a thinking man's war

Garry Kasparov once famously said that chess is mental torture. And it is. Chess is one of the most intellectually challenging and grueling activities one can engage in, aside from a rousing debate with our friend Eriatlov. The value of chess, however, stems beyond its value as a mere game. Many of the qualities that are necessary for any great chess player to have are also often essential to maintaining a happy and healthy lifestyle in general. As Fischer said, a strong memory, concentration, imagination, and strong will are the most potent weapons in a chess player’s arsenal. In the spirit of competition and mental strength, free cognition introduces its first Amateur Open Chess Tournament. Entry is free and all are welcome to join. You may signup by emailing us or by responding to this thread under the comments section. The tournament will be held on Friday, June 3, at 8:00 PM EST (5:00 PM PST). Be on AIM or MSN ten minutes prior to this time. Click read more for tournament details.


Tournament Details:

The tournament will take place at Yahoo Chess, so make sure you register an account at Yahoo, if you have not done so already. Your Yahoo ID does not have to match the name you are using in the tournament bracket. Each round is a best of three series. Each player plays white once and black once. If the series goes to a third match, you must report to the tournament administrator to determine who play as white (via coin flip). If you are able to come to agreement amongst yourselves, without admin intervention, more power to you. The final round is best of five.

Additionally, each game should be set so that the timer starts at an initial time of two minutes and an increment time of thirty seconds. This means that you begin the match with two minutes each, and thirty seconds is added to your clock with each move that you make. This allows more than enough time to think carefully, while maintaining reasonable time constraints.

Read more!

agnosticism versus atheism

I have heard many staunch atheists call agnostics nothing more than 'weak atheists.' Essentially, an atheist may think himself to be more assertive and bold than an agnostic, and therefore intellectually superior. I wish to call this claim into question. Agnosticism deserves a second, and sincere, look.

What is the difference between atheists and agnostics? The former hold that no godly being, such as the Judeo-Christian god, exists. The latter suspend judgement. Agnostics refuse to declare with certainty that no god exists; however, they may admit the extreme improbability. They may even consider the possibility that a godlike being exists so minute that it is hardly worth considering. In effect, an agnostic is indeed a practical atheist, while remaining a theoretical agnostic.

This suspension of judgment that agnostics adhere to may be looked upon as feeble indecisiveness or a lack of courage to scoot all the way over to the atheist camp. However, before we label agnostics as cowards, it is interesting to make a quick comparison between atheists and Christians.

Atheists claim that they are completely sure that god does not exist. On the reverse, Christians are absolutely certain that god does exist. These are equally dogmatic worldviews. When looked at objectively, there is no conclusive evidence that god does or does not exist. In this sense, an atheist is exactly the same as a Christian!—willing to make irrefutable judgment about something which can not be conclusively proven (at least, at the present time). That being said, a rational man should certainly adhere to the atheistic camp until sufficient evidence provides reason to think otherwise. Practical atheism is the default position. However, a rational man should also be willing to change his views if sufficient evidence for a godlike being's existence is somehow provided. This is where agnosticism becomes rationally useful. Agnostics are practical atheists, but they bring more to the table than just this. They are happy to point out that evidence lends us to the conclusion that no god exists. But, they are also willing to say that theoretically, it is possible, though improbable, that a godlike being does exist. This is a freethinker's stance—the readiness to admit the possibility that one’s views may be wrong.

Bertrand Russell, a practical atheist and theoretical agnostic, knew the value of doubt. Inflexible and rigid belief in any philosophy is to be avoided. Atheism and Christianity are instances of such rigidity. Theoretical agnosticism is a flexible and skeptical approach to this issue, which is anything but weak.

"I think we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure of doubt. I shouldn't wish people dogmatically to believe any philosophy, not even mine." Bertrand Russell

Read more!

moral obligation or a lack thereof

Peter Singer is your quintessential utilitarian philosopher. His theories are tightly strung and often controversial. He is willing to defend damn near anything if the net result is an increased amount of happiness for all parties involved—a chip right off the old block, the block being none other than J.S. Mill. Singer makes a very interesting and perhaps radical claim regarding moral responsibility. He asserts that it is our moral duty to help others whenever we are able to do so without significant harm to ourselves. It is not necessarily this exact claim that I wish to address here, instead I would rather get to the root of the issue. Is there such thing as moral obligation? In other words, should certain actions be morally obligatory? We must walk this road, as always, with intense skepticism.

There is an important distinction we must make before we continue, between morally obligatory actions and morally supererogatory actions. The former are actions which are absolutely necessary to maintain moral goodness, and the latter is an action that we consider morally good, but not necessary. For example, we may consider somebody running into a burning building and rescuing a kitten a supererogatory action, because we would certainly think it a benevolent act; however, if the person did not save the kitten, we would not have faulted him for it.

This investigation regards obligatory actions—those which are supposedly necessary—such as those which Singer imposes.

Let us look at the following example.

I am watching television and one of those heartfelt ‘Save a Child’ commercial comes on. Apparently I can support a child for just twenty cents a day, or some comparable figure. Essentially, I can save a life with absolutely no harm to myself. All I have to do is call the number and give my credit card (assume the organization is not full of con artists).

I think we can be quite certain that donating the money is a supererogatory act; however, am I morally obliged to do so? Must I call this number in order to maintain moral goodness? I must honor Pyrrho, and suggest that the answer is no.

While I fervently advocate charity of all types (see On Philanthropy, by Veronika Green), I have a hard time considering charity, or any other action, morally obligatory. I find it difficult to assert that any action is morally necessary or necessary in any way. This seems far too restrictive and arbitrary. We can not impose one man’s moral compass on another man’s.

Subjectivity reigns on high, when objectivity hides its face.

Read more!

mother, father—what is sex?

Sex is mysterious, doubly so for children. We teach our children to read, we teach them to write. We answer their many, many questions about how the world works; however, when it comes to sex, we leave our children in the dark. Questions go unanswered, ultimately leading to an increased curiosity and yearning to reveal the puzzling nature of sex. It is this lack of knowledge that our youngsters are left with regarding sex that causes an infatuation with it. If we were to refuse to answer questions youths have about trains, they would become increasingly fascinated with trains. This is the nature of curiosity. For sex this phenomenon is even more pronounced, because while trains are quite boring, sex is nothing short of intriguing.

There is absolutely no excuse for deceiving children, no matter the topic. We must answer their questions regarding sex openly and honestly. There is no need for any sort of peculiar overtone when speaking with a child about these matters. Speak frankly and thoroughly. A child has not yet been exposed to the notion that sex is somehow “off limits.” If we explain the purpose of the penis and the vagina, as we explain the purpose of books and calculators, neither will be more mysterious than the other. A healthy sex life will arise out of children with this type of clear understanding.

Furthermore, once we begin lying to our youths about sex, they lose faith in our informative reliability on the whole. We must not mislead them about one topic, lest we lose their confidence on a host of other topics as well. They will begin to go elsewhere for information regarding sex or whatever else, in order to satisfy their fascination with issues that are left unexplained.

We should also not deceive our children into believing that monogamous relationships are the only ones that exist. There should be no stories about everyone remaining virgins until their marriage night. These are nothing more than fairy tales on the whole. People are often polygamous and often sexually active outside of marriage. These are trivial truths that need not be hidden. Once again, deception can only lead to distrust and mystification.

Knowledge leads to increased understanding and comfort. Misinformation leads to confusion and a frantic search for a new source of knowledge. Why create this latter situation? I am convinced that the only reason we would mislead our youths about the issue of sex is due to our own immaturity. We are uncomfortable talking about sex despite the alleged maturity adults are supposed to magically acquire by the age of thirty. Children are not uncomfortable when talking about sex—they have not yet sunk to that immaturity level. Let us not allow them to sink that low, and let us satisfy their thirst for knowledge on all subjects.

Read more!

on philanthropy

Philanthropy is commonly defined as “the effort or inclination to increase the well-being of humankind, as by charitable aid or donations.” More simply, philanthropy is a love of human beings in general. Reflecting on this generalized definition, I have come to realize that this very blog is a philanthropic enterprise. Free Cognition was made with the explicit purpose of spreading ideas and thoughts in order to help people become freethinkers. This is a very philanthropic goal. The question that I am pondering is why did we make this blog? Or, by in large, why does anyone feel compelled to be a philanthropist of any sort? It can be argued that we simply do this to make ourselves feel good (helping others tends to have this effect), or for some other egocentric reason. This may indeed be part of our motivation for philanthropy, but maybe there are other motivators as well.

I recently had a slightly disturbing discussion with your quintessential corporate capitalist, for who green is the only color that matters, and I am not referring to trees. I told him that I think people deserve certain fundamental human rights simply based on the fact that they are people, regardless of supposed public value or fiscal standing. He asked me, completely bewildered, “Why would you care about somebody who is ‘useless’ to society?” He argued that if somebody does not pull their respective weight in society, and thus, are “useless”, then we should not be burdened with providing them basic human needs when they are unable to do so themselves. Apparently, says the American Dream, anyone that wants to be successful can be, and anyone who is not successful, deserves the pangs of poverty. This is an outright lie.

When I speak of fundamental human rights, I am referring to basic needs that people require in order to live relatively full lives, such as education, health care, and more basically, sufficient nutrition. As humans we need these rudimentary provisions in order to live healthily and intelligently. This is an opportunity that we all deserve. What you choose to do with your life is irrelevant. These rights should be yours regardless.

As to the American Dream claim, that I aforementioned, even within the wealth of America is often impossible for some people to defeat the poverty cycle. The economic gap between the rich and the poor is gargantuan, and it is continuously becoming larger. People are in genuine need of help, and the current administration is too busy cutting taxes for persons making over $200,000 to worry about the lowest financial class of Americans. For these reasons, I find it imperative that we pick up the slack where the incompetent government has left the situation unhandled.

Why should we care about those who have very little, if we are among those who have an excess of resources and benefits? I do not propose to psychologically analyze human beings to find a reason for selfless behavior. This would lead to far too much ambiguity. Instead, I want to explain my personal reasons for being philanthropic. My hope is that this may help on a broader scale explain why some people have a desire for philanthropy, whether or not this holds true for the majority of people, I have no idea. I provide the following examples to explain why I feel that we should act philanthropically whenever possible in order to help those in need.

(ex.1) I am walking along the sidewalk and I notice a meager looking child lying on the ground. He is starving. I would feel absolutely compelled, for whatever psychological reasons, to provide some sort of nourishment for this starving child. I would bring him home with me and feed him. I am acting philanthropically

(ex.2) I balance my budget, and I realize that I have some excess money that I can use on superfluous expenses. I come across information revealing that there is a starving child in India, who I can support very cheaply and easily through an intermediary organization. I am not as compelled as I was when the starving child was directly in front of me, why is this? I strongly question this lesser state of compassion simply based on distance away form the individual in need. I must conclude that this lesser state of compassion is merely a result of an irrational tendency to pay attention to things that are near, while mindlessly ignoring that which is far. I should act as I acted in (ex.1), as I should not pay heed to an irrational tendency to ignore events that occur far away.

When I am able to aid another person’s existence, I feel compelled to do so. This is especially true when I am able to do so unscathed. I can not think of a reason not to help others when it is of little cost and effort to myself. Even when the cost or the effort becomes greater, I am hardly discouraged.As I said before, Free Cognition is a philanthropic enterprise. This blog is aimed at provoking insightful discussion that will help people think freely and see things in new and interesting ways. Freethinking is a beautiful, beautiful thing. The ability to pleasantly question things you have long taken for granted is something that should not be undervalued. The more freethinkers that arise in society, the more able society will be to help itself advance and improve as a whole. Freethinkers are able to objectively search for the best courses of action and best scenarios. Freethinkers are not limited by party line or religious affiliation or ethnic background. This is not to say that a freethinker will not enlist himself in a specific political party or religion, instead it means that freethinkers are human beings before any other labels or affiliations. You can not label a freethinker as anything besides just that—a freethinker. And so, our philanthropic goal at Free Cognition is to encourage free thought and healthy skepticism, which are very valuable personal and societal assets.

Read more!

devil's advocate

You are all probably familiar with the term ‘Devil’s Advocate’—a person arguing from a point of view which they do not necessarily consider their own. Where does this peculiar term come from? What is the importance of playing Devil’s Advocate?—why would you argue for a position that you do not even believe in yourself? The answers to these questions are vital for any aspiring freethinker.

A fact of funness (no, not a word, sadly), for those of you interested, is that the term ‘Devil’s Advocate’ originated in the Catholic Church in the 16th century. During the canonization process—the process that one goes through to become a Saint—there is a ‘trial’ of sorts to see if the person is up to snuff. The Devil’s Advocate is essentially a ‘lawyer’ that argues against the canonization of the potential saint, in order to ensure that the person is truly Sainthood material. He makes sure there are no skeletons in the soon-to-be Saint’s closet (a service that the United States Government should look into acquiring, if they can spare any money on nonmilitary operations). Incidentally, late Pope John Paul II did away with the Devil’s Advocate position in the 1980’s, which does indeed explain a lot. Such as the canonization of the Opus Dei cult leader, Josemaría Escrivá—where was his Devil’s Advocate?

We must remember that the Devil’s Advocate is most of the time not really against the canonozation of the Saint prospect. He is most likely all for the person becoming a Saint. He is merely arguing against the person for the sake of argument, so that any unforseen factors will surface. And, as you can tell, this brings us to the commonplace usage of the term.

If a Rawlsian political thinker was to propose to me his view of what government should be, I might take on the persona of a Nozickian political thinker in order to challenge his ideas and prompt him to defend himself against opposition. I am a far cry from a libertarian, so why would I impersonate one in order to have a conversation with the Rawlsian thinker? If I also suscribe to Rawls’ theories, which I tend to, why not just agree with him on the face of the issue, and move on? The reason is, playing Devil’s Advocate is a very valuable asset to any discussion. If I were to become Nozick, in the metaphorical sense, and argue vehemently against the Rawlsian proponent, I would force him to provide sound support for every claim that he makes. In doing so, not only will I have a more full and comprehensive grasp of his political position, but he will also become either more convinced of his views if he is successful in defending them, or disenchanted with them if I am able to be persuasive enough as the Devil’s Advocate. Furtheremore, while I am arguing from Nozick’s point of view (a point of view that I tend to abhor), I gain a better understanding of an opposing point of view. In other words, I am able to walk a couple miles in the shoes of a libertarian. This bolsters my ability to argue against libertarian ideals in future debates. Or, if the libertarian shoes are sufficiently comfortable and stylish, I may decide to join the libertarian ranks.
Playing Devil’s Advocate is an important exercise for all of us as responsible freethinkers and citizens of the world. It allows us to see arguments in a new light. We are better able to objectively understand situations if we are able to adopt other people’s mindsets. I often will play Devil’s Advocate against a person who has similar views as myself, in order to strengthen my own views. I suggest you all take the time to play Devil’s Advocate in a discussion once in a while, to see what it feels like to be on the other side of the couch. Maybe it wont be as bad as you expected, or perhaps it will make your side all the more comfy.

Read more!

the problem of evil and the impossibility of the Christian god

Though I feel as if I could write continuously on this subject for days on end, I will attempt to limit myself to a brief introduction of the issue. I will contest the logical possibility of the standard conception of the Christian god. This is a theological challenge to Christianity, as opposed to a biblical, practical, or historical challenge. I will leave the latter three—quite persuasive—issues for another time for the sake of brevity and clarity. I believe this discussion is pertinent for people of all worldviews and religious affiliations. Without further ado: the problem of evil.

The Judeo-Christian god is often described as the “3-O god”—omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. In laymen’s terms, the 3-O god is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good. With these characteristics in mind, we look to the world around us for evidence of a god of this nature. One surprising fact should jump out at us: evil exists. “Evil” is quite the ambiguous term, so to classify this statement, I mean things such as pain and suffering do undeniably subsist. Things that we consider dreadful are indeed present in this world. If you have not already noticed, there is a logical predicament afoot. Let us look at the stipulated facts thus far.

• god is omniscient—god knows that evil exists
• god is omnipotent—god has the power to remove evil from the world
• god is omnibenevolent—god wants to remove evil from the world
• yet, evil exists

• Logically, a being that has the properties of the 3-O god cannot exist in a world in which evil exists.
• Therefore, the Judeo-Christian does not exist

This, in short, is the logical proof that the Christian god does not exist.

Theologians have attempted several responses to the problem of evil, which have been dismissed one after another quite simply. To mention a few, some make claims such as evil is merely a means to increased goodness or there really is no evil in the world. Instead of spending time dismantling these claims, I would rather take the time to refute the most popular move theologians make in order to refute the problem of evil: an appeal to the notion of free will.

The claim is evil exists because god gave us free will. The idea behind this is god has instilled all humans with free will, and in order for this to work, humans must be able to choose between good and evil. This is the classic tale of heaven versus hell, god versus Lucifer, and so on. Are you compelled by this argument? Let us look back at the characteristics of the 3-O god to help us understand why an appeal to free will actually fails miserably. Recall that the Christian god is supposedly omnipotent. This means that god is able to do anything. (Note that some theologians stipulate that omnipotence merely means the ability to do anything except contradict logic. However, this does not change anything here, I will explain why in a moment.) So, if god is able to do anything, why can he not give us free will and eliminate evil? Indeed this is perplexing. An omnipotent god that is unable to both give humans free will and eliminate evil?—not quite omnipotence, is it? Therefore, the 3-O god certainly should be able to eliminate evil while still providing humans with the lovely and coveted freedom of the will.

At this point, some may fallaciously argue that giving free will and eliminating evil contradicts logic—and therefore, since “omnipotence” for them means “the ability to do anything except contradict logic” god cannot eliminate evil while still giving humans free will. This is absolutely false. The 3-O god could easily create a world in which free will exists, yet it is intrinsic in human nature to always pick good over evil. In this world, evil only theoretically exists, it does not exist practically. This is not a logical contradiction and this is a world where free will exists and evil does not. Therefore, this last objection does not work either.

Admittedly, in order to avoid verbosity, I have not taken the time to refute every possible argument against the problem of evil. If you think that you have an argument that may potentially work, please feel entirely free to post your objection under the comments section, and I will address your concern promptly.

Read more!

Nozick's experience machine

Robert Nozick, famous American philosopher and former Pellegrino professor of philosophy at Harvard University, is famous for many reasons, one of which is his “experience machine” thought experiment. It will probably strike a familiar cord. Imagine a very mature virtual reality machine. Mature in the sense that it is able to fulfill all of your basic needs as well as provide entertaining virtual experiences. One very interesting feature of this experience machine is that it causes you to completely forget that you are hooked up to a machine at all. In effect, you feel quite like you do right now (presumably)—completely normal. While hooked up to this experience machine, you feel as if you are actually living your life as you always have; walking around campus, having lunch with friends, and engaging in riveting philosophical debate with your colleagues. However, in reality you are immobile, hooked up to the experience machine. Putting aside the possibility that we are all already hooked up to such machines at this very moment (ignore the red pill), let us consider the positive and negative affects this may have on human beings.

We must know a little more about Nozick’s postulation first. Given that this machine is able to create a more pleasant atmosphere for human beings, it is able to increase overall happiness of people that plug into it. The obvious question then becomes should we plug in? Should we opt to escape from what we consider to be reality, and enter into a new, happier, virtual reality?

A utilitarian such as Mill or Bentham would be the first to say, “plug in!” Adhering to classical utilitarian principles, whatever action promotes the most amount of happiness is the action that we should follow. In this case it certainly seems that plugging in will yield the most happiness.

Should we object to this utilitarian decision? Why or why not?

If you have read A Brave New World then the question at hand is quite a familiar one. And the fact of the matter is, technology will probably—sooner rather than later—provide us with a chance to actually make this fascinating decision. What would you choose? What will you choose? Continued existence in what we refer to as “reality” or an altered state of virtual bliss?

Read more!

mentality (part ii): but pain hurts!

There is an old philosopher’s joke that goes something like this. There are two men who are tied up as captives of a third man. The third man, let us call him the torturer, needs information from these two renowned philosophers, and he decides the best way to get the information out of them is by repeatedly hitting them with a large bag of oranges until one of them finally relents. The torturer starts with the smaller of the two men, thinking that he will be easier to break. As you might expect—and if you have ever been beaten repeatedly with a bag of oranges then you know first hand—this hurts! The small man screams and begs for the torturer to stop, but he gives no information away, being well trained in the philosopher’s code of unyielding secrecy to rogue torturers. So, becoming bored with the small man, the torturer turns to the larger man and begins hitting him with the bag of oranges. The small man, being the keen philosopher he is—even in the face of torment—begins to think upon this. “Well,” he thinks aloud, “I am quite certain that the pain you are now feeling, larger man, is very different from the pain that I was feeling moments ago.” The torturer thinks this is amusing, as he is trouncing the larger man just as hard as he trounced the smaller man. “Why would you say such a foolish thing little philosopher?” the torturer asks. The small man answers, “Because, my pain hurts; his pain is funny!” I should have warned you that most philosophy jokes are not really all that funny, unless you are a philosopher, in which case they still are not funny, but you laugh anyways.

The philosophical point that this joke brings to the forefront is that of the subjectivity of pain. How can we know when somebody else is in pain? To answer this, we must first know the answer to the question, what is pain?, and it is this question that we will now explore.

It is difficult to define pain. Pain is, well, painful. Pain hurts. Pain is a sensation that normally causes us to have some aversive reaction. But are these descriptions definitive of pain? In other words, what characteristic is central to what pain is? When most people touch an extremely potent pepper to their tongues, they instantly remove the pepper and proceed to grab a drink. The sensation is “painful”. However, there are some people that genuinely enjoy this same sensation. In this case at least, it seems that the sensation is not what is definitive of pain. Additionally, consider all the different types of pain that we conveniently group together under one term. To take just two of the many types, compare pain from extreme coldness and pain from being cut by a knife. I do not think that anyone who has experienced both of these sensations can in any way assert that these feel similar. But, we label each of these disparate sensational experiences as pain—why? It must be something other than the sensational qualities of these experiences. That is where functionalism comes in.

Functionalists classify pain by examining the functional role that it plays, as opposed to the qualitative aspect of pain, qualia. Basically, pain is that state caused by certain physical inputs, and leads to certain behavioral outputs, such as screaming, or other avoidance techniques and forms of displeasure. This is significant because it entirely removes the qualitative aspect of pain from the definition! This is somewhat counterintuitive.

Philosophers such as David Chalmers are not satisfied with this reductive definition of pain. It is the ouchiness or hurtfulness of pain that makes pain what it is, they adamantly claim. If we are to define pain functionally, then we are in danger of classifying things which are clearly not pain, as pain. For example, if you were to leave the room immediately in a screaming fit every time a certain person comes near you, is this pain? A functionalist definition of pain may indeed consider that it is. This may be difficult to accept.

What is your position on what constitutes pain? Is it the adverse behavioral output that defines pain or is it the sensational experience? Your decision on this matter will become crucial when examining the controversial issue of Artificial Intelligence that we will address in mentality (part iii), so consider your options thoroughly.

Read more!

absurdity & the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy

Just yesterday The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy was released in theaters. As you probably know—if not you are hopelessly missing out—The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy is a satirical science fiction novel by the witty, and now late, Douglas Adams. Actually, the novel is the first of a five part trilogy. He credits this strange occurrence (a trilogy in five parts) to a “poor grasp of arithmetic.” I went into the film with much anticipation and expectation, but, sadly, I left unimpressed and hardly amused. To understate, the book was far better than the movie. However, the experience was not all bad, because it got me thinking about Douglas Adams and his tendency to exploit the absurd.

“It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes,” Adams said, and I think this is probably a fair statement. Perhaps a few minor problems can be solved with only potatoes, such as, well, I need not extrapolate. However, I think we can agree with near certainty that major problems need more than just a potato arsenal to be reckoned with. Thanks to Mr. Adams, we are able to understand this elusive truth, and many more like it.

A major theme that runs through the works of Adams’ Hitchhiker’s series, as well as his Dirk Gently series is that of absurdity. He sheds light on the ridiculousness and silliness of things we generally regard as normal. In this sense, Adams is very close to a philosopher—one who takes the seemingly ordinary and explores it in new ways.

Adams loved to use his incredible imagination to fill in gaps of science, and he loved to do so in a humorous way—what could be better? In The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy the entertaining and often foolish characters are on a quest to find the meaning of life. Adams was always making fun of people in search of an ‘objective meaning’ in life that ends up conveniently circling around themselves. He would say that these people need a serious dose of perspective. “There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.” The worlds Adams creates in his books are undoubtedly bizarre—but, he might argue, no more bizarre than the world in which we live.

Zaphod Beeblebrox, President of the Galaxy, finds himself in a compromising situation, and so searches for some way out. “I’m gonna pray, man!” Beeblebrox exclaims, “Know any good religions?” Religion is often a target of Adams’ satire. Issues such as the creation of the universe take center stage as an area of ridicule. “In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”

Politics does not escape Douglas’ watchful eye. “To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.”

Technology and the internet interested Adams greatly in his later years of life. He liked to parody both the technology industry and people who use, or misuse, it. Adams put forth a set of rules that “describe our reactions to technologies:”

1. Anything that is in the world when you're born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you're fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.

Remember the infamous Y2K scare that many of the most highly respected technology gurus most feared? You had to expect that Adams would take advantage of this nonsensicality. “There are two things in particular that [the computer industry] failed to foresee: one was the coming of the Internet; the other was the fact that the century would end.”

Adams’s writings resemble famous societal observers such as Jonathon Swift and Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain). Their combination of humor and reasonable critique makes their work both enjoyable and significant at the same time. Adams, like Swift and Clemens, is able to use his mastery of language and keen sense of rationality to exploit the irrationality of people. Not only is language a tool of exploitation for Adams, but it is also another point of critique. “Anything that happens, happens. Anything that, in happening, causes something else to happen, causes something else to happened. Anything that, in happening, causes itself to happen again, happens again. It doesn’t necessarily do it in chronological order, though.” Absurdity runs rampant in language.

Humor aside, or humor included, what importance does this theme of absurdity have? Does it have any importance outside of its mere entertainment value? Insofar that it enables us to look at ordinary things in a new light, it is very important, just like philosophy. Moreover, many of Adams’ seemingly absurd claims are only made more hilarious by their possible truth. The fallibility and limited amount of knowledge enable this type of critique.

Do we live in an absurd world? If so, what does this mean?

Read more!