The Motivation Behind Quasi-Realism and Norm-Expressivism in Ethics

Do You Know Where Your Body Is?

I've been doing a close reading of Intention by Elizabeth Anscombe (Oxford, 1957), what Donald Davidson has described as "the most important treatment of action since Aristotle." In developing her account of what an intention is (though some would say her account is of intentional action, and not really intention), she makes the following claims (Section 8): There is a class of things a person knows without observation. The paradigm example she gives of this is that one can know the position of one's limbs "without observation." She says:

E.g. a man usually knows the position of his limbs; it is not as if he were going by a tingle in his knee, which is the sign that it is bent and not straight. Where we can speak of separately describable sensations, having which is in some sense our criterion for saying something, then we can speak of observing that thing; but that is not generally so when we know the position of our limbs. Yet, without prompting, we can say it.

Is this right? It seems to me manifestly false. I know the position of my limbs by some "separately describable" sensation, whether it be the resistance of other objects (e.g., my shin against the leg of the table) or the breeze running over my skin or by some other "kinaesthetic" sensation, or simply by looking at them (or remembering from seeing them a few seconds ago and assuming they haven't moved.) But how else would we "know" their position without using these kinds of sensations? Do we "just know"? I find the last idea a hard pill to swallow.

More on "Eternal Sunshine"

Not only is the movie philosophically interesting, but it (mostly) gets the science of memory right. And yet, the idea that memories have an emotional "register" or accompaniment (via protein sythesis) is itself an interesting (and not uncontroversial) philosophical idea.

Press a Graduate Student Doesn't Deserve

My only a question is how do I get someone to basically summarize my dissertation in a feature-length article in a widely read periodical? Nevermind the fact that I don't have a dissertation (topic) yet. I'll get one. This is the kind of recognition a grad student only dreams of!

Sex sells, I guess. Maybe I'll look into the philosophy of (faking) orgasms. (That is, I'll pick up where Sartre left off.)

Nietzsche in Hollywood

I made it out last night to see the much-anticipated "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" by Charlie Kaufman ("Being John Malcovich", among others), with Jim Carrey, Kirsten Dunst, et al. I'm not going to attempt a review; I'll just say it's an extraordinary movie. Why, or in what way, I'm not sure yet. I bring it up because it falls within a growing tradition of movies in Hollywood written by folks who read philosophy on the side and one day realize they could make money (ok, or just make good art) with this stuff! The Matrix and The Matrix Reloaded are particularly egregious examples of this; the first one uses the idea of skepticism about the external world that goes all the way back to Descartes, but has recently been reformulated in Putnam's "Brain in a vat" example. (Note: Keanu Reeves literally was just that!) The second one rips off themes (in a less subtle way) from the age-old debate about free will, determinism, and their (in)compatibility.

"Eternal Sunshine" seems to give you a heads-up that it's doing the same when one of the characters quotes Nietzsche (complete with the faux-German pronounciation "Nee-chee"): "Blessed are the forgetful, for they get the better even of their blunders." That is a mediocre translation of the last sentence of Beyond Good and Evil, Section 217. The Kaufmann edition (the translator, not the screenplay writer!) reads better: "Blessed are the forgetful: for they get over their stupidities, too." At any rate, you are lead to think that it is the abstract premise of the movie (along with Alexander Pope's poem "Eloisa to Abelard"), but that isn't so. The movie is actually premised on another distinctly Nietzschean idea: the doctrine of the eternal recurrence. (The only movie review I've found that picks up on this is here, though the understanding of it there is a bit confused.) The idea shows up in various places in Nietzsche's writings and one of the clearest statements of it is here:

The greatest weight. -- What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: "This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence - even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again, and you with it, speck of dust!"

Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: "You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine." If this thought gained possession of you, it would change you as you are or perhaps crush you. The question in each and every thing, "Do you desire this once more and innumerable times more?" would lie upon your actions as the greatest weight. Or how well disposed would you have to become to yourself and to life to crave nothing more fervently than this ultimate eternal confirmation and seal?

- The Gay Science (1882), Section 341.

In "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," this deeply profound idea is related to the everyday: a guy getting his heart broken by a girl. And this "would you do it over again?" theme combined with the quite different philosophical subtext about the nature of memory and its effect on personal identity, makes this one of the most intelligent big-budget American films ever made. And put that with excellent directing, casting, acting, writing, etc., and you just might have something that deserves the name masterpiece. Go see it and tell me what you think!

Philosophy and/in War, Part II

(Part I is an observation I made on February 1.)

I wasn't particularly interested in watching "Nightline" tonight on ABC, and was even less interested in seeing any news coverage on the one-year anniversary of the war in Iraq. The show was a sort of a Where-Are-They-Now follow up on the Marines who were part of the first wave of forces into Iraq. One person they interviewed was Ryan Smith, a former Marine sargeant who was accepted to Boston College while still deployed in the desert last year. He is now a freshman history major there, and what got my attention is that he said one of his favorite classes right now is an introductory philosophy course. He said something like, "we are learning [in the class] about the different ideas on the best life for a person, and that's what I'm asking myself, after this life-changing experience... What should I do now?" It was nice to hear someone relate (moral) philosophy to "real life" and their particular circumstances, perhaps as a source of guidance and inspiration about what to do.

But what was most moving was when he remembered his commanding officer, who was shot and killed during the war in a gun battle, and quoted Aristotle to express his thoughts! He cited Nicomachean Ethics 1115a29:

What kind of death, then, does bring out courage? Doubtless the noblest kind, and that is death in battle, for in battle a man is faced by the greatest and most noble of dangers.

How profound, coming from a 23 year-old war veteran/college freshman! I think the fact that Aristotle's discussion of the virtues meant something so deep and real for him shows that all of the scholarly debate among analytic philosophers today tends to miss something: Aristotle's writings refer to genuine human activities that we've engaged in for millennia, and that some of the things Aristotle says about them can't be fully understood without an understanding of the activities themselves. And - perhaps the crucial point - those activities can't be fully understood unless one has actually engaged in them, perhaps over a long period of time.

If all this is true, it would mean that the true meaning of some of Aristotle's remarks is forever inaccessible to those working hardest to understand them - those scholars of ancient philosophy, most of whom lead (and have lead) particularly uneventful lives. But wouldn't this reasoning extend to other scholars, and other philosophers, working on other philosophical problems? If so, what is the lesson here?

Taking Stock of the USM Scandal

...is a story here (with commentary here) explaining how the whole thing got started and where things stand now. This is the first account I've seen detailing the reasons prompting the investigation that was lead by the two professors who have now been fired. The short of it is: the person recently hired as a vice president at USM was previously the President of a community college in Kentucky. She listed on her CV, however, that she was a tenured English professor at the University of Kentucky, despite the fact that she had never taught a class there. She made the claim because her community college and Kentucky belong to the same academic "system", whatever that means. The faculty investigation that followed was an attempt to sort out the details and accuracy of her claims and to determine whether she mislead the university in the hiring process. The concern on the part of faculty strikes me as completely justified, given the fact that university vice-presidents can hold sway over tenure decisions. What occurred after the investigation began is less clear, which is when the cause for termination of the two professors apparently arose. A hearing for them is scheduled in a couple of weeks, so we'll have to wait and see how things develop.

The World Without Philosophy?

Someone asked me last night over dinner: if philosophy didn't exist, what would you be doing instead? I think this person just meant to say, if philosophy wouldn't have been a major at your undergrad school, what would you have taken? But I took it as a much broader, and much more complicated, question.

What if philosophia had never come about? I know playing the possible world "what-if" game is sometimes senseless, but I began thinking about how world history might (not) have gone if there never had been Socrates, (and thus) Plato, (and thus) Aristotle. And that's just to start! What about Christianity? I think I know enough to say that without those three figures, Christianity would be radically different than it is today. But is it too strong to say it might not have survived without, e.g., the theology of Augustine and/or Aquinas, both of whom owe to the Greeks some of their most fundamental ideas?

What about science? Could there have been the early advances of Bacon, Boyle, Galileo, Copernicus, et al. without the Greeks? Mathematics? Just think if there had been a Pythagoras, but no Plato to be fascinated by him. Would we now be doing that same theorem on triangles, much less arithmetic as we know it? What would formal education be like now?

Again, I know this is idle speculation, but it might be a nice way to realize that philosophy is an important sine qua non of the way the world is now. And that makes the virtual invisibility and unimportance of philosophy in Western culture today rather odd, not to mention disappointing.

The Most Common Fallacy?

USM Debacle Update

There is a nice summary of the day's events in Hattiesburg here concerning the suspensions and tentative dismissals of two tenured professors at the University of Southern Mississippi. The highlights: Mudslinging between President Thames and Faculty Senate President Myron Henry, who presided over another no confidence vote Wednesday night by over 70% of the USM faculty. Thames apparently accuses Henry of hypocrisy and dishonest, saying:

“This is not a personal attack,” Thames said. “It simply tells you something about the individual.”

I wonder who he supported in the last presidential election?! That's a Bushism if there ever was one!

Also, Provost Tim Hudson, who has openly disagreed with the suspensions, has said he will not resign from his post. I am happy to see Dr. Hudson expressing his disagreement with Thames' position at the right time. When I was an undergraduate there, Hudson was very active in the Honors College and I had the chance to take an excellent seminar from him on the 'developing world' and global poverty. He is a great asset to the university and I think generally cares a lot about its well-being. Let's hope he can talk some sense into Thames before things get uglier than they already are.

God Hates Shrimp!

As the son, grandson, and great-grandson of commercial fishermen, this funny website has caught my eye.

It is no doubt a reductio ad absurdum against a literalist interpretation of the Bible. Otherwise, I have to wonder on what basis the rather unusual distinction is made between eating sea creatures with "scales and fins" and eating those without.

Deuteronomy 14:9-10

9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

Now a friend has told me that (some) Jews take this passage very seriously and refrain from eating shellfish. And I won't argue with that particular judgment here since it would lead to more general theological issues that I don't have the time to deal with. But it's no secret that Christians have a very selective conscience when it comes to heeding the teachings of the Old Testament, and I can't say I'm dissappointed that they've ignored this one!

The Anti-Fascist Response

A student at the University of Southern Mississippi, at a rally held this afternoon protesting the termination of two tenured professors by President Shelby Thames. It sounds as though there might be a public hearing on this business, though it will come only at the request of the professors who were fired. Today Thames, in a letter to the university newspaper, sounded fairly confident in his actions and seems to think that he will be viewed as completely justified should all the facts be disclosed. No one seems to be taking his word for it.

More commentary in the blogosphere on this debacle here.

The Rise of Fascism in the Academy

Brian Leiter has been following (here and here) the story (here and here) of one Nona Gerard, a tenured professor, now former tenured professor, at Penn State-Altoona. She was recently fired by the Penn State administration for what amounts to simply expressing disagreement with their policies and openly questioning the work and competence of some of her colleagues there. The university of course is denying any wrongdoing and hiding behind a veil of confidentiality, but based on the evidence that is publicly known, it looks like a case of personal vendetta settling. The disturbing implication is that free speech simply does not exist among the faculty on that campus: if you express disagreement with the powers that be, watch out. You might not have a job tomorrow.

As if that incident wasn't enough, the story (here, here, and here) of another one very similar to it broke over the weekend, this time (sadly) at my undergraduate alma mater, the University of Southern Mississippi. The story is basically the same: this time two tenured professors openly criticized the university administration (and specifically the president) for irresponsible hiring practices and other policies, and they are now suspended and probably awaiting dismissal. USM faculty (including one philosophy professor I know there) have called the suspensions "outrageous," "shocking," and "disgraceful." Again, the message is clear: Don't speak out against those in power, or your head will roll!

I know that Thames (USM's president who is ultimately responsible for the suspensions) entered his position in the face of fierce opposition. I think part of the reason he got the job, despite the protests, was because of his track record in the polymer science department. In the last 15 years or so, he has developed a research center there in Hattiesburg that has become one of the very best in that field in the United States (it has been a top-5 department for the last 5 years or so.) The supposition then was that he could work the same administrative wonders on the university at large. While that hasn't occurred, probably due to his strained relationships with practically the entire faculty, someone in power has insisted he stay. And there doesn't seem to be any way out of it since, as we see now, he can not be stopped from below. The faculty are apparently at his mercy.

So has a fascist spirit taken over the academy? Does free speech even exist as a value anymore? These events come on the heals of a long-winded debate (in places too various to cite) about whether the academy in America is more "liberal" or "conservative." I think these events give us the answer! If the university campus is supposed to be the last bastion of free speech (and indeed free thinking), have we entered an era where we can't openly express our thoughts even there? How far will this go?

UPDATE: The USM story is now getting national exposure (see this article in the Chronicle of Higher Education) and the blogosphere is replete with commentary. (See here, here, here, here, and here.) See also this article appearing today in the Clarion Ledger. The USM faculty senate also had an emergency meeting on Sunday and (naturally) gave Thames a unanimous vote of no confidence.

I spoke with an attorney friend in Jackson, MS, about this last night and the chatter he's hearing in legal circles there is that some sort of litigation is very likely to come out of this. He said he has not heard of any evidence that would legitimately ground the dismissals of Stringer and Glamser, and that the only means of intervention at this point (besides litigation) is by the Board of Trustees of the University or by the Governor himself (though the latter of course is highly unlikely). They seem to be the only entities capable of putting an end to President Thames' power trip. None of the administration would dare speak up in opposition at this point, and the rest of the faculty are clearly being ignored.

FURTHER UPDATE: USM student protest over this situation has culminated in a website called Southern Miss Students for the Removal of President Shelby Thames.

The Passion

I finally caught a midnight screening of what-all-the-talk-has-been-about last night. I must agree with Chris Hitchens that it is a non-event.

If you're a Christian, the story is, well, old news. The "controversial" themes, mainly the one about the Jews being the driving force behind the crucifixion, didn't strike me as all that controversial. It's controversial in so far as people choose to forget (and so now have been reminded of) the fact that Jesus was a blasphemous Jew, and that judgment is the great divide between Judaism and Christianity. No doubt Jesus was a political problem for many factions, and it's no coincidence that the Jewish communuity was one of them.

If you're a non-Christian, the movie comes off as a little alien, and at times deeply awkward. The several appearances of (a rather bizarre manifestation) of Satan made absolutely no sense; the dramatic music and strange symbolic gestures by some of the characters (Mary digging her hands in the sand, Jesus with these long silent stares at everyone, the sun and moon as some sort of (inert) stand-in for God, and on and on ad nauseum) seemed somewhat out of context; the sheepish posture of the disciples throughout was over-drama; the scenes ripped from the Gospels interspersed with the main story of the last day (the last supper, the young Jesus building a table, etc.); and much more. If one is able to suspend one's religious beliefs, then the salient features of the movie are the barbaric practices of torture of the Romans and the great complexity and fragmentation of the Roman Empire at the time.

All that aside, I agree the movie was gratuitously gory. I have a fairly strong stomach, but some scenes (e.g., the initial torture scene) had me squirming in my seat. I didn't see the point of the hyper-graphic realism. Most of the film was taken up with showing the infliction of harm on one man; I don't see how that adds up to a movie, rather than just a disturbing two-hour incomplete thought.

If the holy spirit helped Mel Gibson make this one (as he has said), that just goes to show that human beings are better off on their own!

Reflections on Being an Academic

Here, from a graduate student at Princeton.

Perceptive. Honest. With just the right amount of optimism and angst.

Martha

My only thought on this is: Who cares?

Much of the analysis of the decision has been in terms of "class resentment" on the part of the jury. Did the jury act out of resentment of the fact that Martha is rich and famous and powerful and they're not? For one thing, it's hard to imagine that if they did have this "class resentment" coming into the trial, they had the stamina to maintain it through what was probably a long, boring trial. For another, it's hard to be resentful about something you don't understand. I wonder how many of the jurors own stock of some sort, much less know how the stock market and trading practices work. I find it hard to be resentful towards someone who "owns a lot of stock", but maybe that's just because I'm old fashioned about money and find playing the market a second-rate way to make bank.

Fast Food Nation: Downsize Me

Profit motive can cause strange things. Of course profit motive is limited by definition in what public pressures it is responsive to. I wonder how they would react to a public outcry to do away with the company altogether?! Maybe the response would be of a Republican persuasion: wanting to do away with McDonald's is unpatriotic. ("McDonald's is American as...") So that just means any political movement against its very existence will have to be smarter than a Quarter-Pounder; suggestions anyone?!