Week 12 - Civil disobediance

This week we’ve been discussing arguments for and against civil disobedience, from Socrates to Martin Luther King.

Socrates is held to be “one of the classic spokespersons for opposing civil disobedience” because he did not feel that there was any justification for violating the law. As a citizen of the Athenian state, he believed that he had “entered into an implied contract” which required that he obey the commands of the State. This did not mean that Socrates agreed with everything commanded by the state (including his death sentence), but when he failed to convince his fellow citizens of his arguments, he felt compelled to accept his fate. To escape execution would have meant a loss of integrity.

Interestingly, Martin Luther King invoked Socrates as he argued for civil disobedience in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail”. Martin Luther King compares Socrates’ need “to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths…” through his dialectic method to methods that King and others employed as “non-violent gadflies”.  King’s civil disobedience techniques, including sit-ins and marches, were meant to create “…the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood."

I agree with St. Augustine, Gandhi and Martin Luther King, that some laws are unjust and should not be obeyed.  We’ve seen it with the racist Jim Crow laws in our own country, Nazi Germany, the racist caste system instituted in South Africa and we’re also seeing it today as gay couples are denied the basic right to marry in most states and the legal protections that right affords. I heard many stories growing up from older family members about the discrimination they endured because of the color of their skin. All of these struggles against injustice have been long and difficult.

I went searching for the exact quote made by Frederick Douglass during the era of slavery that points to the need for civil disobedience to me:  “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them..."

I believe that there are clearly times when nothing will change by having discussions, or pleading for change. Sometimes you have to do something dramatic that brings the issue to the forefront, particularly when no other methods have worked. I think the Occupy Wall Street movement comes out of the frustration of seeing a succession of politicians elected and no discernible change, of seeing the scales of justice in the legal system weighed in favor of the powerful. I’ve heard some pundits say that the OWS people are just wasting their time, that they failed to do anything real, but one thing is for sure, the debate has changed. For the first time in a long time, people and the media are talking about the injustice of the favoritism toward the very rich and the increasing gap between the haves and have-nots.

Week 11 - The individual and the State

This week we've been studying the political philosophies of ninteenth century philosphers John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx.

John Stuart Mill, much like present day libertarians, promoted the philosophy that preserving the rights of the individual is the most important factor in producing the best, happiest society overall. He thought that government should regulate far less and have very limited power to exert it's will on our personal lives. He was concerned that the individual be adequately protected from the tyranny of the majority.

Karl Marx in contrast believed that a collectivist style of government which ensured the rights of all workers, eliminated class divisions and curtailed the individual's right to accumulate great wealth for himself at the expense of others, would result in the the most freedom for society. Marx was concerned that the working class proletariat should be adequately protected from the tyranny of the bourgeois capitalist.

I wouldn't consider myself absolutely in agreement with either philosopher, although both had valuable things to say. It's fascinating that their ideas about government seemed so diametrically opposed to each other - Mill arguing for less government control and Marx arguing for stronger government control. We continue to see these basic arguments being played out in current political campaigns.

While I agree with the classical liberal idea that we must guard against too much government intrusion into our personal lives and the importance of preserving free speech and expression, I can't agree that merely being free to make your own choices makes for the ideal society.

Our discussion about Mill reminds me of one of the recent Republican presidential candidate debates. The Republican audience cheered as the moderator asked libertarian Ron Paul if he'd be willing to let a young man die who had not purchased health insurance. As I remember, Paul, sounding very influenced by John Stuart Mill, said that the man had the right to make his own risky decision not to have health insurance and that the government should not be involved in either forcing him to have insurance or paying for his treatment. Paul says that he longs for the days when people just took care of each other instead of relying on government assistance. I think this sentiment is really naive and could have catastrophic effects if implemented as policy.

Due to our population's size and complexity, and the fact that all of us don't have really good friends or family members who can take care of us, requires that we maintain a social safety net administered by government. The current cost of health care means that you would need a small city's worth of good friends to take care of you if you end up needing help with a severe illness and hospitalization. Many don't have health insurance even though they are working full time.  I think it is the government's role to step in sometimes when necessary to enforce regulations or provide assistance. Social security was established back in the 1930s because there were a lot of destitute elderly people who didn't have anyone to help them. While this might seem paternalistic to a classical liberal, I think it is essential to a civilized, compassionate society.

Marx's view of capitalism as a system which inevitably results in exploitation with the capitalist doing everything to make a profit at the expense of the individual makes a lot of sense. However, I think that there is no system devised by human beings which does not avoid some kind of class or caste system. I think it would be naive to believe in a communist utopia in which all individuals are equals and no one is exploited. Finding a way to implement some form of Marx's ideas, particularly when it comes to providing free (or at least affordable) education and medical care for all would make a lot of people's lives much better.

Marx's quote from the "Communist Manifesto"  that "private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; it's existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths." could not be a more timely idea. One can't help thinking of the Occupy Wall Street movement's slogan proclaiming "we are the 99 percent"  The sentiment is eerily similar as protesters express their outrage at being exploited by the weatlthy.

I think the best solution is some mix of individual freedom and government protection and regulation. There is inevitable tension between these two concepts as we continually try to figure out what works and what is best for our society.

Week 9 - Buddhism, desires and suffering

This week we have been discussing the "problem of evil", suffering and Theistic, Hindu and Buddhist approaches to this topic. I find the philosophy of Buddhism to be a very practical way to handle the reality of suffering in life with a simple (but not easy) roadmap of 4 noble truths: 1) We accept that suffering exists, 2) our selfish cravings and desires create suffering, 3) there is a way to end suffering and 4) the way to end suffering is through enlightened living.

I believe that it is quite possible to live according to the teachings of the Buddha in the contemporary United States, but much of popular culture encourages a mode of thinking that contrasts sharply with it. We are taught first of all to mostly look for the causes of suffering outside ourselves instead of focusing on how our reactions to painful events make us suffer. We are almost of the mindset that we should have little or no pain at all.  We expect to have discomforts eliminated, to be perpetually entertained, never bored. Our consumer culture encourages us to constantly want the next new great product that will make our lives wonderful. When we always focus on our desire for things to be different than they are in reality, we suffer unnecessarily. We can accept that suffering exists, and live the best life we can without making our inevitable pain worse. It reminds me of a time when I was about 10 years old and had to get a shot at the doctor's office that I wasn't looking forward to. I spent so much time worrying myself sick that the time leading up to the shot was far more unpleasant than the momentary pain of the injection itself.

We are also taught to look for answers outside of ourselves. If we read the right book or join the right club or religion or purchase the right thing, we can get receive the solutions to all of our problems, but it really isn't that easy. When the Buddha said "Be ye lamps unto yourselves", I think he was saying that we each have to find our own way to the truth and it cannot be a passive process.

As a culture, we seem to be in denial about old age, sickness and death. We avoid open and honest discussions of the harsh realities of aging and end of life issues because they are unpleasant. As the Buddha discovered when he left the sheltered confines of his palace, these are all inevitable stages (if we live long enough to get to be old) yet we often go through our lives as though these things won't ever happen to us. In a materialistic and consumer oriented society, the impermanence and transitory nature of all things as expressed in Buddhist philosophy may not be the most popular concept.

I was especially struck by the ancient story of the desperate grieving woman who goes to the Buddha in hopes that he will be able to revive her dead child. The Buddha, in response to her request, instructs her to collect mustard seeds from every household that has not experienced a death. When the mother is of course unsuccessful, she realizes that  "everyone she had met had been touched by the sorrow of death". In seeing the pain of others, she stops focusing exclusively on her own pain and therein comes to an acceptance of her child's death. This is a perfect example of detaching from our "narrow concern with ourselves", thereby ending our suffering. The woman still misses her deceased child, but she no longer makes her own pain worse by denying death and only thinking of herself.

Week 8 - Cosmological and Design arguments

This week we have been discussing the cosmological and design arguments in favor of the existence of God. While philosophical arguments can sometimes cause people to question their religious convictions, many focus only on those arguments that bolster the beliefs they have an emotional investment in. Hopefully the study of philosophy is helping me toward a greater understanding of what I believe and don't believe and will perhaps assist me in questioning those things that I have accepted blindly in the past or help me discover ways of thinking that never occurred to me before.

Theologian Thomas Aquinas made a cosmological argument generalizing from the observation that all events have some cause. He reasoned that all events either must be classified as uncaused or "caused to exist by another". He then reasoned that there "cannot be an infinite regress of causes", so the "uncaused first cause" must be God.  I’m not sure why it would make sense that there can’t possibly be “an infinite regress of causes” and that God is uncaused unlike all other events. I think the only basis for this line of reasoning is Aquinas’ strong desire to make God’s existence necessary and provable in accordance with his belief structure.

Clergyman and philosopher William Paley makes the teleological argument (design argument) that the complexity of nature and seeming order of the universe show that it is probable that “a purposive intelligent will” brought these things into being. Again, Paley’s desire to find proof to justify his belief in God causes him to ignore those aspects of nature that do not appear to show evidence of purpose or intelligence, at least in the sense that we humans can understand. Random genetic mutations that are unsuccessful as a useful adaption, the cruelty of nature, the preference that is given to organisms with the most useful traits for a specific environment as opposed to those with the most complexity or intelligence, seems to conflict with the understanding that many people have of a benevolent, ethical God.

One thing that hasn’t been discussed in these arguments is the nature of the God that we are talking about. The God of the christian bible is one that sometimes mirrors the indifference of nature. Good people, like Job, are punished. All of humanity, except Noah and his family, and most animal species are wiped out in a flood. I think this is yet another example of human beings trying to fit their desire for an all knowing being that can take care of them and provide a meaning for existence into the imperfect world that we observe around us, which includes lots of suffering and doesn’t seem fair.

I’ve often wondered if you could, as an alternative to the biblical God, say that God is the order of the universe or that evolution is in itself a type of intelligence. The Bible says that God made man in his own image, but I think it’s the other way around. Humans must describe the world in human terms because we can’t see it from another perspective. Human consciousness is a special thing, but we don’t have a complete monopoly on consciousness. There are many different types and levels of awareness in other animals and plants. Maybe one could even say that consciousness itself is an aspect of God. Maybe through our conscious self-awareness, we ourselves must take the responsibility for manifesting the benevolence of the God that so many people hope exists. Of course, many would argue that the word God loses significance if we try to include too much under that heading.

Faith is not discussed in these philosophical arguments. I think that faith is a visceral sense that things are or must be a certain way even though there is no observable evidence that you can point to. This is not something one can argue about because it is so subjective. Perhaps mystical, religious experiences and faith are the only ways to touch or describe aspects of existence that are beyond human description.

Week 6 - Functionalism, Artificial Intelligence and Consciousness

I would agree that humans are, in a manner of speaking, programed by society - similarly to the way that computers are programmed. We come into the world with certain hardware. Our processing speed (intelligence), and the wiring of our brains is partially determined by our DNA. The quality control of the factory we are produced in (our home environment and the type of parenting we receive) is another factor. The family, community and country that we grow up in determine our belief systems and operating system (language). However, the similarity only goes so far. I think one of the major differences between a human and a computer is that that our hardware (brain) is actually changed by our software (societal programming).  It’s not as easy for us to alter or switch to a new software or operating system. For example, it becomes much more difficult to learn a foreign language, as an adult, once our brains have been hardwired.  Changing the way we do anything is hard once we have gotten used to a certain method. I have a feeling that artificial intelligence will progress more rapidly if it can incorporate the ability to evolve as biological species do or alter its own hardware, like the human brain does, based on experience. Maybe there is something in the intertwined nature of our hardware and software that encourages greater complexity.

This week’s study has gotten me pretty interested in Functionalism as a philosophy. The focus on the importance of the function of an object instead of its material composition has me intrigued. In functionalism, consciousness does not necessarily have to exist only in a carbon based life form. Consciousness could exist in a machine, in a brain composed of elements that don’t exist here on earth, or in some other form that we can’t even conceive of.

The idea occurred to me that we practice a kind of Functionalism when we refer to the self or the identity of any individual. Throughout the lifespan, we are continually changing our physical composition. We grow, we age, and the material composition of our bodies never stays the same. The cells that composed my body when I was an infant are long dead. I’m not even the same size. My thoughts and my memories are always changing too. Yet, there is some kind of continuity. I am still functioning as Renee even though I’m continually changing my form and material composition.

This week we learned about the “Turing test”, a method of determining whether or not an artificial intelligence has achieved the ability to think. The one thing that seems to be often discussed as a distinction between current artificial intelligence and human intelligence is emotion. No artificial intelligence has ever provided evidence of possessing emotion. If it ever did, this would be a marker of a major shift in consciousness. It would signify that there is some level of complexity happening that is on par with the human brain. Our class discussion about this got me thinking about autism. People diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder are often presented as having a lack of emotion and empathy and are impaired when it comes to  relating to other human beings.  Yet, no one would ever deny that they were fully conscious, thinking individuals. I’ve done a little bit of reading about this disorder and some autistic people on the more highly functioning end of the spectrum are able to verbalize how they experience emotion. It isn't true that they completely lack any emotions or empathy, they just experience them and display them very differently than most people.

The animal behaviorist, Temple Grandin, is autistic and became an expert in that field because she could identify strongly with the way animals, such as cows and horses, appeared to experience and respond to their environment. She felt more of a kinship with them than other humans. Many autistic people, Temple Grandin included, are savants. They have a remarkable, seemingly superhuman skill or ability in mathematics or computer programming or design or any number of other skills. The ability to relate to other human beings appears to be impaired seemingly in inverse proportion to their remarkable skills. I wonder if it always has to be that way. Perhaps as the fields of artificial intelligence and neuroscience continue to develop, we might find out more.

Week 5 - Dualism and Physicalism

This week we've been learning about the worldview of dualists (who believe that the mind is a separate entity from the body) and physicalists, who believe that there is no mind separate from the body and that what is commonly referred to as the "mind" is just the neurochemical activity of the physical brain.

I find myself leaning more toward the physicalist approach. I don't think we can deny or ignore all of the advances in the field of neuroscience, which continually provides more and more information about the brain. We don't understand everything about how the brain functions, but more is being revealed all of the time. The example of Phineas Gage, the nineteenth century man who lived through a severe brain injury (a metal rod being blown through his brain), shows just how inextricably linked the mind and brain are. Gage's entire personality and demeanor changed (for the worse) after the injury. The person that he had been no longer existed.

It makes me think of a relative of mine who suffered from Alzheimer's disease. We weren't that close and didn't see each other often, but I observed a change in his personality even before I knew that he had the disease. When I saw him last, before he died, he did not acknowledge me at all. He seemed to have forgotten that he ever knew me. The idea of a separate mind remaining intact while his physical brain was being destroyed, doesn't make sense.

I also had a conversation with someone recently about a relative of hers who had died of Alzheimer's disease. She commented, "It's a shame when the mind and the body don't go at the same time". I found myself thinking at that moment, where exactly would a dualist think that mind went? Are there disembodied minds floating around somewhere thinking about things?

On the other hand, the purely physicalist approach does leave something to be desired. It feels a little empty to me, like something is missing.  Even though we are constantly increasing our knowledge through science, we are continually running up against the limits of the human brain's capacity to understand. I'm leaving myself open to the idea that there are valid methods of  understanding reality other than in the scientific, physicalist sense. I suppose deep down that I have some strong emotional attachment to the possibility that there could be a mind that remains behind even when the brain dies. I guess that's what makes the dualistic approach so appealing to so many people.

Week 4 - Epistemology

This week we've completed our study of Pragmatism and Feminist Epistemology. I had no previous knowledge about the details of either of these branches of Philosophy. Although I was aware of the existence of William James and John Dewey, I had never before been exposed to their thinking . I was certainly aware of Feminism, but only in the sense of political and social activism, not as a method of understanding the nature of knowledge itself.   Although epistemology in general is new to me, I found many of my own ways of thinking mirrored in the words of these philosophers (although they said it better, and in a more organized fashion).  Pragmatism and feminist epistemology seem very sensible to me because the context of knowledge is discussed as an important factor. I have long thought also that any kind of philosophy is only meaningful to the extent that it has an impact on the way we live our lives.   I, as a female of african american, caucasian and carribean ancestry, necessarily have a different view of the world than someone who does not have my background. However, those aspects of gender and race do not account for every aspect of my thinking. I think that my genetic makeup, temperament and life experience also cause me to see life through a very specific lens.   Pragmatism's notion of "truth" (warranted assertibility) as a thing that is not stagnant makes a lot of sense to me. It is more of a context oriented process, not a fixed answer or destination. As human beings at this stage of history, we have specific limitations and life experiences, which in turn have an effect on how we see reality. Certain things that are generally seen as true now, may not be seen as true in the future. However, I would stop short of stating that everything is relative and one opinion is as valid as any other. I find myself thinking that certain truths are necessarily better than others, but I leave myself open to changing my opinions should new information become available. I think that the process of gaining knowledge is one of active engagement with the world, not merely an intellectual exercise.   I have in the past done some thinking about whether or not you can judge the validity of a philosophy or religion by judging the way that a practitioner lives his/her life. From my own very subjective point of view, I have not really seen so much of a correlation.  I have admired the lives of people of widely varying philosophies. In my own family of mostly christian religious people, I have seen wonderful examples of compassion and generosity, but I've also seen the same thing in the few self-identified atheist members of my family. They each do what works for them. I like William James' statement that "all men will insist on being spoken to by the universe in some way" -  their own unique way.   I recently went to see a film called "Higher Ground" about a woman's struggle to understand the depth of her christian faith. She ends up coming to terms with the fact that she can't force herself to believe everything that her husband and other members of their tightly knit christian community have accepted as truth. It causes a very uncomfortable conflict with people she cares a great deal about. She will always be one of those individuals who cannot have any certainty about God. It's just who she is. It makes me think about William James' effort to relieve his depression (about the seeming meaninglessness of a life controlled by predetermined forces) by making a very conscious decision that he did in fact have free will. As someone who has struggled with depression, I know from personal experience that my thoughts have a strong impact on how I experience my life. However James' strategy would not work for me. I don't feel capable of making a decision that something is "true" because it would make my life better. I would need some kind of "external" verification. I have often thought that life is in a sense easier for devout christians who believe in heaven and a fatherly being watching over them,  but I could never decide that such a thing is "true" because it is more expedient to do so.