TBIETER'S BOOK REVIEWS

[Richard Baron]

Hi Tom

At the time when you made your post, I was giving a talk on scepticism. I wish I had seen your post first. Your thoughts would have enlivened the discussion.

I do not however think that sceptics in the sober and interesting Cartesian tradition are the ones abusing philosophy in order to support irresponsibility. (Descartes himself was of course not a sceptic. He dug himself into a sceptical hole in order to climb out of it.) I would not even suspect the Popperian critical rationalists of that sin. But when we get on to the postmodernists and deconstructionists, who knows what hidden agendas they may have? Not that we would be able to pin them down for long enough to find out, of course.

[tbieter]

Hi Richard,

Soon after I began taking philosophy classes, I noticed that most of my professors were skeptics, more or less. In other words, their starting point for philosophizing was skepticism. I dissented. I argued that too often skepticism was used as a tool to effectuate the skeptic's prejudices or biases. The natural tendency of skepticism is negative, not positive, destructive of knowledge, not productive. viewtopic.php?t=924

Thus, when I taught philosophy classes, I argued for curiosity as a starting point. I cited Aristotle "Philosophy begins in wonder". It seems to me that the skeptical orientation contains an inherent bias due to the necessity of selection, while curiosity is neutral.

Regarding religion, I contend that curiosity, not skepticism, yielded William James' classic The Varieties of Religious Experience, a book that, I suggest, few religious skeptics would dare to read.

Tom

[Rortabend]

The popularity of the Cartesian method is not the consequence of a desire to remove metaphysical doubt, and find certainty, but precisely the opposite: to cast doubt on everything, and thereby increase the scope of personal license, by destroying in advance any philosophical basis for the limitation on our own appetites.

This is embarassingly stupid. Your 'mentor', Richard Baron, should have told you so. Cartesian scepticism has NOTHING to do with liberalism or feminism. You, and the author of the book you have read, have certain views about these topics which you have read back into Descartes. Granted he was a lunatic, but he wasn't your kind of lunatic. I despair when I read this sort of thing coming from the same country that produced Peirce, James, Dewey, Quine, Kripke, Davidson and Putnam.

Also, what on earth is the anecdote about the philosophy professor supposed to prove? Unbelievable.

[tbieter]

Rotabend: "Also, what on earth is the anecdote about the philosophy professor supposed to prove? Unbelievable"

Tbieter: I took the professor's course in ethics. We discussed readings on issues that were then current on college campuses (vegetarianism (Lappe's Diet for a Small Planet, "open marriage", education (Ivan Illych), and others) The "open marriage" advocates claimed that sexual fidelity was not essential to marriage, that spouses could have extra-marital sexual relations and still remain masrried. During the course, I thought that the professor advocated "open marriage". Obviously, the doctrine constituted an attack on the institution of marriage and its requirement of sexual fidelity ( a prejudice).

After the professor's phone call from Iowa, I had dinner with one of his former colleagues in the UMD philosophy department who was about to leave for a position at Notre Dame. During dinner I told him about the professor's ethics class and discussion of "open marriage". I then asked him if the professor and his wife practiced "open marriage". He confirmed that they did - what I suspected. I then informed him of the divorce and custody battle, of which he was unaware. He was aware of the student who followed the professor to Iowa; he thought that that was odd.

This case is an example of what was common on campuses during the '60's (when I was in college and law school) and the 70's and 80's (when I studied philosophy part-time and also taught courses): it was chic for professors to attack traditional institutions, conventions, and taboos. Skepticism, and in philosophy Cartesian skepticism, was the tool of choice.

In this case, the professor paid a heavy price for his belief in the bad idea called "open marriage".

[artisticsolution]

This is embarassingly stupid. Your 'mentor', Richard Baron, should have told you so.

Hi Rotabend,

Richard Baron is right by not criticizing ideas but only offering helpful suggestions in order to guide people (and himself) to truth. His philosophy is not only kind but is conducive to thinking in general. We all develop at our own pace. It does not facilitate development to insult people's ideas. It only makes them shut down. I am struggling with this issue myself. It makes me a little sad I don't have Richard's intelligence let alone tolerance. All I can do is strive to become a better person. Richard Baron's patience and understanding is an inspiration to me (although I can't seem to get a grip on my hot blooded Latin side...LOL.)

Geez, I sound like a friggin political ad. I swear if Richard comes on and says, "I am Richard Baron and I approve this message..." I'll know I'm watching too much TV.

[tbieter]

Here is a link to Theodore Dalrymple's essays published by City Journal.
http://www.city-journal.org/author_index.php?author=47
ENJOY

Tom

This morning I began reading IN PRAISE OF PREJUDICE - The Necessity of Preconceived Ideas by Theodore Dalrymple.

http://www.amazon.com/Praise-Prejudice- ... 462&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1594032 ... eader-link

Here, complete, is Chapter 2 "The Uses of Metaphysical Skepticism":

"We may inquire why it is that there are now so many Descartes in the world, when in the seventeenth century there was only one. Descartes, be it remembered, who so urgently desired an indubitable first philosophical principle, was a genius: a mathematician, physicist, and philosopher who wrote in prose of such clarity, that it is still the standard by which the writing of French intellectuals is, or ought to be, judged. Have we then, bred up a race of philosophical giants, whose passion is to examine the metaphysics of human existence? I hope I will not be accused of being an Enemy of the People when I beg leave to doubt it.

The popularity of the Cartesian method is not the consequence of a desire to remove metaphysical doubt, and find certainty, but precisely the opposite: to cast doubt on everything, and thereby increase the scope of personal license, by destroying in advance any philosophical basis for the limitation on our own appetites. (My Emphasis) The radical skeptic, nowadays at least, is in search not so much in truth, as of liberty - that is to say, of liberty conceived of the largest field imaginable for the satisfaction of his whims. He is in the realm of moral conceptions what the man who refuses to marry is in the realm of relationships: he is reluctant to foreclose on any possibilities by imposing limits on himself., even ones that are taken to be purely symbolic. I once had a patient who attempted suicide because her long-time lover refused to propose to her. I asked him the reason for his refusal, and he replied that it (marriage) was only a piece of paper and meant nothing. "If it is only a piece of paper and means nothing," I asked him, "why do you not sign it? According to him, it would change nothing, but it would give her a lot of pleasure." Suddenly, becoming a man of deepest principle, he said that he did not want to live a charade. I could almost hear the argument that persuaded the man that he was right: that true love and real commitment are affaires of the heart, and need no sanction of the church or state to seal them.

The skepticism of radical skeptics who demand a Cartesian point from which to examine any question, at least any question that has some bearing on the way they ought to conduct themselves, varies according to the subject matter. Very few are so skeptical that they doubt the sun will rise tomorrow, even thought they might have difficulty offering evidence for the heliocentric (or any other) theory of the solar system. These skeptics believe that when they turn the light switch, the light will come on, even though their grasp of the theory of electricity might not be strong. A ferocious and insatiable spirit of inquiry overtakes them, however, the moment they perceive that their interests are at stake - their interests here being their freedom, or license, to act upon their whims. Then all the resources of philosophy are available to them in a flash, and are used to undermine the moral authority of custom, law, and the wisdom of the ages." pages 6-7 (Emphasis mine)

QUESTION: Generally, do you agree or disagree with the contention of the author?

My Position:

I agree.

I have been a spectator of the effects that the Sexual Revolution and the Feminist Movement have had on the institution of marriage. Rejecting marriage as a condition precedent, young women began to cohabit. But, in my experience practicing law, at about year seven, the woman would raise the issue of marriage and children. The guy would then break up with her, causing her a great amount of pain. To deal with the disputes over property incident to these breakups, the Minnesota Legislature passed a "cohabitation" law that stated that the court had no jurisdiction over the dispute if the parties had not signed a written contract.

In my opinion, males, not females, were the real beneficiaries of the doctrines of sexual freedom taught to the females in their Womens' Studies courses.

Tom

P. S. One of my philosophy professors was a young radical Ph.d out of the U. of Michigan. He railed against cars and MacDonalds. He was a vegetarian and road a bicycle. In class, I thought that he advocated "open marriage". He expressly taught that authenticity required one to actually live one's beliefs. He left UMD for a tenured position at Luther College in Iowa. A philosophy major student of his also transfered to Luther. A year or so later, he called me for legal advice. He and his wife were in a custody battle. Since their days at UMD, she had been secretly seeing the student, who now had graduated and had accepted a teaching position on the East Coast. She wanted to marry the student and take the kids with her. The end result was that he lost his wife and kids as a consequence of his belief in and practice of "open marriage".

For other case studies see http://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Mar ... dpp_ttl_in

[Rortabend]

This case is an example of what was common on campuses during the '60's (when I was in college and law school) and the 70's and 80's (when I studied philosophy part-time and also taught courses): it was chic for professors to attack traditional institutions, conventions, and taboos. Skepticism, and in philosophy Cartesian skepticism, was the tool of choice.

In this case, the professor paid a heavy price for his belief in the bad idea called "open marriage".

So one person has a bad experience with open marriage and this proves it's a bad idea!?

As someone who has taught philosophy in the past I probably don't need to remind you that Cartesian scepticism is not a revisionist project. Descartes sought to put our everyday beliefs in science and God on firm epistemological foundations. Perhaps you are confusing Cartesian scepticism with more politically motivated variants of scepticism popular in the Enlightenment.

[tbieter]

Hi Rortabend,

R: So one person has a bad experience with open marriage and this proves it's a bad idea!?

Tom: Of course, I cannot cite any studies on consequences of "open marriage". However, I do recall picking up a periodical on skepticism (it may have been Skeptical Inquiry, which I used to buy). Among the articles in one issue I bought, was a panel discussion on the Sexual Revolution. To my surprise, one of the panelists mentioned "open marriage" as failing. Another responded 'yes', that everybody ended up in divorce, and the discussion moved on, without any dissent, or any further discussion as to the reasons for the failure.

[tbieter]

Here is the article on "open marriage".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_marri ... aintenance

Hi Rortabend,

R: So one person has a bad experience with open marriage and this proves it's a bad idea!?

Tom: Of course, I cannot cite any studies on consequences of "open marriage". However, I do recall picking up a periodical on skepticism (it may have been Skeptical Inquiry, which I used to buy). Among the articles in one issue I bought, was a panel discussion on the Sexual Revolution. To my surprise, one of the panelists mentioned "open marriage" as failing. Another responded 'yes', that everybody ended up in divorce, and the discussion moved on, without any dissent, or any further discussion as to the reasons for the failure.

[tbieter]

The other day, I completed my reading of IN PRAISE OF PREJUDICE. This morning, I discover that my mentor, Richard, advocates the legalization of sexual activity in public:

Baron: "Sadly, one option does not appear to be under widespread discussion. This would be to change the law so that sex in public was always allowed, and was not a matter for police action. Obviously public nudity would need to be made fully legal, and not subject to charges of outraging public decency, breach of the peace or anything else, at the same time."
http://analysisandsynthesis.blogspot.com/

Here is Dalrymple on public decency:

"There is a great deal of everyday behavior, often thoughtlessly and prejudicially reprobated, of which the same might be said. What is wrong, for example, with littering the countryside? Who is actually harmed by it? The horrible aesthetic effect is no argument, because aesthetics are a matter of taste only, of opinion and not of fact, inherently indemonstrable to others. Mill specifically rejects such grounds for prohibiting anything. Moral disgust (whose metaphysical underpinnings, or lack thereof, are the same as those of aesthetic judgment), be it ever so strong, can never be the basis of prohibition. The disgusted person may expostulate and argue against, and avoid the company of, the person of whose conduct he disapproves, but he must not seek to change it by means of prohibition or legal sanctions. On this view, of course, even necrophilia would be permissible, since the only harm done by it would be the outrage to the feelings of those who are disgusted by it; but that counts for nothing, less than a feather in the balance." pp. 66-67

This morning I began reading IN PRAISE OF PREJUDICE - The Necessity of Preconceived Ideas by Theodore Dalrymple.

http://www.amazon.com/Praise-Prejudice- ... 462&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1594032 ... eader-link

Here, complete, is Chapter 2 "The Uses of Metaphysical Skepticism":

"We may inquire why it is that there are now so many Descartes in the world, when in the seventeenth century there was only one. Descartes, be it remembered, who so urgently desired an indubitable first philosophical principle, was a genius: a mathematician, physicist, and philosopher who wrote in prose of such clarity, that it is still the standard by which the writing of French intellectuals is, or ought to be, judged. Have we then, bred up a race of philosophical giants, whose passion is to examine the metaphysics of human existence? I hope I will not be accused of being an Enemy of the People when I beg leave to doubt it.

The popularity of the Cartesian method is not the consequence of a desire to remove metaphysical doubt, and find certainty, but precisely the opposite: to cast doubt on everything, and thereby increase the scope of personal license, by destroying in advance any philosophical basis for the limitation on our own appetites. (My Emphasis) The radical skeptic, nowadays at least, is in search not so much in truth, as of liberty - that is to say, of liberty conceived of the largest field imaginable for the satisfaction of his whims. He is in the realm of moral conceptions what the man who refuses to marry is in the realm of relationships: he is reluctant to foreclose on any possibilities by imposing limits on himself., even ones that are taken to be purely symbolic. I once had a patient who attempted suicide because her long-time lover refused to propose to her. I asked him the reason for his refusal, and he replied that it (marriage) was only a piece of paper and meant nothing. "If it is only a piece of paper and means nothing," I asked him, "why do you not sign it? According to him, it would change nothing, but it would give her a lot of pleasure." Suddenly, becoming a man of deepest principle, he said that he did not want to live a charade. I could almost hear the argument that persuaded the man that he was right: that true love and real commitment are affaires of the heart, and need no sanction of the church or state to seal them.

The skepticism of radical skeptics who demand a Cartesian point from which to examine any question, at least any question that has some bearing on the way they ought to conduct themselves, varies according to the subject matter. Very few are so skeptical that they doubt the sun will rise tomorrow, even thought they might have difficulty offering evidence for the heliocentric (or any other) theory of the solar system. These skeptics believe that when they turn the light switch, the light will come on, even though their grasp of the theory of electricity might not be strong. A ferocious and insatiable spirit of inquiry overtakes them, however, the moment they perceive that their interests are at stake - their interests here being their freedom, or license, to act upon their whims. Then all the resources of philosophy are available to them in a flash, and are used to undermine the moral authority of custom, law, and the wisdom of the ages." pages 6-7 (Emphasis mine)

QUESTION: Generally, do you agree or disagree with the contention of the author?

My Position:

I agree.

I have been a spectator of the effects that the Sexual Revolution and the Feminist Movement have had on the institution of marriage. Rejecting marriage as a condition precedent, young women began to cohabit. But, in my experience practicing law, at about year seven, the woman would raise the issue of marriage and children. The guy would then break up with her, causing her a great amount of pain. To deal with the disputes over property incident to these breakups, the Minnesota Legislature passed a "cohabitation" law that stated that the court had no jurisdiction over the dispute if the parties had not signed a written contract.

In my opinion, males, not females, were the real beneficiaries of the doctrines of sexual freedom taught to the females in their Womens' Studies courses.

Tom

P. S. One of my philosophy professors was a young radical Ph.d out of the U. of Michigan. He railed against cars and MacDonalds. He was a vegetarian and road a bicycle. In class, I thought that he advocated "open marriage". He expressly taught that authenticity required one to actually live one's beliefs. He left UMD for a tenured position at Luther College in Iowa. A philosophy major student of his also transfered to Luther. A year or so later, he called me for legal advice. He and his wife were in a custody battle. Since their days at UMD, she had been secretly seeing the student, who now had graduated and had accepted a teaching position on the East Coast. She wanted to marry the student and take the kids with her. The end result was that he lost his wife and kids as a consequence of his belief in and practice of "open marriage".

For other case studies see http://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Mar ... dpp_ttl_in

[Rortabend]

What is wrong, for example, with littering the countryside? Who is actually harmed by it?

Hedgehogs?

[Richard Baron]

Ah, public sex and litter, a challenging comparison. I had not thought of that. And I very much dislike litter, whether in the countryside or in the city, while I admire people who, on noticing other people's litter, pick it up and take it to a dustbin.

I can think of two possible ways of reconciling my views. Others will have to tell me whether either of them succeeds.

1. Litter is different because no-one is deprived of any worthwhile free expression by being forbidden to drop litter. So a law against the dropping of litter, enforced using penalties, is all gain and no loss. Sex is different. Some people have a perfectly reasonable and understandable urge to get very demonstrative in public.

I can see two ways in which this argument might be attacked, and there may well be others.

1(a). Some, including some contemporary artists, might find the dropping of litter a worthwhile expression of themselves or of their art.

1(b) Getting frisky in public might not add any worthwhile self-expression to getting frisky in private.

2. Neither public sex nor littering should be forbidden by law, but everyone who is opposed to either of them should be free to express their disapproval, and to encourage others to express their disapproval. In general, I think it is worth recognising a large region of conduct which is considered to be bad manners, in between the illegal and the generally approved, and not to try to make manners a matter for the law. Perhaps both public sex and littering could fall into that region.

An objection to this approach would be that it might not work. There might be too much public sex, and too much litter. There would indeed be no certainty in advance about the outcome. But there would at least be fewer laws, and fewer distractions for the police from really serious matters.

[Psychonaut]

Demonstrating harm from littering is considerably easier than that of public sex.

I would be inclined to go along with Richard's suggestion, though, that neither should be illegal. Further, I would suggest that illegality is likely to encourage littering, by removing the ethical conundrum from people's minds and turning it into a black & white 'to obey or to not obey'.

Litter is bad, and this is something that anyone can easily understand, and so avoid littering. As Richard says, there are plenty as are willing to remove other's litter and, failing that, we have street sweepers employed for the very purpose.

Public sex comes with no problem that requires resolving.
The comparison between littering and public sex falls down before it has begun; there is nothing which the two have in common aside from their being public acts.

The grounds which people may use to describe it as a form of pollution (sight pollution?) can equally be used to describe anything we find aesthetically unpleasing, including (on the part of naturists) the clothes which you are swaddling yourself in or (on the part of snobby aesthetes) your face.

While I do not doubt that the disgust that some people feel at public sex is heartfelt, if we universalise the principle that disgust is a justification for prohibition, then we would end up in a very sticky corner indeed.
This is an all-too-common problem regarding universalising principles, people tend to only universalise their conclusions, and not the line of reasoning that got them there.

[tbieter]

Good morning Richard,

But do you really want to live in a city where people can legally, in public, and at will, engage in all forms of sexual activity, litter, defecate, urinate, and do anything else while proclaiming the right to do so because such actions cause no harm others?

Dalrymple didn't. He retired and moved to France.

Tom

[Rortabend]

Tom,

On a related topic, how do you feel about breastfeeding in public?