JavaChief
Philosophy Today
Collapse/Expand All Stories
Click the toggle to collapse/expand individual stories.
  • toggle
    Personal Ads of the Randians
    Brian Leiter  | Published: Wed Nov 19 17:35:36 EST 2008
    Seriously. (Thanks to Gary Chartier for the pointer.)
  • toggle
    Applying Twice to the Same Programs?
    Brian Leiter  | Published: Wed Nov 19 07:17:00 EST 2008
    An undergraduate student writes:I'm in a small and unrenowned state school, with wonderful but unrenowned philosophy faculty. I've been given the impression that, not coming from a typical feeder school, I'll need to prove myself outstanding in every way to...
  • toggle
    Saint Augustine
    John Perry  | Published: Wed Nov 19 03:50:32 EST 2008
    <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>by John Perry</p> <p>When I was a graduate student at Cornell, Saint Augustine (354-430) wasn't required reading.&nbsp; Years later I became responsible for teaching the Winter quarter of a freshman class at Stanford, where the books were selected from a &quot;Core Reading List&quot;.&nbsp; I somewhat reluctantly put Saint Augustine's <em>Confessions</em> on the list.&nbsp; The structure of the Core List was such that I couldn't get by with Descartes, Hume and Locke.&nbsp; I set about getting up to speed on Saint Augustine.</p><p>What an interesting philosopher he turned out to be!&nbsp; And an interesting man, too.&nbsp; Set aside his historical importance --- the fact that he above all others brought together the Greek and Hebrew aspects of Christianity, that his work against the heresies of Arianism, Pelagianism and Manicheanism was tireless and&nbsp; and that, as many think, he is responsible for many of the more unfortunate aspects of Christianity, such as the low status of women, the negative attitude towards sex and other enjoyable bodily appetites, and the harsh doctrine of original sin.&nbsp; Just read him as a person with one great philosophical skill: he knows how to get puzzled by things, and then thinks hard about what to say about them.</p> <p> Augustine's mother, Saint Monica, was a Christian, and wanted him to become one.&nbsp; When he got an involuntary erection as a teenager in the public baths, she was mortified.&nbsp; His father wasn't&nbsp; Christian, and took pride in his son's precocious erection.&nbsp; So Augustine started life somewhat conflicted.&nbsp; He spent the first part of his life as&nbsp; a Manichean, much to his mother's distress.&nbsp; He led a successful life as a teacher of Rhetoric, ending up with an important position in Milan, the intellectual capital of the Roman Empire in those days (4th and 5th centuries).&nbsp; Monica followed him, nagging him to become a Christian, without effect.&nbsp; He had a mistress, enjoyed sex, and was famous and influential.</p> <p> His reluctance to please his mother and become a Christian stemmed from his philosophical bent.&nbsp; He took the problem of Evil quite seriously (even before he came to regard his own healthy appetites as part of the problem), and thought that the Manichean solution, that God wasn't omnipotent, but had to battle ceaselessly with the forces of Evil, the earth being a main battleground, was intellectually preferable.</p> <p>But eventually, as a result of continued pressure from Saint Monica, exposure to Saint Ambrose in Milan, and disappointing interactions with the leading Manichean intellectuals (and perhaps some intervention by the Holy Ghost), Augustine became a Christian.&nbsp; He decided that he would not only be a Christian, but a priest, which meant celibacy; hence, his famous prayer, &quot;Lord give me chastity and continence, but not yet.&quot;</p> <p>Once fully converted, he returned to Africa, became Bishop of Hippo, and became the leading intellectual in Christendom, writing tirelessly, fighting the big heresies of Arianism, Pelagianism,&nbsp; Manichenism, and Donostianism.&nbsp; Arianism had already been declared a heresy at Constantine's Council of Nicea in 325.&nbsp; Arians thought that Jesus was a created being, not identical with God; the Nicene Creed affirms that Jesus and God are of the same substance, which usually in philosophy means one and the same thing.&nbsp; The Trinitarian Doctrine, that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one being, makes little sense as far as I can see, and is the reason Moslems, among others, have doubts about Christianity being a monotheistic religion.</p> <p>Pelagius was a British Monk who read Augustine's <em>Confessions</em> and was shocked at what he found.&nbsp; Pelagius has the sort of straightforward idea that we have free-will; we can freely choose to do the right thing or the wrong thing, and we are punished or rewarded accordingly.&nbsp; Augustine said that this was true of Adam, but since his sin we have not had the power to the right thing, except by dint of God's Grace.&nbsp; The good news is that if we ask for his Grace, we get it.&nbsp; However, since it seems that asking for his Grace is an instance of doing the right thing, how comforting is this?&nbsp; Augustine's view of original sin, free-will, grace, and the like became orthodoxy, although the Catholic Church didn't push the point.&nbsp; His view appealed to Luther, and other Prostestant &quot;reformers&quot;, and became the basis of PreDestination and a number of other things most modern protestants would rather forget.</p> <p>Manicheanism was the religion that Augustine bought into in the first part of his life.&nbsp; It's founder, Mani, conceived of himself as some kind of Christian.&nbsp; It was outlawed, reviled, discredited and so on time and time again through early Christianity, but kept cropping up.</p> <p>Augustine's rejection of Manicheanism meant that he had to come up with an alternative account of Evil, and his efforts to do so, which are detailed in his <em>Confessions</em>, are influential among Christian theologians to this day.&nbsp; The main components are:</p> <ul><li>The Big Picture Argument.&nbsp; Just because something considered in isolation seems vile, disgusting, stupid, and the like, doesn't mean that it is evil.&nbsp; For it might be a necessary part of the virtue, beauty, or intelligence of the larger whole of which it is a part.&nbsp; Agatha Christie novels always have a murder in them, which is sort of ugly in isolation, but without the murder, how interesting would the whole mystery be?&nbsp; (This isn't Augustine's example).</li> <li>The Free-will Defense.&nbsp; God thought that a world with Free Agents in it would be better than one without.&nbsp; He could have had a world with virtuous automatons, who did just what he programmed them to do.&nbsp; But what a bore that would be.&nbsp; And if one of those automatons loved Him, what would that mean?&nbsp; So he created a world with Free Beings in it, even though he realized that by doing so, inevitably some would choose to do evil things.&nbsp; Hence, as an instance of the Big Picture point, the best of all possible worlds, because it contains freedom, also contains evil</li> <li>Angels, Devils, and Natural Evil.&nbsp; When we think of free creatures, we naturally think of humans, who certainly do their share of evil deeds.&nbsp; But not all evil seems to stem from human action.&nbsp; How about cancer?&nbsp; And the suffering of innocent animals?&nbsp; And earthquakes.&nbsp; However, Augustine thought that there were a lot of other free creatures creating havoc.</li> <li>Pride.&nbsp; This all suggests that God has some plan, such that, if we could see it, we could see that this is, in spite of the genocide of Indians, the Holocaust, cancer, war, pestilence, and so on, the best of all possible worlds.&nbsp; If we could see the Big Picture, all would fall into place.&nbsp; But who can see such a picture?&nbsp; But to expect to see the Big Picture is to commit the sin of pride.&nbsp; God is infinite, we are finite, very finite, so we shouldn't expect to figure out what He might have had in mind.</li></ul> <p>These are, as far as I can see, the basic elements of Augustine's &quot;theodicy&quot; --- a theodicy is basically a solution to the problem of evil.&nbsp; These basic elements are the basis of all subsequent theodicies that I've ever seen.</p> <p>A cynic might say that it's a good thing that Christianity is so implausible (at least, superficially considered), otherwise Saint Augustine's intellect wouldn't have been challenged, and he wouldn't have produced so much thoughtful, truly interesting philsophy, full of distinctions and insights.</p> <p>The Donostian Heresy, by the way, had to do with whether we could know that a priest really was a priest.&nbsp; Donotists said we really couldn't.&nbsp; Suppose his lineage goes back through some priest that had forsaken his faith, perhaps under Roman torture.&nbsp; Augustine defended the practical answer, from the Church's point of view: a priest is a priest even if some priest in the succession of priests that led to his being a priest committed some terrible sin.&nbsp; Fighting this particular heresy, as far as I know, didn't provoke Augustine to come&nbsp; up with any very fecund philosphical ideas.&nbsp; But perhaps it shows his practical side. </p></div>
  • toggle
    Leiter v. Shapiro on Legal Philosophy on Bloggingheads TV
    Brian Leiter  | Published: Tue Nov 18 08:33:02 EST 2008
    Details and link here.
  • toggle
    Separation of Powers and the Charismatic Presidency
    Philosophy Talk  | Published: Tue Nov 18 03:32:44 EST 2008

    posted by Ken Taylor

    I wrote this entry when our Separation of Powers episode originally aired. I'm moving it up to the top since that episode is about to air again. I welcome further discusssion. KT

    Later this morning, our episode "Power out of Balance? Exploring the Separation of Powers" will air. This epsiode was recorded back in July [of 2006] on Capitol Hill in a tiny little room in the basement of the building. Though the audience was small, they were quite engaged and engaging. We were there at the invitation of Congresswoman Anna Eshoo. We are most grateful to Congresswoman Eshoo for being our sponsor and for participating in the program. Our main guest during the program was Kathleen Sullivan. Kathleen was a terrific guest. They say that if the Democrats get to make a Supreme Court appointment anytime soon, Kathleen is high on the list of potential nominees. I can see why. She is very smart, very articulate, and has really deep knowledge of constitutional law. It was a pleasure having her as our guest. I've invited her to guest blog on the topic of separation of powers. But since she is a very busy woman, who knows if she'll take up the invitation. Anyway, I hope you enjoy listening to the program.

    In the remainder of this post, I'll ruminate, just a little bit, on what's become of the separation of powers in our time.

    The founding fathers in their considerable wisdom took the separation of powers to be a "bulwark of liberty." Indeed, they took the concentration of power into a single agency to be the very definition of tyranny. Conversely, they apparently believed that not just the formal separation of powers among the branches of the federal government and between the federal and state governments, but also what might be called the subsantive seperation of political interests to which the formally separated branches are asnwerable, was the key to a government that was unlikely to ever devolve into tyranny. By formally dividing the powers of government among competing branches and among the several states and the federal government and by making the various branches and and levels of government answerable to society in different ways that reflect different and competing constellations of "parts, interests, and classes of citizens," Madison seemd to believe, the government would incapable of trampling the rights of the citizens. Moreover, no ad hoc constellation of citizens would be able to sieze the powers of government and deploy them against the fundamental civil liberties of the remainder of the citizenry.

    It's a nice sounding story, but I think the founders vastly overestimated the degree to which the formal separation of powers, even when conjoined with a substantive separation of interests, might suffice, on its own, to guard against tyranny and to protect civil liberties. This isn't a startling new inisght, of course. Jefferson saw the limits of merely procedural safe-guards to liberty right away and rightly insisted that an enumerated Bill of Rights be added to the constitution.

    The founders lacked prescience on two particular fronts that have come to define the American political scene and that jointly conspire to make the formal separation of powers far less of a bulwark against tyranny than they imagined. First, the founding fathers failed to anticipate what I'll call the charismatic nature of the Presidency. Second, they failed to anticipate the extent to which partisan loyalty would come to trump institutional loyalty within the legislature. Let's consider the second thing first. The founders seemed to believe that Congress would be extremely jealous of its perogatives and would strongly resist the encroachment of the executive upon its domain. To some extent that has been true over the course of our history but mostly, it seems, at least to my non-expert eye, that Congress mostly resists encroachment when different parties control the executive and the legislative branches. When a single party controls both the executive and the legislative, partisan loyalty seems almost always to trump institutional loyalty. The current Republican House and Senate have been almost suppine in their obedience to the will of the President.

    Why should that be? The answer has, I think, to do with the charismatic nature of the presidency in a time of modern communications. I'm not talking about the personal charisma of the any particular president. Many occupants of that office, including the current occupant, seem to me to be seriously charisma challenged. Indeed, it's something of a mystery how such a charismatic office has managed to have so many charisma challenged occupants.

    By calling the presidency -- the office, not the occupant -- charismatic, I'm thinking about the power of the president to set the national agenda, to command national attention. The president's formal powers aren't really all that great in comparison with Congress. But the charismatic reach of the presidency far outstrips the charismatic reach of Congess. It's not just that the president speaks with a single (if sometimes incoherent and conflicted voice), while the legislature is a cacophony of competing voices. It's also the focus of the national media on every word and gesture of the president compared to its fairly shallow and desultory focus on the Congress. And it's also the fact that we spend millions and millions on seemingly endless presidential campaigns that seem largely designed to manufacture of exploit competing personality cults rather than competing subsantive agendas for action.

    If you're an obscure member of congress trying to rise to greater national prominence, it's pretty hard to compete with the charisma of the presidency merely in the name of safeguarding the perogatives of the legislature. After all, if you are a member of the president's party you probably want most of what the president wants. So why insists on the perogatives of the legislature?

    On the other hand, if your a member of the opposition party -- whether in the minority or the majority -- you do have some rationale, often considerable rationale --- for resisting. But not really because you are jealous as such of the perogatives of your branch. It's rather because you have allegiance to the competing party. Still when we have divided government, we get at least the shadow of what the Founders were after, because then we have not just the formal separation of powers but also the substantive diversion of interests that is nicely aligned with the formal separation of powers.

    Of course, I haven't touched on the subject of the Supreme Court. But Kathleen Sullivan has a great deal to say about the court and its role in maintaining a balance between the executive and the legislative branches. I won't try to summarize what she has to say here. Instead, I'll urge you to check out the show -- which is about to begin right now.

    I'm going to tune in via KALW's website. You could do the same.

  • toggle
    Wisdom of the Mountains #1
    alanwattspodcast@gmail.com (Alan Watts)  | Published: Sun Nov 16 07:00:00 EST 2008
    Religion of No Religion 1 of 4


    click image to play lecture

    click for more information

  • toggle
    Religion of No Religion #4
    alanwattspodcast@gmail.com (Alan Watts)  | Published: Sun Nov 09 07:00:00 EST 2008
    Religion of No Religion 4 of 4


    click image to play lecture
    click for more information

  • toggle
    Limits of moral concepts
    Philosophy  | Published: Fri Sep 19 01:35:00 EDT 2008
    Concepts can come unstuck; our words can fail us. Perhaps not all of the usual parts to the concept are applicable, or perhaps some normal assumption fails. The concept of...
  • toggle
    About concepts
    Philosophy  | Published: Wed Sep 17 21:24:00 EDT 2008
    I tend to believe the following crazy things (or something akin to them): 1. When people talk about "concepts" (in the context of something like this blog), a lot of...
  • toggle
    Messiness
    Philosophy  | Published: Wed Sep 10 00:46:00 EDT 2008
    So I've given various examples of ethical thought experiments, and one quality to be found among many of these is simplicity. Details are pared down -- and, after all, this...

Powered by JavaChief

Terms of Use  |  Copyright  |  Privacy Policy