Disembodied Studios
Disembodied… Never Disengaged
Disembodied... Never Disengaged!
Philosophy, Politics and Society, all in one place.
-
Book Review: Civilization from Alfred North Whitehead’s The Adventure of Ideas
Posted on October 13th, 2009 No commentsIn Whitehead’s discussion of civilization in the book The Adventure of Ideas he argues that “[t]he most un-Greek thing that we can do, is to copy the Greeks. (353)” This argument comes from the historical look at all civilizations looking towards perfection by trying to copy the past. For Whitehead, this is a great perversion of the real point of civilization, which is not a static system that is called perfect but rather a system constantly in flux that is perfection. Whitehead explains that a civilized society exhibits five basic qualities and then goes on to explain these qualities, although he does so in an awkwardly ordered fashion – explaining three before he even talks about civilization. The five qualities are Truth, Beauty, Adventure, Art and Peace.
-
International Monkey Business: Animal Rights and International Ethics
Posted on October 13th, 2009 No commentsBefore the failed attempt at a League of Nations and the creation of the United Nations, philosopher John Stuart Mill recognized that international relations was not just an empirical study, but a normative one. He tells us that a fundamental goal of philosophers should be to formulate “some rule or criterion whereby the justifiableness of intervening in the affairs of other countries, and (what is sometimes fully as questionable) the justifiableness of refraining from intervention, may be brought to a definite and rational test.”[1] This call clearly does not limit itself to a discussion of interference based on human interests, and as such is a legitimate endeavor in regard to all individuals within the moral arena, including animals. Here I will outline a few of the initial difficulties that arise in producing an international ethic that accounts for animals in order to contextualize the basic framework that will follow. This sketch, then, will work as the first step towards an international ethic incorporating not only human beings but non-human animals.
-
True or False?: An updated look at the fictive use of language
Posted on October 12th, 2009 No commentsThe truth-value and function of fictive uses of language have plagued analytic philosophers. The greats have all given different answers when faced with a statement like “Tom Sawyer ran away from home”, true or false, even though a 12 year old tends to have no problem with the question. (Blocker 27) Meinong said it was true, after some conceptual additions to language; Russell said it was false because there was no Tom Sawyer; and Strawson said “none of the above” because it wasn’t a statement at all. Since the works of all three of these philosophers, and many others on the subject, the issue has still not been totally resolved. Works by H. Gene Blocker and Richard M. Gale may be able to shed light on the issue, however, from its two most important aspects. Gale spends his time focusing on what it means to use language fictively, what is actually being done when an actor utters a statement like “Hamlet killed his father” or an author writes in his novel “four legs good, two legs bad.” Meanwhile, Blocker explores what can be said about those fictive words, whether we can truthfully say Claudius said Hamlet killed his own father or a talking pig said “four legs good, two legs bad.” The combined effect of these two is to give a greater insight into how we use language, generally, and what it means to use language fictively.
-
No Difference: Quine, Strawson and Grice on the Analytic-Synthetic Distinction
Posted on October 12th, 2009 No commentsAccording to Quine, a statement is analytic if it is true by virtue of meanings and independently of fact. While this definition immediately calls into question what “meanings” are, Quine argues that the concept of meaning is unnecessary because of a further distinction he draws within the concept of analyticity to narrow his eventual criticism. He argues that there are two types of analytic statements, and it is the second type that is of real concern for his argument. The first type are statements that are “logically true” (his words), meaning they are true under any and all reinterpretations because of their logical components. An example of this type of statement would be “no unmarried man is married”. The second, and more important type, are “synonymously true” (my words) statements, which can be made into logically true statements by substituting synonyms for synonyms. An example of this type of statement would be “no bachelor is married” which could be made logically true by substituting “unmarried man”, a synonym for “bachelor”, into the statement, producing the same statement given as an example of the first type. If these types of analytic statements are the problem ones then there is no longer a concern for meaning but rather for synonymy, which must be clarified.
-
Violent Interpretations: Nietzsche’s Take on Environmentalism
Posted on February 18th, 2009 No commentsAccording to “European” existentialist Friedrich Nietzsche “our whole attitude toward nature today is hubris, our raping of nature by means of machines and the unthinking resourcefulness of technicians and engineers” (Geneaology sec. 3.9). Despite this seemingly explicit call for a radical environmental ethic, his philosophy has continually been criticized as “elitist” and, in the eyes of the ecologically embraced Martin Heidegger, Nietzsche’s philosophizing represents the culmination of metaphysical thinking, one which is subjectivistic, anthropocentric and voluntaristic and that affirms technological domination of the natural world (Hallman 99). Against these contradictory claims about one of the world’s most influential philosophers it seems important to explore Nietzsche’s contributions to the human-nature debate and bring together both the use and abuse of Nietzsche for environmental ethics. This task will take place in three main sections – first, an exploration of Nietzsche’s rejection of metaphysics and “grounding” of the human being; second, by exploring the concept of the “will to power;” and, finally, through reexamining Nietzsche’s most controversial concept, the ubermensch.
-
The Ethic of Life: Process Philosophy and Environmental Stewardship
Posted on February 17th, 2009 No commentsAccording to His Holiness the Dalai Lama, “when we view reality in terms of dependent origination… [i]t challenges us to see things and events less in terms of black and white and more in terms of a complex interlinking of relationships” (41). Dependent origination, and process philosophy in general, forces us to look beyond the egoism and anthropocentrism so rampant in our world today and instead recognize the intrinsic value of all life. This recognition is more than just an intellectual endeavor, however, as it must become a driving force behind a new ethical system, an ethic of life. If events are defined by relationships and if relationships are defined by life, then the entirety of the world and of our own, individual experiences are predicated upon life existing. By exploring the notion of dependent origination and process philosophy’s take on life, I will begin an investigation of a new ethical system. This ethical system will certainly apply to all parts of our lives, but I will specifically look at the impact on environmental ethics and animal rights in order to give a perception of just how much of a change this process ethic would be from our current system.
-
Locke & The Legitimacy of Law
Posted on February 17th, 2009 No commentsIn a critique of United States involvement in Iraqi and Afghani elections, anti-war activist and member of the board of directors for Peace Action Rahul Mahajan exclaimed “[w]e Americans tend to use words like ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ in a purely talismanic manner, without attaching any actual meaning to them (2)”. With the US military first invading Afghanistan, and then Iraq, in the name – at least partially – of democracy, it may be hard to swallow the thought of Americans just throwing a prized word like ‘freedom’ or ‘democracy’ around with no real meaning behind it, unfortunately Mahajan is correct in his observation, and it is this correctness that leads to the real question of does America really exhume democracy abroad? Or does the nation simply exude a grand hypocrisy on an even grander scale? With a nation founded on revolution and the philosophies of John Locke, is it possible that America has now moved away from this original platform of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” to “life as we want you to live it, liberty only as we provide it, and happiness as long as we agree with it”? If this is true, then, it is important to explore what John Locke would have to say on the issues of law, both for US Citizens and whatever other citizens the US forces its laws upon. In the exploration of his beliefs, along with that of Thomas Hobbes, it can be said that while Hobbes inevitably must settle on a government ruled by laws which are checked by the people, it is John Locke in the Second Treatise of Government who provides the logical and justifiable reasons for the formation of a government by the people, for the people, where the law’s legitimacy rests in the hands of the majority, not the leader of government. In defense of this statement it is necessary to explore, quickly, how Thomas Hobbes establishes, however grudgingly, a rule of law based on the majority. Then, it is important to understand how Locke postulates the same basic idea, but does so much more agreeably. Finally, with this knowledge in hand, it will be necessary to apply it to the US, Iraq and Afghanistan of present day.
-
Egalitarianism in the Western World: Thomas Jefferson’s Nature of Man
Posted on February 17th, 2009 No commentsThomas Jefferson, in analyzing different forms of society, proclaimed, “whether no law… or too much law… submits man to the greatest evil, one who has seen both conditions of existence would pronounce it to be the last” (Matthews 63). It would seem, despite his grouping with people like Madison and Hamilton as a founding father, Jefferson stands in opposition to the market society advocated by others, instead contending that an egalitarian, limited government society – if any government – is the best option. Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson stands as one of the few Western philosophers to truly preach that all mankind is created equal and with an innate ability to govern themselves. It is this view on the nature of man that formulates Jefferson’s basic political theory and allows him to stand on the side of anarchism and in opposition to the tyranny of capitalism and big government.
-
Hobbes’s Hidden Democracy
Posted on February 17th, 2009 1 commentIn a specific criticism of what he called the “liberal’s failure”, founder and chairman of the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism Nicholas Provenzo exclaimed “[t]he pattern endures, the repeated error of treating dictators as ‘rational actors’ and predicting their actions based on that assumption that dictators will choose a course of action that benefits their countries and their citizens (1)”. Clearly a logical claim in this day and age, when the word “dictator” brings to mind the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Hussein, this belief in the irrationality of dictators wasn’t always so. Namely, seventeenth century political theorist Thomas Hobbes stood up in firm support of a dictatorship, whom he referred to as an absolute sovereign, and even placed his arguments into one of the most remembered political writings of all time, The Leviathan. In this work Hobbes attempts to set up a relationship of absolute authority between the governed and the government, but inevitably fails to establish an absolute ruler or a submissive people. Ultimately, the rational person who is Hobbes’s sovereign can never be proven rational, and Provenzo’s criticism remains strong even in Hobbes’s theoretical world.In order to see where Hobbes fails to truly provide for a workable common-wealth, it is important to begin with his theoretical state of nature, which is where Hobbes begins his exploration of human behavior and the psychology of man which leads to the establishment of his common-wealth. Most fundamentally, Hobbes equates the state of nature with a state of war. Believing that all people are only out for their own survival, Hobbes concludes that this must mean a world without the sovereign is a world where everyone fights everyone else. Specifically, “the state of nature is a state of war of all against all, punctuated by frequent violence, in which the participants correctly perceive themselves to be in constant danger. (2)” This gloomy outlook on the nature of mankind is one of the most basic premises of the call for a common-wealth and an absolute sovereign.
-
The Necessity of and Alternatives to the State
Posted on February 17th, 2009 No commentsThe great anarchist thinker Pierre-Joseph Proudhon announced, “The government of man by man is servitude.”(Guérin 15) Since the times of the Ancient Greeks humans, as a whole, have consistently insisted on being ruled by a government. This insistence has led many theorists to prepare rationalizations for the state in hopes of justifying the oppression a government brings with it. However, these journeys of logical leaps and bounds have invariably been unable to fully and consistently justify any realistic form of government. In the end, it must still be asked if government is necessary, and if not what is a viable alternative. To attempt to solve this century old problem, it is necessary to first explore some political theorists who have attempted to justify government, then examine the general justifications for government and how both government and social anarchy fit within these justifications, and finally, with all exploration complete, conclude whether or not government finds itself legitimate in today’s day and age.