Home // Posts tagged "philosophy"

Purpose, Created?

Here’s an odd thing: a guest blog on Scientific American, calling on us to consider the possibility of a Creator of our universe.

Mmmmmmkay….

First of all, Stephanie Zvan, likewise writing a guest blog on Scientific American, has neatly deconstructed the failure that is Naff’s rather, well, naff, post. Go read that. I’ll wait ….

Back? Cool. Because that’s not the point I wished to take on. I would take the same position as Zvan (including taking issue with Naff’s characterisation of some very reasoned statements by Dawkins as “infuriated”), but the issue I want to address is the one, stated explicitly in the second paragraph, and permeating the whole blog, that existence lacks meaning and purpose unless it be vouchsafed us by a Creator:

“The other is the shiny new set of atheists who claim that science demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that our existence is accidental, purposeless, and doomed.”

I’ve blithered on about this a number of times before, but I don’t get tired of saying it: we create our own meaning; we find and define our own purpose. That is the meaning of life, in my view.

Just as no godling could remove my responsibility for my deeds, no external being or force – or god – can bestow upon me purpose or meaning. They dwell within. For most of us they probably do involve things external to ourselves – but they were not created by those external things; we invest those things/people/causes with meaning for ourselves.

And yet Naff perpetuates the tired old trope that without god (or ancient aliens from another universe) to create us, our life is void of meaning. What a sad existence he must have, if he honestly cannot define himself other than by what might be granted him by some other.

And if that’s not the case, then I really don’t understand why he feels he must make the (extremely weak) point that he does.

Orwellian Newspeak: “DV”

I walked past a sign this morning outside the train station on my way to work. It’s a sign I’ve walked past quite a few times without noticing it terribly much. This morning I did notice it, and having been reading George Orwell’s 1984 just five minutes earlier, was rather taken by its Newspeak-ness. It reads: “This community does not tolerate domestic violence” – which is of course commendable – and underneath is a phone number for the “DV Hotline”.

On the face of it this seems fine: we shouldn’t tolerate domestic violence, and there should be an easy way for anyone suffering it to get help and support.

However…

Along with the sign, I noticed this morning how terribly Newspeak-ish is the phrase “Domestic Violence” – and worse yet: “DV”. No longer do we talk about assault, emotional cruelty, even rape (within a relationship) or suchlike; it has become “DV in the relationship”.

Words are important. They are the primary means by which we convey not just information, but the very concepts therein. In Orwell’s 1984, the Party use Newspeak to control not just information, but the public’s conception of existence. If there is no way to describe a concept, what happens to that concept. The notion Orwell puts forth through the Party is that without language to express a concept the concept can cease to exist:

‘Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. Already, in the Eleventh Edition, we’re not far from that point. But the process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there’s no reason or excuse for committing thoughtcrime. It’s merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won’t be any need even for that. The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect. Newspeak is Ingsoc and Ingsoc is Newspeak,’ he added with a sort of mystical satisfaction. ‘Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?’

Compare and contrast “DV in the relationship” with “He bashes his wife”. Not only is the latter more accurate and informationally complete, it is more visceral. Upon hearing or reading it there is more empathy evoked; you feel more what is happening. The Newspeak “Domestic Violence” (and especially the short, punchy, and oh-so-catchy “DV”) robs information and emotion from the concept. In fact it changes the concept: in Newspeak (“DV in the relationship”), it is the relationship that appears to be in some odd and undefinable way, at fault; in Oldspeak (“He bashes his wife”) it is clear who is at fault: a violent man.

The more I read 1984, the more I see of it in the world around me. If you have not read it, or haven’t read it for a while, read it.

Read. It. Now.

Irreducible Epiphany

“This, is the world that you know.”

My registrars and I have been reading about and discussing phenomenology, in preparation for a presentation (which we did today, but I was most disappointed that the video clips I had embedded – and that worked fine on other computers – didn’t play on the laptop we had for the presentation, so I had to recite Morpheus’ lines from the clips below). We focused on delusions to illustrate many of the aspects of phenomenology – as opposed to (relatively) simple descriptive psychopathology. The standard definition of a delusion is along the lines of “a fixed false belief, not understandable within the patient’s culture/social group, that is not amenable to reason” – or some variation. The essential points being that it is false, it isn’t shared with others, and it’s fixed/can’t be reasoned away.

Karl Jaspers, a psychiatrist and philosopher, wrote about phenomenology, and found that standard definition wanting. Rather than the content of the belief (that is, that it is false, and not shared with others), he wrote that the form was what defines the phenomenon: in particular the characteristic way the belief arises.

Jaspers described a primary delusional process – kind of the archetype of a delusion; not all will be like this, but it’s like an underlying template. First there is often what is termed a “delusional mood” or delusional atmosphere. Anyone who’s seen The Matrix should recognise this: it is a state of heightened sensitivity, where everything around has increased meaning and seems to refer to the self. There is a sense of perplexity, that something is wrong but they do not know what.

Here’s one of the best descriptions of that state I have heard:

Out of that state crystallises the primary delusion, in a fashion quite different from ordinary belief: it is instantly known, fully-formed (sometimes in response to a perception that becomes imbued with delusional significance – and is termed a delusional perception). The delusion “explains” the preceding unpleasant dysphoric perplexed and anxious state, and thereby allows the person to feel again that everything makes sense.

This delusion is then held to with extraordinary conviction. The person is unable to even subject it to logic, as it becomes bound so closely with their sense of self that for the delusion to go would mean complete collapse of how they now see themselves and the world. Rather than misapplying logic, it appears the deluded person parcels off the delusion and logic is simply not applied to it at all.

In contrast to secondary delusions (for example: forming a delusional belief about one’s hallucinatory voices), the primary delusion process is seen as irreducible: we cannot break it down into anything more basic. It is also said to be ultimately un-understandable, as it is so qualitatively different from normal human experience. As I was thinking about this however, I began to relate it to the notion of epiphany. The more I thought about it, the more I thought that phenomenologically it is in fact analogous to the primary delusional process. I’ll illustrate with my own experience of an epiphany.

One evening in my late teens I was walking home from my crappy supermarket job. I recall feeling somewhat odd or different, and that everything was a bit more “real” and meaningful than usual. It was dark, and as I walked I looked up and saw the stars. Suddenly – and instantly – I was struck by a realisation of the vastness of the universe, my own cosmic insignificance, and yet my connectedness to that unfathomably vast universe.

The parallels are, I hope, clear. Another thing about my experience which appears to be shared with the delusional process is that it was not simply the idea that sprang into my mind; it was accompanied by its own quite intense affect. That seems to be the case with delusions: it’s not “just” a belief; there is a feeling (an affective state) associated with that belief.

Both the idea/belief and its associated affect have remained with me, unchanged, for 2 decades now. It has become a very important part of how I see myself and the world – and if I really think about it, it’s not something I do, or want to, apply logic to. The fact that the universe is in actuality unfathomably vast, and I am indeed cosmically insignificant (though made from elements forged in supernovae) is irrelevant. Just because it is true doesn’t mean there’s any logic in it, and it does feel somehow odd if I try to aim logic toward it: to even begin trying to formulate a course of logical enquiry is uncomfortable.

It’s also interesting that this happened for me in my late teens – around when schizophrenia often has its onset in males. I wonder if there’s any pattern to the ages at which prophets have their revelations….

So. The point of that?

Simply that I think the apparently un-understandable primary delusional process might not be as qualitatively different and alien as we generally think, and perhaps there is some scope for empathic understanding of the deluded person’s experience.

I’ll finish with another clip from the Matrix with relevance to psychiatry, philosophy and phenomenology. Why? Because I got it all set for our presentation and it failed, and so I might as well use it here. The connection is that a delusionary belief does not exist in isolation: it occurs within the person’s experience of reality … so what is real?

Dictionary Atheists

As I mentioned a few days back, I used to be what PZ Meyers terms a dictionary atheist. in that post PZ is quite disparaging of “dictionary atheists” – this people who simply don’t believe in god/s and by definition then describe themselves as atheists.

For PZ this is not enough. He describes it as “taking pride in the unexamined life” (that might or might not be a direct quote, depending on how well memory serves). He thinks there should be more: thinking actively and philosophically about existence, the evidence, the science, and coming to a positive conclusion – as opposed to the negative position of “dunno, but I don’t actually believe in god”.

Well … yeah. Kind of. I share PZ’s regard for an examined life. I do think it is better to think about the universe and one’s place in it. I do think it better to be rational an critical about these incredibly deep and important questions about how we got here, what drives us … the meaning of life, really.

But … that is not atheism, and atheism need not be that. PZ is conflating a lack of belief in god (for whatever reason) with a philosophical position of active enquiry and scepticism. While I value both, they are not the same. I do think the former is an inevitable result of the latter (applied honestly), but the reverse is not necessarily true. Even if it were, that wouldn’t make these two positions the same.

Conflating “I don’t believe in god” with a philosophical and sceptical examination of the world does not help in any way, and in fact confuses the issue. I’ll argue vehemently for the latter, and be clear about my own atheism, but I won’t argue for atheism. Someone who believes something (like god) so deeply is not going to be able to simply stop believing – any more than I could start. However, if led to a rational approach to life, and to apply that scepticism to all areas, a person might find for themselves a reason to accept what is almost certainly* the true nature of the universe.

I might add here that I don’t think they would lose anything. Not only would they have a more rational (and … well … true) view of the world, but one needn’t lose the spiritual and mystical aspect of oneself just because one loses god. I’ve never had god, but at age 18 (I think) I had an experience that was profoundly spiritual/mystical/”religious” in the sense that Joseph Campbell uses that word: “linking back” (or similar), rather than organised worship. it was evening, dark, I was walking home after my crappy supermarket job, and looking up I suddenly experienced the immensity of the universe. I felt at once completely insignificant and completely connected to it all.

I have never lost that feeling. I do not need god or men in archaic costumes to recapture it. I look into the night sky and there it is. I look at clouds, at the Sun (indirectly ;-) or through thick clouds). I look at trees, at animals – even human animals. I look at my wife, and at our children.

You know what, I even get that spiritual feeling out of some cool bits of maths and science. That feelin is part of us. That is why we create gods. I do understand that impulse, that urge – but rationality doesn’t mean letting it go. I would argue (in fact I think I have somewhere) that this feeling could be truer and more powerful if freed from the shackles of religion.

Well, that was a hell of a digression. If you’re still with me I’ll continue….

In summary, I (like PZ) think that the most fulfilling approach to life – and the most virtuous in an Aristotelian sense – is an active one, based on philosophy and scepticism. However, while such an approach to life may lead to atheism, the reverse is not necessarily true, and they are two distinct positions.

Certainly “dictionary atheism” (or just “atheism”) is a position with no force or power behind it (kind of the point really ;) ), but that’s ok. Not everyone is going to live the examined life. Many people examine their life by the grease under their nails and the ache in their bones – or their bellies.

PZ also talked about the atheist movement – a term that gives me some disquiet. Sceptical movement: great. Rational movement: choice. Atheist movement … based in what, exactly? United in our not-believing? Perhaps PZ’s conflating of the two positions works here, in defining the “atheist movement”, but I still think it’s philosophically messy.

I think the words we use are important, and we can’t appropriate “atheist” for this specific purpose (not that PZ was seeking to redefine it, I might add). Maybe there isn’t a word that means “a rationalist sceptical humanist who doesn’t believe in god and is actually for all intents and purposes pretty certain there isn’t one”.

Maybe we should invent one … submissions below, or on twitter :P

*(so close to certain that for all intents and purposes it is; I certainly live my life without worrying over it)

Anonymous Need Ethics Classes

I read this morning about Anonymous hacking a security firm whose CEO was attempting to discover their real identities and go to the FBI.

I presume this is seen as a good thing, as Anonymous support Wikileaks, and therefore must be right in all things.

However…

It is worth thinking about some of what they do (though admittedly I know very little). Ok, perhaps you can characterise this episode as self-defence of a sort, but what did Anonymous do recently in support of Wikileaks? When Visa and Mastercard decided to stop processing payments to Wikileaks, Anonymous launched attacks against them.

Haha. That’ll show them.

Yeah – it’ll also “show” all those people around the world who want, and even need, to use their Visa or MasterCard. This had the potential to prevent some people from buying food.

Anonymous seem to act like an amoeba: stimulus-response. Visa/MasterCard hurt Wikileaks! We hurt them! No (apparent) thinking through. No discussion of why they have decided it’s ok to potentially cause problems for large numbers of individuals, just a childish “we are legion don’t f*ck with us” slice of dickish bravado.

On a side note, my iPhone wants to correct dickish to Sichuan ;-)

Anyway. Clearly these people are wielding a fair bit of power in today’s world. Think Spiderman: with great power comes great responsibility. That entails (among other things) thinking through the consequences of your actions – before acting. Their targets do not exist in a vacuum, and so Anonymous – if they want to claim the moral high ground – have to think more widely.

Maybe they could attend some NSW schools, now that ethics classes are go. :P

Statistical data collected by Statpress SEOlution (blogcraft).