Thursday, June 07, 2012

Review: Robert B. Parker's Killing the Blues


Robert B. Parker's Killing the Blues
Robert B. Parker's Killing the Blues by Michael Brandman

My rating: 3 of 5 stars



No one will mistake Brandman with Parker. Ace Atkins, the author conintuing the Spenser series, captured Parker's voice at least partially. Atkins got the feel of the characters, the style, and the language of Spenser. Brandman, unfortunately, is not as successfully. It is not a bad book, but it is far from Parker's Stone. One clearly sees the influence of the TV movies here, no surprise since that is how Brandman comes to the series. But Stone's edge, both from the Selleck movies and the Parker books, is too softened here. Brandman does a good job with the dialogue, but the inner life that Parker was so adept at is lost. All this said, the book was interesting and enjoyable. I am glad I tried it out, though I am not sure how quickly I'll pick up the next one. Almost certainly, it will be a library rental if I do (as was this).



View all my reviews

Tuesday, June 05, 2012

Review: The Chairman


The Chairman
The Chairman by Stephen W. Frey

My rating: 3 of 5 stars



A solid thriller. Took a little bit, but sucked me in. Many of the characters were a little too stereotypical; from central casting for wall st types. Many characterize Frey as Grisham for finance. Dead on. I really liked Stiles, the security guy. The main character could have been more heroic in my view. Still, it was fun and I'm sure I'll read more Frey in future--though I am in no rush.



View all my reviews

Saturday, June 02, 2012

Review: The Paradise Snare


The Paradise Snare
The Paradise Snare by A.C. Crispin

My rating: 4 of 5 stars



That was a lot of fun. I got the book through the library as a test of its ebook lending. I was a little surprised at how quickly I got sucked in. But then Han Solo was always my favorite from the original film trilogy. Not sure I'll get into the whole expanded universe but I think I'll finish this trilogy. Crispin does a great job of capturing Solo. Hard not to picture a young Harrison Ford! A slight fault might be that Muuurgh and Bria where just a little too close to Chewie and Leia.



View all my reviews

Sunday, May 20, 2012

Review: The Caves of Steel


The Caves of Steel
The Caves of Steel by Isaac Asimov

My rating: 5 of 5 stars



Mystery science fiction, my two favorite genres masterfully knitted together by Asimov. It is curious this never quite made it to the big screen; it could be a good movie. The structure of society, these giant cities, is interesting; there is the standard inevitablity of greater and greater bureaucratic control at the cost of individualism. But at the same time, the need and value of individualism is implicit in many ways. I was also struck by the musing of Baley about the "ancient" market systems. He says something along the lines of the primitive nature of bartering and chasing the dollar, but then goes on to see that the same traits are still present but directed at status and similar things. I see these themes running through Asimov's work (which is why I am rereading).



View all my reviews

Thursday, May 17, 2012

Review: I, Robot


I, Robot
I, Robot by Isaac Asimov

My rating: 4 of 5 stars



May 2012: I'm excited to reread the extended Foundation series. These stories are great. Witty, fast-paced, still relevant. That is, it still feels futuristic and sci-fi. I particularly like The Evitable Conflict. This story, or rather an aspect of its theme, is big part of the reason I am reading this series. Asimov seems to subscribe to the notion that with enough knowledge and computing power we could predict the future, run the economy, etc. And yet, something always seems to go wrong. Old review: Another old Asimov book of mine without an ISBN. An old Signet paperback from the 50s. Very interesting story. Will Smith movie was very good, but very different.



View all my reviews

Review: Robert B. Parker's Lullaby


Robert B. Parker's Lullaby
Robert B. Parker's Lullaby by Ace Atkins

My rating: 5 of 5 stars



I was skeptical. But Atkins won me over. This a man who knows how to write and who know Spenser's world. He is cleary a well-versed, talented fan of Parker. This is a good book, and captures Spenser as well as can be imagined. Still, there is something ineffable missing. One knows this is not Parker writing. The voice in my head is different. It is just off in little ways that are hard to pinpoint or explain. I'd compare it to a really good counterfeit painting. For the most part perfect, but just a few strokes not quite right that give it away. Nevertheless, fans of Spenser should give it a try, you won't be disappointed.



View all my reviews

Sunday, May 06, 2012

Review: Drop Shot


Drop Shot
Drop Shot by Harlan Coben

My rating: 4 of 5 stars



An action-packed, entertaining read. Make Win black and slighty less psychopathic, and this is basically a Spenser/Hawk novel. Which is not a criticism in itself, I love Spenser and Parker. But, it is, nonetheless, derivative in that way.



View all my reviews

Wednesday, May 02, 2012

Review: Shop Class As Soulcraft: An Inquiry into the Value of Work


Shop Class As Soulcraft: An Inquiry into the Value of Work
Shop Class As Soulcraft: An Inquiry into the Value of Work by Matthew Crawford

My rating: 3 of 5 stars



There were things about this book I really liked, and things that infuriated and frustrated me. Part of the author's point is to revitalize and defend manual work. He wants to show the intellectual rewarding aspects of this kind of work. This part I liked, and he does a wonderful job here, with interesting anecdotes and references to historic thinkers. He seems to want to reject the mind/body dictohomy at the root of the manual-mental work division. But in developing the framework for his argument, he reintroduces or rather fails to reject fully the mind/body dictohomy in the form of a kind of concrete-abstract dichotomy.

Now, this is a real distinction, so what I mean is he consistently priviledges knowledge and ideas that are more concrete over more abstract ones. This is related, I think, to what Ayn Rand called this the anti-conceptual mentality. She says that this mentality "treats concepts as if they were (memorized) percepts; it treats abstractions as if they were perceptual concretes." Crawford doesn't do this completely, but he does fail to treat abstractions as fundamentally connected to and about reality. They are, well, too abstract to provide us with guidance, validity, or objectivity in work. Only, it seems, a particular, concrete direct experience can do this. There is a ubiquitous contrast of a kind navel-gazing, head in the cloud shadow of a person with the real guy doing real work that anyone can see, experience, and measure. We can only get objectivity with things we can see, if it is abstract or far-off, it cannot serve that function, and worse, misleads us. So carpenters know when they have done a good job, they can see it, others can see it. But the manager of some team in a corporate environment has nothing to look at the end of his work day. This, Crawford claims, leaves him with no objective standards to judge his work. What follows in his account are all the problems caricatured by The Office and Dilbert.

This anti-conceptual mentality leads him to several misdiagnoses of problems with contemporary work environments and institutions (the marxist influences don't help either). Nevertheless the book is an interesting and worthwhile read, with many insights into the pleasure and value of work and the essential role that work plays in the good life.



View all my reviews

Review: The Given Day


The Given Day
The Given Day by Dennis Lehane

My rating: 4 of 5 stars



I still prefer the Patrick and Angela novels, but Lehane is always an entertaining author. I like how he pushes himself into new areas and genres. This novel brings you into the world of Boston in the 20s. Lehane weaves a complicated plot, but it comes together at the end. I don't know how sold I am on the Babe Ruth angle, but it ended up working and added a novel element to the story.



View all my reviews

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Harry Potter and Humanity at PCA/ACA

This is my abstract for the paper I will be presenting at the 42nd Annual PCA/ACA National Conference in Boston, MA.

Harry Potter and Humanity: Choices, Love, and Death

In this paper, I analyze how the Harry Potter novels bring to our awareness two fundamental parts of the human condition: the importance of one’s choices and the inevitable of one’s mortality.

Lord Voldemort, in his ruthless search for immortality, never accepts his own humanity; he openly rejects it. I argue it is this choice that makes his irredeemable evil, and his ultimate defeat, possible.

On the other hand, it is Harry’s acceptance of his mortality that allows him to embrace his humanity. It is this recognition that gives Harry the power defeat Voldemort. More than that, it makes it possible for Harry to develop into a realized, virtuous adult. In his acceptance of his mortality, the boy that lived is able more fully and wholly to live.

This revised paper was originally written for "The Power to Imagine Better: The Philosophy of Harry Potter" at Marymount Manhattan College in New York City.

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Abstract for APEE Presentation

I will be speaking on the panel "Author Meets Critics: Adam Moore's: Privacy Rights " at the Association of Private Enterprise Education International Conference in Las Vegas on April 1-3, 2012.

Here is the abstract:

Adam Moore argues for a robust right to informational privacy. He defines privacy as "an access control right over oneself and information about oneself" (16). A potential problem arises, I argue, in that some information is created in such a way that two different parties can be said to own the information. For example, when I buy an espresso at a cafe, that is personal information about my tastes and habits. But this information is created in a context involving other agents who, it would seem, have a right to this information by the same arguments that establish my right to this information. While I agree with much of Moore's account, it does not adequately address this potential conflict which seems to be at the heart of many disputes over privacy.

Friday, March 16, 2012

Review: A History of the Jews


A History of the Jews
A History of the Jews by Paul Johnson

My rating: 5 of 5 stars



This is not just a history of the Jews. It is a history of Western Civilization. It covers so much, it is at times overwhelming. It is hard to sum up one’s response to a book that covers nearly 5000 years and every major event in the West. I can do no better than quote Johnson from his Epilogue: “It seems to be the role of the Jews to focus and dramatize these common experiences of mankind, and to turn their particular fate into a universal moral” and “The Jews believed they were a special people with such unanimity and passion, and over so long a span, that they became one. They did indeed have a role because they wrote it for themselves.” These lines succinctly and accurately sum up the book and Johnson’s approach on the history of Jews.

Johnson’s take is sympathetic and admiring. He is fascinated by the history he is telling and so the reader is fascinated as well. I do wish the parts where broken up in to chapters or sections to facilitate reading. This is not a book one reads in a sitting. Each part is a small book in itself, and so more natural breaks in the text would have helped. Johnson does an amazing job of integrating the history, of tracing lines from ancient Baghdad to modern Tel Aviv. Like any good long book, I am glad to have finished it, but I will miss it.




View all my reviews

Sunday, January 08, 2012

Review: A Brief History of Liberty


A Brief History of Liberty
A Brief History of Liberty by David Schmidtz

My rating: 5 of 5 stars



Brief it is, but still manages to be a thorough and extensive history and discussion of liberty and freedom. Convassing many different conceptions of liberty, it is not a polemic or didactic work. It is thoughtful and well-researched. The authors deal with interesting questions and problems that arise within the history of freedom, including some of the contemporary social psych literature that is sometimes cast as providing a basis to reject the claims of classical liberalism. I hope my students find it as useful and as interesting as I did.



View all my reviews

Thursday, December 29, 2011

Sports Studies Symposium: second call and extended deadline

Call for Abstracts (second) with extended deadline (Jan 20)

1st Annual Rockford College Sports Studies Symposium:
An interdisciplinary conference on the study of Sport
Date: April 28, 2012

Rockford College
5050 E. State. St.
Rockford, IL 61108

Whether one is a participant, a casual spectator, a die-hard fan, or a critic, sport, in all its varieties and forms, play a significant role in the lives of most people through out the world. Sports and competitions have long been a part of human civilization and raise a wide range of important philosophical and ethical issues.

This symposium will bring together a panel of scholars to discuss philosophical themes or issues arising in the study of Sport. The focus of the panel will depend, in part, on the submitted abstracts. Each presenter on a panel will have 20 minutes for their presentation. This will be followed by 10-15 minutes for panelists to respond to each other and then 15 minutes or more for audience Q&A. There will also be a panel on the Rhetoric of Sport.

Abstract Submission:
Submissions are welcome on any philosophical theme or issue arising in the study of Sport. Abstract should be 300-500 words. Send via email (as PDF) to sklein_at_rockford_dot_edu.

New Deadline: January 20th, 2012
Notification of Acceptance: February 1st, 2012

If you have any questions, please contact Shawn Klein (Assistant Professor, Philosophy Department) at 815-226-4115 or sklein_at_rockford_dot_edu or Michael Perry (Assistant Professor, English Department) at 815-226-4098 or mperry_at_rockford_dot_edu.

Review: The Habit of Thought: From Socratic Seminars to Socratic Practice


The Habit of Thought:  From Socratic Seminars to Socratic Practice
The Habit of Thought: From Socratic Seminars to Socratic Practice by Michael Strong

My rating: 5 of 5 stars



I found this very useful and have already purchased several books recommended here. I hope to implement much of what he suggests in future classes.



View all my reviews

Review: Heat Rises

Heat Rises
Heat Rises by Richard Castle

My rating: 4 of 5 stars



I had some trouble getting into this third Castle novel, seemed to be spinning its wheels. Too much Heat and Rook "gushiness." But half way through it started to pick up and redeemed itself. There were several funny Castle/Firefly references that'll make fans laugh.



View all my reviews

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Review: Red Harvest


Red Harvest
Red Harvest by Dashiell Hammett

My rating: 5 of 5 stars



Classic noir. Love the language and style. Makes me want to go back and reread The Maltese Falcon.



View all my reviews

Review: Red Harvest


Red Harvest
Red Harvest by Dashiell Hammett

My rating: 5 of 5 stars



Classic noir. Love the language and style.



View all my reviews

Friday, October 21, 2011

CFA: Sports Studies Symposium

Call for Abstracts

1st Annual Rockford College Sports Studies Symposium:
An interdisciplinary conference on the study of Sport
Date: April 28, 2012

Rockford College
5050 E. State. St.
Rockford, IL 61073

Whether one is a participant, a casual spectator, a die-hard fan, or a critic, sport, in all its varieties and forms, play a significant role in the lives of most people through out the world. Sports and competitions have long been a part of human civilization and raise a wide range of important philosophical and ethical issues.

This symposium will bring together a panel of scholars to discuss philosophical themes or issues arising in the study of Sport. The focus of the panel will depend, in part, on the submitted abstracts. Each presenter on a panel will have 20 minutes for their presentation. This will be followed by 10-15 minutes for panelists to respond to each other and then 15 minutes or more for audience Q&A. There will also be a panel on the Rhetoric of Sport.

Abstract Submission:
Submissions are welcome on any philosophical theme or issue arising in the study of Sport. Abstract should be 300-500 words. Send via email (as PDF) to sklein_at_rockford_dot_edu.

Deadline: January 6th, 2012
Notification of Acceptance: February 1st, 2012

If you have any questions, please contact Shawn Klein (Assistant Professor, Philosophy Department) at 815-226-4115 or sklein_at_rockford_dot_edu or Michael Perry (Assistant Professor, English Department) at 815-226-4098 or mperry_at_rockford_dot_edu.

Sunday, September 18, 2011

Review: Deal Breaker


Deal Breaker
Deal Breaker by Harlan Coben

My rating: 5 of 5 stars



I thoroughly enjoyed this mystery. In a rarity for me, I had no idea who did it until the murderer was revealed. It emulates a lot from Parker's Spenser, but still has enough unique in the character to carry itself without being derivative. I look forward to reading more in the Myron Bolitar series.



View all my reviews

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Review: Gregor the Overlander


Gregor the Overlander
Gregor the Overlander by Suzanne Collins

My rating: 5 of 5 stars



I really enjoyed this. It is definitely targeted at a younger audience than Collins' Hunger Games, but it is still worth reading if you like this sort of thing. Collins does a great job of getting inside the head of young adults. She doesn't over-simplify them. She avoids the whininess of some other authors in the young adult genre. She also creates an unique and interesting world in the Underland. We learn a lot about it, but she leaves a lot there to be explored in later books.



View all my reviews

Saturday, August 13, 2011

Review: The Kill Artist


The Kill Artist
The Kill Artist by Daniel Silva

My rating: 4 of 5 stars



A great thriller with lots of action and interesting twists. The added element of the Israeli-Arab conflict makes it stand out from the standard issue spy thriller. I am definitely going to read more in this series. That said, I was not crazy about the ending, and there were minor aspects of the plot that didn't quite work for me.



View all my reviews

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Review: The Lions of Lucerne


The Lions of Lucerne
The Lions of Lucerne by Brad Thor

My rating: 5 of 5 stars



Everything I've heard people tell me about Brad Thor is true. This was an exciting, thrilling read. Great twists and turns (even if not completely fooled by them, they were still fun). Can't wait to read the next one.



View all my reviews

Saturday, July 16, 2011

Review: The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics


The Logical Leap: Induction in PhysicsThe Logical Leap: Induction in Physics by David Harriman

My rating: 4 of 5 stars


Harriman presents his application of Rand's theory of concepts to an elaboration and defense of a theory of induction, particularly in physics. He draws interesting and novel connections between concept-formation, abstraction, and induction. He makes some strong and controversial claims about induction and certainty, some of which I am still mulling over. The basic format is to present the theory in outline and then, using the history of science, to show how induction in physics has worked. His presentation is clear and concise. His narrative is clean, without much of the distracting polemics sometimes seen in some followers of Rand and Peikoff. There is some controversy about some of the details of the history he presents. Having little expertise or experience in this area, I am not competent to judge this. If the criticisms are accurate, this would surely be a fault of the book. It would demonstrate carelessness or sloppiness. Nevertheless, I do not think these alleged faults, on their own, undermine Harriman's central claims about induction. He is not after all engaged in the history of science as such, but using that history as a way of illustrating the theory of induction. I say this not to excuse such possible errors, but only to put them into context. Even with these possible faults, I'd recommend the book to those interested in Rand, epistemology, or the history of science.



View all my reviews

Saturday, July 09, 2011

Review: HUNTER: A Thriller


HUNTER: A Thriller (A Dylan Hunter Thriller)HUNTER: A Thriller by Robert Bidinotto

My rating: 5 of 5 stars


Hunter, the first novel by Robert Bidinotto, is an exciting, action packed thriller. Think Batman meets Jason Bourne (sort of). The plot of the book centers around the actions of a vigilante who is avenging the victims of a porous legal system by taking out the brutal criminals who have thus far escaped justice. It also raises interesting philosophical questions about justice, the legal system, and punishment. Oh, and it's a love story, too. I'm looking forward to more Dylan Hunter novels.





View all my reviews

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Testing Twitterfeed

Testing twitterfeed. Sorry for the odd post.

Review: Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids: Why Being a Great Parent is Less Work and More Fun Than You Think


Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids: Why Being a Great Parent is Less Work and More Fun Than You ThinkSelfish Reasons to Have More Kids: Why Being a Great Parent is Less Work and More Fun Than You Think by Bryan Caplan

My rating: 4 of 5 stars


An interesting read. I am not sure I buy all his conclusions about the (lack of) long-term effects of parenting, but his overall point makes sense. No need to be a "tiger mom": give your kids love and a rational space to live in, and the rest is up to them. But as I came into the book with that view, Caplan's book does little to lower my 'price' for more kids. And anyway, it won't convince Kristen!



View all my reviews

Monday, May 30, 2011

Philosophy of Harry Potter Abstract

This is my abstract for the paper I will be presenting at "The Power to Imagine Better: The Philosophy of Harry Potter" at Marymount Manhattan College in New York City.

Harry Potter and Humanity: Choices, Love, and Death

In this paper, I analyze how the Harry Potter novels bring to our awareness two fundamental parts of the human condition: the importance of one’s choices and the inevitable of one’s mortality.

Lord Voldemort, in his ruthless search for immortality, never accepts his own humanity; he openly rejects it. I argue it is this choice that makes his irredeemable evil, and his ultimate defeat, possible.

On the other hand, it is Harry’s acceptance of his mortality that allows him to embrace his humanity. It is this recognition that gives Harry the power defeat Voldemort. More than that, it makes it possible for Harry to develop into a realized, virtuous adult. In his acceptance of his mortality, the boy that lived is able more fully and wholly to live.

IAPS Abstract

The following is an abstract of the paper I will be presenting at the International Association for the Philosophy of Sport (IAPS) in September at The College at Brockport, SUNY (More here). I will also be giving a version of this paper at the APA Eastern Division on a panel for the American Association for the Philosophic Study of Sport (AAPSS).

Commercial Sport and Corruption: A Critique

There is a common view, not just in sport, that when one's goals centrally involve the pursuit of greater wealth that one's attitude towards other important values will be diminished or corrupted. William Morgan has expressed this most clearly in his claim that when the external goods of the market become ends of sport they deprive "their practitioners of any reason, let alone a compelling one, to value or engage the particular competitive challenges they present, the select athletic skills they call upon, and human qualities and virtues they excite" (147). This paper is part of a broader project to defend the value of commercial sport, but here I focus only on the argument that commercial sport, sport where money is an end at which participants and practitioners aim, undermines the participants' relationship to the other ends of sport. I first outline the argument that commercialism in sport is corrupting. Then I analyze and challenge three presumptions that underpin this argument.

First, one major presumption of this argument is that goods and values can be divided, in a non-question-begging and non-arbitrary way, into internal and external goods and values. This distinction is foundational to most arguments against commercial sport, so if it cannot be maintained, these arguments would be seriously weakened.

Second, the corruption argument rests on the claim that external goods drive out internal ones. That is, as participants pursue external goods, like money, they necessarily diminish their relationship to the internal goods. Part of the claim here is that the internal and external goods necessarily conflict or pull the agent in different directions. Even if the external/internal distinction can be maintained, it is far from clear that these ends cannot co-exist in a mutually supporting way or that there is not sufficient moral space for both kinds of goods in a practice. Moreover, the corruption argument is weakened if external goods, pace Morgan, can provide compelling reasons to pursue and support the internal goods.

Lastly, the argument that commercial sport is corrupting presumes that internal values and goods are more morally important than external ones. This may sometimes be the case, but it hardly seems to be necessarily the case. The argument, without an additional reason to privilege internal goods, loses considerable force if external goods can also have moral importance and significance.

References:
Morgan, W. (1994). Leftist theories of sport: A critique and reconstruction, Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Monday, May 02, 2011

Justice. Served.

Twitter and Facebook have really changed everything. I’d wager more people under 40 than not found this news of OBL’s death first through one of these. (After an ambiguous text from my brother, I checked Twitter). But even more than that, it was amazing to witness all the myriad of responses from people all over. The responses are so raw. People typing away what they think at the moment, without much reflection or filtering. The comments not censored or cleansed by intervening media. It is not pooled together in to some meaningless aggregate or in to some statistic in polling numbers.

Some people are gleefully. Others are more guarded, reluctant to celebrate death, but glad to see justice served. Some folks seeing this a perfect time to score stupid and snarky political points(from all sides). Thankfully, many more seeing it as a time to remember those who have been murdered as a result of this terrorist. Others seeing this as relatively unimportant because it doesn’t seem to really change anything. Just as many seeing OBL’s death as a major game changer. We are a complicated, paradoxical people!

And I am as paradoxical, experiencing all of the above over the last 12 hours.

My first thought was: burn mother fucker, burn. But then as the news set in, I became more guarded. Certainly glad to hear the news of his death, but didn’t feel celebratory. I felt much more somber and reflective.

I admit as well there was a part of me that was somewhat disappointed that this will likely help Obama. I am not proud of that thought; it was inappropriate in my mind to be focusing on political matters and more than that, the man, incompetent and wrong-minded as I regard him, still is our president and did what he promised to do. He deserves credit for that (though most of the credit for this ought to go to CIA and the Seals). And ultimately, I don’t think this “bump” will matter for the ‘12 elections one way or the other.

This news brought me back to those fearful and sad moments of that ironically bright and sunny Tuesday morning. Maybe that is what made me more somber and reflective than celebratory and gleeful. The news of OBL’s death cannot be separated from the thoughts and emotions of that day.

Contradictions don’t exist, but I do share the sense that this doesn’t really change anything and that this is a game changer. On one hand, no troops are coming home as a result of this. There are still very real and very serious threats from al-qaeda and allied groups (and nation-states like Iran). There are many more heads on that hydra that need removal.

On the other hand, this demonstrates both the literal and symbolic failure of OBL’s major strategic goals. Quoting Jim Harper at Cato: “He did not topple any Middle East dictator toward the end of establishing a Muslim caliphate. Indeed, the people of the Middle East have begun toppling their own dictators toward the end (we earnestly hope) of establishing more liberal societies.” (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/dead-al-qaedas-leader-and-symbol/)

An evil man with evil ideas has been dispatched. That is a good thing, even if nothing greater comes from this.

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Shtetl Days

Shtetl Days by Harry Turtledove is a fascinating short story set in an alternative future where the Nazis have won WW2 and conquered the world. They succeeded in exterminating the Jews but have set up recreated shtetls as tourist destinations. Actors play at living the daily lives of the long destroyed Jews to the delight of on-lookers snapping photos. They even re-enact pogroms! Nevertheless, the law of unintended consequences kicks in and some of the actors begin to wonder which part of their life is just a role being played.

http://www.tor.com/stories/2011/04/shtetl-days

It is free online, but only $0.99 as an ebook.

Monday, April 18, 2011

Atlas: More! Again!

I am not a movie reviewer or a movie junkie. I don’t have the skills to recognize good editing from great editing, or good acting from great acting, etc. I can tell when things go badly because they interrupt the enjoyment and experience of the film. And I can tell when a film reaches a level of greatness because of the sublime reaction I have to it. But in between these extremes, I don’t have much to go on except my visceral, emotional response. Does it make me laugh, cry at the right points? Am I moved? Do I get the chills? Do I want to see it again? Do the characters and story stay with me for some time after the film ends? Do I get absorbed into the movie so that the world around me falls away and no thoughts of my outside life arise in my consciousness?

In this regard, Atlas Shrugged Part 1 passes with flying colors. Sure it has some technical weaknesses that even a film idiot like me can pick out. Sure there are things in the characters and the story that are missed or could have been done way better. But once the film started, I didn’t look at my watch once. I didn’t think about what papers I needed to grade or classes I need to prep. I didn’t once think to myself: “where is this going? why are they doing this?” I didn’t have one “WTF” moment. There were several moments that I wanted to cheer. When it was over, I had two thoughts: “More!” “Again!”

What this tells me is that, in the essence and for the most part, the filmmakers got the story right, they got the characters right, and they got the sense of life right. Whatever flaws the film has, they never rose to the level of disturbing the experience of the film for me. Moreover, I didn’t think about these flaws until after the movie was over and I started thinking more analytically about the film. Such flaws are not as significant as the ones that pop up while you are watching the film. These more serious flaws disturb the experience, break the absorption. I didn’t experience any such flaws while watching Atlas. There are flaws, to be sure, and these do keep it from being the truly great movie it could have been. But it is still a good, exciting movie.

Some other thoughts:
  • I have no sense of how some one who has not read the novel would react to the movie. I read Atlas first when I was 13 or 14, and several rereads over the years. It is too much a part of my mental DNA for me to look at the film except through the lens of the novel. My suspicion is that most new to Atlas will have some trouble following things or miss the motivations for various scenes and actions. I am sure that I filled in a lot subconsciously.
  • I wonder what the meaning of the fact that (almost) every lover/fan of Atlas that I know either liked or loved the movie; while the critics almost universally pan it. (Rotten Tomatoes has the critics liking it around 10% while the audience liking it around 85%). Surely a large part of this discrepancy is that the critics have an ideological (political or aesthetic) axe to grind. But it doesn’t explain all of it.
  • For what it is worth, I thought the acting and casting were very good. Grant Bowler as Hank Rearden and Graham Beckel as Ellis Wyatt were fantastic. Taylor Schilling was a very good Dagny.
  • The scenery was gorgeous. I think the special effects were as good as they needed to be: the running of the John Galt Line over the bridge was thrilling.
  • I hope to see it again soon. I’m sure a second viewing will give me new perspective on the film's virtues and flaws. I’ll be sure to update or post a new blog with any new thoughts.

Some Changes

I'm going to be making a bunch of changes to Philosophy Blog over the next few weeks and months. The design needs some updating, but I also want to try to set things up better so that I blog more.

The first change, effective immediately, is that I am shutting off the comments. One of the things that sometimes holds me back from posting blogs is knowing that I am going to have to deal with comment. I often don't have the time or the will to moderate and answer comments. I don't want to just open the comments up because of spam, but also because, as my blog, I don't want repugnant or obnoxious ideas posted or left unanswered in the comment areas.

Saturday, March 26, 2011

Review: Sandy Koufax: A Left's Legacy

Sandy Koufax: A Lefty's LegacySandy Koufax: A Lefty's Legacy by Jane Leavy

My rating: 3 of 5 stars


Overall, I liked the book and it certainly deepened my interest in and knowledge of Koufax. The chapter on Koufax and his Jewish identity was, to no one's surprise, the most interesting of the book. The chapter that covers the last inning of his perfect game was thrilling. I think Leavy did a good job of showing us Koufax's character. Clearly not an easy guy to get a read on, but she gets him into the book without it devolving to an 'as-told-to' or a 'tell-all'. Nevertheless, I didn't care for Leavy's narrative structure. It jumped around a lot, back to Koufax's early days with the Dodgers, to present day, and to the 60s. She switched from one person's testimony to another so much, I often found myself turning back a few pages to figure who was who.



View all my reviews

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

MLB Parity

MLB does not have a salary cap. Teams can spend as much as they want on salaries for players. It is not uncommon, then, to hear people complain that baseball lacks parity and that high salary teams buy championships.

I think this claim is wrong, but because of time constraints, I can't argue for it in this post. Nevertheless, I think the following suggests that we ought to question this linkage between high salaries and team performance.

The following lists the top ten salary spenders for 2010 (according to http://www.benfry.com/salaryper/ ):

1. Yankees
2. Boston
3. Phillies
4. Chicago Cubs
5. Mets
6. Detroit
7. Chicago White Sox
8. Angeles
9. Giants
10. Twins

Only 4 of these teams made the playoffs: the Yankees, Phillies, Giants, and Twins.

The same pattern held in 2009:

Top Ten Salaries
1. Yankees
2. Mets
3. Cubs
4. Red Sox
5. Detroit
6. Angeles
7. Phillies
8. Houston
9. Dodgers
10. Seattle

Only 5 of these teams made the playoffs in 2009: Yankees, Red Sox, Angeles, Phillies, and Dodgers.

This is far from definitive, but it is suggestive that there is much more to fielding a successful team than paying high salaries.

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Dr. Shawn E. Klein

Yesterday, Aug 17, I successfully defended my doctoral dissertation: "Seeing As and What If: Appreciation and Imagination in Moral Reasoning." Except for a few 'i's to dot and 't's to cross, I have fulfilled all the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy from Arizona State University. So, I will only respond to Dr. Klein for the next week. (j/k).

The defense was challenging, but in a geeky way was kind of fun (though not something I want to go through again!)

I started graduate school in 1998. I took several years off along the way, but that's still a long time. I am glad to be done!

Classes start up next week, but once things get underway, I hope to return to blogging regularly.

Sunday, November 01, 2009

Pop Culture and Academia Panel

“Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Stephen King, Harry Potter, & the Wizard of Oz: I can really talk about this stuff at College?”

Grace Roper Lounge in the Burpee Center, Nov 2, 4-5pm

Join Professors Michael Perry, Shawn Klein and Matthew Flamm for a discussion on the use of pop culture within academia and higher education.

All who are interested are welcome to attend. Snacks will be provided, courtesy of the Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship.

http://bit.ly/1o9YSF

Monday, August 10, 2009

Misplaced Outrage and Civil Debate

Many are outraged by the raucous and angry protests at these so-called health care town meetings. The main culprit seems to be the ‘shouting down’ of the speakers and loud heckling at the meetings. As far as I’m aware there has been no actual violence or assault. Nevertheless, these are not laudable practices for public (or personal) debate.

I am not, however, all that outraged by the tactics at these protests. I am outraged, as are these protesters, at the imminent threat of further expansion of government control over health care (and the costs associated with that). Still, I am uncomfortable with these tactics. They do not tend to encourage civil, rational debate. They encroach on (though don’t violate) individual’s right of free speech.

The rub is that civil and rational discourse is a two-way street. Both sides have to be civil and rational for such engagement to occur. But what we see is a persistent attempt to shut down debate on the part of Obama and his supporters.

Criticisms of Obama and his policies are often quickly dismissed with ad hominem instead of rational debate. Critics are called ‘extreme’, ‘far-right’, or ‘fringe’. They are accused of being lackeys of ‘industrial operatives’ or merely hired guns spreading, quoting Obama, “outrageous lies”. They are attacked as racists and lumped in with bizarre conspiracy folks. It’s hard, even impossible, to be a part of a civil debate in such an environment.

Moreover, consider the President’s infomercial on ABC not so long ago. Opponents and critics where purposely excluded. Recently, the President is quoted as saying “I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking” – referring I guess to Republicans (so much for bipartisanship). The administration and the Democratic Congress were trying to push through Congress the health care bill before anyone could reasonably have read and digested what was in this bill (as they did with the equally disastrous energy bill). I don’t think one is interested in discourse of any kind when is trying to pass a bill in this manner.

How can the American public engage in honest and civil debate over central issues of government when the side in power won’t allow the opposition a voice at the debate? How can we have rational discourse when the White House’s response to criticism is not to clearly articulate the economic and moral arguments for their plan but to create an informant database of the opposition?

This is why many feel that their only recourse is to disrupt these ‘town hall’ meetings. This seems like the only way to get the media to pay attention to voices of opposition. And, reluctantly, it appears to be working. While for the most part, the media focuses on the protesters themselves and continues the canards and ad hominem put out by the Democratic leadership, it has brought attention to the fact that many people outside of the Beltway are strongly opposed to the plans and policies of the administration. The anger and fear over the further expansion of an already bloated and too-powerful government and the limiting of liberty even further is real—and not just talking points from some ‘far-right conspiracy’.

In the end, however, the principled, pro-liberty opponents to more government control in health care and other areas of our economy need now to communicate the moral, political, and economic case for liberty and freedom and against government-control. These protests have got the attention. Now, let’s use this to make the case for real health care reform.

P.S. I do find it somewhat laughable that those on the Left are so enraged by the tactics at these protests, when, after all, these tactics have long been standard practice for Leftist protests.

Update: After posting this, I came across a similar blog post by Lester Hunt, check it out.

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Sotomayor: Early thoughts

(I’m supposed to be working on something more productive, but to get back into my writing flow, I thought I’d do a blog.)

I am reserving judgment on the Sotomayor nomination until I know more, but here are two things that trouble me so far:

1. The appearance, at least, that her pick had little to do with jurisprudential qualifications and more to do with identity politics.

This is one of the pernicious effects of affirmative action. In our PC/affirmative action culture, we tend to see the achievements and promotions of minorities as a consequence of affirmative action policies instead of individual diligence and talent. This undermines these very achievements. Justice Sotomayor might be supremely qualified, but her pick will likely always be seen as one based on group identity. If, however, she becomes an exceptional justice, showing great legal prudence and wisdom, then we’ll forget the identify politics (as, I think, we have done with Justices Marshall and O’Conner).

Part of this is the fault of the Obama administration. They made it fairly clear that they wanted to nominate a Hispanic woman from the start. I have no issue at all with a person of any gender or ethnicity serving on the court; I do have an issue when that becomes the very thing that makes them qualified.

2. From what I’ve read so far about Sotomayor, she’s not the kind of justice that I’d like to see on the court.

I should note, of course, I’d be surprised if the Obama administration (or a GOP administration) picked a justice that would be even close to my ideal. What is my ideal? A justice who starts his or her legal reasoning from the premise that the US Constitution is a document whose sole purpose is to protect individual rights by setting out what limited powers the government can exercise. Sotomayor does not seem to have that idea in the least bit (but, to be fair, nor do most of the current serving justices either).

Her most famous case had to do with the MLB strike, in which she sided with the players. Two other cases she preceded over, much discussed now, are Ricci v. DeStefano and Didden v. Village of Port Chester. Ricci apparently affirms so-called reverse discrimination. Didden further erodes property rights after Kelo (and almost makes Kelo look reasonable). Quoting legal scholar, Richard Epstein: “The case involved about as naked an abuse of government power as could be imagined” (Forbes).

Neither case fills me with any confidence that Sotomayor understands the constitution as a protector of individual rights and limitation on government power. I hope I am proved wrong.

Two informative pieces on Sotomayor’s nomination:
Sotomayor Pick Not Based on Merit
The Sotomayor Nomination

The Volokh Conspiracy legal blog has a lot of interesting bits as well.

Monday, May 18, 2009

Samuel Eli



Samuel Eli: born May 12, 2009. 7 lbs 4 oz. Welcome to the world, Sammy!

Needless to say, I'll be busy with diapers and so will be blogging even less this summer.

Sunday, May 10, 2009

IAPS 2009

I'm pleased to announce that my paper proposal for the International Association for the Philosophy of Sport conference has been accepted!

Here's more information:
http://www2.seattleu.edu/artsci/sportcenter/default.aspx?id=20406

Thursday, May 07, 2009

Manny suspension

Some initial thoughts on the Manny suspension:

  • I’m a bit disgusted by the perverse pleasure people seem to be taking in Manny’s suspension. I’m also disgusted by the ESPN pundits who get to pretend, self-righteously, to be profound about the sanctity of the sport and damage done to baseball.
  • If there is a contemporary athlete who I’m willing to grant is clueless enough to violate the MLB drug policy in an innocent way, Manny’s the guy. Part of Manny Being Manny is that he’s totally a loon who doesn’t pay attention to anything except hitting. Suddenly it’s not believable that he’d be stupid enough to take a prescribed drug without checking with team doctors or the union? That’s totally in keeping with Manny’s character.
  • I’m ignorant about the legitimate uses of hCG, the drug Manny reportedly took. Apparently, it’s connected to fertility treatments. If this was as innocent as Manny claims it is; then he needs to come totally clean about this “personal medical issue.” If he wants to clear his name, he needs to produce the medical records that show he has a condition that hCG is used to treat. Moreover, medical documentation, if possible, that this condition was not something caused by the use of steroids or some other PED in the first place.
  • Even if Manny’s use of hCG was for performance-enhancing (of the baseball kind), what he did to get out of his contract in Boston was way worse.

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Rand and Thrasymachus

A blogger posted a comparison of Rand and Thrasymachus. The blogger claimed that Rand's defense of the virtue of selfishness was similar to Thrasymachus's, Plato's infamous immoralist, defense of injustice as superior to justice. Below is a comment I posted on this blog. (link to my comment)

You misunderstand Rand in several ways. Her defense of the virtue of selfishness is not at all similar to Thrasymachus’ immoralist challenge to Plato. And her “way” is not “one of no rules.”

Thrasymachus puts forward the idea that it is better to be unjust (to steal, cheat, kill—and not get caught). He claims that it is more advantageous to be unjust than to be just; that freely being able commit conventional acts of injustice is better, for the agent, than being constrained by the rules of justice and morality.

Rand argues that the proper understanding of relationship of valuing and living show that the agent is the proper ultimate beneficiary of his action (though not the sole beneficiary). That is, that in acting well (e.g. justly) one is acting in a manner that will bring about a better overall life for himself. Closely paraphrasing her words, the purpose of morality is one’s own life and happiness, but the standard of morality is what is proper to the life of rational being. This sounds a lot like Aristotle, and not at all like Thrasymachus.

Rand’s virtue of selfishness is not a guide to action; that is, one does not, on her view, act in a certain way merely because it matches one’s desire. One’s happiness is the purpose of action, but the guide to action is a rational evaluation of the situation and what the proper response is for a rational being. (Rarely, one must note, would such an evaluation support injustice: Stealing, cheating, killing.) It’s only, she argues, through this rational evaluation that one is able to achieve one’s own life and happiness.

This should show as well that Rand’s “way” is not “one of no rules.” And in terms of politics, Rand was a harsh critic of so-called anarchism. She vigorously defends rule of law and the protection of individual rights.

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Losing and humilitation

Welcome Wired readers!

For everyone else, I was quoted in the April issue of Wired Magazine in Brendan I. Koerner's Mr. Know-It-All column. Thank you to Wired and Mr. Koerner.

I wrote up some more extensive comments on the question Mr. Koerner is answering in his column.
Below is a lightly edited version of these comments.

*****

The Question: "I recently posted a video of one of my son's high school wrestling triumphs on YouTube. The defeated wrestler's father has asked me to take it down, saying it humiliates his boy. Is his request reasonable?"

My thoughts:


One thing that I find troubling in the request to pull the video is the idea that losing itself is humiliating. There are certainly ways of losing that can be humiliating, but the mere fact of losing a match is not itself humiliating. One can lose with grace. This is a large part of what good sportsmanship is about: learning to accept one’s loss in stride and with poise. Moreover, losing, while painful, is a learning opportunity. The athlete can see what he did wrong, and he can study what his opponent did right.

If an athlete gives his best—that is, he has trained hard, worked at developing his ability, and competed to the best of his ability—and yet loses in a fair match, there is nothing to be embarrassed about. There is no shame in losing to a better, more skilled opponent; and much pride can be taken by competing well against such an opponent.

If the athlete did not try his best or had not come prepared, he might well be embarrassed. But the humiliation here is not from the loss. It’s from the recognition of failing short of what is required of an athlete. Even had he won the match in such a case, he should still be embarrassed for not training and competing as one should.

Winning is important, but it is not the only thing that is important in sport. It is, as the cliché goes, also important how one plays the game. But I mean something more than merely the cliché idea of being a good sport and so on. Competing in sport is also about striving towards excellence. Excellence is not the same as winning. Winning is one measure of excellence. Earning a bronze metal at the Olympics is a great achievement and measure of excellence, and yet one did not win. Some of the swimmers who finished behind Michael Phelps still swam faster than the world records. Surely these are excellent athletes worthy of praise and admiration.

One might raise the issue of consent, that there is a difference between losing in front of a small group of spectators at the school gym and losing in front a world audience on Youtube. In one respect, I can understand this point. What might not bother someone in a small group, would be more embarrassing if broadcast the world over. And anyone who has survived high school knows that such a wide public airing could make worse the teasing and ridicule from one’s peers. However, this is a cost of competing. Being an athlete means that one has to take risks. Not just the physical risks of training and competing, but the risk of going out to compete and not winning, of failing to perform to expectations (one’s own or others). By agreeing to compete, one is agreeing to this risk. If one is not willing to risk that one’s loss will be known by others, then one should not compete.


Tuesday, March 10, 2009

What happened to Firefox?!

I used to love Firefox. I was one of its big boosters. There are still some great features to it, but man, version 3 blows. I can't use it for more than 15-20 minutes without the CPU usage spiking and hanging the browser for about 20-30 seconds. Another problem is that it takes about 2-5 minutes for the browser (depending on my machine) to become usable. That may not sound like much. You're probably thinking I need to have some scotch and relax. Not a bad idea, regardless, it's really annoying when you are typing a blog (for instance) or you want to quickly check what time the Thai place closes and the browser freezes up or takes it's time booting up.

I've tried all the troubleshooting tips at Mozilla and out on the web to no avail. It happens on both machines I am running. So I've concluded that this great browser has been killed by some dumb engineer at Mozilla who probably left out a semi-colon somewhere in the code causing some kind of memory leak. Stupid monkey.

I'm too tied at this point to change. I love my extensions too much: Twitterfox, 1-click weather, grab and drag. Google's chrome is cool looking but, like Opera, it doesn't have the extensions (something I'm sure they will remedy). I don't think I can go back to IE. So, I'm just venting.

Monday, March 09, 2009

Getting caught up

I'm making way through the dozen of so comments left in the last few months (!). After I've gotten caught up that, I'll post a new Problem of Evil post and try to get back into the routine of regular posting.

In the meantime: Happy Purim!

Friday, January 23, 2009

More apologies

I've been a poor blogger lately. I have a backlog of comments to clear and no new posts either. I hope to remedy both soon. (But, I also have a new computer coming today which will take time to set up, plus this is the first week of classes, so don't expect anything immediately.)

Sunday, January 04, 2009

NFL overtime rules

It baffles me that any one can defend the NFL’s overtime rules. The typical defense is that whoever wins the coin flip, the offense has to drive down the field and the defense has to stop them.

No doubt, this is true. But this doesn’t justify having sudden death. The game is a contest to determine who, on this day, is better. In a tie situation, the teams are obviously evenly matched. Sudden death does not entangle this and show that one team is better.

So why have sudden death?

One reason might be to prevent injury by playing a full 5th quarter. Another 15 minutes of football after 60 minutes of football means a lot of fatigued guys running around. Likelihood of injury probably is increased. Sudden death ends the game once someone scores, so typically the game will end without another full 15 minutes of playing.

This is reasonable, but points more to scoring the game a tie. If injury is the concern here, why not avoid the possibility all together and not have an overtime? After all, if the game is tied after the overtime period (in the regular season), the game is scored a tie. After 60 minutes of regulation, what’s wrong with having a tie? Nonetheless, for post-season games a resolution is needed. So why have sudden death as the scenario? Other than injury concerns, I haven’t come up with another reason.

The central problem with sudden death is that it makes it possible that the contest is determined on the basis of one component of the game. Football is a contest with three distinct components: special teams, defense, and offense. Both sides in sudden death engage in special teams. But if the game is won on the first possession, the teams only play either defense or offense. And this happens, historically, about 30% of the time (Source) A true test of a football match is not just how well a team plays defense, but how well it plays both offense and defense.

The rules should be designed to make sure that each team in each overtime gets to exercise all three components in the determination of the victory. Sudden death fails this, and so makes the game an incomplete contest.

There are several options for such rules:

  • Play a full period.
  • Use the NCAA system of giving each side a possession.
  • Give the scored-on team an opportunity to score, if they fail to, the game ends.

While playing a full period seems unnecessary and raises injury concerns, I don’t see a problem with either the NCAA or similar systems that insure each side has an offensive and defensive possession.

Problem of Evil: Soul-Making

(#4 in the Problem of Evil Series)

The soul-making theodicy rests on the idea that God allows evil to exist because the existence of evil is a necessary condition for individuals to develop or complete their moral souls.

We need to learn what morality is about and we need to develop the proper virtues. We cannot learn these in a vacuum nor do we know morality a priori. The suffering of others is, the theodicy argues, essential for individuals to learn these lessons about morality and virtue. Without the opportunities offered by suffering and evil, individuals would not have the chance to develop or demonstrate moral virtues, like compassion or courage.

The theodicy can be summarized as follows:
  • A world of moral individuals is a good thing.
  • Individuals have to learn how to be moral.
  • Suffering and evil are necessary in order to learn how to be moral.
  • God desires to create a world of moral individuals.
  • God must therefore allow suffering and evil in order to bring about the good of a world of moral individuals.

There are a number of problems with this theodicy.

The main problem comes in the third proposition above: that suffering and evil are necessary in order to learn how to be moral. Surely this is not true of all moral virtues or concepts. The virtue of independence is not developed as a response to suffering: it’s developed out of a need for relying on one’s own judgment and action. One might also consider the amount of non-human suffering that exists and what connection this serves for the development of moral character.

Also, there is plenty of suffering and evil that does not seem to teach us any unique lessons. Showing compassion can be praiseworthy; but surely we can learn this without two-year olds dying from cancer or tornados ripping through towns every summer. And just what did we learn from the Holocaust that we didn’t know already? We didn’t know that mass murder was evil and needed the Nazi’s reign of terror to learn this?

One might argue, well supported by the evidence of post-Holocaust genocides, that mankind has not taken this lesson to heart. But this also undermines the theodicy. God’s goal, ex hypothesis, is to create moral individuals and he allows evil to allow us to learn the moral lessons we are supposed to learn. But if this is not working, then shouldn’t the tactics change? And so wouldn’t God’s failing to change tactics be a kind of moral failure? If a parent decides to beat his children to teach them how to behave properly, and comes to see that this doesn’t work, but continues to beat his children, then we would conclude that the parent is engaging in evil. And, moreover, even if the tactic did work, we still should not tolerate this in the parent. There are more humane ways to teach children how to behave properly.

So, suffering and evil are not necessary conditions for moral development. We can learn morality without being subjected to evil. Moreover, intentionally subjecting one to evil in order to teach them a lesson seems monstrous. There are other ways to teach the lesson and such lessons often don’t work any way.

Another important problem with this theodicy is that it makes a fetish out of suffering. If morality depends on the existence of suffering, then if there was no suffering, we would have to create suffering just to have morality. This strikes me as perverse. Suffering should not be a moral primary; it is secondary to the primary concern of morality: learning how to best live one’s life.

This also leads to a new paradox. The idea here is that morality needs suffering to develop virtues like compassion. But if there was no suffering in the world, would we need the virtue of compassion? It seems like the virtues that are most likely to be pointed to as being developed in response to evils are the virtues that are only needed because there are evils in the world. This undermines the theodicy because if God didn’t allow the evil in the first place, we wouldn’t need those virtues and so we would have no need to learn them by experiencing evil.

One common response to this is that these virtues are needed for the next world, for heaven, or for some deeper relationship with God. A problem with this move is that this is wholly arbitrary speculation. How can anyone know this? One could just as easily argue that one cannot get into heaven without being able to play badminton. And even one could know this, it doesn’t justify the evil. Consider again the parent who beats his children to teach them to behave. The fact that his goal is a good thing doesn’t justify his means. One should wonder about the justice of God if he creates the world in such a way that the only way to get to his kingdom is to have to learn virtues that rely on experiencing evil.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Posting Delays

Dear Readers: Don't fret, I do plan on continuing my Problem of Evil blogging soon. Things have been some what busy as of late, I haven't had time to post anything. I hope to post part 4 in the coming days. Thanks for your patience.

Shawn

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

The Bigger Picture (Problem of Evil #3)

(This is part 3 of series on the Problem of Evil)

The next Theodicy is The Bigger Picture Theodicy. If an individual had the means, the motive, and the opportunity to prevent some horrible crime (say murder or a rape), we normally think that person is open to moral criticism for failing to intervene. Similarly, the claim is that God is open to moral criticism as well for failing to intervene. This Theodicy claims that God’s greater knowledge allows him to know that he shouldn’t interfere in cases that we would normally think a person should interfere. Given our limited, finite knowledge, we don't see the bigger picture and think God should have interfered. God, however, sees the bigger picture and recognizes that he should not interfere because his interference would do more harm than good. In this way, God is doing the right thing in letting the evil occur.

For example, in the movie Spiderman, Peter Parker could have interfered to prevent an armed robber from getting away. He didn't act as a kind of revenge on the wrestling match organizer. The robber then ends up killing Parker's uncle. Had Parker known the bigger picture, he would have stopped the armed robber when he had the chance. Similarly, when we criticize God for not acting to prevent an evil, we are like Parker. We don't have the wider context of knowledge that justifies God's non-interference.

This Theodicy suffers from some similar problems to the previous two(Greater Good and Higher Morality).

First, it fails the Holocaust test. What greater context of knowledge justifies non-interference in such a case? For example, if we are Parker and see the armed robber running down the hall, it is not too hard for us to imagine a scenario that calls for our interference. But what scenario justifies non-interference in the murder of 6 million? One scenario that is sometimes offered is that possibly if God had interfered that would have eventually lead to the deaths of millions more in some other context. But this calls into question God's omnipotence. With infinite power, he should be able to prevent both catastrophes. It also raises the problem of whether lives are interchangeable. That is, is it morally justified to let 1 die to prevent the death of 2(or 2 million)? Most Utilitarians would answer yes, but it's not clear that doing so is justifiable outside of utilitarianism.

Second, we are left in the same obscure position as with Divine Purpose: we don't have access to the Divine Purpose or to the Bigger Picture. Thus, we have no way to evaluate whether the non-interference is justified on the basis of these. For example, to badly paraphrase Hume, maybe the bigger picture available to God is that to have interfered in the Holocaust would have scratched his finger. Surely, if that is the case, God is not all-good. Thus, to be able to justify this Theodicy we need to know the bigger picture as well. But since we don't have access, the Theodicy is ultimately incomprehensible, thus failing to provide a resolution to the paradox.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Higher Morality (Problem of Evil #2)

(This is part 2 of series on the Problem of Evil)

The essential idea with this Theodicy is that God should be judged by some higher, divine morality. From the perspective of this higher morality, what is described or characterized as evil by human morality is actually good.

Like the The Greater Good Theodicy, this Theodicy ends up denying the existence of evil. What we take to be evil is really good. And so it fails the basic test of maintaining all four claims of the paradox (see the original post).

Another problem here is that it sets human morality at odds with the higher divine morality. If the higher morality is going to judge the Holocaust, fatal disease outbreaks, etc, as good, while human morality will judge them bad, then the 'good' in each of these moralities are different. Good on the higher morality is not what we mean by good.

But, then, which good is being ascribed when we say God is all-good? If it is the human morality usage, then we appear to be right back with the paradox. If it is the divine morality usage, then maybe we resolve the paradox but at the cost of understanding. We don't know what divine morality means by good if it would describe the Holocaust as good. Moreover, we have no access to what divine morality is. So, we do not understand what all-good means.

Some theists will accept this. God is obscure (as Patrick mentioned in one of the comments to an earlier post). But if we are aiming to get an understanding of the problem of evil and get to some comprehensible resolution, then this is not an answer. The only reason to engage in Theodicy is because one is uncomfortable with paradox presented by the problem of evil. If one is satisfied with obscurity, I doubt the paradox would be all that disquieting in the first place.

The central problem, then, with this Theodicy is that it makes 'good' incomprehensible, and so the whole Theodicy is incomprehensible.

Thursday, October 09, 2008

Observing Yom Kippur

So what does a secular, humanistic Jew do on Yom Kippur? Obviously, I don’t daven in shul, afflict my soul, or make myself pitiable before God.

One of the most identifiable observances of Yom Kippur is the fasting. I do a symbolic fast. That is, I don’t fast sundown to sundown. But I do set aside several hours on Yom Kippur for reflection and during that period, I don’t eat (though I do drink water). This is often only several hours, though some years I’ll do it most of the day. I am not going to torture myself all day merely for tradition. So on the years where we plan a Break Fast or attend one, I will fast for most of the day to make the Break Fast more meaningful. On years like this one, where we don’t have a Break Fast, I only fast for the period of reflection. It’s a symbolic or ritualized fast. I am fasting to connect with the traditions of the Jewish people, to remind myself what day it is, and to make sure I engage in the kind of reflection appropriate for the day.

I reflect on the past year. I go month by month, focusing on accomplishments and achievements; and also on failures and shortcomings. What could I have done better? As part of that, I also recall harm or pain I might have caused another that I have not corrected. I think how I can correct or seek forgiveness for these; and make a plan to do that.

I think about the future: what are my goals, but also how can I improve myself. What parts of my character need work? And what am I going to do about it?

I also spend time thinking about what being Jewish means to me. I am strongly connected to the Jewish people and to my Jewish roots. I want preserve them, deepen them, and celebrate them. (And so I write blog posts like this)

Lastly, I reflect on any significant losses. This past year, as many know, we lost our beloved cat Sylvia. I spent some time looking at photos of Sylvia, reading the blog posts about her illness, and just letting myself miss her. It was painful, but important.

Good Yontiv, Good Fast, and Shana Tova!

Wednesday, October 08, 2008

A Secular Yom Kippur

It's that time of year again when I repost my article on Yom Kippur. Yom Kippur starts tonight.

Self-Judgment Days

Friday, October 03, 2008

Greater Good (Problem of Evil #1)

Welcome back to my series analyzing the problem of evil (See the opening post). The first Theodicy is: "The Greater Good".

According to this Theodicy, God is not evil because the suffering and injustice in the world serve some greater good. A dentist who has to pull a patient's infected tooth causes pain and suffering, but since this is done for the greater good, it is not an evil act. Similarly, God causes the pain and suffering in the world but these serve some greater good and so it doesn't count as evil.

One problem with this Theodicy is that it actually doesn't resolve the paradox. It denies the fourth claim that evil exists by making what appears to be evil into a means to the end of some greater good. Evil is transformed into an instrumental good.

But even ignoring this problem, this Theodicy doesn't pass the Holocaust Test. What greater good could justify the horrors of the Holocaust? This further undermines the claim that God is all-good. Even assuming that the Holocaust serves some divine purpose, that purpose must be evil if the only way to achieve it was through the Holocaust. An end that is only reachable by a means that is unjust is itself unjust.

Does such a general principle mean that the dentist is evil? This indicates a lack of clarity in this discussion. Are suffering, pain, and injustice equivalent? Injustice is irredeemable. An injustice cannot be justified by the outcomes achieved by it. It remains an injustice regardless of the outcome. Pain and suffering, on the other hand, are not like this. A pain can be justified by the outcome: as the dentist analogy shows. Notice how one's evaluation of the dentist changes if he causes more pain than necessary, has no reason for removing the tooth, does little to reduce the pain of his patient, or performs the operation without the consent of the patient. So long as the pain is serving an accepted purpose it is not deemed wrong. The pain becomes a type of injustice when it is forced upon an innocent party or where the goal of the pain is some injustice.

The Holocaust brought about the pain, suffering, and death of millions of innocent individuals. It is not, therefore, analogous to the dentist's drill. It is an injustice of cosmic proportions; and as such, it is deeply offensive or greatly confused to characterize it as an instrumental good to some divine purpose or greater good.

This Theodicy does not resolve the paradox. It moves the question of God's goodness from the current evil to the unknowable divine purpose to which this current evil is supposed to be a means. Since we are not privy to divine purposes or the greater goods the evils are supposed to serve, we are not in a position to judge the merit of these ends or goods. But, that means we are not in a position to judge God's goodness either. Thus the problem of evil remains.

Thursday, October 02, 2008

Thoughts on the VP debate

Some initial thoughts on the debate:

Both did what I think they had to do.

Biden: try to link McCain/Palin to Bush.
Palin: bring her energy and her down home style; don't look stupid.

Weaknesses:
Biden: threw around a lot of numbers/over detailed; didn't look relaxed.
Palin: didn't give details or much substance.

Seemed like a draw to me. Nothing too surprising (or all that interesting).

These things are less debates and more a series of sound-bytes. God, I hate politics.

It's even more clear to me that I am not with either party. Fundamentally, neither the GOP or the Dems are for individual liberty.

Thursday, September 25, 2008

The Problem of Evil

The Problem of Evil is, I think, one of the most intriguing issues in the Philosophy of Religion.

One reason is that the problem of evil is something that actually seems to move people in terms of religious belief. I'd be surprised to learn of anyone who was convinced of the existence of God because of the argument from first cause or the argument from design. These arguments, generally, are convincing only to those who already accept the existence of a deity. And I'd be even more surprised to discover a theist who gave up his belief because the arguments for the existence of God were riddled with logical fallacies.

Yet, if you looked around and talked with someone who has either turned to faith or rejected faith, I'd bet you'd find that the Problem of Evil was a contributing factor. The existence of evil in the world appears to be something that actually influences people's belief (or non-belief) about God.

After the Holocaust many Jews, as well as other followers of other religions, gave up on faith. How could God exist and allow such evil? What kind of belief in God could make sense of the senseless murder of 6 million?

Many people reacted similarly to 9/11. How could God allow people to kill so many innocent people...and in his name no less?

And yet for others, their faith is made stronger by these events. They see God's presence in the righteous actions of those who risked their lives to save Jews or in one's own miraculous survival in the Holocaust. And many turned to faith for answers after 9/11.

Many scholars posit, as well, that the existence of evil was the impetus for the birth of religion in the first place. As ancient Man began to think of his place in the universe and reflected on his experience of great pain and suffering, he invented (or turned to, I guess, depending on one's belief). One can see this through out the Bible: God and his prophets reassuring the people that there was a reason for the pain and suffering in the world.

Another reason that the Problem of Evil fascinates is because it raises so many important philosophical questions: free will, moral responsibility, the nature of faith, the role of reason in religious belief, and basic metaphysical questions: is the universe one where God, devils, angels, miracles can exist or is it one where the supernatural is essentially nonsensical.

So, just what is The Problem of Evil?
The standard conception of God in the Western monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) is that God is Omniscient (all-knowing), Omnipotent (all-powerful), and Omni-benevolent (all-good/loving).

God is all good, so he wants to prevent suffering and injustice. He'll have the right motives.

God is all powerful, so he has the means to stop suffering and injustice.

God is all knowing, so he knows when and where suffering is occurring, so he has the opportunity.

In other words, God has the motive, means, and opportunity to prevent suffering and injustice.

And yet, suffering and injustice (evil) persist.

We have four claims:
  1. God is all-good

  2. God is all-powerful

  3. God is all-knowing

  4. Evil Exists

These four claims together appear to be incompatible, but (most) theists do not want to deny these four claims. So, in attempts to resolve this paradox, theists often engage in Theodicy. From the Greek for God's Justice, Theodicy is an attempt to show that all four claims are compatible.

There are, as you can imagine, many theodicies. Over the years, I've collected the various ones I've come across, either from research or from students. In a subsequent series of posts, I will explain and analyze some of the more interesting theodicies.

A couple of ground rules and warnings for this series:

  • I'm primarily interested in theodicy that maintains all four claims. One might argue, as Rabbi Kushner does in his deservedly famous When Bad Things Happen to Good People, that God is not all-powerful. Such an account makes room for the existence of evil, but it also changes the standard Omni-conception of God that most theists appear to hold.

  • I am interested in hearing from others about their thoughts on these Theodicies. Since I'll be dedicating one post to a Theodicy (or a set of closely related ones), keep your comments to a post focused on the theodicy being discussed.

  • I will delete any comments that do not actually contribute to the discussion: so don't bother calling me a blasphemer, engaging in witnessing or preaching, or posting a bunch of Biblical quotes about how "He's the one" or some such thing. Remember this is my website, not a community bulletin board.

  • In the end, none of the theodicies work. Nonetheless, unlike many non-theists, I do not think this demonstrates the non-existence of God. It does, however, point to the basic irrationality of religious belief. I will elaborate this point in a later post that will conclude this series.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Vindication

Ron Paul has endorsed Chuck Baldwin for president. Chuck who??

Apparently someone who believes that 9/11 was a punishment from God for us kicking "Heaven out of our schools, out of our homes, and out of our hearts." And to protect our individual liberty we need to stop de-Christianizing the country. And that our national freedom is being threaten by the Internationalist, New World Order conspiracy. (Isn't that an 80's punk band? No, but it is pretty much code for the Jews)

I, and I'm sure all of us who were attacked, sometimes quite viciously, for criticizing Paul, feel vindicated by this announcement. I believe this endorsement shows what Paul thinks is most important, and to paraphrase, "it ain't the economy, stupid." Sure, Paul might be very good on economic issues, but he's just about horrible on everything else.

(Hat tips to Reason and Freespace)

(Reason has quotes and links to Chuck Baldwin's website. I don't wish to link to him.)

Monday, September 22, 2008

Wither Democracy

An interesting article about the pulling back from democracy across the world. According to the article, after a period where many countries instituted various democrat reforms, many of these reforms have failed or are being dismantled. The author blames the middle class; arguing that while at first the middle class was the significant factor in bringing about democracy (by demanding the protection of their rights); the middle class has turned its back on democracy.

This may be true, but the author misses the point. It's not the middle class that is to blame--it's democracy itself. Most of these reforms were, as far as I can tell, about being able to duly elect government officials. This is after all the hallmark of democracy. And also routinely its worst and most dangerous feature.

We often confuse democracy with a free society. Democracy as a means, combined with other institutional and cultural features, is a good check on government power. The process of electing officials and routinely subjecting them to re-election can protect freedom when these officials cross the line. But when democracy itself becomes the goal, the rights of individuals are often sacrificed to the mob. If the 20th Century taught us anything its that the tyranny of the majority is no better than the tyranny of the few.

People often forget that the United States was not set up as as democracy but as a republic. (Historian and constitutional scholar David Mayer) Many features of the government are anti-democratic and are so on purpose: the President is not directly elected, the courts can overturn the legislature. These anti-democratic features are there to protect the minority of the individual from the tyranny of the majority: to protect the rights and liberties of individuals from being curtailed or stripped at the whim of 51% of the population.

It appears that as many of the countries discussed in this article shifted towards democracy, people have become disillusioned with democracy because it has not brought the protection of rights and liberties. It has brought in populist demagogues who undermine the rights and liberties for which the democratic movements fought. It is no wonder, then, that these folks are turning their backs on democracy.

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Benefits of Fandom

Here's an interesting article about the benefits of fandom.

Fans are, according to some studies, "less prone to depression, anger, and stress." Hmmmm...I must know all the exceptions.