Paralysed Penmanship

There is a problem inherent to my writing. Perhaps it’s inherent to yours. What I refer to is the ever-present question, “is this worthy of words?” Every thought must stand up to scrutiny if it is to become an article. More often than not, it doesn’t. Reasons for this vary. Sometimes, the idea isn’t developed enough. It could be full of regrettable holes. Other times, I might think it’s well-trodden ground with every argument already expressed. In this case, I must either justify why my contribution would offer something new or scrap it entirely. For example, Trump is so thoroughly drowned in conjecture that any additions on my part may as well not be.

Image shamelessly poached like an egg from araugustyn.com

Regardless, I was able to justify my Trump article because I saw insufficient discussion on the desensitising effects of over-criticism. I understand it’s flawed, as everything I write will be. What does it matter though? This blog is insignificant. These are not earth-shaking decisions I make concerning literary worthiness. The only reason I have this writer’s anxiety is concern that one day these words may come to represent me. The number of dead users on the internet may one day outnumber the living. This little blog is essentially my tombstone. I want to be proud of the scrawlings that deface it.

It’s almost an act of arrogance to write, thinking you have something special to say. If that’s believed, it becomes much easier. The self-righteous don’t fear their writing lacks integrity. In turn, they don’t lack writing & it fills our eyes like compost on a patch. Perhaps I ought to be more arrogant then. There is a chance, after all, that I’ll have contributed something. Monkeys & typewriters.

Right, I think I should say something positive to close this out. Follow your dreams? No, that’s physically impossible. Follow your heart? Possible, but not without surgery. Have a nice day? Possible, but having a nice day is a tad possessive. To own a day implies ownership over a large span of time. If that’s the case, what does that entail? Do you own the spacial constituents of this time frame? For 24 hours do you own all the stars, planets & beings within each? If not, what does ownership of that timeframe even mean? It’s like owning a timeshare of literal time; easy to buy, hard to get rid of. You’d also need to define what the quality of ‘niceness’ in reference to a day entails. In the case of not being entitled to any elements of space, you could apply any quality to this useless commodity to no avail. So I suppose we have to make the argument for why ownership of a day also entitles you to ownership of space within that day. With my limited physical knowledge, space & time are irrevocably intertwined; one cannot be had without the other. If this is the case, the ownership of a day implies ownership of its spacial constituents. Now that’s quite a good deal, if not a recipe for absolute corruption should anyone achieve this saccharine-sweet gift of mastery over time & space known as, “a nice day.” Therefore, I wholeheartedly wish against you having a nice day. I like you too much to see you more corrupt than my original Spanish copy of, “The Brible.”

Ah! I’m writing more already. Thanks for reading.

Youth Against Post-Truth

Philosophy used to be comprised of logic, physics & ethics. Although today it has many other components, this still holds. Studying logic gives one the ability to discern validity. Physics, although now a part of science, is the study of how all elements of reality function & interact. Ethics is the study of how we ought to act. Three prongs of one trident. It’s baffling why philosophy, then, isn’t taught all through school. Do the authors of these curricula not see the necessity?

I’ve read of this flamboyant term: “post-truth.” The idea is we are approaching, or live within, this age where the truth is irrelevant & image is everything. Frightening prospect to some. 10:00am on a Monday to marketing agencies. Regardless, we have scientists trained in the scientific method. They are the bulwark between swarming ants of untrained youth & the sacking of Rome. That’s just it, isn’t it? Untrained youth. Not stupid. Not incapable. Not lazy. Untrained.

You understand now that I’m an advocate for the teaching of philosophy all throughout school, but in the spirit of this, I am compelled to speak why. You may have read countless articles on this or that program being advisable for teaching in schools. Oh, we need more Algebra. We need Yoga. We need more English. Better musical funding. Why would my assertion be any more worthy than any other? How is it any more useful? In many cases, you’d have sound concerns. Philosophy is filled with thought exercises. Debatably, the entire school of epistemology is too theoretical to be applied widely with too niche a sphere of interest. Do not deny the antecedent, however. Epistemology may be philosophy, but philosophy isn’t entirely epistemology, nor any other given niche field.

My interest relies on those antiquated pillars the Greeks once held. Physics is sophisticated in this day & age and is already taught. That leaves ethics & logic. Although parents may teach children wrong from right, often they aren’t taught why. They’re never taught to question this authority. Only to obey. Of course, what is the virtue of questioning? A whetstone for the mind that also serves to consolidate beliefs. Furthermore, logic falls to the wayside & intellectual laziness can reign. To some extent, math is a teacher of logic, but doesn’t delve into logic concerning argument & human imperfection. A student will never learn basic principles like validity & soundness from eighth grade Algebra. As such, they’re just as susceptible to the pleasant rhetoric of politicians as their parents & grandparents.

Many other subjects would yield benefits if taught in schools, I’m sure. More advanced mathematics may ease the way into engineering. Art history may give students an appreciation for culture. Personal finance, no doubt, would allow students to function in the world when they graduate to adulthood. There is an argument to be made for all sorts of things. The portions of philosophy I’ve defined, however, would benefit students in every single aspect of their life. The ability to properly reason is an experiential swiss-army knife. When acquiring any new knowledge, they will know to evaluate it. Their minds will be quickened by the practice of thought. Problems of logic, like all mathematics, will come easier. Their use of language will be improved. Every relationship they ever have will benefit from the ability to make good decisions & act in the interests of others. Knowing to question why they act & how things are will facilitate inner peace. They will innately understand scientific method through inquisition & the study of logic. Of course, these claims are grandiose, so you ought to question them. Be skeptical as a philosopher would. If your child were faced with this very article proposing a miracle cure for cognitive mediocrity, would you want them to accept it blindly or criticise it harshly, ensuring to the best of their ability that it is the truth? The latter is practice of this; an advocation for the teaching of philosophy, not of abstract branches, but of practical ones. Branches that will echo throughout their lives and shape them and all they touch for the better.

If we are facing a post-truth era, then the addition of philosophy to education will brace us against it. If the the minds of a populace are trained against fallacies and ill-reason from youth, they are an intellectual bulwark in age.

Rationalising Anti-Rational Rationalism

After reading this article, I was inspired to write briefly. The article serves to raise the question: is the entirety of the developed world becoming anti-rational? A bold claim, supported by the assumption that BREXIT and Trump becoming president-elect are anti-rational. I’m not here to make a case for why they are or aren’t. The point is: such claims require backing. To neglect this is to fuel the anti-rationalism condemned.

According to Emperor Google, rationalism is basing opinions and actions on knowledge and reason. This author may have knowledge and reason that fuels their opinion, but it isn’t stated. They have progressed heedless. Without backing, there can be no criticism. Without criticism, there can be no ideological refinement. Now, onto the content.

I believe anti-rationalism to be a default position of any given human. Why? Because thought is more difficult than emotion. Where emotion is an automatic function due to evolutionary imperative, thought must be practiced. When we send children to school, we don’t teach happiness 101. They learn to acquire and apply knowledge, because that is the difficult part. Therefore, striving to be rational is an uphill battle.

Now, let’s analyse why that opinion is strong, not because of its content necessarily, but because of its structure. Notice that I’ve not raised a contentious issue tainted by preconception. All I’ve done is clearly state the belief, followed by easily-accessible reasoning. If one wished to criticise this belief, it would be simple. For example, they could attack the idea that thought is more difficult than emotion. Is it? Here’s a study that says otherwise. They could also attack the idea that emotion is an evolutionary imperative. How do you know that? Evolutionary psychology has not confirmed that at all. By inviting these avenues of attack, I am granted the opportunity to improve upon my ideas in light of new arguments.

Thank you for reading.

Can’t Stump the Trump

I’ve done some perusing of online discussion concerning Trump supporters and their justification for this. One common theme I’ve seen is the disdain for being called names. Stupid, misogynistic, bigoted, racist. It doesn’t matter. However true or however false, these insults have been used extensively. When engaging in argument, one must avoid fallacies at all costs. Ad hominem, that is, attacking people rather than their argument, is illogical. It’s used frequently in all politics to varying extents.

What separates this election from others? The extent of insults. Never has there been such a polarising candidate as Trump simply due to his outlandish claims that would be political suicide for anyone else. Each of these claims carry one of these words. To belittle women? Sexism. Making economic claims without professional opinion? Perhaps stupid. Insult black people as a whole? Racist. To the adversaries of Trump, these terms are no mere insult. This isn’t the idle dung-flinging one comes to expect from American politics. No, these are genuinely-put condemnations of Trump on a believed factual basis. As such, they’re used frequently, for they are the accurate terms. However, what if one continues using such terminology? Do these terms not eventually blend into one another, losing meaning with repeated use? Consider this post, in which the author states:

“…Then a man we’ve known for decades shows up and decides to speak up for us – and you call him racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamaphobic, arachnophobic and whatever else.” 

He does not process the meaning behind these words, hence the use of “arachnophobic” to exaggerate their lack of substance. He does not compute any reasoning behind them. They are devoid of meaning and are pure emotional impact at this point, similar to the effects of cursing I’ve written about before. To quote, “The extent to which we use such words can diminish our descriptive power, so vital pieces of information can be lost in translation.” In the same way, these otherwise-accurate terms have descended to the same depths. “Sexism” no longer refers to ill-regard toward women. It’s merely an attack without further meaning! It’s all bark and no bite.

We can learn much from this election. If nothing else, we can learn the futility of insults. If your goal is to persuade, then the recipient of this persuasion oughtn’t be turned away by insults. If your goal is to offend, pick something factual and irrefutable. In either case, there are better methods to achieve one’s end than insults and name-calling. Even if Trump was proven to be Satan’s dark messiah on Earth, calling him thus would eventually turn people away. Eventually, people would think, “oh that’s just empty nay-saying. Standard insult-politics.” He could be pointing at corpses and making them explode while horns grew from his skull and this would still be the case.

Evidence is second to rhetoric in this arena. Everyone can claim they have proof to support them and each will have equal weighting in the voter’s mind. One side can have a league of esteemed climate scientists while the other has a crayon-wielding child on the oil payroll and the climate change ‘debate’ is suddenly at an impasse. In reality, one side isn’t worthy of being the other’s rival. I call this unjust positioning, “loaded discourse.”

In conclusion, I theorise two reasons for Trump’s success, among others.

1. The transition from criticism to insult in the minds of the public. The use of ‘racist,’ ‘sexist’ etc went from criticism that carried weight to nothing but wind. Even if he killed someone, calling him a murderer repeatedly would be just as effective as sticking your tongue out.

2.  Loaded discourse. He has had no training, no experience nor any qualification that would indicate a successful Trump presidency. Despite this, he was positioned on the same level as other, far more qualified candidates.

Source: USNews.com

Thank you for reading.

On Adversarial Argument

Treating arguments as though they’re adversarial bothers me. As far as I can determine, an argument has one of two outcomes. Either everybody wins or everybody loses. When all parties have their ideas tested by counterargument & actively question themselves in equal measure to others, everybody wins. After all, why do people engage in argument if not to convince someone of an alternate idea? If both are arguing against themselves as well as others, this end can be far more efficiently reached.

All parties lose an argument when any of the following occur:
(a) One or more parties close their minds to new ideas,
(b) One or more parties take insult with criticism, resulting in (a), or
(c) One or more parties fail to interrogate themselves in addition to ‘opponents.’

When Socrates chose not to defend himself at his trial, he did so to become a martyr for his own principles. He was charged with “corrupting the youth,” which meant teaching them to think critically of themselves and others. I suppose this is a crime he would have, and did, gladly die for.

“The Death of Socrates” by Jacques-Louis David

It is in this example where my reasoning for this belief lies. Society is better off with the indiscriminate betterment of all ideas, not just personal ones. As soon as an argument or idea is attached to a person, it becomes their idea. Their property. A perfectly logical agent would see no problem here, but the fallible human is susceptible to being mislead. Tempted, even, by the low-hanging prospect of attacking the parent of an idea rather than the progeny. Forgetful of the argument’s purpose; not to sate the hot anger of confrontation where words are backed with emotions instead of thoughts. Not to shout down one’s peers in an effort to be seen as superior. No, the purpose is to improve ourselves and others so all societies are better as a result. In ancient Athens, they called this “corruption.” Nowadays, we call it the “Socratic Method,” or its child, the “Scientific Method.” Socrates died for these. Perhaps we can live for them.