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.
Monday, May 30, 2011
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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 Legacy by Jane LeavyMy 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
