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.

Reading other minds

In his recent article "The theory of mind myth," Robert Burton argues that we are not as good at reading other's minds as we might think, or as some neuroscientists have encouraged us to believe (see Burton's article here). To some extent, I am inclined to agree with Burton. But, I wonder if our inability to read other minds is not so much due to our inability as it is to the tendency of others to mask intention.

Cynical

When I was an adolescent, I began to realize that the adults in my world were no better than I was at upholding the standards they held up for me. This had a profound effect on me. I became cynical.

Why I am Orthodox

When I first began to reconsider the Christian faith, the one thing I accepted without hesitation is the premise that there is something terribly wrong with us, as humans. We are wonderful. And, we are amazingly so. I don’t deny that. And yet, we are capable of horrendous evil. And, the evil we bring into this world is in no way necessary.

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.

The Persistence of Evil

I don't hold to a complicated concept of evil. Evil is whatever works against, or seeks to undo, that which is good. Furthermore, that which is good is that which works in favor of flourishing life. And finally, life is not mere existence. Life, if it happens, is meaningful. In this sense, evil is not a mystery. We all know what it is. We look around us and see that we are surrounded by people doing things or saying things that work against meaningful life. Sometimes, we even participate. That's at best. At worst, we continually see those who destroy meaningful life, intentionally and without good reason (see definition of "good" above). In short, evil happens and we all know it. Evil is not a mystery. What is a mystery, however, is that evil continues. Why is that? How is it that evil persists?

Big Brains

“…why should we be troubled by Leibniz’s point that if the brain were blown up to the size of a factory, so that we could stroll through it, we should not see thoughts? If we know enough neural correlations, we shall indeed see thoughts-in the sense that our vision will reveal to us what thoughts the possessor of the brain is having. If we do not, we shall not, but then if we stroll through any factory without having first learned about its parts and their relations to one another, we shall not see what is going on. Further, even if we could find no such neural correlations, even if cerebral localization of thoughts was a complete failure, why would we want to say that a person’s thoughts or mental images were nonphysical simply because we cannot give an account of them in terms of his parts?” Richard Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, Thirteenth-Anniversary Edition 2009) 26.

 

Indeed, why should we be troubled by Leibniz’s point? It is only troubling if we want very badly to conflate or reduce the mental to specific neural correlations. And in doing so, discard the ontological reality of our mental experience.

Truth in terms of fit

It used to be fashionable to talk about truth as something almost wholly contingent upon the experience of the subjective self. “Objective truth” was anathema. Truth was pliable, malleable, and subject to perspective. Just the possibility of being able to “create our own truth” was stimulating! But, for better or for worse, those happy days are gone. What was once fashionable and stimulating has become grotesque, frightening, and all too real. People who have power are creating their own truth. Now, we have “alternative facts” and “fake news.” Consequently, what used to be stylish and smart is now out. The conversation is no longer about how wonderful it is that we are free to create our own truth. So, what now? How shall we think and talk about truth, now?

Radical Skepticism

Radical skepticism is a particularly vulgar form of certainty. It is dogmatism without content.

The Value of the Question

Is the question of God’s existence more important than the answers given?