Guilt

I think that it would be useful to separate actual guilt from feeling guilty. We cannot control our feelings of guilt. We feel bad about something that we have done in the immediate past, because we wish that we had the ability to alter the past. Unfortunately we cannot. Moral actions are something that we ought to do, and ought implies can. As such, I don't think that we should incorporate guilt into morality given that we cannot alter the past, meaning the guilt can have little role in it. The feeling that we identify with guilt, which is more of an extension to empathy, perhaps, is useful in allowing us to realize that we have done something wrong and that we ought not to do that thing again. Determinism hardly affects this given that, once a person realizes that something is wrong, because they feel bad (and they cannot control that) they know that they should not do that again. Additionally, effectively, humans have the illusion of choice, and if something doesn't cause them to alter their negative behaviors, we ought to try to help them to become determined to do so.

Aligning Views with Reality

I think that it is always important to align our views with reality. If reality is that non-human animals can feel pain and that it is bad to inflict pain, we should align our views and actions to create as little pain as possible. If reality is that people with darker skin are people no different from people with lighter skin (besides phenotypic characteristics), then we should align our views and actions away from slavery. I do not think that the expense of having to change the system and think differently should change that. As with Plato's allegory of the cave, we ought not entertain ourselves with the shadows of what is. We should seek the real thing. I think, then, that if the world is determined, we ought to come up with a different theory of ethics. It may have taken thousands of years to understand ethics currently, but if reality is determined and people cannot be held responsible for choosing to do a wrong thing, we ought to come up with new theories of ethics and justice. If something is wrong, we ought to abandon it. If something is the truth, we ought to accept it, even if it "makes a mess" of our current system of beliefs, because our current system is wrong, and continuing it would not be useful.

Paving Our Path

The story of Genesis, I think, is a story of humanity choosing a path for itself. Basically, I think there is a historical explanation. For brevity's sake, I will be rather imprecise. The beginning of the agricultural evolution is marked with independence from nature. Before the agricultural evolution, when we were hunter-gatherers, we had to rely on the land (the animals and vegetation therein).  Eventually, we realized that we could manipulate the land to allow us to live beyond our needs. The new agriculturalists, started to take over land in order to produce more food. This upset the hunter-gathers who then proceeded to tell stories saying that somewhere these agriculturalists went wrong in thinking that they could act like gods and control their own destiny. Thus, I think, is the story of the tree of knowledge. A later part of Genesis, which I think is still a reflection of the agricultural revolutions, is the story of Cain and Abel. Cain, a tiller/agriculturalist, kills Abel, the herder.

Anyway, that was the short, informal, and slightly imprecise version of my historical explanation  for two parts of the story of genesis.

"Race"

Race, contrary to what some of us believe, does not actually exist. When we divide ourselves by race, we are actually dividing ourselves by phenotypic characteristics of skin colour. Skin colour is hardly different from eye colour, hair colour, ear lobe attachments, and so on. Why then, do we continue to refer to these phenotypic characteristics as classification of race. I am of the opinion that the very fact that we use the word race lends itself to discrimination and classification based on skin colour. If we continue to use the word race, we continue to reinforce that idea that 'race' in the form of skin colour is actually something that divides humans. Regardless of which side you take on the issue of "racial profiling" you acknowledge that there is a distinguished 'race' of people who are different from others in a drastic way. Colleges, ours included, often have groups dedicated to minorities, which, again, only reinforce the notion that people with darker skin colour are different and separate from those with lighter skin. Using words like 'race' and setting up establishments and groups to distinguish one group from another reinforces discrimination based on skin colour. As such, I think we should refrain from using 'race' and should replace it with 'discrimination based on skin colour.' We should recognize that the idea is hardly different from discrimination based on eye colour.

Morals - Tri-Part

Response to Corey - full post here

Avery and I recently, I think a week or two ago, had a conversation on morality. We decided that morality is based largely on three things: evolution, logic/reason, and emotion/intuition. Evolution supplies basic morals, then you can use logic/reasoning to extend those basic morals to new situations. Emotion, specifically empathy, helps us to understand that there are other creatures that have worth in themselves. It fosters a sort of golden rule which reinforces our morality. I think that guilt fits fairly well into the view of morality; it's our ability to feel negatively after we neglect the emotional aspect of morality. I think the emotional aspect of morality is very important and calls us to action. Guilt, I think, does not call us to action as it is reflective, as you mentioned. However, I think that other parts of the emotional aspect are very important to how we behave. When people neglect to be moved by emotion to behave morally, you get those who accept arguments for such things as vegetarians but, because they don't feel like it's the right thing to do, continue to ignore the moral obligation recognized by evolution and reasoning.

What It Means to Teach

I do not think that the end result of teaching should be belief inculcation, as that attitude does not foster progress. A teacher should give students the ability to reason things out for themselves; in that sense, I suppose a teacher should be able to give reasons or, preferably, resources to find reasons for many sides of many issues. If teachers give students resources and the ability to reason, it may be that the students eventually develop better reasoned points of view that the teachers had not considered. This promotes both progress and reason, whereas belief-inculcation limits and obstructs those things.

Thinking and Feeling

I've been noticing lately that people often expressing their thoughts by associating their thoughts with feelings in order to prevent other people from challenging their thoughts; they are lacking any confidence in their own answers, so they try to communicate their answers in the weakest way they can. What sad times are these when a growing number of people replace 'think' with 'feel;' I wonder why people no longer want to face having their thoughts questioned. Especially as philosophers, we should seek to put our ideas out to the public not hide our thoughts behind the shroud of private and personal emotions and intuitions. I think that we could use feel if we were actually using felt reasons. Though I don't think that we are using felt reasons as often as we say that we 'feel that (statement)."

Some great philosophy teachers once co-authored a writing checklist (rule 20) where they expressed that people should "never use 'feel' where 'think' will do." I think we ought to follow this wonderful piece of advice.  We should not try to do this; there is do and do not, there is no try.

He or She Is Not Gender Neutral

If the cause for gender neutral language and against gender specific language is enough to appropriately move you to use, in writing and in speech, the failed solutions of she, he or she, s/he, or alternation, then instead of using those solutions, you ought to put more effort into being appropriately moved to be completely gender neutral.

Gender, contrary to popular belief, is not binary. There are many people who do not fit into the gender norms; there are also people who do fit into the gender norms, but choose to identify differently which is altogether their choice and we ought to respect that. As such, the 'he or she' fix to gender specific language is actually no fix at all. If you want to avoid gender specific language, you CANNOT exclusively use he, she, he or she, s/he, or alternate. This lousy attempt at a solution is leaving out many other groups of people, which is just as unfair as leaving out either of the mainstream norms. Again, we ought to put our effort into either making 'they' appropriate as a singular pronoun, or making up a new, aesthetically pleasing, singular gender neutral pronoun.

Culture and Felt Reasons

How does culture influence how people are moved by felt reasons?

Culture has a tremendous effect on how people are moved by felt reasons. The example that is most prominent in my mind is related to the ethics of vegetarianism and animal abuse. Many people in western society would agree with the following statement: animal abuse is wrong. People in western societies take offence against people who kick puppies, they criticise those people and take legal action against them. The people of western society, in regards to abuse against dogs and cats, are appropriately moved  but not appropriately moved.

Presumably, people of western societies would also agree with the following statement: dipping a conscious animal into a boiling vat of water and then slitting its throat, while it is still conscious, that it may bleed to death slowly is animal abuse. They would be appropriately moved if they took offence against someone whom had done this to a dog. However, they are neither appropriately moved  nor appropriately moved when this very same thing happens to most farm animals that will soon become their food. I think that anyone who is against the abuse of dogs and cats should be against the abuse of pigs, cows, chickens, turkeys, and so on. I think that anyone who is appropriately moved against the abuse of dogs and cats should be appropriately moved and appropriately moved against the abuse of pigs, cows, chickens, turkeys, and so on. Our society, however, does not share that view.

In response to Avery - full post here


Note this is not entirely related to your post; I simply wanted to comment on Solipsism, and was reminded of that when I saw your post.

I think that felt reasons are certainly limited and are especially subjective. Michael Levin, as you pointed out, is a prime example of that fact. Levin assumes that because he finds the idea of homosexuality repulsive, everyone must also find the same thing.

I think that the idea of solipsism is strikingly more interesting because most of humanity feels that it is wrong due to the fact that they live in this apparently empirically observable universe. I agree that it would be best to not deny the possibility that solipsism could indeed be correct. I do think, however, that there are benefits to assuming it is not. It does appear as though the empirically observable universe, even if we make all of it up, does affect us. For example, if we decided that nobody actually exists and thereby concluded that it would be okay to punch a police officer in the face, we will find out that the figments of our imagination will throw is in what appears to be an actual prison. Even if we claim to know that the prison is not real, we have no way to escape it.

Free Will and Stuffs

In response to Kyle - full post here

I was recently thinking about this post and about the concept of something completely new; now, I think this is difficult to answer this question because we cannot actually conceive of the notion of a completely new experience. As we know from experience as creatures partaking in space-time, we are always forced to action (even inaction is actions); we cannot not act in any given situation. Your question is something akin to "what determines you to act in a certain manner if you are in a completely new situation?"

I think that the answer would be the same as with non-new experiences. Your mindset at any given time, determines your actions in the immediate future. If you found yourself in a shockingly new experience you would be terribly confused, but would be forced to act in away that your neurons and so on cause you to act. The unfamiliarity would undoubtedly lead to a predictable hesitance and confusion. If your safety was at risk, the predictable reaction of panic would ensue. This is why I cannot appropriately answer this question, it's much to impossible to even entertain the notion of a completely new experience. Especially since this entirely new situation would be unrecognisable as a new situation because it would be so drastically different from every other new situation that we've ever experienced.

Response to Nicole

In response to Nicole - full post here

While I think it's fine to say that you refuse to see the Bible or other religious texts as anything but literature, I think that it is slightly unfair to say that such texts could not be anything more. There are many people who take the Bible to be a factual work, although you may not agree with those people. I agree that it's unfair for others to feel that they can pressure their views of the bible on to you, but it's not fair for you to do the same to them.

I also cannot say that I agree with the assertion that the Bible is dry. It's often very poetic and filled with impressive metaphors. The fact that people in this modern day are too lazy to read a holy text that they claim to support does not mean that the text itself is boring. One of the problems is that the metaphors do not apply quite as nicely in contemporary society. People would have to actually work at interpreting it to discover a more relevant meaning. I think another reason for not reading the Bible is that in our society people are all about reason, and those who take the Bible literally are fearful of relying on faith because they will receive ridicule in this society. Therefore, if they actually read the Bible, relying on reason will only lead them to contradictions and things that are otherwise unbelievable. Choosing not to read the Bible makes it easier to believe that the text does not contradict reason, and so that an adherent of Christianity does not actually have to rely on faith at all.

Blarg 2

Even if literature did not have cognitive value would it still have another kind of significant value?

I think that even if literature does not actually contribute original things to the world, reinforcement still has incredible value. We learn things through reinforcement so, it would still be just as valuable if it did manage to convince people of a point which was unoriginal but still valuable. Even if Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo didn't actually contribute towards science, It did, as I mentioned in my previous post, cause many people to give up geocentric views for heliocentric views. It sort of reinforced the ideas from Copernicus' De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium. This sort of reinforcement is very important to out human history and understanding; creating many works of literature to reinforce some moral point or truth about the world, helps to spread the message to a large number of people around the world. People who did not read Copernicus' book may have read Galileo's instead.

Blarg

What are some examples of literature that have had a great effect on human history and understanding?

Well, to start out, many religious have had a tremendous effect on the course of human history. The Bible, the Torah, the Qur'an, the Dhammapada, along with many other religious texts have influenced human policies, behaviours, and attitudes for thousands of years. These works of literature continue to influence people to this day. Many social issues (especially in America) are met with opposition from people who used the bible in defence of their point. Policies regarding which animal to kill for consumption also come from many of these holy books. 

Apart from religious texts, the likes of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle greatly influenced the meat industry and people's opinion on eating meat. Also, many scientific texts, which can be considered literature, have contributed greatly to a more wide-spread understanding of some scientific truth. Galileo's Dialogo Sopra I Due Massimi Sistemi del Mondo lead many people to reconsider their views of geocentricism and replace them with the more accurate heliocentric views.

Number 674-672 Pencil

Question: Does infinite number of correct interpretations equate to no wrong interpretations?

No, I think not. To use the pencil example from class, a number 2 pencil can be described in an infinite number of ways. It can be described as a number 1+1 pencil, 0+2 pencil, -1+3 pencil, -N+|-N-2| pencil, 3-1 pencil, 4-2 pencil, N-(N-2) pencil ad infinitum. There are an infinite number of numbers and therefore, and infinite number of ways to describe the pencil in that sense. This does not, however, mean that there are no wrong ways to describe the number two pencil. The description number 0+3 pencil is not a correct way to describe the number two pencil because 0 + 3 is not two. Since this description of the pencil does not accurately describe the pencil, and because it contradicts the information on the pencil, we must conclude that this interpretation is wrong. In addition to all this, though number 2 pencil and number 500-498 pencil are both acceptable descriptions, one of them is easier to understand and communicate. The pencil does, in fact, say that it is a number two pencil, not 500-498 pencil.

How Art Contributed Nothing to Anything Ever

On how art has never ever - in the history of anything - contributed to social structure and history.

I say, music has essentially contributed nothing to society. Music had no effect, at all, on the protests and movement in the 1960's. John Lennon, Bob Dylan, Creedance Clearwater Revival, Woodie Guthrie, Buffalo Springfield, and so on, had absolutely no effect on the civil rights movement and anti-war protests. How society views the Vietnam war had nothing to with the singer/songwriters of the time.  In fact, all of rock 'n' roll had little to do with the sexual revolution. The Bible has basically had no effect on history, it had little to do with the inquisition, and was not a major cause of many sorts of persecutions. To this day it has no effect on society, people hardly use it to justify hate towards homosexuals along with other sorts of hate. In fact, during the fight for abolition, supporters of slavery hardly used the bible to support the institution. On the other hand, the likes of Martin Luther King Jr. didn't at all use the bible during the fight for civil rights for African Americans. Mother Theresa didn't even use it to inspire her kind deeds. The Jungle by Upton Sinclair didn't  affect the meat industry. Photography of the Civil War didn't at all influence war and how it was portrayed by the media.

Catechism and Documentation

Sometimes, if you really want people to follow something, you should write it down. You can write down all of your beliefs, all of your laws, all of your rules, and all of your customs. If you do all those things people won't be able to say that you stand for something if, in fact, you don't. A disadvantage of this is that people will be able to say that you stand for things that, in fact, you do stand for. The Catholic Church's Catechism is a shining example of this. Often times you will hear Catholics who do not go to church say that you don't need to go to church to be a good catholic. It's true that the Catholics will always consider you a catholic, even if you don't attend mass, so that they can boast about it's number of adherents. If a catholic should come up to you and say that they are adhering Catholics who do not go to church, please refer them to the Vaticans's website (http://www.vatican.va/)  and tell them to see Catechism 2180-2181 in Part(p) 3 Section(s) 2 Chapter(c) 1 Article(a) 3 which says that not attending Church is a grave sin and that Catechism 1857 in p3s1c1a8 states that this grave sin is a mortal sin. If a catholic should tell you that you can achieve salvation outside of the church show them to Catechism 845 in p1 s2 c3 a9 paragraph 3 which states quite the opposite.

 Thank you Vatican for posting your Catechism and Canon Laws. It enable people like me to read basically the entirety of your beliefs, laws, rules, and so on. Interestingly, it's surprisingly difficult to find the document on the website, so here's a direct link for the interested http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM - if you are searching for a specific part in the catechism, ask and I can refer you to the correct part, if it exists. There are some things that people attribute to the Catholics unjustly.

On Optimism

In response to Kelsey - full post here

In case you still think that life will eventually improve, I highly recommend you look into Franz Kafka. I don't think that any happy moments in his life could be looked at in a positive light considering everything else. I think that optimism, in part, is a false hope. Not everything gets better, and if overall your life is lousy, the moment were you are briefly happy is no reason to think it is better, you'll likely be disappointed - which will only make things worse.

Pessimism, however, is also a false despair. Not everything is bad. There are good times and those should be acknowledged as well. Furthermore goodness, is not the lack of badness. There can be good which is not related to bad. You could enjoy reading a book, but not reading a book isn't suffering. If you view hope and despair in this light you will never be satisfied.

The best thing, I think, is to take both the good and the bad into account. You can certainly create more overall happiness with less suffering so it could be beneficial to acknowledge the suffering that you may fix it. If, for instance, you notice that some disease is causing suffering, you should work to search for a cure. In class we suggested that the world was going to be consumed in the sun in a few billion years anyway. However, if we work towards it, we could eventually leave the solar system.

Response (Corey (Who Owns Art)

In response to Corey - full post here

The question of who owns art has been questioned verily as of late. PIPA and SOPA has been driving many internet users crazy. I think that artists should own most of their works. Currently it seems like publishers and other contractors own the rights to the works. I have a problem with this when the industries controlling these rights have a problem with the spreading of works that the artists do not object to. I can think of one strong example now; John Lennon's Imagine was removed from youtube due to copyright issues. I cannot imagine (ha ha) that John Lennon would have approved of that. John Lennon, I think, would have wanted his work spread as far as it could be. Imagine was, after all, his vision of a perfect society. There is no reason why someone would not want their perfect society. I'm sure this has happened with literature as well.

Ethics In A Determined Universe

We currently operate under the assumption that humans are the agents by which an action is made. Under this assumption, it seems right to hold people responsible for their actions, because they could have made a choice to not perform any given action. Given our current assumptions, it seems perfectly acceptable to treat people poorly after they have committed a crime; If  person A kills person B, it seems right, to us, to deprive person A of comfort; thus we have punishment. Punishment, I think, is not the right approach.

Determinism has it that people cannot be held responsible for making a choice, because they are simply the agent through which, not by which, an action was made. To provide a good example of how a determinist could deal with crime, you have to invoke a lack of choice. Therefore, think of it this way:

A child is born with a severe, yet non-terminal communicable disease present from birth. Since the child had no control over this, the child cannot be held accountable for this circumstance. Most of can agree, then, that it would be wrong to lock this child in a cold, dark room which reeks of urine. Surely, however, the child must be quarantined from society. Given that the child cannot be held responsible for having a disease, we would likely treat the child as comfortably as could be allowed. Additionally, we would likely search for a cure to this disease.

This example shows that, in a deterministic universe, the punitive approach to dealing with crime would be far less fitting than a rehabilitative approach. Given that criminals are not responsible for their actions, it is wrong to punish them. It is not wrong, however, to supply them with as many comforts as can be allowed and help them to be rid of their criminal ways, that they do not act criminally again.

Similarly, since ethics still exists in a deterministic universe, it would be good to recognize, promote, and reward good actions. If a teacher dedicated years of his or her life to helping students become better people, it would be good to recognize that this is a good quality to have, and to promote the idea that people should aspire to be similarly good. Praising good qualities does not harm anybody, it only promotes it, which could one of the primary causes for someone else exhibiting similar qualities.

Similar Conclusions

In response to Nicole - full post found here

I rather like this post. For a while now, and this has been reinforces since coming to college, I've thought that so long as people think about things well enough and for a long enough time, they should come to similar conclusions about the nature of reality, morality, and so on. Many of the philosophers (students or teachers) that I have come to know are vegetarians/vegans (or on their way there), are agnostics (or at least open minded theists or atheists), have a similarly developed sense of morality (and have the ability to apply one concept to other different situations), believe that the universe is most likely determined, and don't agree that capitalism and nationalism are the best philosophies out there. These sorts of connections are available to people if they are willing to see them.

Asking for Pronoun Clarification, When To

Second part of my response to Krystal's post found here

As a final note, I do not agree with the advice of your B-GLAD house-mates. I think that asking a person their pronoun should not be a last resort, it should not be what you do after everything else has failed. Asking the pronoun is the best way to ever prevent failure. Additionally, failure can create a huge amount embarrassed depending on the context. If, for instance, you could not identify Sam by their appearance or mannerisms, It would be best to ask. If you asked Sam and they told you that they use masculine pronouns, you can proceed to refer to him with masculine pronouns which dispels the uncertainty of those around you. If you use 'they' without asking when you have the opportunity to, it perpetuates the confusion and may cause others to identify Sam with feminine pronouns, causing embarrassment for all.

Asking for pronouns should, I think, be your first choice. If you are having a difficult time identifying an individuals gender, chances are that other people have had the same problem and have already asked that person, so they will be used to it. If they are offended when you use ask they are being slightly unreasonable, because you very well could have identified them as the wrong gender and thereby caused others to do the same. People who ask are simply trying to do the right thing, which is to say, identifying people by their correct gender.

Fluid Grammar Rules

First part of my response to Krystal's post found here

Thou there is nothing wrong with taking 'proper grammar' seriously, I think that it is important to recognize that grammar is entirely of our own construct and thereby fluid. Grammar can change, refudiate, for instance, is now a word, thanks to the lovely Sarah Palin.

Some great writers of the past have used the singular they. Shakespeare used singular they; There's not a man I meet but doth salute me / As if I were their well-acquainted friend (Comedy of Errors, Act IV, Scene 3) or "Arise; one knocks. / ... / Hark, how they knock!" (Romeo and Juliet, Act III, Scene 3).

After looking into it, which involved reading over some LGBT pages in French and Spanish, I have found that many people still prefer the gendered they (ils or ellos) over the singular he or she. Though, not all of them find that agreeable. In Spanish text recently, there has been an upsurge of the use of at-signs as in ell@s, or æ as in ellæs. Most HTML editors allow you to use the < / small> tag to make it reasonably sized compared to the rest of the text. There are still problems and it would be best for those languages, I think, to create a new pronoun.

More on Them

In response to Nicole's response to me - my post is here and her's is here

Interestingly, the use of they does not have to cause grammatical confusion. For example, in your own post here, you used 'them' and 'their' in reference to 'another human being.' When people suspect that they will be receiving a phone call they often say to others "if anyone calls, tell them I will be back at 16:00." It's easy in that example and in your post to determine whom is being referred to. Additionally it is possible to create grammatical confusion even with the singular pronouns of he and she. A simple example of this can be seen here: "Bob and Joe went to the beach; he enjoyed the weather."

As I mentioned in my post, we could very easily use they at the cost of having to be more specific writers. For example "Bob went to the beach; they enjoyed themselves." It's fairly obvious to determine whom 'they' is referring. You could add "they invited their friends, Joe and Dave. Their friends also enjoyed themselves." Again, there is no confusion that 1) could not be fixed with clarification or 2) could not exist with singular pronouns.

The fact that 'they' is a plural pronoun now does not mean that it has to be. Remember that how things are is not necessarily how things ought to be. In a previous post you mentioned that we should not change things if there is no evidence to suggest we should. The supplement is that we should change things if there is evidence that we should. There is evidence in this scenario that a change is necessary, and 'they,' it seems, is an acceptable alternative, though coming up with a new singular all encompassing pronoun would be sufficient.

Bigendered and pangendered people could very well be grouped in with people with disassociative identity disorder. Essentially they fall into multiple different categories that we use to identify people. When you see a 'he' and a 'she' together, you refer to them using the plural they. If multiple genders manifest in one person I see little problem with using the singular they. If you are uncertain about a person's gender, foremost it is best to ask as soon as you can, you can refer to them as 'they' because it's as effective, if not more effective(because it is all encompassing), than s/he and  it stands no risk of incorrectly labelling the person, which is embarrassing for all.

I also want to add that s/he is not a plausible solution. How exactly are we supposed to read that? Additionally, the term that would be created would be much longer and thus filled with more unpronounceable forward slashes than should be necessary to identify a single person.

"They" Are Lucky

My previous post was about the use of "they" as a singular pronoun. Speakers of the English language are lucky enough to have the ability to use "they" as a singular pronoun. As a brief note, there are some who replace sexism against women with sexism against men. I don't find that particular approach to be anything admirable because it creates the exact same problem for the opposite gender. It is for this reason that I express that English speakers are considerably lucky in this respect. If you were to study other languages, specifically the romance languages, you would find that it is impossible within that language to use "they" as a gender-neutral pronoun. In Spanish, for instance, "they" comes in either a masculine or feminine form. Ellos, the masculine form is used to refer groups which contain at least one man (if a group has  women and 1 man, you use ellos). Ellas, the feminine form can only be used to refer to groups of only females. There is no gender neutral pronoun in Spanish. Addtionally, some languages incorporate gender into nouns. Water, for example, in Spanish is 'el agua;' el is the masculine article. The people who speak these languages will have an incredibly difficult time in becoming less gender specific.

He, She, and Nobody.

In contemporary English it is considered incorrect to use the pronoun 'they' as a singular pronoun. "If a child is unable to play piano, they should take lessons."The previous sentence is an example of a grammatically incorrect sentence. In order to use the pronoun "they" correctly, the sentence must be recast in the plural like this: "If children are unable to play the piano, they should take lessons." If you are talking about a single child whose gender is not known, it is commonly accepted that you use "he or she." This, however, is a problem when it excludes androgynes, bigendered individuals, pangendered individuals, and so on. You are either a he or a she or you don't exist as far as the English language is concerned. This is slightly outdated and could stand some adjustment.

The pronoun "they" is all encompassing, and despite some initial confusion, I think that it should be grammatically correct to use it as a singular pronoun. A consequence of this may be that we will need to be more specific and clear about whom we are talking about; a bit of practice could probably fix that. It is also important to recognize that it could only become grammatically correct through using it notwithstanding the fact that it is currently incorrect.

Conclusion for CRITO Essay I

Conclusion: Philosophy should be preventative rather than remedial.

I came up with this conclusion based on the fact that few people seem to understand the importance of being preventative rather than remedial. While we were discussing the possibility of changing the definition of literature, it was met with some critics who asked "why should we even bother trying to change the definition of literature if we have no evidence suggesting that we should. Our current definition seems to be working so why should we try to change it?" It's the whole, if it isn't broken, don't fix it shenanigan. It is important to address issues before they become serious issues. George Orwell, for instance, warns that language is going to become incredibly vague; English will be filled with very simple and vague answers. It is important to recognize the possibility of this threat long before it becomes a reality. If it does become a reality, it will become incredibly difficult to fix it because we won't be able to express ourselves properly.

Through vs. By

In response to Nicole - full post here

The memories, I think, are the key here. The universe, as in commonly agreed upon, is one of a deterministic nature, meaning that everything that has happened up to now could only happen in the way that it did. There is no way that you could have had any other car. The memories, thereby are necessarily attributed to that car alone. If, hypothetically, you could go back and change the car, the memories for that car would be different. The point is, you do, in fact, care for the car; the circumstances which led you to care about the car could not have been any different. I'm not sure that you could say that you care about the fact that you care about the car. You do care about the car not because it was the object through which, not by which those specific memories were made.

Caring for Cars

In response to Krystal - full post here

Yes, I like the last point that you made in this post. I think it is a largely important piece to this puzzle. History played out in such a way that that you could have only had those memories with the specific car and no other. We could not simply replace the car and give you new memories because then your attachment would be to a different car, but you would still be attached to it. The car certainly has worth to you.

More Exclusive

Early yesterday I read an article online. It occurred to me, while reading this article, that in some social context words can gain meaning which are more exclusive than they would otherwise be. This particular article was trying to persuade its readers to sign an online petition on the issue of animal rights. In the article read the following "If you are against animal abuse, sign our petition." The context of the article suggests that they would not be petitioning against the cruelty towards all animals; instead it was a petition against the abuse of cats and dogs. The article in no way supported the fight against the abuse of animals in the farm industry. I find this to be slightly bothersome, given that all the people who sign that are not against the abuse of animals; they are, instead, against the abuse of animals who are more frequently domesticated in western civilization.

Anthropocentrism Takes It

In response to Krystal - full post here

The good news is that anthropocentrism  doesn't frequent the literary scene very often because anthropomorphism, as you have stated, is much more appealing to readers. Anthropocentrism, instead, comes into play during the critique or analysis; we don't want people actually thinking that pigs and cows and whales can think, otherwise we may lose fishing, and meat industries. Anthropocentrism is very powerful; though writers will write about intelligent pigs (Charlotte's Web, for instance), people do not actually believe that pigs can be that intelligent. It may be a slight over exaggeration, but pigs are fairly intelligent, sadly, we don't give them their proper worth, with the exception of literature. Though, to be honest, I do not think that the anthropomorphism means much to the pigs who are slaughtered by the hundred thousands to be consumed by humans; Anthropocentrism plays a large part in the meat industry.

Metaphor v. Simile v. Comparison

In response to Kyle - full post here

I do not think that it is particularly fair to use this as an example of bad metaphors. If I saw any of those examples which you have listed here, I would not say that they are bad metaphors, rather I would say that they are not metaphors at all. The first one is a simile and all the others are simply comparisons. Therefore, I think, we cannot judge them as any quality of metaphor. It would be akin to judging humans as bad lions. I think there certainly can be bad metaphors, it's simply that these are not metaphors.

Act MDCCLXXXIX

What is a person? Well, etymology would tell us that a person comes from Latin roots meaning 'mask.' Sociology (thanks to Erving Goffman in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life and William Shakespeare) can tell us, not that I necessarily agree, that this signifies that a person is an individual, not necessarily human who has to act differently and play different roles to the audience of all the people they will ever encounter. Every person will put on an act, no matter how slight, for different people.

The entire world is a stage and people are the actors. The Beatles tell us that Eleanor Rigby keeps her faces in a jar by the door, so that when she goes out other people will see her differently.

Valid to the Beholder.

Question: Are other interpretations of metaphor valid?

I do not think that the author's intended meaning of a metaphor is the only valid interpretation. I do think that there is only one interpretation of the metaphor that correlates exactly with author's intent. However, I do not think that this is the most important use of a metaphor. I think that any interpretation of a metaphor is valid to the person who interprets it. If someone can see a connection between Richard being a lion and Richard being a transcendent triangular square orbiting the Triangulum galaxy, then it is valid to that person. That does not mean that any other person has to agree that this specific interpretation is relative at all to them. I do not think that metaphors are meant to be contained to the intend of the author. It may very well be that the author never intended for you to get anything else, but maybe the connection that the author made, helped you to make a connection that otherwise you would not have made. Metaphor meaning can change and be applied differently to different people and scenarios, I think.

He She They Who

In response to Shelby - full post here

I am honestly not certain that this is anything that need to be changed. I think that these characters are not only real, and with gender, in their fiction universes, but they have been written into our universe as well. Having emotions isn't the only thing that makes something real. I also see no functional use in purposefully using 'it' to describe characters; if it does anything, I think it will cause confusion or will take up more time when you are talking about two people in the same sentence. Snape is a potions master, and Lily is Harry's mother. After this I could say 'he loves her,' 'it loves it,' or any combination of their names. I think that the first one is the most useful while retaining it's clearness.

I also think that using it could be a slippery way to desensitize ourselves to the feelings of certain things. Again, I do not think it is  largely important, but I find it interesting that most people refer to pets and friends with the gender pronouns, but refer to the living animals who are going to be killed for human consumption as 'it.'

I don't think it's a large deal if we choose to say it, given that Snape and Lily will not be offended if we call them 'it.' However, I think for clarity purposes, we may as well continuing to use the gender pronouns of 'he,' 'she' and 'they'

Written Into Reality

Yes, I agree with all of this. You know, for a while now I've been thinking that I disagree with the idea that fictional characters are not real. I mean, they certainly are not corporeal. On what basis do we decided that fictional characters are not real, what makes them not real?  I think that fictional characters have, essentially, been written into reality. The experience pain and suffering within their fictional universe, have gender, have appearance, and have thoughts. They are not able to react with us, but I am not sure that it makes them unreal.

Only In Metaphor: Parable

Question: Are there examples of practical uses for speaking mostly in metaphor?

Why yes, I think so. While pondering over metaphor, I realized that metaphors are incredibly useful in being cryptic and secretive. It occurred to me that secret protection agencies use metaphors when they announce the stereotypical "the eagle is in the nest." I'm sure that there have been several books which are written purely in metaphor to avoid detection. The Bible is one example that occurred to me. Jesus, from what I know, spoke largely in parable. This is primarily because he wanted to spread his message nut he could not do so in a direct way due to the oppressive nature of the Roman Empire. Had he tried to convey his message out-right, without the help of metaphor, he may have very well been put to death long before he was, long before he had the chance to tell more parables. Additionally, telling a story in metaphor form will likely cause your audience to better remember the central message, even if it conveys the message no more clearly that direct language; Even if the message is slightly less clear to the general public, any message that they do get, they will better remember.

I suppose the problem with speaking mostly in metaphor is that many people will interpret the metaphor to mean many different things. Sometimes the new interpretations could be very well opposed to your original meaning; the bible is once again evidence of this.

This Is A Creative Title (Something Witty In Parentheses)

Question: Should we consider the non-immediate reactions when discussing the severity of emotional reaction to fiction?

I do think that this is a very important aspect of our emotional reaction to fiction. Consider, for a moment, the grown adult who, after seeing a horror movie, is constantly looking back when he walks and is turning on all of the lights in his house. Though, he is fully aware that what he has just watched was fiction, he cannot help but to consider the possibility of something happening to him. Simply, the idea of something startling is great, he associates whatever that feeling is to the subject of startling in the fiction. These emotions associated with the initial fright carries into the future. People identify with characters and remember that connection for quite sometime thereafter.

In and Through

Question: why do we choose to incorporate elements of reality into fiction?

I think we choose to do so because we cannot really do anything else. We cannot actually escape the fact that we are humans limited to our own empirical observations and our imaginations. If one of us can imagine something, and properly communicate that idea, other humans will be able to understand it to. The fact that we are starting with a human mind, we cannot communicate anything in any medium, we can only communicate through mediums; nothing we every create will be outside of human nature of understanding.

In addition to all that, the purpose of these mediums is usually to convey a meaning. Incorporating reality into a work of fiction makes it easier for people to connect with. It is easier to understand the problems of someone/thing you understand compared to completely surreal ideas.

Importance of Categorization

In response to Krystal - full post here

Categorization is extremely important to evolution, I would say. Most animals, to my knowledge, instinctual categorize things. Most animals have to recognize and categorize accordingly, the poisonous foods from the non-poisonous foods. It was important for our evolutionary ancestors in the Lower Paleolithic period, for example, to categorize gardening tools (a stone spade) from close combat weapons (handaxes) and long-range weapons (arrows).

You could go to a book store and ask for a thing (without category), or you could ask for paper, or a book, or a science fiction novel. The last one is the most direct it says what you want. Imagine going to a book store with no method of organization/categorization trying to find a book that we recognize as science fiction.

It would be a terrible world where there was nobody bothered to distinguish a piece of iron from pure sodium (which explodes when it contacts water) or a world where people fill oxygen tanks with carbon dioxide.

Emotions and Message

In response to Kelsey - full post here

Emotionally driven arguments can be incredible powerful; characters are written to novels and attain some degree of likability.

People sometimes change their actions and so on based on how well they connected with certain characters. People who read Ethan Frome, for example, may feel bad for Ethan to the point where they make a commitment to not make the same mistakes as he does. In addition to thinking that his story is sad, Edith Wharton relays it in a way that causes you to believe that he got something that he deserved, he put himself through that.

In this example, I imagine that it would be nearly impossible to divorce emotion from the work. And if you could, hypothetically, I'd imagine that the message would be lost.

Non-Fiction and Invalidity

Question: What about scientific treatises - Fiction or non-fiction? Can their statuses change?

Answer: I think scientific treatises are not even on the spectrum of fiction seeing as how a scientific treatise does not have a plot. Though, if  work is considered scientific and does have a plot it would be subject to the rules of fiction. If the plot has occurred, then it is science non-fiction, if so, then it is science fiction. I think their status can be assessed in terms of validity.  In which case its status can change from valid to invalid depending on research and so on. Over time I can imagine that most scientific treatises are rendered invalid. This does also lead me to wonder what would be the case if a work where revolving around an untrue plot, but some fanatic of a work dedicated his life to make most of those events true.

Fiction Default Status

Question: Should a work's default state be considered fiction until there is a consensus regarding the empirical truth or such a work?

My definition of fiction is as follows: A work whose central plot or interwoven plots are empirically untrue - events that have never occurred.

One fictional event, given that it does not adversely effect the central plot, then, is excusable and does not necessarily make a work fiction. Telling a completely accurate story of George Washington but including a story where he cuts down a cherry tree and announces that he cannot tell a lie, does not make the entire story fiction.

I do think that a work should be considered fictional unless there is a consensus as to it's empirical truth, this would essentially help to prevent works that some people recognize as non-fiction, such as the bible, from being considered such. Whether or not the author wrote a masterful story of unlikely events doesn't matter. If the plot is untrue regardless of how much the author believes otherwise, a work should be considered fiction until others agree that it's non-fiction.

Bad Great Literature

Literature is not a qualitative word. It does not carry with it any sort of judgement on the quality of a work. Literature is a category, we can later go to the works within that category and judge them as good or bad. It does not make them not literature, it simple makes them good or bad, they are still literature regardless. Maybe people have the impression that a work of literature must be great (and therefore combine the two where literature is defined as a great work of writing) because non-positive/bad literature seldom makes it to see publication and massive distribution. There can be a bad literary work.

Back to chemistry, under the category of element, a different charge in any given atom does not make it not an element. The fact that an element is a cation or an anion, does not change whether or not they are an element. If chloride has one addition electron, it's still chloride.

Dog Lamppost Coherent Solar Prism Three

In response to Nicole, full post here

Should philosophy be remedial rather than preventative? I think it should be the latter. I do not think that philosophers should wait around for proper reasons to change things. I do think that, if possible, a philosopher should go out and try to find problems with things before there is any need to. Right now, we aren't saying that we should change the definition on a whim, we are going to look for sufficient evidence against the definition we currently hold, if we find none, then we won't change the definition.

I have, since my original post, changed my answer regarding the speech. I do think that there are speeches which fit my sufficient causes and should be considered literature. I do think that some speeches (i.e. I have a dream, Gettysburg Address, and so on) have literary qualities and should thereby be considered literature. I think that the distinction I was think about was the frequency with which I could consider either a work of literature, I would say that most plays when written are literature, whereas I would not say the same for speeches.

What, then, is your definition for coherent? Because any person can take a meaning from any collection of words. And once the initial person makes a connection in this conglomeration or words that seem to have no connection, other people, too, will see the same meaning.

Degree of Binary Literature

Question: Can a work contain literary element but not be literature?

Yes, I think that many works could. Any instruction manual satisfies the first two necessary conditions (mentioned in the previous post), however, it doesn't satisfy the last, or any of the sufficient. Additionally, a history textbook could satisfy all the necessary but none of the sufficient. A speech or play without being written down can satisfy all of the sufficient conditions and but not the first necessary one.

I think it is also important to have literature on a sliding scale, though I think there is a line where something is or is not literature. Something could very well be very close to literature, satisfying all necessary but only one sufficient. Additionally, there would be little doubt that a work that satisfies all the necessary conditions and the sufficient definitions is literature.

Necessary & Sufficient Conditions - Literature Definition

Question: What are my necessary and sufficient conditions to define literature?

Necessary:
1.)It must be a written work - if a work were originally oral in nature, it could be transcribed, and so long as it satisfied the other necessary and some of the sufficient conditions, it could be considered literature.
2.)It must be intentionally created - which is to say, by some sentient being, be it human or otherwise (when, where, and if it is possible for non-humans to create a written work).
3.) It must possess literary aesthetic style and form rather than an artistic style and form (lines, colours, and shapes) - artistic form and style can be a part of a work, but it is the words and grammar that are literature.

Sufficient:
1.) Consist of dialogue with or without narrative
2.) Be fictitious
3.) Convey a message through an indirect means
4.) Convey emotion and/or imagery

I think that a work should have all the necessary conditions and two, at least, of the sufficient to be qualified as literature. Though there is still more room for sufficient conditions.

Incoherently Coherent *plays Twilight Zone music*

In response to Nicole - full post here - http://bradenphilandlit.blogspot.com/2012/01/oral-literature.html
While I don't necessarily disagree that literature should be a written work, I want to say that as philosophers, we are not looking for what is currently defined as literature, rather we are looking to see if that definition is unnecessarily inclusive or exclusive. Additionally, just because something has been associated with one word for a long time does not mean that it would be 'wrong' to change it - it may very well be warranted to do so.

Secondly, I was wondering if you thought a distinction should be made between the text of a speech and that of the written play? I know that I would certainly make that distinction. I would also not view even the text of a speech as literature, if literature is binary. I would say that based on it not satisfying my own sufficient conditions of literature - Not having text and dialogue, not being fictitious, or conveying a message through slightly indirect means.

Thirdly, you added coherency as a necessary condition for a work to be literature. I was wondering works like "next to of course god america i" (e e cummings) fit in to your definition - I would not argue in favor of it's coherency in either immediately discernible meaning or grammar. I suppose, in addition to that, where would a work like "The Sound and The Fury" by William Faulkner come into this. The story is arranged in quite the incoherently, the narrators (four of them) tell many small parts, not in chronological order, of the same story from their individual perspectives. One of the narrators has the mental capacity of a small boy, and so, his sections has terribly lousy grammar - he doesn't differentiate between past, present, and future.

Well, That's New.

Today, in class, we received a claim stating that there is nothing new that is ever created, everything in an imitation of something else. It was stated that Edgar Allen Poe's, The Raven, is purely mimetic. He took many ideas (raven, depressed man, and so on) and combined them into one unoriginal work. Another classmate of mine, in response, brought up the list of elements and stated that we have created new elements. I desire to elaborate on those elements and try to show how taking two things and smashing them together can make something new.

For example, by smashing together many ions of calcium, a non-metal element, and many ions of californium, an actinide - radioactive metallic element, we have created ununoctium, a noble gas, the likes of which have never seen before we created it. The point is, though it was made from two naturally occurring elements, it is something completely unlike either of them.
Even if we didn't create new a new element, a compound can be radically different as well. I invite anyone to intake pure sodium, by itself, and then to follow that up with intaking pure chlorine. In reality, I don't recommend that any person consume either one of those by itself, since it will have fairly detrimental effects on one's health. If, however, you were to ionize the two, they become the compound Sodium Chloride (NaCl), or table salt. Something unlike either of it's pure elements.

Greatness as a Predetermined Before Perceptions

Question: Where does the greatness of a text fall into this? Is it always great (greatness in the actual text) or does it lie in the minds of those who read it?

I am of the opinion that the greatness is something of a measure of potential that a work has to instill positive emotions in us. The text is, as we mentioned in class, unchanging (apart from translations and fancy jazz like that). So anything that is in the work, will continue to be so, though our perceptions of it may change. I was thinking that greatness, as a measure of potential, exists before a person reads a text. As soon the person reads the text, they realize that it is 'great' or 'not great." Our perceptions of the high quality and worth of a text is solidified by the structure, form/style, and content that already exist and will continue to exist in the work.

Cloudy Text - Messages

Question: Is getting a philosophical message from text really incredibly different from seeing shapes in the clouds?


I would argue that there isn't really a large difference between these two things. Nussbaum says that, basically, because we are human there is no way that we can possibly get the different meanings from the text because we share the same truths and such. I would have to disagree with her. I think humans tend to gather very different meanings from various texts, especially given that people have various views of what is true, driven to their core beliefs (Theism v. Atheism). I once heard an interpretation of The Metamorphosis wherein Gregor Samsa was depicted as Jesus and his death was necessary to have the family (representing all of human kind) become happy because their sins have been liberated. I don't quite think this is the message that Franz Kafka intended and I'm fairly certain that not everybody would get that same meaning. Franz Kafka. I think that Franz Kafka may have also intentionally tried to blur 'the cloud, as it is - creating inconsistent statements likes "An innocent child, yes, that you were, truly, but still more truly you have been a devilish human being. with this kind of confusion, how can we be expected to unite on one meaning?

In The Absence Of Meaning, Meaning Is All There Is

I don't think I agree with your assertion that novels can be written without attempting to insert any philosophical meaning. With the 'crime novel' that you suggest, murder could provide years and years of philosophical conversation. To this day we still philosophize about whether or not murder is justified, such crime novels could provide us with more examples. Also, how people ought to deal with loss and pain is definitely still a relevant object of philosophical debate. Romance, and the relationships that people have with others is also a relevant philosophical object of discussion. In fact, relationships between humans are the very structure of our society, how we define romance and so on, is very important to us.


Further, I would say that philosophical content can happen by accident. In class we discussed the author's intent. We determined that we can take a philosophical meaning that was not the author's intent. Not incorporating a meaning is like incorporating a meaning that nobody notices - there is little difference, practically speaking. Additionally, I think it would almost impossible to not incorporate any philosophical message. Even if you don't intend any philosophical message in your novel, some message can be found, and that is equally as valid as a message as one that is intended

Using Scientific Reason and Dialogue to Promote Religious Reasoning

To start out, the work that the rest of the post is referencing can be found here. - http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/e/einstein-god.htm

I received an e-mail from a Christian friend of mine. It basically depicts a short dialogue between student, claimed to be Albert Einstein, and an atheist professor. It used this particular style/form which lead me to, upon reading it for the first, almost accept it as a legitimate argument. It was interesting to me when I thought about how they may have chosen that particular style of writing in order to best communicate their message, however deluded it was. After looking over it again I realized that did several things which I didn't catch the first time. It did things like posit 'heat' as the opposite of 'cold,' 'light' as the opposite as 'darkness,' and 'god' as the opposite of 'evil.' Basically, it involves comparing adjectives with nouns (and proper nouns) in a way that it seems natural to do. When you look at it though, we determine that there are no opposites here. Apart from all of that, good would be the opposite of evil, not God.

Paradoxes Break What?!?!

Only a short while ago I had a difficult time distinguishing between the Law of Non-Contradiction and the Law of Excluded Middle. I was trying to determine where the problem of a paradox fit into these laws and which one it breaks. Essentially, I have determined that these laws are essentially the same law, just stating opposite inflections. The Law of Excluded Middles basically states that a statement  must be either true OR false, it cannot be neither true nor false. The Law of Non-Contradiction states that a statement cannot be both true and false because, again, it must be on or the other. So, based on this, I think that paradox break the Law of Excluded Middle. I think that I have a proper understanding of this. If not, feel free to enlighten me.

S.C.T.M. -- Semi-Condensed Textual Me

Hello, my name is Brandon Gerard Gaudet, or at least that's what people call me as a result of my parents having named me so (anyhow, I'll have another post about this later). I am a freshman at the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts, abbreviated MCLA, which I like to call Muh-klah. I am majoring in philosophy - and I have found myself among only a few others doing the same. All this information here and information similar to it, such as the location from which I hail and my age, are completely unimportant. I don't know why precisely, however, I apparently felt especially inclined to include what I did while leaving out the rest.

 I am a vegetarian primarily for biological and ethical reasons, though environmental reasons are also important to me (additionally, there are micro and macroeconomic reasons that can contribute towards vegetarianism, though I do not particularly care about those). I am an agnostic or something of that sort, in that I recognize that we cannot 'know' that a deity does not exist with any more certainty than we can 'know' that one does. Practically speaking, I live as though no deity exists but from time to time I enjoy reading various religious text, namely the bible (my favourite part is Leviticus 26:14-46 (alternately Deuteronomy 28:15-68), READ IT!!!). I have an apparently innate pacificism (different from pacifism), which I find pretty cool.

My taste in music is fairly expansive Some of the artists that I listen to are - Ben Folds, The Beatles, Nightwish, Rise Against, Beethoven, Koji Kondo (composer of Legend of Zelda music) and other video game music composers. Wow, this is incredibly convenient. Look at this here; by pure coincidence, the perfect segue. This is a true miracle to behold. I was just type-typing away, and lo, my post happened to mention Legend of Zelda - what an amazing happenstance. I happen to have a minor obsession with The Legend of Zelda. This explains why I chose the names and URLs for my 3 blogs. The URLs are the names of the Golden Goddesses from Zelda, the first letters of various things associated with those goddesses, and philoso-(name of the element (and thereby color) associated with them). The blog titles are the aforementioned associations.

That's me :-) in a semi-condensed textual form.