a person in authority told them to. Ah, but this is old news, surely we've grown by now. Not so, my friends -- frighteningly not so. Millgram's study has been repeated with similar results: http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2008/01/milgrams_notorious_.html
My question, then, is to what extent must human beings follow authority? What is the role of authority in our lives? And what do we do in the face of real life experiments which show how easily we follow authority? Isn't the Golden Compass just another peice of claptrap about how great human beings would be without religion, when religion isn't the issue -- authority is. Maybe we should consider carefully LeGuin's anarchist society in The Dispossessed.
The good guys of the movie are those associated with Jordan College -- higher education, who defy the Magesterium in two ways at great risk. First, the fund an expedition to seek out and study "dust" a metaphysical substance the Magesterium doesn't want discussed. Second, the head of Jordan college gives Lyra a golden compass -- the only one left, all others having been destroyed by the Magesterium.
Obviously, the Golden Compass is part of the Enlightenment attack on religion, established churches, and authority in particular. As such, it is peculiar in this day and age to watch it given the fact that the Enlightenment has failed. It is as if Pullman were trying to channel Voltaire in his writings. But Voltaire was never so naive.
For Voltaire would have known that authority in all guises -- whether Church, state, or education -- should be contested.
But the real problem is that human nature is not so simple. You've heard of the Millgram experiments?
Millgram conducted an experiment to see how far people were willing to follow authority. His decisive conclusion showed that ordinary Americans -- yes Americans -- would kill someone if a person in authority told them to. Ah, but this is old news, surely we've grown by now. Not so, my friends -- frighteningly not so. Millgram's study has been repeated with similar results: http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2008/01/milgrams_notorious_.html
My question, then, is to what extent must human beings follow authority? What is the role of authority in our lives? And what do we do in the face of real life experiments which show how easily we follow authority? Isn't the Golden Compass just another peice of claptrap about how great human beings would be without religion, when religion isn't the issue -- authority is. Maybe we should consider carefully LeGuin's anarchist society in The Dispossessed.
The Golden Compass-- Of Daemons and Demons
I watched The Golden Compass yesterday. It was an entertaining movie, perhaps more entertaining the book itself. The Golden Compass movie is based on Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials Trilogy, the first book of which is titled The Golden Compass.
There's lots to comment on in the movie and the book, but I want to focus on this idea of a daemon. In the movie, which stars British and Australian actors, they pronounce the term "demon." Perhaps this is the proper pronunciation, but the spelling is identical to the term Socrates uses when he speaks of his daemon which is always with him.
We Americans, at least, will think of one thing when we hear the word demon. But Socrates did not believe a demon followed him around. A demon would be something that leads one into trouble. In several instances in the book and film, Lyra's (the main character) daemon did lead her for trouble. But when Socrates speaks of daemon, he speaks of something that safeguards him. During his trial, he said that his daemon had remained quite while he spoke. Usually, his daemon spoke up if Socrates headed down the wrong path. So for Socrates, the notion of a daemon was something good -- a spirit that whispered in his ear to keep him from straying.
There is not such notion in Pullman's work. The daemon is a companion. It is compared to the soul. In Lyra's world, the soul takes the form of an animal outside of the person, whereas in our world, the soul is inside us. Lyra speaks to her daemon and it to her. We have no such luxury, or if we use such a luxury, we are generally locked away for our own good.
My point in raising this issue is, first, to point out that movie goers should not think of the "demon" in the book or movie as something evil. The second is to raise the question of the existence of the soul. And the third is to raise the question about whether we have guardian angels. The existence of soul would be important, and the existence of guardian angels takes us into the realm of theology. But they are important to understanding who we are.
While I don't endorse the overall doctrine of the movie or the books (which become anti-religion in their final form), I do think the movie raises some serious questions for people concerned about human nature to consider.
There's lots to comment on in the movie and the book, but I want to focus on this idea of a daemon. In the movie, which stars British and Australian actors, they pronounce the term "demon." Perhaps this is the proper pronunciation, but the spelling is identical to the term Socrates uses when he speaks of his daemon which is always with him.
We Americans, at least, will think of one thing when we hear the word demon. But Socrates did not believe a demon followed him around. A demon would be something that leads one into trouble. In several instances in the book and film, Lyra's (the main character) daemon did lead her for trouble. But when Socrates speaks of daemon, he speaks of something that safeguards him. During his trial, he said that his daemon had remained quite while he spoke. Usually, his daemon spoke up if Socrates headed down the wrong path. So for Socrates, the notion of a daemon was something good -- a spirit that whispered in his ear to keep him from straying.
There is not such notion in Pullman's work. The daemon is a companion. It is compared to the soul. In Lyra's world, the soul takes the form of an animal outside of the person, whereas in our world, the soul is inside us. Lyra speaks to her daemon and it to her. We have no such luxury, or if we use such a luxury, we are generally locked away for our own good.
My point in raising this issue is, first, to point out that movie goers should not think of the "demon" in the book or movie as something evil. The second is to raise the question of the existence of the soul. And the third is to raise the question about whether we have guardian angels. The existence of soul would be important, and the existence of guardian angels takes us into the realm of theology. But they are important to understanding who we are.
While I don't endorse the overall doctrine of the movie or the books (which become anti-religion in their final form), I do think the movie raises some serious questions for people concerned about human nature to consider.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Return to our Regularly Scheduled Programming
Good day friends and readers ---
I am returning from my between semester funk or New Year high or whatever you want to call it.
My resolution is to publish three posts a week on here. So stay tuned for exciting coverage of the thought of an addled mind like mine.
Speaking of resolutions: why do human beings make resolutions? I'm not simply thinking about New Year's resolutions either. Every religion has time in which the believer sits back and reflects on her life and proposes to herself to do better in the future. In the Catholic Church, we call that Lent. I may say more about lent later, but the idea I want to think about it resolutions.
Do resolutions help us change out behavior? Whether they do or not, the ideas behind it is that we can change behavior. We are plastic creatures, and I think that is a lot of what philosophers miss when they speak about human nature. They speak as though human nature were something unchangeable. But the trick is that changeability marks human nature in a way that it does not mark the behavior of other creatures. Chimpanzees do not sit around worried that they masturbate too much. Tigers do not pace wondering if they should stop eating human beings.
So we human beings change. That's what is interesting about practices, which my friend works on. See the link to the right.
Anyway, here's to a great new year for you and for more posts on this board. Please direct your friends to visit.
Peace out
I am returning from my between semester funk or New Year high or whatever you want to call it.
My resolution is to publish three posts a week on here. So stay tuned for exciting coverage of the thought of an addled mind like mine.
Speaking of resolutions: why do human beings make resolutions? I'm not simply thinking about New Year's resolutions either. Every religion has time in which the believer sits back and reflects on her life and proposes to herself to do better in the future. In the Catholic Church, we call that Lent. I may say more about lent later, but the idea I want to think about it resolutions.
Do resolutions help us change out behavior? Whether they do or not, the ideas behind it is that we can change behavior. We are plastic creatures, and I think that is a lot of what philosophers miss when they speak about human nature. They speak as though human nature were something unchangeable. But the trick is that changeability marks human nature in a way that it does not mark the behavior of other creatures. Chimpanzees do not sit around worried that they masturbate too much. Tigers do not pace wondering if they should stop eating human beings.
So we human beings change. That's what is interesting about practices, which my friend works on. See the link to the right.
Anyway, here's to a great new year for you and for more posts on this board. Please direct your friends to visit.
Peace out
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
