Tuesday, September 04, 2007
I'm having a quandry
Thinking too much again. Darn me and my lack of middle-class American interest in banal topics like Rachel Ray and Pringles.
So I've been reading Encountering Naturalism: A Worldview and its Uses by Tom Clark (honestly I should be done with it, it's a short book)... and I'm torn. Really torn.
Let me first say that I can really get all up on naturalism as a world view. It jives with my sensibilities. It compliments the psychology stuff I taught for the past 2 1/2 years. It's all good. And one of the things that had been nagging me - the concept of spirituality - actually works out quite nicely in my mind.
BUT. BIG BUT. I'm still really stumped when I get to the ideas about free will vs. determinism. At first I thought I was just having a difficult time wrapping my mind around the concepts. Because really, it's a pretty abstract thing and the explanation, for the uninitiated, goes something like this: "We aren't robots. But we don't have free will. But we can make decisions and act on impulses. But we are pre-determined." It seems contradictory at first.
Suffice it to say, it all goes back to "contra-causal free will" which is very different from making decisions and acting on impulses. When you look at specific social examples it makes much more sense... like alcoholism - is it a disease w/ a genetic disposition or do people make the decision to be lousy drunks? Well, obviously modern medical science has proven without a doubt that alcoholism is a disease and very surely has genetic markers. So a person can't really help it if they are pre-disposed toward addiction. And there you have a textbook examples of determinism.
But... here's where the BUTBUTBUTBUT comes in. Tom Clark seems to be advocating a pablum puking sort of lefty left liberalism when he gets to the political and social implications of determinism. And he takes a few sucker punches at "Conservative Libertarianism", which I take issue with. Libertarianism is a very broad topic... just as virtually all the "-isms" are. But the topic of personal responsibility is a somewhat important concept in the world of Libertarians (I would not consider myself a conservative Libertarian, by the way. In fact I'm not sure if I could even consider myself a capital L libertarian.... but I digress.)
Clark seems to hint at the idea that we should give people (and ourselves for that matter) a break for their poor upbringing, their socio-economic ills, their lack of intestinal fortitude. That we should have a more understanding society that works with people and focuses on dealing with the determinants of these issues. Ok, yeah, so I agree with this. He also says that when we fully subscribe to the idea of determinism, we no longer fall victim to guilt and shame, yadayada. Alright, that's fine. But maybe a little guilt isn't such a bad thing all the time.
Perhaps I'm not evolved or advanced enough to work out the kinks. Maybe I'm a wishful thinker and I'm trying to have my cake and eat it too. And again, I am totally with the concept of determinism because I believe in it whole heartedly but what the hell is wrong with some dang personal responsibility?!
Of course I believe in preventative "medicine" for societies ills. It is better to educate and prevent than to deal with the aftermath of poverty, abuse, neglect, criminal acts and all that stuff. But I guess where I can't get it all to connect is where I beg the question.... When SOMEONE doesn't pick up the slack with personal responsibility, then we go around and around in circles!!! You know, "I can't help the way I am because I'm a fully caused human being so you need to be more understanding of me.... but you're a fully caused selfish human being so I'm going to keep behaving badly because you don't understand me and I'm a fully caused human being...." And on and on and so on.
Do you get my point? Personal responsibility has to fall in there somewhere for us to climb over all the chaos and the "not-playing-well-with-others". It simply has to. I'm not talking about selflessness or or even self righteousness. It's just one of those decisions we should make even though we don't want to. It's called conflict management. I guess my problem is that my view is one that is fully determined too.
Through my upbringing and adult experiences, I have formed a pretty firm stance to take responsibility for my actions, admit my mistakes and pick my battles wisely so perhaps I'm just arguing my own circles. Well, damn, Stephanie! Bob's yer uncle, I think you answered your own question.
So I've been reading Encountering Naturalism: A Worldview and its Uses by Tom Clark (honestly I should be done with it, it's a short book)... and I'm torn. Really torn.
Let me first say that I can really get all up on naturalism as a world view. It jives with my sensibilities. It compliments the psychology stuff I taught for the past 2 1/2 years. It's all good. And one of the things that had been nagging me - the concept of spirituality - actually works out quite nicely in my mind.
BUT. BIG BUT. I'm still really stumped when I get to the ideas about free will vs. determinism. At first I thought I was just having a difficult time wrapping my mind around the concepts. Because really, it's a pretty abstract thing and the explanation, for the uninitiated, goes something like this: "We aren't robots. But we don't have free will. But we can make decisions and act on impulses. But we are pre-determined." It seems contradictory at first.
Suffice it to say, it all goes back to "contra-causal free will" which is very different from making decisions and acting on impulses. When you look at specific social examples it makes much more sense... like alcoholism - is it a disease w/ a genetic disposition or do people make the decision to be lousy drunks? Well, obviously modern medical science has proven without a doubt that alcoholism is a disease and very surely has genetic markers. So a person can't really help it if they are pre-disposed toward addiction. And there you have a textbook examples of determinism.
But... here's where the BUTBUTBUTBUT comes in. Tom Clark seems to be advocating a pablum puking sort of lefty left liberalism when he gets to the political and social implications of determinism. And he takes a few sucker punches at "Conservative Libertarianism", which I take issue with. Libertarianism is a very broad topic... just as virtually all the "-isms" are. But the topic of personal responsibility is a somewhat important concept in the world of Libertarians (I would not consider myself a conservative Libertarian, by the way. In fact I'm not sure if I could even consider myself a capital L libertarian.... but I digress.)
Clark seems to hint at the idea that we should give people (and ourselves for that matter) a break for their poor upbringing, their socio-economic ills, their lack of intestinal fortitude. That we should have a more understanding society that works with people and focuses on dealing with the determinants of these issues. Ok, yeah, so I agree with this. He also says that when we fully subscribe to the idea of determinism, we no longer fall victim to guilt and shame, yadayada. Alright, that's fine. But maybe a little guilt isn't such a bad thing all the time.
Perhaps I'm not evolved or advanced enough to work out the kinks. Maybe I'm a wishful thinker and I'm trying to have my cake and eat it too. And again, I am totally with the concept of determinism because I believe in it whole heartedly but what the hell is wrong with some dang personal responsibility?!
Of course I believe in preventative "medicine" for societies ills. It is better to educate and prevent than to deal with the aftermath of poverty, abuse, neglect, criminal acts and all that stuff. But I guess where I can't get it all to connect is where I beg the question.... When SOMEONE doesn't pick up the slack with personal responsibility, then we go around and around in circles!!! You know, "I can't help the way I am because I'm a fully caused human being so you need to be more understanding of me.... but you're a fully caused selfish human being so I'm going to keep behaving badly because you don't understand me and I'm a fully caused human being...." And on and on and so on.
Do you get my point? Personal responsibility has to fall in there somewhere for us to climb over all the chaos and the "not-playing-well-with-others". It simply has to. I'm not talking about selflessness or or even self righteousness. It's just one of those decisions we should make even though we don't want to. It's called conflict management. I guess my problem is that my view is one that is fully determined too.
Through my upbringing and adult experiences, I have formed a pretty firm stance to take responsibility for my actions, admit my mistakes and pick my battles wisely so perhaps I'm just arguing my own circles. Well, damn, Stephanie! Bob's yer uncle, I think you answered your own question.
Labels: naturalism
Sunday, August 26, 2007
I can see the forest but not the trees...
...or maybe it's the other way around.
25 [34] years and my life is still
Trying to get up that great big hill of hope
For a destination
I realized quickly when I knew I should
That the world was made up of this
Brotherhood of man
For whatever that means
And so I cry sometimes when I'm lying in bed
Just to get it all out what's in my head
And I'm, I am feeling a little peculiar
So I wake in the morning and I step outside
And I take deep breath and I get real high
And I scream from the top of my lungs
What's goin' on.
Several years ago a friend made fun of me for liking 4 Non-Blondes. This same friend recently told me that I think way too much and I should just play more video games. I wanted to slap him on both accounts.
And so, my existential crisis trudges on.
Someone once asked me, in response to my ill-formed grumblings about existentialism, "What if someone just gave you all the answers? What would you do then?" I've given lots of thought to that and I've come to the conclusion that I can't even begin to consider the ANSWERS because I've been on a life long quest for what the QUESTIONS are.
Earlier this summer I started reading a philosophy primer because I felt woefully unschooled in the art of thought. It was interesting stuff and I was suprised at what I actually already knew. But I don't think it really helped. If anything, it made me angry.
And then an acquaintence (who happens to be a very old soul in a young body) recommended the book Is Belief in God Good, Bad or Irrelevant?: A Professor And a Punk Rocker Discuss Science, Religion, Naturalism & Christianity. It is mostly comprised of an email correspondence between Preston Jones, a professor at a Christian college, and Greg Graffin, the lead singer of Bad Religion.
I won't say this was a life changing read or anything but it was very good and got me to thinking about a lot. Again, I was suprised at the concepts I already "knew" or had already considered that came out of their discussions.
And so I revisited some of my previous notions and considerations about Buddhism and the existence of God and what "consciousness" means. I feel like I have built on my earlier personal understanding and experience but, sadly, am no closer to any questions, much less answers.
Nothing seems to resonate with me as far as belief goes and, in fact, as I learned listening to an interview with Dr. Raymond Moody (the near death experience guy), I think I am a skeptic in the true sense since I have suspended coming to any conclusions. Unfortunately, while lack of conclusion seems to delight Dr. Moody, it makes me feel very unsettled.
I guess I desperately want to believe in something.
I also researched naturalism as a theory and came across Naturalism.org, as well as some articles, a podcast and a video lecture by Tom Clark (head of the Center for Naturalism). The podcast led to more podcasts at Skeptiko, a site concerning controversial science headed up by Alex Tsakiris.
I like naturalism as a theory... it seems more open and less dogmatic than materialism (which depresses me beyond belief) but there is so much I can't wrap my mind around or resolve my personal beliefs with (or lack thereof). The idea that there is no higher power is both comforting and bleak. The idea that we have no contra-causal free will is also comforting, yet also annoyingly confounding. Determinism makes me very uncomfortable.
Screw the video games. I think I need to think less and knit more.
25 [34] years and my life is still
Trying to get up that great big hill of hope
For a destination
I realized quickly when I knew I should
That the world was made up of this
Brotherhood of man
For whatever that means
And so I cry sometimes when I'm lying in bed
Just to get it all out what's in my head
And I'm, I am feeling a little peculiar
So I wake in the morning and I step outside
And I take deep breath and I get real high
And I scream from the top of my lungs
What's goin' on.
Several years ago a friend made fun of me for liking 4 Non-Blondes. This same friend recently told me that I think way too much and I should just play more video games. I wanted to slap him on both accounts.
And so, my existential crisis trudges on.
Someone once asked me, in response to my ill-formed grumblings about existentialism, "What if someone just gave you all the answers? What would you do then?" I've given lots of thought to that and I've come to the conclusion that I can't even begin to consider the ANSWERS because I've been on a life long quest for what the QUESTIONS are.
Earlier this summer I started reading a philosophy primer because I felt woefully unschooled in the art of thought. It was interesting stuff and I was suprised at what I actually already knew. But I don't think it really helped. If anything, it made me angry.
And then an acquaintence (who happens to be a very old soul in a young body) recommended the book Is Belief in God Good, Bad or Irrelevant?: A Professor And a Punk Rocker Discuss Science, Religion, Naturalism & Christianity. It is mostly comprised of an email correspondence between Preston Jones, a professor at a Christian college, and Greg Graffin, the lead singer of Bad Religion.
I won't say this was a life changing read or anything but it was very good and got me to thinking about a lot. Again, I was suprised at the concepts I already "knew" or had already considered that came out of their discussions.
And so I revisited some of my previous notions and considerations about Buddhism and the existence of God and what "consciousness" means. I feel like I have built on my earlier personal understanding and experience but, sadly, am no closer to any questions, much less answers.
Nothing seems to resonate with me as far as belief goes and, in fact, as I learned listening to an interview with Dr. Raymond Moody (the near death experience guy), I think I am a skeptic in the true sense since I have suspended coming to any conclusions. Unfortunately, while lack of conclusion seems to delight Dr. Moody, it makes me feel very unsettled.
I guess I desperately want to believe in something.
I also researched naturalism as a theory and came across Naturalism.org, as well as some articles, a podcast and a video lecture by Tom Clark (head of the Center for Naturalism). The podcast led to more podcasts at Skeptiko, a site concerning controversial science headed up by Alex Tsakiris.
I like naturalism as a theory... it seems more open and less dogmatic than materialism (which depresses me beyond belief) but there is so much I can't wrap my mind around or resolve my personal beliefs with (or lack thereof). The idea that there is no higher power is both comforting and bleak. The idea that we have no contra-causal free will is also comforting, yet also annoyingly confounding. Determinism makes me very uncomfortable.
Screw the video games. I think I need to think less and knit more.
Labels: naturalism, skepticism
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
