On punishment and reform

In terms of culpability, we seem to assume any agent could have done otherwise. Without being able to do otherwise, we don't usually consider an agent culpable. That much we often assume. And, in this case the emphasis is on a hypothetical past action. In terms of correction, the emphasis is on punishment and the failure of adherence to a past possibility. But why think focusing on what could have been done is preferable as a corrective?

Bouwsma

If you enjoy philosophy and ever get the chance to read O.K. Bouwsma's essay "Descartes' Evil Genius" don't pass it up. How I wish more philosophers (including myself) wrote with such wit and in a style that both captivates and gives enjoyment. I recently purchased a book of his essays and have not wanted to put it down. Pure pleasure. Also, his argument in "Descartes' Evil Genius" is worth considering.

Lies and Behaviorism

Is behaviorism still a thing? Apparently, it is still making inroads, or ruts, in education (See here, here, and here). I guess some bad ideas have a slow, slow death. Well, let's remind ourselves why behaviorism is so, so wrong-headed. Let's do this by observing the all-too-common lie.

If you have the essence, you have it all. Or, not.

I came across an interesting argument by Frederick Copleston in his A History of Philosophy: Volume 1. I will give the quote in question and then share some comments.

Non-Political Space

In his recent article "Against Bipartisanship" (found here), Robert B. Talisse argues that the solution to our stark political divisions is not bipartisanship, but finding non-political space and activities within which to engage one another. I wholly agree.

No Ideal

We live in a time where primacy and place are given to the particular. We have lost sight of the goal, any goal. Every particular is primary, which means no particular is primary. What are we to do now that we have no ideals worth pursuing? Will the cacophony of voices somehow magically form a chorus?

Can naturalism save us from naturalism?

In their latest article "Neuroexistentialism" for The Philosophers' Magazine (found here), Owen Flanagan and Gregg D. Caruso argue that we have entered a third-wave of existentialism, namely neuroexistentialism. To quote, "Today, there is a third-wave existentialism, neuroexistentialism, which expresses the anxiety that, even as science yields the truth about human nature, it also disenchants." No doubt, the ascendency of science and scientists as the sole authorities on every area of human nature has created a sense of disenchantment. We are told that we have no free will, that our moral decision making is determined by physical processes, and that in fact there is no more to the human person than the physical self. The old meaning-makers, God and the soul, have been cast aside for the hard, cold facts of science and a thoroughly material universe. But, let's be honest, this is a reality of our own choosing. And, it's based on limits we have constructed for ourselves and then accepted.

A working word that still does no work

A few years back, I wrote a post in which I argued that the term "supervenience" doesn't do the work that physicalists seem to think it does (see here). I have been reading the essay on physicalism in The Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Mind written by Andrew Melnyk. In it he makes the same observation I was trying to make.

Common Moral Obligation

I find the tribalism in our current culture to be not only disturbing, but a sure-fire way to destroy our common life together. If we are to survive the current situation, together, then we need to re-appropriate an understanding of our common humanity.

Are we expecting too much from causality?

I remember my professor saying that Hume couldn't know for sure if his eggs for breakfast would nourish him or kill him.

The skeptic's dependence on common sense

It seems to me that those who argue for external world skepticism seem to rely on the reality of an external world, or at least our common sense notions about it.

Virtuous Faith

In his recent paper titled "Faith and Epistemology" (see here or here),  Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa gives a refreshing look at faith and it's common occurrence in everyday reasoning. The paper is open access, so please give it your perusal.

The next step in evolution?

By now you have probably seen more than one article claiming that the next step in human evolution will be a kind of merge between humans and technology. Andy Clark's recent article "We are merging with robots. That's a good thing" (found here) is just one example. One of the interesting things about this claim is that it ignores one principle tenet of (Darwinian) evolution. Up to this point, most naturalists have assumed that evolution has been unguided. But, whatever will happen with humans as we become ever more immersed within and potentially merge with technology, it is certain that it need not be unguided. In fact, if we are thinking aright about these things, we will guide it as best we can.