Monday, January 31, 2005

The Good and The Bad

MelbournePhilosopher

When it comes to the good and the bad, a lot of people are really talking about good and evil. Used to be, the good was just referring to well-being, and the bad was referring to impoverishment of lifestyle. Then religion happened, and the words were usurped to refer to this whole new kind of division. But there's still plenty of senses of the words "good" and "bad" left unexplored - not least psychological ones.

"Psychological Hedonism" is something that is often referred to when trying to explain human action. Hedonists said that we should just try to fulfil our desires as best possible - psychological hedonism is the idea that our whole system of motivation, morality, the whole swag, is just coming from pleasure fulfilment. So what does this mean for good and bad?

It's Plato's famous "Euthyphro" (sp?) dilemma - do we seek the good for its nature, or is something good because we seek it?

But if psychological hedonism is the case, and our system of values is the result of our desires, then what role does evil play? Something is clearly bad if it results in our having less-fulfilled desires, but what if anything is evil in this situation?

-MP

Saturday, January 29, 2005

Melbourne Blog Review - res Cogitans

MelbournePhilosopher

Fellow Unimelb blogger Jake (of recent comments) pointed out his new philosophy-ish blog, which now appears on my blogroll - at least while the content stays good! It takes its name from Descartes' res cogitans, a term remodelled into the 21st century as "the ghost in the machine".

From his most recent entry --
"Much of the most profound and insightful philosophical thought has been produced under gruelling and intense conditions, with great thinkers resolving themselves to reason out extraordinarily complex theories on paper or small groups locking themselves into rigorous adversarial discourse."

That's an interesting claim! It is one I've certainly heard made before in relation to art, and in relation to great achievements in general. Personally, I don't go in for "gruelling philosophy", and prefer to do my best work in conversation. So naturally I warmed quickly to the philososphere's new entrant when he moved away from all this difficult stuff, finishing with

"So the next time you desire or need to talk with someone about a somewhat profound topic, please do so in an appropriate location; that is, a place where food and drink are available, and the décor is at least mildly interesting."

I'll drink to that...

Cheers,
-MP

Thursday, January 27, 2005

Coffee and Cake

MelbournePhilosopher

I have discovered that with coffee and cake, it is at least sometimes possible to shake off that feeling of impending doom that comes on a slow, stuffy, unexciting Thursday afternoon. I couldn't think of anything to do with philosophy today, so here is a selection of my best thoughts since the last post

* I should start putting some photos into this blog. If philosophy can be art, and the sky is green, then art can be philosophy also.
* People actually like advertising material
* Tsumanis are more effective than armies at giving us a sense of obligation to others
* Coffee and Cake are excellent in combination
* The Labour Party is pathetic, and I don't think I'll ever vote for them again
* Online shopping is still too difficult to do easily. There are no malls.

Tomorrow, my post will be better. I promise.

Cheers,
-MP

Tuesday, January 25, 2005

Theories of Decisions

MelbournePhilosopher

A group of us were sitting around the other day, when I brought up the idea of trying to model what it feels like when you make a decision. We came up with the following :

At the bottom level sits the real world. As humans, we experience it in certain ways which give rise to three areas that influence our thinking. These are preconceptions, faith and knowledge. Preconceptions are not available to us consciously - they are not facts or concepts or named things, but nonetheless are something in our makeup which affects our decisions. An example would be the instinctive fear response. Knowledge is made up of beliefs we can express which have been subjected to some kind of external confidence measure, such as the scientific method. An example would be that 1 + 1 = 2, or that things fall when you drop them. Faith is also made up of beliefs, but they are things we have confidence in without having prooved them to ourselves by an objective measure. Into this category falls not only religious faith, but also recieved beliefs, such as our common understanding of the law.

Things that we aren't sure of fall into the knowledge category - they are expressed, and we know our confidence in them.

Making an actual decision is a dialectic between the Intuition and some kind of formal system, in the loosest sense of the word. You might want to call this rationality, but we didn't.

The intuition is informed by our preconceptions, our faith and our knowledge. The formal system is informed by our faith and our knowledge. We felt that the imbalance was accurate - that often we are unable to express why we feel intuitively strongly about some particular issue even though we cannot necessarily voice our concerns.

-MP

Saturday, January 22, 2005

Esprit de Corps

MelbournePhilosopher

I was talking with another Melbournian philosopher recently, when I was expressed my frustrated hopes to find a vibrant culture of philosophy. While there are many people who enjoy it, love it, study and teach it, there are few who really make it a part of their lives as do people studying music, or the arts. There is little sense that one is part of something great, rather the philosophical world is a loosely-connected archipelago, with small islands of thought cropping up separated by oceans of distance and time. The Internet, while appearing to solve the problem of distance, does little to engender a human sense of community. One cannot see the excited look on someone's face as they experience the thrill of discovery in the ideas of a new author, or spend hours talking together into the night about abstruse and varied topics.

-MP

Wednesday, January 19, 2005

Hot Weather

MelbournePhilosopher

It's hot. Damn hot. It's so hot, I saw a little man in a red suit burst into flames. Thus, the sticky inspiration for this posting. What, if anything, could philosophy possibly have to say about hot weather? The closest thing I could find was a quote by Billy Connoly regarding bad weather.

"There's no such thing as bad weather....only the wrong clothes. Get yourself a sexy raincoat and live a little!"

Unfortunately, a sexy raincoat is not of much use in the sweltering heat, unless it is to keep everything else from getting wet while you drip.

The closest thing to a philosophical standpoint on the issue comes from the ancient greeks, who look to nature for their definition of the good. This, in modern parlance, is called ethical naturalism. However in their day, the definition of the good included not only ethics, but well-being. As a natural occurrence, they might consider hot weather to be a good thing. However, weather in general is natural, and so hot weather has nothing to distinguish itself on this count. We must look further into there ideas before we find that both hot and cold weather are considered to be less than temperate climates. The concept of temperance was dear to Plato, who held that everything should exist in relation to the rest of the world in harmony, justly submitting to the rule of the better and the control of reason. Aristotle, his student, later used this when talking of his doctrine of the mean. Like me, he clearly preferred to enjoy life in a state of happy moderation.

-MP

Tuesday, January 18, 2005

Philosophers' Carnival #8

MelbournePhilosopher

... is now up at Enwe's Meta-blog.

Enwe is German blogger, and according to all sorts of other people, part of a minority in being female. I've never noticed any discrepancy out in universities between the sexes, so I put it down to the very noticeable imbalance where geeks are concerned.

She has chosen to present the carnival as a kind of extended post, so you can get most of the content by reading what she has to say. Unfortunately, I find this doesn't give the reader enough choice in what to skim... But the posts are good, and it's nice to see some variation from a simple list.

Cheers,
-MP

MelbournePhilosopher

MelbournePhilosopher

Sunday, January 16, 2005

Facts and Identity

MelbournePhilosopher

It has been said that a fact is what makes a proposition true. It's the ineffable link between my saying that the ball is red, and the actual redness of the ball. This is a good example, because balls are sometimes actually red, and we can all understand what's going on here. A red ball means that my proposition is true, and a blue ball means that it is false. Simple, right?

Okay, let's grey things up a little. We say then that it's a fact whether the ball is red. So what happens when we make a proposition about the future? Tomorrow (let's say I give a date and time), there will be a sea battle. Now, is there a fact which corresponds to this proposition, or not? By the time tomorrow has come around, we may find that there was indeed a sea-battle, and thus my proposition about there being a sea battle at a particular date and time will be true. It would seem like there is a fact which falsifies my proposition - namely whether or not a sea battle occured. But was there a fact at the time I made my proposition?

Still with me? Okay, what about this - I believe some inconsistent things. For example, I believe in the laws of physics, but I also believe in free will. That I believe those things is a fact. However, at the same time, those facts (fact one : I believe in the laws of physics, fact two : I believe in free will) are not consistent. The laws of physics - well at least some conceptions of them - aren't really able to be true at the same time as free will being true. So what is going on there? If inconsistent facts can exists, does this say anything about the universe as a whole? Or are the only valid facts physical ones, and the things we believe not really facts at all?

-MP

Saturday, January 15, 2005

Snippet from a discussion on identity

MelbournePhilosopher

It seems like someone is attempting to say that my mind is the only part of myself I cannot remove and still remain myself - but that is false. We call amnesiacs the same person as before they forgot, and dead persons the same person as when they are alive. In fact, our ascription of identity is more numerical identity than qualitative identity.

Defining the self holistically, and accepting that identity allows for change, is not a regression at all. Unclearness on identity (for example losing an arm) is not actually a problem of fact or perception, but a problem of language. There is nothing about which we are mistaken when we see that a dead person is no longer a live, or when someone's arm is lost etc, so why is it that you find it necessary to place the self so solidly in the mind?

Cheers,
-MP

Friday, January 14, 2005

Why I think human reasoning may be logical despite appearances

MelbournePhilosopher

It's kind of the physics of it. Humans can spout inconsistent beliefs, but all a belief is, is some kind of physical representation. Proof by existence - it is perfectly logical for that to exist. It is only the meaning given by humans, i.e. the reference, which is inconsistent.

As such, reasoning itself is a physical process, which in a logical universe can be nothing but an application of those same rules.

While people might "say" inconsistent things, nonetheless their fundamental methods of thinking are happening according to logically consistent processes.

As such, inconsistency in human belief may not be the result of poor thinking methods, but rather the result of a poor set of inherited concepts, and the brain is doing what it can.

Wednesday, January 12, 2005

Philosophy Course - Day Three

MelbournePhilosopher

Day Three - things are hotting up.

Lecture One :
More Darwin. (groan)

Lecture Two :
* The principle of conflict - if something logically inconsistent seems to be true of an object, then it must be made up of further parts. Example : a man is standing still, but moving his head.

* Platonic forms as a kind of logical consistency - justice in a man and justice in a city are both shadows of the same concept of justice. Variation in instance is not enough to bring the two kinds of justice in conflict, which would demand a description by parts.

-MP

Philosophy Course - Day Two

MelbournePhilosopher

Today's summary is more interesting, although I will be equally brief

Lecture / Tute One :
* Evolution selects for altruistic behaviour; those groups then succeed
* Naive responses are to suggest it could never take off, or that a prisoner's dilemma would undermine the group

Lecture / Tute Two :
* Socrates attempts to draw a distinction between power and goodness
* Socrates attempts to argue for restraint as a way to satisfy our desires

Cheers,
-MP

Monday, January 10, 2005

Philosophy Course - Day One

MelbournePhilosopher

I'm doing two summer subjects at the moment, and my blog posts will be a short summary...

Lecture One :
* Something about where morals come from
* Something about evolution

Lecture Two :
* What is the value of studying philosophy?
* If nothing, then what should we be doing instead?
* The concept of good
* Pleasure and the good

-MelbournePhilosopher

Friday, January 07, 2005

Learning to Write

MelbournePhilosopher

Writing is the method by which philosophy is primarily expressed, though of course it is not the only one. Because of the longevity of a written document, it is our best insight into the thoughts and experiences of those who have gone before. Not everyone seeks to leave a lasting legacy, but everyone seeking to share opinions should know how to express themselves.

Learning good writing skills can be a difficult task, and is still an area I regard myself as being deficient in. Most texts on writing cover what I call sentence skills - how to write a grammatical sentence, tips for ensuring your writing is readable, hints for how to break a piece of writing into three sections (more are seldom explained), and so forth. However, there are many intricacies which are not often taught, which we must pick up for ourselves. Here are some tips that come after learning basic skills, but that are not often taught explicitly :

1) Writing in the first, second or third person can be appropriate in the right circumstances, regardless of what you have been taught; sometimes it is possible to provide either examples or passages in a different writing style to highlight a particular point.

2) An essay is a story - the myth of "logical progression" is insufficient to understand how to write well. Sometimes not all ideas come from a simple base, and it is not always possible to explain yourself from first principles. What is key is that your ideas are introduced, and that if you choose to break from a linear sequence, that you explain what the different principles involved are, and how they are related.

3) When in doubt : thesis, antithesis, synthesis. A synthesis need not always be the middle ground - but neither should it simply be a re-assertion of either thesis or antithesis.

4) Humor is under-rated, and also under-marked. In academic writing, one should not attempt comedy, however one still needs to find ways to break up a monotonous text. Finding ways in which to make your reader think and periodically to give them a rest will help them understand what you are saying.

5) Keep your eye on the goal. Edit for brevity, but never use single-word sentences. Long sentences should be well punctuated, and you should never use hyperbole to make a point. Word limits are a challenge to the writer.

6) If you cannot ground a point, do not make it. In academic writing, you are assessed on your ability to justify what you say - it is better to suspend your opinion if a better essay can be written without it.

7) An essay's structure is not beginning, middle and end. An essay's structure is thought reflected in writing - therefore the physical structure should always reflect the logical structure. Use sentence construction as an aid to making your point, for example by clarifying the purposes of ideas, and by grouping related concepts in writing. Not merely down to the paragraph, but down to the sentence segment, two thoughts should never be confused.

8) Spellcheck.

9) Reading your own work aloud will help you pick up grammatical and logical errors that you will miss if you only look at what you have written. Your mind knows what you meant to say, and sees only the intention. Reading aloud forced the mind to consider what is actually there.

-MP

Thursday, January 06, 2005

First causes

MelbournePhilosopher

I was reading a book on Chinese medicine, and stumbled across this quote :

"Conceptions are not subsumed under one another but placed side by side in a pattern, and things influence one another not by acts of mechanical causation, but by a kind of 'inductance' ... The key-work in Chinese thought is Order and above all Pattern ... Things behave in particular ways not necessarily because of their prior actions or implusions of other things, but because their position in the ever-moving cyclical universe was such that they were endowed with intrinsic natures that made behaviour inevitable for them ... They were thus parts in existential dependence upon the whole organism."
-- Joseph Needham

This brought home to me something about the "proof" of God from the principle of first causes - specifically why I find it completely unconvincing, and at the same time perhaps why Aquinas found it extremely convincing.

Essentially, it is the role of intrinsic versus extrinsic causes for behaviour. The Chinese conception here demonstrates that change is coming from within the thing, whereas in Aquinas' thought, change always came from without. Speaking mechanically, every event has an antecedant, but today we see mechanical action as the playing out of the laws of physics, rather than the result of some particular cause.

In a philosophy which views all change as being extrinsic, one is led inevitably to a primal cause - God. A philosophy which is unable to grasp the conception of a universe consisting only of intrinsic properties is equally unable to entertain the notion that God does not exist. It is precisely this problem which continues to be confusing to many people considering the start of time. When you ask, "What came before time?", you are doing two things. The first is confusing temporal order with logical order. Time traced backwards to the origin of the universe follows a curve, not a straight line. A time traveller attempting to reach the origin of the universe would face the same problems now facing those who attempt to travel at the speed of light - those of relativity. The second is more forceful - by what right does the universe exist, and why are its' properties so? The conception of the universe surrounded by void is one which conjours up a multiverse of universes, some mental fantasy where they, in some sense of the word, are still present "in" something.

The Chinese philosophy is much more at home with the concept of the universe defining itself, and containing within it both laws by which actions are restricted, and actions by which change is made.

-MP

Wednesday, January 05, 2005

Why does freedom matter?

MelbournePhilosopher

"Why does the philosophy matter? Because people who don't value their freedom will lose it. If you give people freedom but don't teach them to value it, they won't hold on to it for long. So it is not enough to spread free software. We have to teach people to demand freedom, to fight for freedom. Then we may be able to overcome the problems that today I see no way to solve."

--Richard Stallman

RMS as he is commonly known is basically a free software evangelist, which is to say he promotes free software on issues not related to the most practical problems, and does not share the views of mainstream IP stakeholders. He thinks everything should be free (as in Freedom). He also writes a lot of software for free (as in beer). He would like to be able to write software to do anything he likes without fear of reprisal through the courts, and would also like to be able not to charge money for it.

Example : Personal Video Recorders. RMS could write one himself, but due to recent changes to US software laws, he can't, because it infringes on the IP of some cable tv set-top boxes. It's not like they got there first, like is normally required of patents, it's just that they will accuse RMS of modifying their hardware, something that's illegal in the US.

This is not just a software argument. People are giving up their freedoms every day, and not fighting for it. I would like it if more people fought for their freedom.

-MP

Tuesday, January 04, 2005

Social Engineering and Natural Disasters

MelbournePhilosopher

In response to : US pushes aid plan to avert terror

For me, this was a moment of self justification. Just yesterday evening I was saying that I looked at the aid being given to the Tsunami victims, and saw not only compassion, but self-interest. One should never discount the goodness of aid, but after taking a moment to look at the history of foreign aid after natural disaster, we see that the incredible international response is completely unheralded. Are our governments really suddenly realising a moral conscience, or is it more likely that there is a little cultural colonisation going on?

Seriously - wars in Africa, earthquakes and flooding in India, bridges collapsing, famine and poverty have never evoked such a response before. Humanitarian crises have traditionally been seen as Someone Else's Problem. The scale of the tsunami response is out of all scale compared to previous responses, and that has to say something.

To me, it says that the US is interested in gaining a cultural foothold overseas. This is their opportunity to help the poorest, most downtrodden people, often in Muslim areas, to show how kind-hearted, lovely, and not deserving of bombs they are. And that's more or less what this article is saying. It's a smart move. Let's face it, economically downtrodden muslim areas are where lots of terrorists are coming from at the moment. Invading their homelands didn't really seem to help much (duh), so now a little economic aid has finally been seen as the cheaper and more effective solution. It's basically a good thing, because it might actually work if sufficiently followed up. To protect ourselves, we need to remove the forces which cause our societies to be attacked, and it is better to do so through mutual advantage than through oppression. It is no less a deliberate attempt to alter world standards to conform to our own, but it is far, far better to do it by making people's lives better than through war and anger. In the face of improving the world standard of living and entering a new age of productivity, I don't think the issues of cultural change even rate a mention in the list of downsides.

-MP

Sunday, January 02, 2005

Taking Time Off

MelbournePhilosopher

It's important to take time off from things, even when staying committed to them is a goal for you. I've been posting less often over this Christmas period, and instead have been putting my efforts elsewhere. They have been:

1) Half-building a coffee table. Slow and steady will win the race on this one
2) Enjoying a NYE party that went up to 11 - volume, not o'clock!
3) Spending time with friends
4) Trying hard to relax

The holidays are an opportunity to un-train yourself, and let go of the discipline with which one normally lives life. Life comes in cycles, and without the occasional restful change, busy-ness eventually becomes inefficient.

-MP