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.

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.

A Pre-Socratic Crush

I am fascinated by the Pre-Socratic philosophers. Why the general tendency towards monism? Thales' water, Anaximander's eternal indeterminate, Anaximenes' air, and of course Heraclitus' fire all try to pinpoint the one thing upon which all else depends. What is the one "stuff" from which the multiplicity arises? They were, in general, materialists. Material monists, if you will. The only problem with saying they were materialists is that they had not yet developed the kind of dual (material/spiritual) understanding of reality from which contemporary ideas of materialism have their provenance. Their dualism, if we can say that they had one, was the one and the many.

A Reductio for Eliminative Materialism

Can arguments for eliminative materialism be made without employing some aspects of so-called “folk psychology” and does it matter if they cannot? These are questions I want to explore. 

A working word that does no work

"Supervenience" is a fancy way of saying, "I have no idea how the physical and mental are related."
 

Two Friends Fishing (On Expectations Of Justice)

Sam:  Hand me that light. I can't see what I'm doing with this hook.

Frank:  I don't think we'll catch any more tonight, but here you go.

Sam:  Maybe we should go about this from a different angle.

Frank: You mean we should use different bait?

Sam:  No. I'm talking about the injustice we see in the world. For the last hour and a half we've bemoaned the fact that it seems injustices will never end. In fact, it seems reasonable that our expectations of a just world are unreasonable. I guess what I'm trying to say is that we should always seek to bring about a just world, but that we should also be realistic. It will never happen. It can never happen.

A Socrates To Me

I was on my way to a training seminar when I experienced one of those encounters that calibrate expectations. I located my luggage at baggage claim, and found my way to the shuttle. As it would happen, it was just the two of us.

Is Death Natural?

Is death natural?  It would seem that there is very little that is obviously more natural than death.  Every living being we perceive in this world comes into being, lives, and dies.  So why even ask the question?  I ask the question because we do not act as if death is natural.  In some ways we act as if death is unnatural.  It seems to me that if death is one of the obviously natural events in the existence of a living being, then the way that many living beings react to the prospect of death is strange.  Likewise, if death is simply a natural part of living; then why do we not welcome it, embrace it, cheer when a loved one's life ends?  I suppose there are a number of reasons why we do not embrace death and look forward to it.  Nonetheless, given the way we actually do, in most cases,seek to avoid death and become sad when our loved ones die...Is death natural?

Time and Meaning

In his recent offering for The New York Times titled "On Modern Time," Espen Hammer examines modern society's perception of time.  Hammer's prognosis is bleak.  Modern society is dissatisfied and the clock is to blame.  So what is the remedy?  Hammer offers one, but it seems wholly unhelpful.  Nonetheless, the subject (i.e. time) is important. That being the case, I would like to share some thoughts that Hammer's treatment of the subject brought to mind.