Journeyman Philosopher

Last night I went to the theaters and watched the movie Wall-E. It’s a great movie very emotional, questionably so actually (ever sit in a movie and wonder why you’re so emotionally affected?). The movie was very heavily theme laden and as so you’d hope this would have an affect on the watchers.

The main recurrent theme in Wall-E is environmental responsibility, and how it is our individual duty to protect and maintain the environment. Although this theme is heavily emphasized in the movie it is not the focus of it, and in such a manner the movie doesn’t feel like its vomiting propaganda down your throat. It is tastefully addressed and although it is blatantly obvious what the movie is trying to get across, it is not obnoxious. As so it really seemed to leave a good impression on the viewer.

After the movie ended I was curious. The audience, as I did, loved the movie there was applause, you could hear people sniffling, and you could tell a good time was had by all. As so I decided to check the theater after everyone had left in order to see just what type of an impression it left on people. Sad to say I was disappointed.

There were a ton of recyclable bottles left in the theater sitting on the floor and in cup holders, as well as many movie magazines that could easily be recycled if the holder wished so. It was, simply, a small environmental disaster. It was the perfect sample of the gluttony, and laziness of the human race the movie criticized.

My question is what does it take? Do I need to go up to these people and smack them with their own trash to make them realize they’re contributing to the problem! During the movie I expect the average watcher was thinking ‘Man what a horrible future I hope it never gets like that, man I’d never be like these lazy humans.’ Yet they aren’t consistent with what they’re feeling.

I don’t think these are bad people, I just think people don’t realize as they don’t think. Simply, it seems, people drift.

Although cinema is considered one of the most heavily influential mediums of the day, it still seems to not get through to people. Unless it clearly states ‘remember to pick up your recycling before you leave the theater and please….’ as such films as an Inconvenient Truth did.

As far as I can imagine most people lack the means to apply simple self evaluation and reflection strategies that can lead to the betterment of themselves. Drifting from one emotional experience to the other all they see is the feeling that they get, looking past the message that creates that feeling.

Of course Im not a psychologist and that last paragraph is borderline speculation. But come on people! What are you thinking? By my standards the day you stop learning is the day you die. If this standard is the case, it seems most of the population is already dead.

Continued from yesterdays post. As we cannot purport universal morality we need someway to compel people into following a certain ethical standard. Or at the very least we should want to, to protect our own interests and the interests of others.

My version is amazingly simple but is something that I believe compels people more than we give credit for.

‘Come on… be a nice guy!’

I know, I know! this seems a little bit to simple. But in general a ton of our actions in life are motivated by this. We, or at least I, feel it is very important to be a nice person, and as such adapt our actions in accordance.

What’s good about this concept is its very flexible you could just as easily use it to justify vegetarianism as you could not cutting someone off while driving. We clearly acknowledge that people like nice people and in general most people wish to be liked.

If someone values you as an individual or friend and you make it clear that you are only friends with nice people and thereafter explain to them what it is to be nice, in a manner you can affect their actions.

Although this sounds cruel a similar thing is practiced in Japan. Recently a service has been introduced where etiquette inspectors in japanese trains go about and speak to individuals being uncourteous about their poor manners. In such a manner they attempt to change the habits of others by simply saying ‘Come on be courteous, we like courteous people.’

The blaring problem of this is who defines what is nice? Well it would be me WA-HA!!! You could easily imagine someone saying ‘Seriously just do some crack, a nice guy would do crack.’ and try to force their beliefs on others. And this is bad, but on the other side how am I to know forcing ‘nice guy regulations’ on other people wouldn’t be just as bad? Is the ‘nice guy’ my crack?

I think fundamentally compelling people to be nice is a good sentiment, dependent on the considerations it takes. If ‘nice guy ethics’ took into consideration the well-being of others, I would argue, with simple compelling aside, that this is completely justified. As a matter of fact I don’t think this is so far fetched, as we do do it in every day activities.

But what is good? And really how do we judge well being?
Rawls’ theory of competent judges leading to decisions which thereby produce a moral/social code is very close to this. The difference is, I really think that most people know what to be nice is (even if we do not act on it). We need to put our society in a situation where this is emphasized completely, if this was the case I believe it would benefit many much more easily than his theory would.

I don’t think this is so far fetched, we must grab our commonly understood social concepts, develop them further, and thereafter idealize them. In such a manner we can acknowledge that although it may not be justified in 100% solid ground, it is something we can all relate to. And as such a good place to start.

Regardless I think this idea warrants more examination.

Up until my previous year of schooling I looked at morality much more clearly. This could even be considered naive by me unfortunately. I lived in this moral paradise where I believed justifying vegetarianism/consequentialism/contractarianism was just a simple fact of explaining it clearly to individuals. That is of course until I was introduced to the concept of David Hume’s ‘Is ought gap’. 

Hume introduced the idea that it wasn’t possible to generate an ought from an is. This meant that even if you could convince someone of the sound reasoning behind a certain moral code, they would have no reason to adopt it unless it connected to their individual wants.If this is the case you don’t have a reason to accept Peter Singer’s Vegetarianism unless you value moral consistency, you don’t have a reason to accept anything unless you value something its connected to.

An example Hume used to explain this was ‘An individual could walk into a bar and says to a drinker. “You ought not to drink” “But I like to drink” “Well its bad for you so you ought not to” “Well I don’t care about that, I like to drink so I shall”‘

This creates a problem for all those that purport universal morality. It simply doesn’t exist, this ‘is ought gap’ damages these ideas of morality fatally. The key to moral debate and discussion is by connecting peoples wants to moral ideals.

This is a very important distinction for those that purport ultimate moral security. I hope to develop this idea further in the future. 

Note: I wanted to apologies to everyone who had their comments shuffled, its fixed now and as so I’m moving your comments around manually to the correct sections. Thanx for your comments again ! 

I felt it was important to create a brief post too explain why I maintain a buddhist spirituality. As religion and philosophy often don’t get along, credibility as a philosopher is often affected by their spiritual opinions.

Since I was a child I have had basic buddhist inclinations, and upon taking notice in such my parents bought me a book; I was given the book “Buddhism for Dummies” when I was 17-18. Despite the title it was a very interesting read (very organized), and what was more so interesting was that everything I read I already felt. I had a gut instinct, to say it crudely, that what buddhism purported was accurate and true in my life.

As so I began to apply more so basic teachings of buddhism in my life. I always kept in mind the eight-fold path and attempted to live my life in accordance with this.

My first lesson, once applying buddhist methods to my life, was just how many people out there felt they knew what buddhism was. My actions were commonly questioned in the ‘buddhist’ light of others (ie. ‘you can’t eat that’ ‘you’re not a buddhist you have possessions!’ etc…), in a sense this actually helped assist in my development as a philosopher (I had to argue a lot). I learnt quickly as well that spirituality is more misunderstand than advanced quantum physics in my opinion (okay…. maybe slight over exageration :D).

My fear, and the fear that I believe most educated religious practitioners hold, is that my belief will eventually overtake my rationality. That perhaps one day I might say “Well because Buddha said so…” in justification.

In light of this fear, I have always believed that one should find the religious view that they believe and, as well, that does teach what is right. A rightness that is defined externally from the religious texts. If someone finds something in their religion that justifies murder they should discard it (assuming it is wrong).

One thing I can say I have learnt about religion, (through experience, research, and study) is that true religious belief is malliable. It adapts to times and places, and it helps the believer. Without this flexiblity religion, just as any other belief, stagnates and dies. It becomes an archaic opinion that restricts individuals freedoms, it becomes a shackle of the human spirit chaining it down with small minded restrictions.

“Find what works for you” has been said many times by the current Dalai Lama. Always question your belief in a manner that assures it is being used correctly.

I guess my point is that, despite my religious views, I will always assert rationality before spirituality. However, I believe, true spirituality is ensnared with rationality.

I accept my beliefs in light of their acceptability. After all I’m not practicing a dead religion, it’s as alive as I let it be. In accordance with this I make sure to justify all my actions in a rational manner. Although spirituality does affect my actions, I admit, I hold my belief more like a compass and my rationality more like GPS.

On yesterdays point; what of the practicality of assumptions. Eventually, I would argue, it becomes reasonable to assume in certain situations. As a matter of fact learning in general would be considered a huge assumption. That being the assumption that what you know is the truth, and it is applicable as so in the future.

The problem of the solipsist is one of practicality and reasonability. If for, example, an individual walked out his front door everyday and got stung by a wasp when doing this. It would be considered sensible, if he wanted to avoid this, to exit the back door. However an individual who ignoring his previous experience and kept on walking out the front door and getting stung wouldn’t be considered very intelligent.

Why is this? I believe it is because he doesn’t reference his previous experience ie he doesn’t learn. A solipsist is put in the situation in which he refuses to acknowledge all his evidence based on previous experience, he refuses to learn, and in a sense this stagnates him.

A solipsist would say because all I have is knowledge of myself and my own sensation I am all I know exists. But despite this they continue to be influenced by the sensory data provided by their mind (they eat, they talk to these supposed mental fabrications, etc..). The belief doesn’t influence his actions at all, the solipsist still acts as if people are alive and this seems contradictory. It’s as if he’s practicing a form of mental masturbation, as he plays with himself by acknowledging his conceptual fabrications.

I guess the point is, I can never prove that other people exist externally. And as so I can never prove that the solipsist account is incorrect. But I can say that if you are a rationale reasonable person you have good reasons in not taking a solipsist account. As fundamentally holding such a view rejects rationality by saying ‘I cannot learn’.

In the last post Digglu responded to me with the comment:

There is only one truth, and that is that I exist. Yay for solipsism. In any case, there may be “truths”, but they’re all based on assumptions, which may be faulty. Since those assumptions are based on opinion, all of philosophy is basically opinion.

This does address one point in which I failed to address. It is true that there is a base assumption that starts out certain presumptions, however what I failed to mention is that this as well is a problem inherent in all things.

“Let’s go to the store guys!” assumes that there is a store, you can go to it, you exist, etc etc… An engineer when building a bridge would assume that the laws that hold the universe together will still apply after he builds the bridge.

Everything that we do requires an assumption the only difference is that philosophical enterprise readily acknowledges this. So yes, to Digglu, philosophy may be initially based in assumptions (Ex. I exist), however it is just as based in assumptions as any other common sense enterprise such as walking, breathing, living, etc. And as so saying something is ‘based’ in opinions seems to over emphasize the importance of this point.

“Philosophy is just opinions, there are no answers.”

This is a common misconception that plagues all philosophy. As a matter of fact it may be the reason people don’t consider philosophy a serious intellectual enterprise. However luckily the misconception is no more than an overstated observation.

One thing that must be considered when looking at philosophy and philosophers in general, is that often they speak with very safe terms such as ‘opinion, belief, best of my knowledge’. This leads people to assume that philosophy is just opinion based.

The thing is truly philosophers are the only ones who acknowledge in such depth how much of life has a sense of unsureness to it, much more so than the average individual. This creates a problematic rift; on one side we have the doubtful philosopher, and on the other the confident idiot.

For example it was Descartes with his idea of the Evil Demon that brought to light the idea of skepticism. A concept so insanely ridden with doubt, yet at the same time such a logical possibility. When most look at the idea of being manipulated by an evil demon they consider it non-sensical, and it is really, but just because it may be non-sensical doesn’t mean it isn’t a possibility, just an unlikely one.

One of the reasons, I believe, philosophers stray away from over confident assertions is often those that use such assertions are incorrect. In fact most often the weight of those who make such assertions belief sits on their confidence. A philosopher that is over confident soon finds themselves head over heals in assumptions, and assumptions are what makes one a poor philosopher.

Think of the preacher that yells with assertion ‘You’re goin to hell cause…’ This assertion and confidence is over powering and convincing, but is it right? Hardly ever are such mannerisms correct. One who uses words in such a manner is literally a bully, with no reason or logic behind his base assumptions he has a tendency to spew overconfident nonsense.

Perhaps you want an example. If philosophy was all opinions and had no truth then you wouldn’t be able to isolate a truth within philosophy. For example you wouldn’t be able to say ‘A determinist is one who believes in the absence of true free-will, in light of there own actions stemming from wants and reasons.’ But I did just say it and that is true. My very basic point is there are definitions within philosophy at the very least that are truths, people may disagree in application if these are true but none will (sensibly) disagree with the definition of the belief.

But what of more meaningful truths with philosophical definitions aside? A good example would be ethical theory. Within certain mental frameworks certain ethical theories are right and wrong (this is with opinion aside). For example, if you value moral consistency ‘you can’t eat meat’! Yay for vegetarianism!!!

The problems originate I believe from very theoretical philosophies. In fields such as Epistemology, and Metaphysics. These philosophical fields are on the outskirts of what I would consider ‘practical philosophy’. Although truths reside in them, Im sure, I feel it is the most difficult to connect oneself to them. And often individuals who take a class or read a book get lost in the theoretical mumbo jumbo.

The fact is philosophy is of practical application to our lives and is a very useful tool. It simply needs to be used correctly. There are truths, fallacies, rights, and wrong that litter the philosophical community. It is just very important to be able to discern these for ourselves and be able to analyze them and understand them through their own standards.

What is true and what is false predominately is influenced by your assumptions, knowing your assumptions allows you to make true consistent decisions. This is what philosophy is to me, it is about applying your believes and values in a true way to life.

Perhaps one of the most dire threats of the 20th and 21st centuries is the privatization of water.

This may be an unfounded opinion of mine, but shouldn’t all humans have the right to the basic necessities of survival (IE food, shelter, and water)?

Every time we buy a water bottle we make a vote for this privatization. What are we paying for? Many say for the specific type of water and/or the treatment process but these are often nonexistent. I believe a recent law that forced water companies in Canada to display where there water was coming from revealed that over 90% of bottled water came from the tap. As well there is a case in Canada in which Safeway was indicted with packaging tap water directly without any filtration process.

So what are we paying for? Usually tap water.

The documentary ‘Thirst’ greatly touches on this issue. ‘What is the point?’ it asks. Why are we selling what could easily be considered a universal right? We get it for free out of the tap, and it is necessary for survival. Isn’t it wrong to take this away from someone? I do, however, understand that the concept of universal right may be finicky but…. come on be a nice guy!!!

Perhaps this opinion is unfounded and that may be (as we do pay for food and shelter which I as well believe are universal rights). But what is a fact is that if you do buy water you place a vote for its privatization. With the ethics aside think about what you as an individual believes is right. And if it isn’t full privatization of water than hold back on your next purchase.

Big differences start with small changes, acknowledge your side!

I want to apologies to everyone who has recently commented and had their comments misplaced. I have notified today.com and they are looking into the shuffling of comments! Thanx for your patience!

Also note that when reading others comments if they seem non-sensical, more then likely it is in a misplaced category. Despite this problem I have been reading your comments in the attended sense and appreciate them.

Remember an opinion is justified in itself please feel free to comment and even criticize my posts. As philosophical inquiry rhapsodies joy over such pursuits. We all live we all learn, please let’s help eachother through this process.

Have you ever been in the situation in which someone said something to you like ‘Yeah, I swear I’ve done that’. And as soon as you acknowledge whatever it is that they say they retort ‘Ah ha, you’re so gullible!’. I have had this experience before and as have many of my acquaintances.

This is a strange sort of joke/statement isn’t it! Is it the case that the individual is actually fairly considered gullible?

I believe not. In this situation the individual that believes the deceiver does so usually because they deem them not trivial enough to lie in such a manner.
An adequate response would be ‘No, you misunderstand. I’m not gullible, I just didn’t realize you were idiotic enough to lie in such a manner! Thank you for correcting me.’

I think fundamentally people make this “joke/statement” as they don’t realize how much of our societies are based on trust, the majority of information we’re fed we don’t have enough time to double check for truth value. These individuals, perhaps jokingly, don’t acknowledge this.

For example, when is the last time you double checked the ingredients in the food you ate, or checked the percentage of polyester and wool in your clothing? Most of us respond to these examples by saying never, and our lives are littered with many more of them.

What we trust in in general is that people won’t make a jackass of themselves, and that this holds them inline. Unfortunately, however, we are often proven wrong by those we absentmindedly trust.