the "grand inquisitor"

In Dostoyevsky’s novel, The Brothers Karamazov, his character, Ivan, tells a story about an extremist dictator named The Grand Inquisitor. The Inquisitor’s explicit goal is to seize control of the government by force and rule the people via a strict totalitarian state. He claims that he can give the people happiness, whereas freedom produces only misery. Another man now bears the title of “grand inquisitor”, and this man is Josef Ratzinger.

Ratzinger, who has recently taken the papal name of Benedict XVI, has earned this controversial title through the open and harsh persecution of liberation theology in Latin America, as well as the denouncement of many liberal Church officials in Europe and the United States. In other words, Ratzinger has become known as an oppressor of any Catholic voices who speak in a faintly provocative tone. Most disturbing though, is Ratzinger’s all too predictable stances against freethinkers, reason, and the Enlightenment.

The new pope follows closely in his predecessor’s footsteps as predicted. Journalist Peter Schwarz affirms that Ratzinger has issued “papal decrees denouncing contraception and abortion, confirming the subordination of women, denouncing stem-cell research, opposing an increased role for laymen in the life of the Church, barring marriage for priests and abhorring same-sex relationships. He went so far as to officially condemn masturbation.” Ratzinger is as repressively conservative as John Paul II, if not more so.

Ratzinger’s decrees against women’s rights are absolutely appalling. In a recent letter written by the pope, he cites Genesis 3:16 as evidence for the righteousness of his bigotry: “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” Of course, in the Catholic Church this sentiment is commonplace, but elsewhere it is thankfully considered ancient and outrageous.

This is a familiar theme for Ratzinger—his inability to accept modernity. He strangely stands against the development of technology and industry, citing them as obstacles that get in the way of worshipping god. Along with this aversion to progression, the pope stands ardently against science. He has a strong dislike for Enlightenment philosophers, saying that they are “blind to a truth which precedes their reason—the pre-political truth of religion” (Schwarz). This radical opposition to freethinkers and scientists is merely a continuation of the line of prototype popes that Catholicism has become so comfortable employing as their “infallible” leaders.

As long as men like Ratzinger sit on top of a throne of obscene wealth and power, it is important for freethinkers, scientists, and all freedom fighters alike to unite against the gross and disproportionate abuse of power exercised by the papacy.

See the article by Peter Schwarz, here.

Read more!

mentality (part i): functionalism, materialism, and qualia

This is part one of three of an introduction to philosophy of mind, leading up to a discussion on the possibility of Artificial Intelligence, and what implications this may have on the notion of mentality. Questions that we will be exploring and trying to find answers to throughout this three part series include: What are mental states? What is pain? Can the mind be reduced to neuroscience? I warn you ahead of time that no tidy solutions to any of these questions will be presented to you on a silver platter. As is often the case with philosophical investigations, questions will remain unanswered, however it is the search for these answers that leads us to further understanding, as well as the creation of new and important questions.

Before we begin, we must first understand a few basic theories regarding mentality. The traditional view that is commonly attributed to the 17th century philosopher, René Descartes, is known as dualism. A dualist holds that there are two completely separate entities, namely the body and the mind, or the physical and the mental. These “substances” exist independently of each other; however, they do interact on a regular basis. In order to explain this mysterious interaction between the mental and the physical, Descartes affirmed that animal spirits—a substance neither mental nor physical, magically connects the two, and is conveniently located in the pituitary gland. Who knows why this is so; it is a point of humor in the always comedic field of philosophy of mind. Even more humorous though is the general acceptance of Cartesian dualism throughout the 17th and 18th centuries. Famous philosophers such as John Locke spoke of animal spirits as if they were a commonplace fact. Only the noble and exceedingly wise David Hume was able to step back from the Cartesian craze and ask his philosophical colleagues, “are you guys insane?” in more or less the same language, but in very much the same sentiment. Outside of philosophical circles, a dualistic worldview is very often held by the ordinary individual. It is very normal to talk about the “body” and “mind” as separate and distinct entities. “The body can not live without the mind,” Morpheus affirms—and we seem to understand what he means by this.

So, what is this mystical notion that we call “the mental”? How does it interact with the physical? It certainly seems as if we have nonphysical thoughts and ideas running through our “minds” all the time, so how can we explain these “mental states”? Dualism runs into problems when it tries to account for mental causation (mental interaction with the physical), and many philosophers have abandoned this ancient notion of mentality. Today, the most commonly held theory by experts in the field is known as functionalism. Functionalism is an account of what mental states actually are. Functionalists hold that mental states are internal states that perform certain functions—specifically producing certain behavioral outputs after receiving various inputs, and determining what resultant internal state the system or brain goes into. In short, mental states are defined by the functional role they play.

I want to focus on a certain type of functionalism known as Psychofunctionalism. This theory uses the same fundamental ideas of functionalism, but instead of being based in some sort of folk psychology, Psychofunctionalism is rooted in a very mature neuroscience. Paul Churchland, the current professor of University of California San Diego is a staunch Psychofunctionalist. He asserts that “the mental” is merely an illusion—everything boils down to neuroscience. This type of view is commonly known as an eliminative materialist—or, he wants to reduce mentality to a materialistic worldview via neuroscience. Intuitively, some of us may have a problem with this type of worldview—and perhaps rightly so. Many argue against this view claiming that neuroscience misses something key about human beings, namely qualia or experiential sensations. How can an eliminative materialist account for the “ouchiness of pain” or the “sadness of depression”? We like to think that these are the types of sensations that are only knowable through actually experiencing them—quite contrary to the notion that neuroscience can explain all there is to know about mentality. Do you think that an attempt to reduce everything to physicalism could be successful? We will address these types of questions and more in the next two parts of this series, leading up to the question, “is Artificial Intelligence possible?”

Read more!

ad hominem uses and abuses

When you think of an argument, or let us say a quarrel, what comes to mind? Logically speaking, such terms as syllogism, validity, or soundness may immediately pop up; however, when the typical man or woman hears the words ‘argument’ or ‘dispute’ they most likely immediately think of an irrational exchange of insults or the uncontrollable rising of emotion leading to unfortunate outcomes. I certainly do not wish to advocate thinking about arguments in this fashion, but it is interesting that this laymen’s definition may indeed have more accuracy than one might think in important and public matters. My aim is to exploit ad hominem abuses, while maintaining that there is room for acceptable uses for the ad hominem argument. Generalized use of fallacious arguments of this kind poses a significant threat to the emergence and acceptance of rational thought in important issues such as politics and religion.

An argument ad hominem is a logical fallacy that pertains to replying to an argument via criticizing the arguer as opposed to the argument itself. In logical terms:

• A claims B
• A is not credible for some reason
• B is false

For example, if I were to claim, “Life supervenes logic” and Fallacious Freddy retorts, “Life does not supervene logic because you are a complete lunatic” then our friend Fallacious Freddy (pardon alliteration) is guilty of the ad hominem fallacy. This seems somewhat obvious on the face of it, but still it is quite commonly used. This is used in informal ‘arguments’ all the time. “You don’t have much experience in this area so you must be wrong” is a typical form of the ad hominem fallacy used in everyday situations. Though it is important to allow expert opinion to carry more weight than a non-expert’s opinion, this does not excuse an expert from providing logical proof for any claims they make.

Think politics for a moment. Presidential debates. Is there a single claim made that is not an ad hominem accusation? “Mr. Bush is wrong about taxes because he only cares about the wealthy” or “Mr. Kerry is wrong about the Iraq war issue because he does not know what it is like to be President” could have been claims made by either candidate during debates—and these types of sentiments yielded positive results from their respective support camps. Moreover, what were the voters saying about the candidates? “Mr. Kerry is completely wrong about abortion because he isn’t a good Christian” or “Mr. Bush can’t even speak properly! How could he be right about anything?” were probably typical claims made around election time. It is quite clear that these claims are completely spurious; however, these types of shameless accusations almost certainly influenced a good majority of the public. This brings up an interesting question—are these fallacious arguments uses or abuses of the ad hominem fallacy? Logically, they are blatant abuses of syllogistic principles and reason, but otherwise they are quite effective uses of emotional appeal. When it comes to politics, specifically influencing the public, anything goes, as long as the desired effect is achieved. This we already know, so is the frequent use (or abuse) and effectiveness of the ad hominem fallacy a testament to political deterioration, political deceptiveness, public stupidity, or a combination of all three?

Inverted ad hominem is also quite prominent and equally as bogus. It is quite often an appeal to authority or power. In logical form:

• A claims B
• A is a figure of immense power or authority
• B is true

Parents often use fallacious arguments of this sort when attempting to control their children. “I am right because I said so,” says the domineering parent. The Inverted ad hominem fallacy often leads to circularity, or begging the question. If you ask a religious man why the teachings of his religion are correct, he often replies with an appeal to the authority of his god or scripture, which is of course completely circular—you can not prove your religion’s truth value by appealing to its truth value. Though this is completely absurd, it is commonplace. To what can we attribute the seemingly popular prominence of these crazy and illogical methods of argument? Perhaps we can blame it on ignorance or an unwillingness to think beyond standard public outlooks.

There is a valid form of the ad hominem argument pointed out by John Locke. We are able “to press a man with consequences drawn from his own principles or concessions.” In other words, it is permissable to point out inconsistencies between principles and conclusions formed supposedly from those principles. If a military commander from the United States was to claim that the United States military provides the best combat training in the world, and subsequently send a number of his trainees to train in Japan, he would be guilty of a perplexing inconsistency.

Another interesting use of the ad hominem argument is in a court of law. A witness’s credibility may become an important point of dispute, because her personal credibility reflects her ability to make accurate claims. A witness who is proven to be a pathalogical liar would not be able to enter any accusations into official testimony.

When evaluating arguments, the ad hominem fallacy is important to keep in mind. It is crucial that we rise above petty insults and irrelevant assertions that are merely used to take our attention off the issue at hand. As individuals if we are able to look past all sorts of logically illegal argument ad hominem uses and abuses, we are going to be better prepared to consider arguments reasonably and calmly.

Read more!

pyrrhonism

There is an old story, once commonly told, about a young man named Pyrrho. Pyrrho held that a person can never truly know if one action is wiser than another. No matter how lucid a situation seemed, Pyrrho refused to admit that he knew the best course of action to take. One day Pyrrho was walking along the road on his way to his philosophy seminar, when he saw his philosophy professor stuck in a ditch on the side of the road. The professor called out, “Pyrrho, my good lad, would you kindly come hither and assist me out of this ditch? I am unfortunately unable to move.” Pyrrho was quite found of this man, as he was the professor who had taught Pyrrho the philosophy he valued so highly. Pyrrho thought for a moment, yet he could not conclusively decide that it would be better to help the professor out of the ditch, rather than leave him there. Pyrrho walked on, leaving the man helpless. Later that day, a couple other philosophy students came upon their poor professor. Of course, the young men helped him out immediately, wasting no time to even consider any other course of action. Many people thought Pyrrho despicable for his callousness; however, the professor was quite pleased. He praised Pyrrho’s consistency.

Pyrrho is the founder of Pyrrhonism, which in philosophical circles today has become much better known as Skepticism. So, what is the value of Pyrronhism? Should we suspend judgement for the simple reason that it may not be the perfect choice? If so, to what extent?

Read more!

a meditation on violence

note: freecog contributor, Eriatlov, has composed a counterargument to this post, located under comments.

I recently touched upon the issue of violence, its justifications (or lack thereof), and its consequences. But I want to delve deeper. I do not believe that violence can be easily justified. Furthermore, I am not convinced that it can be justified at all. I hope that the majority of moral and even pseudo moral persons can agree that we must, we absolutely must, set an extremely high standard of justification for violence. I can not stress the importance of this enough. This is accentuated by my reluctance to accept any justification at all. Let us step back for a moment and investigate the implications that violence actually has on people.

Violence liberates. Chaotic and bloody revolutions have set the oppressed free from their oppressors. France experienced such in 1789, Haiti in 1791, America in 1775. It is true that freedom can be gained through violence. I have even heard that "violence is necessary" to achieve freedom, but I have not heard why this is so. Rather, I have not heard sufficient reason why this is so. First, I hear that violence is necessary because there is no other way. Immediately I am confused. No other way to do what? What is the goal here? Ah, freedom. Ah, justice. Apparently, it has been overwhelmingly evident to numerous groups throughout history (and today) that there was (and is) no other way to achieve freedom and justice other than through vicious murder and destruction. And let us be clear here, “violence” is a term that entails such things as murder, widespread destruction, suffering, and pain. As to freedom fighters, I sympathize. As to so-called deliverers of justice, I am horrified. How, I ask, is it possible that violence can lead to justice? Is not violence itself an injustice? I want this to be clear, so allow me to qualify my claim. I can understand the desire to use violence by the oppressed or abused. However, it is still unjustified. There is an important difference here, and it is not to be overlooked. Yes, we understand the oppressed lashing out in violent rage. But, is it justified? No.

The 20th century brought the world some unimaginably gruesome events. The very notion of a “world war” is disturbing to the point of nausea. However, the 20th century also brought us some inspiring people and ideas. Mahatma Gandhi demonstrated to the world that peaceful, non-violent, civil disobedience is a live option for revolutionaries in search of freedom. I am continually moved by the work of this man. His notion of a civil resistor is very different from what many other revolutionaries before him had envisioned.

The Duty of a Civil Resistor, according to Mahatma Gandhi:

• A satyagrahi, i.e., a civil resister, will harbor no anger.
• He will suffer the anger of the opponent.
• In so doing he will put up with assaults from the opponent, never retaliate; but he will not submit, out of fear of punishment or the like, to any order given in anger.

“When a person places the proper value on freedom, there is nothing under the sun that he will not do to acquire that freedom.” You most likely recognize the sentiment of Malcolm X. Invigorating words, certainly, but what does this type of thought actually represent? He’s famous for another saying, “by any means necessary,” and this is exactly what a peaceful world should fear. I do not wish to weigh the importance of freedom on one hand and the importance of peace on the other. Instead, I want to consider what type of action is permissible under doctrine similar to that of Malcolm X. The killing of one man is certainly tolerable. The killing of ten, fifteen, or five hundred is similarly an acceptable “price to pay” for freedom. I am not specifying whether these people are civilians or not, so how about civilians? How about bombing an urban city in order to protect freedom?—ring any bells? The Japanese hear them. Is genocide acceptable? At the very least, these questions are worth careful consideration.

I used the common terminology “price to pay” in the previous paragraph in order to point out just how despicable this type of thinking is. In order to tolerate a “by any means necessary” theory, you must think of people as commodities. You must think of people as a means to an end, as objects of utility. Is that what we are? Are people merely a means to some end? Even if the end is as noble as freedom, I refuse to accept the inhumane premise.

Read more!

shout, loudly

Today, like every day, is an important day for freethinkers to shout, loudly. There is a very unfortunate, yet all too familiar, phenomenon lurking its way onto the political scene. Blind violence. If there is one distinct thing freethinkers are to fight against, it is this. The worst of two worlds unite to create unnecessary dillema and undeserved suffering. Blindness; a sad trademark of those who are unwilling to open their minds to new possibility, despite beneficial ends. Violence; horrific and chaotic action taken without justification. Wars are fought because of such sentiment: false justification of blind violence. When the leader of a nation uses god as an excuse to massacre innocent victims, freethinkers are the people who must shout, loudly.

It is a strange animal, violence. Recently it has come to my attention that more people than I had previously expected condone the use of violence when it is “absolutely necessary.” Gene sharp, a follower of nonviolent activists such as Einstein, Russell, and Gandhi, published 198 methods of nonviolent action, including my personal favorite very effective—method, lysistratic nonaction (women refusing to take part in sexual acts until men yield to their demands). You can find the 198 methods, here.

Read more!