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.

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?