McCarthy et al.’s proposal gains much of its plausibility by relying on a superficial treatment of justice, human dignity, sin, and the common good within the Christian tradition. Upon closer inspection of what these terms mean within the context of Christianity, it becomes clear that despite using the same phrases (e.g., a commitment to “protecting vulnerable populations,” the goal of “promoting justice,” etc.) contemporary secular bioethical goals are often deeply at odds with goals of Christian bioethics. So, while the authors (...) are right that there is room for dialogue (and even agreement) concerning general moral principles, the process of specification and application of these principles will often be heavily influenced by competing ethical traditions. Such divergent influences will often frustrate cooperative ventures between secular and religious bioethical projects. Thus, when put into action, McCarthy et al.’s proposal will—at best—produce a divided kingdom; one that cannot hope to stand. (shrink)

I argue that it is morally wrong for a lawyer to pursue a legal outcome that he knows to be unjust, such as the acquittal of a guilty client or the triumph of the wrong side in a lawsuit.

Part of a group commentary on Kant's Religion book. This chapter focuses on Part 2, section 2 on "The Evil Principle's Rightful Claim to Dominion over the Human Being, and the Struggle of the Two Principles with One Another" -/- .

What is so appealing about the figure of the master criminal? The answer lies in the kind of solution he provides to the problem of suffering. Rather than just accounting for affliction—as, for example, does Leibniz’s theodicy—such a figure enchants it, transforming mundane objects into actual or potential clues, everyday incidents into moves in a cosmic conflict, random misery into a purposeful pattern. The master criminal (the shadowy villain of _The Usual Suspects_, say) thus constitutes a secular replacement for the (...) Devil, making possible a negative reenchantment of the world. (shrink)

RESUMEN En la Carta a Voetius, Descartes escribe que su enemigo es el diablo, el enemigo. La acusación es etimológicamente coherente e introduce una excepción a la metafísica, una voluntad de mal. Finalmente, la malignidad odia la verdad : es deliberadamente irracional. Examinamos aquí la oratoria del mal: primero, sus recursos retóricos ; segundo, las pasiones que excita y su combinación en una pasión particular, la cólera piadosa; tercero, sus efectos: la disolución del vínculo civil entre ciudadanos y amistoso entre (...) familiares. -/- ABSTRACT In his Letter to Voetius, Descartes writes that his enemy is the devil, the enemy. The accusation is etymologically coherent and introduces an exception to metaphysics, a will to evil. Finally, malignity hates truth : it is deliberately irrational. The article examines the oratory of evil: first, its rhetorical devices ; second, the passions it elicits and their combination with a specific passion, pious rage; and third, its effects: the dissolution of the civil bond among citizens and the friendship bond family members. (shrink)

The problem of why we identify with Barney Stinson on the show How I Met Your Mother.

In this essay I argue that Machiavelli does not hold that all deception is permissible in war. While Machiavelli claims that "deceit... in the conduct of war is laudable and honorable," he insists that such deceit, or ruses of war, is not to be confounded with perfidy. Any Lee's U.S. Civil War film, "Ride With the Devil," illustrates this difference. The film also illustrates the difference between lying as part of romance, which is permitted, and lying at the moment (...) of truth in a relationship, when admitting one's feelings, which is not. (shrink)

I will argue that cases of massive deception, such as New Evil Demon cases, as well as one-off cases of local deception present challenges to views according to which epistemic reasons, epistemic warrant, epistemic rationality or epistemic norms are factive. In doing so, I will argue is that proponents of a factive turn in epistemology should observe important distinctions between what are often simply referred to as ‘bad cases.’ Recognizing epistemologically significant differences between deception cases raises serious challenges for those (...) who deny a central role for non-factive aspects of epistemology. (shrink)

If asked whether stereotypes about people have the potential to help overcome injustice, I suspect that many think there is a clear-cut answer to this question, and that answer is “no.” Many stereotypes do have harmful effects, from the blatantly dehumanizing to the more subtly disruptive. Reasonably then, a common attitude toward stereotypes is that they are at best shallow, superficial assumptions, and at worst degrading and hurtful vehicles of oppression. I argue that on a broad account of stereotypes, this (...) is not is not an inherent feature of them nor a foregone conclusion about them. At least some positive stereotypes have the potential to help resist certain forms of epistemic injustice--though they likely can only play a limited or temporary role in this regard. The takeaway is that we should approach moral and epistemic analyses of stereotypes by thinking about them as (crude) cognitive tools, and as such, focus on what these tools are being used for, and what their actual impact is. (shrink)

A 2012 review article for Metascience which explains Mach's realistic brand of empiricism, contrasting it with the common phenomenalist reading of Mach by John Blackmore in two recent books.

In a single aphorism in The Gay Science, Nietzsche arrays “The Problem of the Artist” in a reticulated constellation. Addressing every member of the excluded grouping of disenfranchised “others,” Nietzsche turns to the destitution of a god of love keyed to the selfturning absorption of the human heart. His ultimate and irrecusably tragic project to restore the innocence of becoming requires the affirmation of the problem of suffering as the task of learning how to love. Nietzsche sees the eros of (...) art as what can teach us how to make things beautiful, desirable, lovable in the routine truth of reality: “When they are not.” The stumbling block for those of us paralyzed by impotence and frozen in a technological age of anxiety, longing for being not becoming (eternal youth), is that one can never possess but can only win great health, again and again (like erotic desire), because one gives it away again and again as sacrifice or affirmation without reserve: that is to say, with erotic artistry. (shrink)

In this essay, I use a thought experiment to illustrate the human predicament if determinism is true, then draw the implications of this result for human rationality. This paper was read at the Eastern Division of the Society for Christian Philosophers at Assumption College in Worcester, Massachusetts in 2009.

This is not a perfect book, but it is unique, and if you skim the first 400 or so pages, the last 300 (of some 700) are a pretty good attempt to apply what's known about behavior to social changes in violence and manners over time. The basic topic is: how does our genetics control and limit social change? Surprisingly he fails to describe the nature of kin selection (inclusive fitness) which explains much of animal and human social life. He (...) also (like nearly everyone) lacks a clear framework for describing the logical structure of rationality (LSR—John Searle’s preferred term) which I prefer to call the Descriptive Psychology of Higher Order Thought (DPHOT). He should have said something about the many other ways of abusing and exploiting people and the planet, since these are now so much more severe as to render other forms of violence irrelevant. Extending the concept of violence to include the global long term consequences of replication of someone’s genes, and having a grasp of the nature of how evolution works (i.e., kin selection) will provide a very different perspective on history, current events, and how things are likely to go in the next few hundred years. One might start by noting that the decrease in physical violence over history has been matched (and made possible) by the constantly increasing merciless rape of the planet (i.e., by people's destruction of their own descendants future). Pinker (like most people most of the time) is often distracted by the superficialities of culture when it’s biology that matters. See my recent reviews of Wilson’s ‘The Social Conquest of Earth’ and Nowak and Highfield’s ‘SuperCooperators’ for a brief summary of the vacuity of altruism and the operation of kin selection and the uselessness and superficiality of describing behavior in cultural terms. -/- Those wishing a comprehensive up to date account of Wittgenstein, Searle and their analysis of behavior from the modern two systems view may consult my article The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language as Revealed in Wittgenstein and Searle (2016). Those interested in all my writings in their most recent versions may download from this site my e-book ‘Philosophy, Human Nature and the Collapse of Civilization Michael Starks (2016)- Articles and Reviews 2006-2016’ by Michael Starks First Ed. 662p (2016). -/- All of my papers and books have now been published in revised versions both in ebooks and in printed books. -/- Talking Monkeys: Philosophy, Psychology, Science, Religion and Politics on a Doomed Planet - Articles and Reviews 2006-2017 (2017) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B071HVC7YP. -/- The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle--Articles and Reviews 2006-2016 (2017) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B071P1RP1B. -/- Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st century: Philosophy, Human Nature and the Collapse of Civilization - Articles and Reviews 2006-2017 (2017) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0711R5LGX . (shrink)

这不是一本完美的书,但它是独特的,如果你浏览前400页左右,最后300页(约700页)是一个很好的尝试,将已知的行为应用于社会变化在暴力和礼仪随着时间的推移。基本的主题是:我们的遗传学如何控制和限制社 会变化？令人惊讶的是,他未能描述亲属选择(包容性健身)的本质,这解释了动物和人类社会生活的很多原因。他还(像几乎每个人都一样)缺乏一个清晰的框架来描述理性的逻辑结构(LSR-John Searle的首选术语),我更愿意称之为高阶思想的描述性心理学(DPHOT)。他应该说一些关于虐待和剥削人和地球的许多其他方式,因为现在这些方式更加严重,以至于使其他形式的暴力几乎无关紧要。扩大暴力的 概念,包括复制某人基因的全球长期后果,并掌握进化过程的性质(即亲属选择),将提供一个完全不同的历史视角,时事,以及未来几百年的情况可能如何发展。人们可能首先指出,历史上身体暴力的减少与地球不断发生的无 情强奸(即人们摧毁自己后代的未来)相吻合(并成为可能)。平克尔(和大多数人一样,大多数时候)常常被文化的肤浅所分心,而生物学才是最重要的。在这里和网上查看我最近对威尔逊的《地球的社会征服》和诺瓦克和高 菲尔德的"超级合作者"的评论,了解"真正的利他主义"(群体选择)的空虚性简要摘要,亲属选择的运作,以及用文化术语描述行为的无用和肤浅。 这是经典的自然/培育问题,自然胜过培育——无限。真正重要的是,人口和资源破坏的无情增加(由于医药和技术以及警察和军队对冲突的镇压),给地球造成了暴力。每天约有20万人(每10天再下一个拉斯维加斯,每月 另一个洛杉矶),6吨左右表土进入大海/人/年——约占全世界每年消失总量的1%,等等,这意味着除非生物圈和文明将在未来两个世纪内大为崩溃,各种饥荒、苦难和暴力将发生惊人规模。 人们实施暴力行为的举止、观点和倾向是没有意义的,除非他们能够做些什么来避免这场灾难,而我看不出这是怎么回事。没有争论的空间,也没有意义(是的,我是一个宿命论者),所以我只做一些评论,好像它们是事实一样 。不要以为我以牺牲他人利益来推销一个团体有个人利益。我78岁,没有后代,没有近亲,不认同任何政治、民族或宗教团体,认为我属于的人,默认和所有其他团体一样令人厌恶。 父母是地球上最可怕的生命敌人,从事物的广义来看,当人们认为女性的暴力(像大多数由男性做的一样)大部分是在慢动作、在时间和空间上保持距离时,女性和男性一样暴力。由代理人 - 由他们的后代和男人。妇女越来越生孩子,无论她们是否有伴侣,阻止一名妇女生育的效果平均远远大于阻止一个男人,因为她们是生殖瓶颈。人们可以认为,无论遭受什么苦难,人们及其后代都值得,(除了极少数例外),富 人和名人是最恶劣的罪犯。梅丽尔·斯特里普或比尔·盖茨或J.K·罗琳和他们每个孩子可能在未来几代人中每年每年销毁50吨表土,而印度农民和他的可能摧毁1吨。如果有人否认那很好,对他们的后代,我说" ;欢迎来到地球上的地狱"(WTHOE)。 现在的重点总是放在人权上,但很明显,如果文明要有机会,人类的责任必须取代人权。没有人没有负责任的公民就得到权利,而这意味着第一件事就是破坏环境。最基本的责任是,除非你的社会要求你生产孩子,否则没有孩子 。一个允许人们随意繁殖的社会或世界总是被自私的基因所利用,直到它崩溃(或者达到生命如此可怕以至于不值得活下去)。如果社会继续以人权为首要,那么对其后代,人们可以满怀信心地说"WTHOE&qu ot;。 那些希望从现代两个系统的观点来看为人类行为建立一个全面的最新框架的人,可以查阅我的书《路德维希的哲学、心理学、Min d和语言的逻辑结构》维特根斯坦和约翰·西尔的《第二部》(2019年)。那些对我更多的作品感兴趣的人可能会看到《会说话的猴子——一个末日星球上的哲学、心理学、科学、宗教和政治——文章和评论2006-20 19年3月(2019年)和21年的自杀乌托邦幻想St世纪4日 (2019) .

यह एक आदर्श पुस्तक नहीं है, लेकिन यह अद्वितीय है, और यदि आप पहले 400 या तो पृष्ठों स्किम, पिछले 300 (कुछ 700 के) एक बहुत अच्छा लागू करने के लिए क्या समय के साथ हिंसा और शिष्टाचार में सामाजिक परिवर्तन के व्यवहार के बारे में जाना जाता है प्रयास कर रहे हैं. मूल विषय है: कैसे हमारे आनुवंशिकी नियंत्रण और सामाजिक परिवर्तन की सीमा है? हैरानी की बात है कि वह रिश्तेदार चयन (समावेशी फिटनेस) जो पशु और मानव सामाजिक (...) जीवन के बहुत बताते हैं की प्रकृति का वर्णन करने में विफल रहता है. उन्होंने यह भी (लगभग हर किसी की तरह) तर्कसंगतता की तार्किक संरचना का वर्णन करने के लिए एक स्पष्ट रूपरेखा का अभाव है (LSR-जॉन Searle पसंदीदा शब्द) जो मैं उच्च आदेश सोचा (DPHOT) के वर्णनात्मक मनोविज्ञान फोन पसंद करते हैं. उन्हें लोगों और ग्रह को गाली देने और उनका शोषण करने के कई अन्य तरीकों के बारे में कुछ कहना चाहिए था, क्योंकि ये अब इतने अधिक गंभीर हैं कि हिंसा के अन्य रूपों को लगभग अप्रासंगिक बना दिया गया है। हिंसा की अवधारणा का विस्तार करने के लिएकिसी के जीन की प्रतिकृति के वैश्विक दीर्घकालिक परिणाम शामिल हैं, और कैसे विकास काम करता है की प्रकृति की समझहोने (यानी, रिश्तेदार चयन) इतिहास पर एक बहुत ही अलग परिप्रेक्ष्य प्रदान करेगा , वर्तमान घटनाओं, और कैसे चीजें अगले कुछ सौ वर्षों में जाने की संभावना है. एक ध्यान देने योग्य है कि इतिहास पर शारीरिक हिंसा में कमी मिलान किया गया है द्वारा शुरू हो सकता है (और संभव बनाया) ग्रह की लगातार बढ़ती बेरहम बलात्कार द्वारा (यानी, लोगोंके अपने वंशज के भविष्य के विनाशसे). पिंकर (ज्यादातर लोगों की तरह ज्यादातर समय) अक्सर संस्कृति के सतही से विचलित है जब यह जीव विज्ञान है कि मायने रखती है. विल्सन 'पृथ्वी के सामाजिक विजय' और Nowak और Highfield 'SuperCooperators' यहाँ और नेट पर 'सच परोपकारिता' (समूह चयन) की शून्यता का एक संक्षिप्त सारांश के लिए की मेरी हाल ही की समीक्षा देखें, और रिश्तेदार चयन के संचालन और uselessness और सांस्कृतिक संदर्भ में व्यवहार का वर्णन करने की सतही. यह क्लासिक प्रकृति/पोषण का मुद्दा है और प्रकृति का पोषण --अनंत रूप से। क्या वास्तव में मायने रखती है जनसंख्या और संसाधन विनाश में लगातार वृद्धि (चिकित्सा और प्रौद्योगिकी और पुलिस और सेना द्वारा संघर्ष दमन के कारण) द्वारा पृथ्वी के लिए किया हिंसा है. के बारे में 200,000 अधिक लोगों को एक दिन (एक और लास वेगास हर 10 दिन, एक और लॉस एंजिल्स हर महीने), 6 टन या तो topsoil के समुद्र में जा / कुछ चमत्कार होता है जैवमंडल और सभ्यता काफी हद तक अगली दो शताब्दियोंके दौरान पतन होगा, और वहाँ भुखमरी, दुख और एक चौंका देने वाला पैमाने पर हर तरह की हिंसा होगी. हिंसक कृत्यों को करने के लिए लोगों के व्यवहार, विचारों और प्रवृत्तियों की कोई प्रासंगिकता नहीं है जब तक कि वे इस तबाही से बचने के लिए कुछ नहीं कर सकते हैं, और मुझे नहीं लगता कि यह कैसे होने जा रहा है। वहाँ तर्क के लिए कोई जगह नहीं है, और कोई बात या तो (हाँ मैं एक fatalist हूँ), तो मैं सिर्फ कुछ टिप्पणी कर के रूप में हालांकि वे तथ्य थे. कल्पना मत करो मैं दूसरों की कीमत पर एक समूह को बढ़ावा देने में एक निजी हिस्सेदारी है. मैं 78हूँ, कोई वंशज और कोई करीबी रिश्तेदार है और किसी भी राजनीतिक, राष्ट्रीय या धार्मिक समूह के साथ की पहचान नहीं है और लोगों को मैं डिफ़ॉल्ट रूप से कर रहे हैं के रूप में बस के रूप में बाकी सब के रूपमें प्रतिकर्षण संबंध मानते हैं. माता पिता पृथ्वी पर जीवन का सबसे बुरा दुश्मन हैं और, चीजों की व्यापक दृष्टिकोण ले रही है, महिलाओं के रूप में पुरुषों के रूप में हिंसक जब एक तथ्य यह है कि महिलाओं की हिंसा (पुरुषों द्वारा किया है कि सबसे अधिक की तरह) काफी हद तक धीमी गति में किया जाता है समझता है, समय और अंतरिक्ष में एक दूरी पर और ज्यादातर carri प्रॉक्सी द्वारा बाहर ed - उनके वंशजों द्वारा और पुरुषों द्वारा. तेजी से, महिलाओं के बच्चों को सहन की परवाह किए बिना कि क्या वे एक दोस्त है और प्रजनन से एक औरत को रोकने के प्रभाव औसत पर एक आदमी को रोकने से अधिक है, क्योंकि वे प्रजनन बाधाओं हैं. एक विचार है कि लोगों को और उनकी संतान बड़े पैमाने पर जो कुछ भी दुख के लायक हो उनके रास्ते आता है और (दुर्लभ अपवादों के साथ) अमीर और प्रसिद्ध सबसे खराब अपराधी हैं ले जा सकते हैं. मेरिल स्ट्रीप या बिल गेट्स या जे के Rowling और उनके बच्चों में से प्रत्येक भविष्य में पीढ़ियों के लिए प्रति वर्ष topsoil के 50 टन नष्ट कर सकते हैं, जबकि एक भारतीय किसान और उसके 1 टन नष्ट कर सकते हैं. अगर किसी को यह है कि ठीक है इनकार करते हैं, और उनके वंशजों के लिए मैं कहता हूँ "पृथ्वी पर नरक में आपका स्वागत है" (WTHOE). आजकल जोर हमेशा मानव अधिकारों पर है, लेकिन यह स्पष्ट है कि अगर सभ्यता के लिए एक मौका खड़ा है, मानव जिम्मेदारियों मानव अधिकारों की जगह चाहिए. किसी को भी जिम्मेदार नागरिक होने के बिना अधिकार नहीं मिलता है और इसका सबसे पहला अर्थ है कि यह मानवपर्यावरण विनाशहै. सबसे बुनियादी जिम्मेदारी कोई बच्चों को जब तक अपने समाज आप उन्हें उत्पादन करने के लिए पूछता है. एक समाज या एक दुनिया है कि लोगों को यादृच्छिक पर नस्ल की सुविधा देता है हमेशा स्वार्थी जीन द्वारा शोषण किया जाएगा जब तक यह गिर (या एक बिंदु तक पहुँचता है जहां जीवन इतना भयावह है यह जीने के लायक नहीं है). यदि समाज मानव अधिकारों को प्राथमिक के रूप में बनाए रखताहै, तो उनके वंशजों को विश्वास के साथ "WTHOE" कह सकते हैं। आधुनिक दो systems दृश्यसे मानव व्यवहार के लिए एक व्यापक अप करने के लिए तारीख रूपरेखा इच्छुक लोगों को मेरी पुस्तक 'दर्शन, मनोविज्ञान, मिनडी और लुडविगमें भाषा की तार्किक संरचना से परामर्श कर सकते हैं Wittgenstein और जॉन Searle '2 एड (2019). मेरे लेखन के अधिक में रुचि रखने वालों को देख सकते हैं 'बात कर रहेबंदर- दर्शन, मनोविज्ञान, विज्ञान, धर्म और राजनीति पर एक बर्बाद ग्रह --लेख और समीक्षा 2006-2019 3 एड (2019) और आत्मघाती यूटोपियान भ्रम 21st मेंसदी 4वें एड (2019) . (shrink)

This is not a perfect book, but it is unique, and if you skim the first 400 or so pages, the last 300 (of some 700) are a pretty good attempt to apply what's known about behavior to social changes in violence and manners over time. The basic topic is: how does our genetics control and limit social change? Surprisingly he fails to describe the nature of kin selection (inclusive fitness) which explains much of animal and human social life. He (...) also (like nearly everyone) lacks a clear framework for describing the logical structure of rationality (LSR—John Searle’s preferred term) which I prefer to call the Descriptive Psychology of Higher Order Thought (DPHOT). He should have said something about the many other ways of abusing and exploiting people and the planet, since these are now so much more severe as to render other forms of violence nearly irrelevant. Extending the concept of violence to include the global long-term consequences of replication of someone’s genes, and having a grasp of the nature of how evolution works (i.e., kin selection) will provide a very different perspective on history, current events, and how things are likely to go in the next few hundred years. One might start by noting that the decrease in physical violence over history has been matched (and made possible) by the constantly increasing merciless rape of the planet (i.e., by people's destruction of their own descendant’s future). Pinker (like most people most of the time) is often distracted by the superficialities of culture when it’s biology that matters. See my recent reviews of Wilson’s ‘The Social Conquest of Earth’ and Nowak and Highfield’s ‘SuperCooperators’ here and on the net for a brief summary of the vacuity of ‘true altruism’ (group selection), and the operation of kin selection and the uselessness and superficiality of describing behavior in cultural terms. -/- This is the classic nature/nurture issue and nature trumps nurture --infinitely. What really matters is the violence done to the earth by the relentless increase in population and resource destruction (due to medicine and technology and conflict suppression by police and military). About 200,000 more people a day (another Las Vegas every 10 days, another Los Angeles every month), the 6 tons or so of topsoil going into the sea/person/year –about 1% of the world’s total disappearing yearly, etc. mean that unless some miracle happens the biosphere and civilization will largely collapse during next two centuries, and there will be starvation, misery and violence of every kind on a staggering scale. People's manners, opinions and tendencies to commit violent acts are of no relevance unless they can do something to avoid this catastrophe, and I don't see how that is going to happen. There is no space for arguments, and no point either (yes I'm a fatalist), so I'll just make a few comments as though they were facts. Don't imagine I have a personal stake in promoting one group at the expense of others. I am 78, have no descendants and no close relatives and do not identify with any political, national or religious group and regard the ones I belong to by default as just as repulsive as all the rest. -/- Parents are the worst Enemies of Life on Earth and, taking the broad view of things, women are as violent as men when one considers the fact that women's violence (like most of that done by men) is largely done in slow motion, at a distance in time and space and mostly carried out by proxy -by their descendants and by men. Increasingly, women bear children regardless of whether they have a mate and the effect of stopping one woman from breeding is on average much greater than stopping one man, since they are the reproductive bottleneck. One can take the view that people and their offspring richly deserve whatever misery comes their way and (with rare exceptions) the rich and famous are the worst offenders. Meryl Streep or Bill Gates or J.K Rowling and each of their kids may destroy 50 tons of topsoil each per year for generations into the future, while an Indian farmer and his may destroy 1 ton. If someone denies it that's fine, and to their descendants I say "Welcome to Hell on Earth"(WTHOE). -/- The emphasis nowadays is always on Human Rights, but it is clear that if civilization is to stand a chance, Human Responsibilities must replace Human Rights. Nobody gets rights without being a responsible citizen and the first thing this means is minimal environmental destruction. The most basic responsibility is no children unless your society asks you to produce them. A society or a world that lets people breed at random will always be exploited by selfish genes until it collapses (or reaches a point where life is so horrific it's not worth living). If society continues to maintain Human Rights as primary, to their descendants one can say with confidence "WTHOE". -/- Those wishing a comprehensive up to date framework for human behavior from the modern two systems view may consult my book ‘The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle’ 2nd ed (2019). Those interested in more of my writings may see ‘Talking Monkeys--Philosophy, Psychology, Science, Religion and Politics on a Doomed Planet--Articles and Reviews 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019), The Logical Structure of Human Behavior (2019), and Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019) . (shrink)

Anselm is known for offering a distinctive definition of freedom of choice as “the ability of preserving uprightness of will for its own sake.” When we turn to Anselm’s account of the devil’s fall in De Casu Diaboli, however, this idiosyncratic understanding of freedom is not at the forefront. In that text, Anselm seemingly assumes a traditional understanding of free will defined in terms of alternative possibilities for the angels. These alternative possibilities must be present so the angels can (...) engage in ‘self-determination.’ God, however, does not face alternative possibilities to achieve His self-determination. Anselm thus explicates his notion of free will in terms of three different concepts: his distinctive definition of free choice, self-determination, and the principle of alternative possibilities. Despite attempts (by both scholars and Anselm) to explain how these three concepts are related, I argue that their relationship is problematic. In particular, I argue that Anselm is guilty of conflating and equivocating with regard to these concepts. I further importantly claim that the conflation obscures the fact that his understanding of self-determination calls into question God’s excellence over that of the good angels. (shrink)

There is a theological puzzle concerning the way in which Satan – an angel – was able to sin, despite lacking knowledge of no relevant fact about the world. Anselm and Aquinas explain Satan’s sin as malicious in virtue of Satan’s indifference to what mattered. I appeal to their account of Satan’s sin as a paradigm case clarifying the way in which those who intentionally engage in nonconsensual sex are always acting maliciously. Assuming competence, those who engage in nonconsensual sex (...) fail to attend to what matters and are willing to harm others merely for their own gratification. Such attitudes are diabolical. (shrink)

American History X (hereafter AHX) has been accused by numerous critics of a morally dangerous cinematic seduction: using stylish cinematography, editing, and sound, the film manipulates the viewer through glamorizing an immoral and hate-filled neo-nazi protagonist. In addition, there’s the disturbing fact that the film seems to accomplish this manipulation through methods commonly grouped under the category of “fascist aesthetics.” More specifically, AHX promotes its neo-nazi hero through the use of several filmic techniques made famous by Nazi propagandist Leni Riefenstahl. (...) Now most critics admit that, in the end, the film claims to denounce racism and attempts to show us the conversion of the protagonist to the path of righteousness, but they complain that nonetheless the film (perhaps unintentionally) ends up implicitly promoting the immoral worldview it rather superficially professes to reject in its final act. This charge of hypocrisy is connected to another worry: the moral conversion in the film is said to fall flat because the intellectual resources on display to support the character’s racism are not counterbalanced by equally explicit (but superior) arguments for the anti-racist position ultimately embraced by the character. In other words, just as the devil is said to get all the good lines in Milton’s Paradise Lost, in AHX the racists get all the arguments. This has been taken to be a morally problematic flaw of the film. Critics lament that Derek’s conversion seems to result not from relevant logical inferences and valid rational argumentation but from overly simplistic and arguably egoistic insights (e.g., “has anything you've done made your life better?”) combined, perhaps, with a hackneyed cliché (in prison, one of his best friends is a black person!) In this paper I’ll attempt to rebut these charges and defend the film as a powerful, and powerfully moral, work of art. I’ll be suggesting that the seductive techniques employed allow for many viewers a degree of sympathy towards the protagonist that is crucial, both for making that character’s more horrific actions especially unsettling, and also for making his eventual conversion plausible and ultimately compelling. I’ll also argue that the manner in which his conversion is presented is in fact subtler than many critics have allowed: Derek’s transformation is not artificial or implausible but is depicted as resulting from a cumulative series of emotionally powerful life events and personal engagements. It is certainly true that it is not represented in the way some would seemingly have preferred, i.e. as straightforwardly resulting from a process of gradual intellectual improvement in Derek’s reasoning on questions of race and politics. However, I’ll argue that the decidedly emotional basis of his moral evolution is both refreshingly realistic and no hindrance to accepting his conversion as rational. Finally, properly understanding the legitimacy of the emotional foundations of much moral thought will also allow us to appreciate the ways in which our initial worries about this film’s (not insignificant) ability to persuade viewers through the engagement of emotions need not, in itself, be seen as a barrier to endorsing the film as a morally praiseworthy work. (shrink)

This article is a theoretical treatment of the ways in which local worldviews on wealth acquisition give rise to contemporary manifestations of spirituality in cyberspace. It unpacks spiritual (occult) economies and wealth generation through a historical perspective. The article ‘devil advocates’ the ‘sainthood’ of claimed law-abiding citizens, by highlighting that the line dividing them and the Nigerian cybercriminals (Yahoo-Boys) is blurred with regards to the use of magical means for material ends. By doing so, the article also illustrates that (...) the intersectionality of the spirit world and the acquisition of wealth (crime or otherwise) is connected with local epistemologies and worldviews, and its contemporaneity has social security benefits. Therefore, the view that the contemporary manifestations of spirituality in cyberspace signify a ‘new-danger’ and an ever-increasing outrage in the Nigerian society is misplaced. I conclude that if people believe all aspects of life are reflective of the spiritual world and determined by it, the spiritual realm, by implication, is the base of society, upon which sits the superstructure comprised of all aspects of life, especially wealth. Inferentially, this conceptual position that the spirit world is the base of society is an inversion of Orthodox Marxist’s theory of economic determinism. (shrink)

How confident does the history of science allow us to be about our current well-tested scientific theories, and why? The scientific realist thinks we are well within our rights to believe our best-tested theories, or some aspects of them, are approximately true.2 Ambitious arguments have been made to this effect, such as that over historical time our scientific theories are converging to the truth, that the retention of concepts and claims is evidence for this, and that there can be no (...) other serious explanation of the success of science than that its theories are approximately true. There is appeal in each of these ideas, but making such strong claims has tended to be hazardous, leaving us open to charges that many typical episodes in the history of science just do not fit the model. (See, e.g., Laudan 1981.) Arguing for a realist attitude via general claims – properties ascribed to sets of theories, trends we see in progressions of theories, and claimed links between general properties like success and truth that apply or fail to apply to any theory regardless of its content – is like arguing for or via a theory of science, which brings with it the obligation to defend that theory. I think a realist attitude toward particular scientific theories for which we have evidence can be maintained rationally without such a theory, even in the face of the pessimistic induction over the history of science. The starting point at which questions arise as to what we have a right to believe about our theories is one where we have theories and evidence for them, and we are involved in the activity of apportioning our belief in each particular theory or hypothesis in accord with the strength of the particular evidence.3 The devil’s advocate sees our innocence and tries his best to sow seeds of doubt. If our starting point is as I say, though, the innocent believer in particular theories does not have to play offense and propose sweeping views about science in general, but only to respond to the skeptic’s challenges; the burden of initial argument is on the skeptic.. (shrink)

The German text of Cohen’s Spinoza on State & Religion, Judaism & Christianity (Spinoza über Staat und Religion, Judentum und Christentum) first appeared in 1915 in the Jahrbuch für jüdische Geschichte und Literatur. Two years before, in the winter of 1913, Cohen taught a class and a seminar on Spinoza’s Theological-Political Treatise at the Hochschule für die Wissenschaft des Judentums. This was Cohen’s first semester at the Hochschule, after retiring from more than thirty years of teaching at the University of (...) Marburg. Cohen’s fame at the time was at its zenith, and his move to the Hochschule was a cause for celebration and excitement. According to the testimony of some students who attended the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus seminar, Cohen left no place for any expression of dissent (regrettably, the academy frequently encourages such authoritarian behavior). The text of Spinoza on State, which was the product of this seminar, still bears the marks of this “didactic” attitude. It is bombastic and feebly argued. Thus, in one moment of emotional crescendo in the text, we can literally hear Cohen shout: When Spinoza, with merciless severity, makes his own nation the object of contempt – at the time that Rembrandt lived on the same street and immortalized the ideal type of the Jew - no voices rises in protest against this humanly incomprehensible betrayal. Such patriotic rhetoric is quite typical of Cohen’s Spinoza on State, as the work reads more like a series of rants against the devil incarnated (“the demonic spirit of Spinoza”) in the figure of the traitor from Amsterdam than like a sustained and serious philosophical polemic. From time to time, one can observe hints of critical arguments, but hardly any are fleshed out. The text is also replete with rudimentary factual and interpretative errors. Thus, when Cohen argues that Spinoza traces his pantheism to Jewish sources, Cohen erroneously cites Spinoza’s reference in E2p7s to “some of the Hebrews [quidam Hebraeorum]” who argued for the identity of Sekhel, Maskil, and Muskal (the Intellect, the Intellecting Subject, and the Intellected Object) – a Maimonidean doctrine that has nothing to do with pantheism – while the text Cohen clearly had in mind was Spinoza’s claim, in Letter 73, that the traditions (traditionibus) of the “ancient Hebrews [antiquis Hebraeis]” agree with Spinoza’s claim that “all things are in God.” Similarly, and on the very same page, Cohen ascribes to Spinoza the claim that “the God of the Old Testament is only a body,” a claim which is nowhere to be found in Spinoza’s works, and which can be inferred from Spinoza’s text only through a patent fallacy. If I may add one last example, consider the following passage from Cohen’s Spinoza on State: [For Spinoza] divine law is grounded in our mind. Yet this does not mean that our mind bears responsibility for producing and obeying the law. Instead, it means that, by definition, the human mind and God are identical, inasmuch as He exists in the human mind. Hardly any claim in this brief passage is correct. Yet, what is most striking is Cohen’s derivation of the identity of God and the human mind from the claim that God exists in the human mind. If I exist in North America, this obviously does not imply that I am identical to North America (there are, for example, a couple of North American porcupines and alligators that are distinct from me). What rule of inference Cohen sought to employ in this argument, and how this impressive inference of the identity of God and the human mind is supposed to square with Cohen’s view of Spinoza as a pantheist – i.e., as considering the physical nature to be divine – is beyond my grasp. Instead of tracking down the dozens of crude errors and fallacies in Cohen’s text, I would like to concentrate here on one crucial issue: Cohen’s critique of Spinoza’s pantheism. By doing this, I will have to pass silently over a couple of surprising agreements between the two figures, such as the (false) claim that all of the prophets of the Hebrew Bible taught the same universal and simple morality. My discussion of pantheism will be divided into two sections. In the first, I will examine Cohen’s understanding of Spinoza’s pantheism. In the second, I will briefly examine the historical validity of Cohen’s claim that pantheism is a Christian doctrine, diametrically opposed to Judaism. (shrink)

Beauty is evil, a surreptitious diversion of earthly delights planted by the devil, according to the third century theologian-philosopher Tertullian. Beauty is a manifestation of the divine on earth, according to another third century philosopher, Plotinus. Could these two really be talking about the same thing? That beauty evokes an experience of pleasure is probably the only point on which all participants in the continuing debate on beauty agree. But what kinds of pleasure one considers relevant to an experience (...) of beauty, is the crux of the problem of beauty. In ancient, medieval and eighteenth century philosophy, the problem of beauty was framed by the larger concern of what constituted a good life. The question regarding the nature of beauty was answered with a view to its role in achieving the good life for those who cultivated its apprehension. In the twentieth century, philosophers framed the problem of beauty as a problem for conceptual analysis. The questions asked were: Is beauty subjective or objective? Are there properties in the object that count towards beauty in all cases; that are sufficient or necessary for an object to be judged beautiful? What kind of pleasure is the pleasure we experience of beauty? I will examine how these questions can be seen to have been answered by earlier philosophical traditions and then I will use these questions as a guide to developing an explanatory theory of beauty based on contemporary theories of perception. (shrink)

What might film’s contribution be to the work of acknowledgment, apology, and moral repair? James Baldwin's 1976 book on film, The Devil Finds Work, can be read as a reflection on the role that film might play in the extensive, multi-dimensional, public task of, as he puts it, putting ourselves in touch with reality, specifically the reality of American racism as an integral to American reality, its past and present. Developing Baldwin's thought, this paper outlines two broad types of (...) cinematic pictures or conceptions of racism: (1) films can present racism as a special event, or (2) films can present racism as a pervasive, structural reality. The former is complicit in a racist ideology that pictures racism as exceptional, rare, and unusual; the latter functions to critique such an ideology by picturing racism, not as a departure from the norm, but as constitutive of it. I develop a formal account of these cinematic pictures or conceptions through close analysis of two films made three years apart: Norman Jewison’s 1967 In the Heat of the Night (which Baldwin also analyses) and Michael Roemer’s 1964 film Nothing But a Man. (shrink)

La storia di un’idea che ha attraversato i secoli, dal mondo pagano e poi cristiano fino alle soglie dell’età contemporanea, passando per il lungo millennio medievale: l’intelligenza del diavolo, che si manifesta nella preveggenza e in capacità cognitive fuori dal comune. Ma qual è la natura di questo potere? Com’è possibile che Lucifero, principe degli angeli e sommamente sapiente, abbia peccato? E ciò significa che l’intelligenza è intrinsecamente demoniaca? Conoscenza e bontà possono convivere, e si può essere al contempo intelligenti (...) e malvagi, o addirittura malvagi perché intelligenti? Tutti interrogativi che si raccolgono attorno alla figura teologica del diavolo e al suo “scandaloso” potere cognitivo. Una questione che si muove tra filosofia, teologia, letteratura, scienza e mito, tessendo le fila di una storia intellettuale che vede spesso come protagonisti autori e testi poco noti, ma capaci di raccogliere il testimone di auctoritas come Agostino d’Ippona e Anselmo d’Aosta, Dante e Tommaso d’Aquino, Cartesio e Voltaire. (shrink)

En la Carta a Voetius, Descartes escribe que su enemigo es el diablo, el enemigo. La acusación es etimológicamente coherente e introduce una excepción a la metafísica, una voluntad de mal. Finalmente, la malignidad odia la verdad : es deliberadamente irracional. Examinamos aquí la oratoria del mal: primero, sus recursos retóricos ; segundo, las pasiones que excita y su combinación en una pasión particular, la cólera piadosa; tercero, sus efectos: la disolución del vínculo civil entre ciudadanos y amistoso entre familiares. (...) -/- ABSTRACT In his Letter to Voetius, Descartes writes that his enemy is the devil, the enemy. The accusation is etymologically coherent (Voetius is the libeler, whose word divides men) and introduces an exception to metaphysics, a will to evil. Finally, malignity hates truth (absurditas): it is deliberately irrational. The article examines the oratory of evil: first, its rhetorical devices (in contrast with the rhetoric of Guez de Balzac); second, the passions it elicits (in contrast with Passions of the Soul) and their combination with a specific passion, pious rage; and third, its effects: the dissolution of the civil bond among citizens and the friendship bond family members. Keywords: R. Descartes, evil, oratory, passions, rhetoric. (shrink)

In the words of Charles Peirce from 1901, “man is but a degenerate monkey, with a paranoic talent for self-satisfaction, no matter what scrapes he may get himself into, calling them ‘civilization…’” Peirce’s concept of degenerate monkey draws attention both to our neotenous or prolonged newborn-like nature as “degenerate” in the mathematical sense of a genetic falling away from more mature genomes of other primates, and also to our monkeying around with the long evolutionary narrative of foraging, through the advent (...) of agriculture, settlement, and civilization. -/- Homo sapiens, man the knower, is the way we humans like to distinguish ourselves from the rest of nature. But if we consider ourselves as degenerate monkeys, perhaps homo errans, man the blunderer, would have been a better term, calling attention to our softened instinctive intelligence, in contrast to the “unerring instincts of other races,” as Peirce put it. -/- I take Peirce’s term “degenerate monkey” as not limited to moderns, but applicable to homo sapiens sapiens, anatomically modern humans, generally. Considering humans as degenerate monkeys is a key to understanding human development, in my view, precisely because we need to attune ourselves to the instinctive intelligence of the environment, drawing its intelligence into our dematured, blundering selves through abductive inference, and therein finding our maturity. Without that attunement to the Others, monkey goes mad, monkeying in its mirror of itself, fatally fixated, like Narcissus, and with similar results: planet of the degenerate monkeys, monkeying to mayhem. -/- As Cornelius, the ape archaeologist and historian in The Planet of the Apes stated it, reading from the sacred scrolls: “Beware the beast Man, for he is the Devil's pawn. Alone among God's primates, he kills for sport or lust or greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him; drive him back into his jungle lair, for he is the harbinger of death.” Or as Ralph Waldo Emerson put it: “The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.” . (shrink)

An interpretation of Kali and the explanation of the absence of a Devil in Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma. This paper shows how there is no 'dichotomy of divinity' in Hinduism. The social, cultural, and spiritual implication of the iconography of Kali is also discussed in the light of women and gender studies.

In 1866 J.C. Maxwell thought he had discovered a Maxwellian demon—though not under that description, of course [1]. He thought that the temperature of a gas under gravity would vary inversely with the height of the column. From this he saw that it would then be possible to obtain energy for work from a cooling gas, a clear violation of Thompson’s statement of the second law of thermodynamics. This upsetting conclusion made him worry that “there remains as far as I (...) can see a collision between Dynamics and thermodynamics.” Later, he derived the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution law that made the temperature the same throughout the column. However, he continued to think about the relationship between dynamics and thermodynamics, and in 1867, he sent Tait a note with a puzzle for him to ponder. The puzzle was his famous “neat-fingered being” who could make a hot system hotter and a cold system colder without any work being done. Thompson in 1874 christened this being a “demon”; Maxwell unsuccessfully tried to rename it “valve.” However named, the demon’s point was to “show that the second law of thermodynamics has only a statistical validity.” Since that time a large physics literature has arisen that asks a question similar to that asked in theology, namely, does the devil exist? Beginning with Popper, philosophers examining the literature on Maxwell’s demon are typically surprised—even horrified [2,3,4,5,6,7]. As a philosopher speaking at a physics conference exactly 100 yrs after Popper’s birth, I want to explain why this is so. The organizers of this conference instructed me to offend everyone, believers and non-believers in demons. Thus my talk, apart from an agnostic middle section, contains a section offending those who believe they have exorcized the demon and a section offending those who summon demons. Throughout the central idea will be to clearly distinguish the various second laws and the various demons.. (shrink)

If by “demon” one understands an evil occult being, then its equivalent in the Islamic narrative is the intersection of the category jinn with that of the shayātīn: a demon is a shaytān from among the jinn. The literature in the Islamic tradition on these subjects is vast. In what follows, we will select some key elements from it to provide a brief summary: first on the nature of the jinn, their nature, and their relationship to God and human beings; (...) second, on the origin, nature, and role of Shaytān (Satan himself) and the shayātīn in the moral drama of Islam. Then, we will take a closer look at the relationship between jinn and humankind, according to Islam, and the phenomena of the demonic as it manifests itself in that relation. In the process, I will entertain, tentatively, some philosophical speculation as to the nature of that ultimately mysterious relation and phenomena, drawn from what we find in the religious sources. (shrink)

This article examines the notion of providence in the thought of St Justin martyr. First, it is shown the relevance of the question for St Justin, since it was an important topic in his time. Secondly, the comparison to the philosophical context provides a more complete view of St Justin’s position. Thirdly, the notion of providence is considered in the whole of St Justins’ thought. So, the author can conclude that Christian philosophy requires a particular providence which nevertheless allows human (...) and angelic free will. The history of salvation plays also an essential role in the understanding of providence, because some past and future facts (such as original sin or Incarnation) condition the choices of providence at the present. (shrink)

Jean Piaget's theory of human mental development mirrors many issues related to human. According to this theory, one's view of himself, nature/universe and God is changing. According to this theory, which is basically divided into four main periods and subtitles, the thinking skill of man changes according to age, physical development, education and society. These differences affect the way individuals obtain information. Individuals who acquire knowledge with an emotional intuition before the age of seven acquire information through an inductive way, (...) in other words, through concrete intuition, through concrete processes, experimentation and observation, in parallel with the development of the brain and senses. At the age of eleven and after which intellectual reasoning develops, information becomes abstract and information is obtained through abstract intuition based on theories, hypotheses and assumptions. In the love experience of Rumi, a mystical thinker, knowledge is obtained only with emotional intuition, and it is claimed that the only way to obtain information is love-based emotional intuition. In this love-based emotional intuition, the ways of obtaining concrete/experimental and abstract/rational knowledge requiring high level mental skills are rejected and these methods are said to be 'devil’s work'. In this study, Rumi's approach to human, universe and God in this one-sided and emotional way is criticized and its inconsistency is revealed. (shrink)

In this paper, the author examines the concept of "demonic" in Thomas Mann’s novel, Doctor Faustus, under a historical and philosophical perspective. The demonic represents Mann’s attempt to interpret the German history and its tragic turn in 20th century through the fictional mask of the main character’s life, the composer Adrian Leverkühn, who, as Faust before him, made a deal with the devil, losing his soul in exchange for genius and success. The work proceeds from a comparison between Mann’s (...) character of Satan and the theologian Paul Tillich’s idea of demonic expressed in his 1926 essay Das Dämonische. Ein Beitrag zur Sinndeutung der Geschichte, where it is interpreted as a dialectic and ambiguous concept: not merely negative, but also positive in its existing. Tillich’s concept of demonic is strongly connected to Mann’s, who elected music as a mean to express the demonic, precisely for its supreme ambiguity: on one hand it is mathematically structured, on the other it voluptuously attracts the listener to an inarticulate ancient chaos. (shrink)

Western liberal democracies praise themselves for protecting a full range of differences among individuals and groups. The origin of this ongoing process is thought to be Locke’s Epistola de Tolerantia. Before the Reformation, it is assumed, “a multiplicity of beliefs was deemed to be dangerous, as well as evil; diversity was, so to speak, the devil’s work, and where it existed it was to be stamped out”. Yet, although flattering to liberalism, the conceit of a modern liberal discovery of (...) liberty of conscience is both conceptually simplistic and historically misleading. The main virtue of this volume is to challenge this tale of Western political history. The essays presented seek to demonstrate that premodern thinkers generated alternative theories of toleration; and to contribute to a philosophical analysis of tolerance. (shrink)