If you have some prior knowledge of my thoughts on faith, fate, and other teleological phenomena, you might suspect that I would be dubious of things happening for a reason. But from time to time, I find coincidence interesting enough to comment upon. Tonight I watched one of the first great movies I have seen in quite some time. Milk is brilliant. Sean Penn deserved the Oscar, Dustin Lance Black deserved the Oscar. The United States deserves a slap on the wrist.
I returned to Nashville, TN for the first time in over two years this week. I was flooded with memories from my time there with my wife. Most of them were good. I have no regrets from my time there. But I was also reminded of the lapses I had while there. I remembered the conversation I had on one of those first visits. Sitting outside a restaurant, discussing many innocuous things, a not-so-innocuous issue came up. I remember the words: "I would be heartbroken if my brother told me he was gay." I was shocked.
These were strange words for me to hear. At that point, I was immersed in the punk scene, where matters of sexuality had moved beyond Judeo-Christian expectations. I was used to a discourse that found homosexuality to be anything but strange. But here I was, faced with a well-educated and incredibly bright individual that saw such a lifestyle to be antithetical to happiness. This was 2003. Give or take. Milk was set in the late 1970s.
I do not know if I have anything incredibly original to say here. My point is this: my point is that prejudices of a past that no longer benefit contemporary society should be discarded. My point is that a society that allows people to flourish and be happy is better than one that imposes restrictions that benefit no one and oppress many. My point is that as long as we favor oppression over acceptance, we will fail to meet the moral imperatives of thoughtful people, be they religious or secular.
I will step off my soap box now.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Friday, June 27, 2008
Some crap about rights
I've been attempting to be a better citizen and read the news more often. The first thing that came up in the New York Times this morning was about the Supreme Court's landmark ruling on the second amendment. The funny (or sad) thing about a lot of those amendments: they aren't written very clearly. I mean, if I wrote a sentence like the following in a philosophy paper, MacAvoy would have had my ass: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Who writes like that? And I've read some books from that era; David Hume, for example, knew how to construct a sentence. But he was writing about causation (among other things). Which is more important: metaphysics, or the codification of rights for a nation's citizenry?
It's not like I've never read that sentence before, but reading the differing opinions of Scalia and Stevens really highlights the ambiguity. Perhaps we could disambiguate without the loaded content. Take the following: "A well-greased bearing, being necessary for a skateboard's rolling smoothly, a skateboarder has the right to WD-40." [Editor's note: Do not, under any circumstance, use WD-40 for greasing your bearings. They will rust out and your skateboard will not roll smoothly, regardless of your rights.] Alright, so we have a thing (the bearing), its function (providing smoothness to a skateboard's rolling), and a right that people enjoy to contribute to that thing doing what it is supposed to do (allowing the ownership of WD-40). It is as if the first two-thirds of the sentence ("A well-greased bearing, being necessary for a skateboard's rolling smoothly") provides justification for the last clause. On this reading, you might just as easily rewrite the sentence as follows: "Given that a skateboard's rolling smoothly requires a well-greased bearing, skateboarders have the right to WD-40."
Alright, now consider the following scenario: Some advances in skateboard bearing technology leaves greasing your bearings unnecessary. While these advances are being made, countless skateboarders have been injured by the spontaneous combustion of cans of WD-40. If the declaration of skateboarders rights says "Given that a skateboard's rolling smoothly requires a well-greased bearing..." then if some event makes this statement untrue, would the final clause not be called into question? No longer does a skateboard's smooth rolling hinge on it being greased, so the rights might then need to be modified (especially since these poor kids keep losing their hands in tragic WD-40 accidents). It seems like it reads more like an "if-then" statement. IF a skateboard's rolling smoothly requires a well-greased bearing, THEN a skateboarder has a right to WD-40. It would be like saying, "given that the man murdered his wife, he must serve life in prison," which reads a lot like, "if the man murdered his wife, then he must serve life in prison." This isn't to say that the final clause is necessitated by the first part of the sentence (that would be one of those fallacy things...Denying the antecedent, I believe). Even if he didn't kill his wife, the man might have done something else to justify his lifetime incarceration. Similarly, there might be some other really good reason for skateboarders to own WD-40, but the development of new technology and the danger of WD-40 should give legislators pause to reconsider this particular bestowal of rights.
So does any of this work for the second amendment? Is it equivalent to say, "Given that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be be infringed"? I'm sure Scalia would say it is not equivalent, but he hasn't returned my e-mails, so who knows. But if it is, if Scalia is wrong, then can we not likely agree that a well regulated militia is not necessary for the security of a free state? Might we not then pause and reconsider the nature of the right to bear arms? I suppose that is what the Supreme Court did yesterday. And I'm not sure if I disagree completely with the decision; I just feel like we might do well to come up with a clearer statement regarding the right to bear arms and how it might be justifiably infringed upon. I think it is consistent with liberalism to have the right to protect yourself, and even to hunt so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. So what am I saying differently? I don't know. That was a bit of a waste of time, now wasn't it?
It's not like I've never read that sentence before, but reading the differing opinions of Scalia and Stevens really highlights the ambiguity. Perhaps we could disambiguate without the loaded content. Take the following: "A well-greased bearing, being necessary for a skateboard's rolling smoothly, a skateboarder has the right to WD-40." [Editor's note: Do not, under any circumstance, use WD-40 for greasing your bearings. They will rust out and your skateboard will not roll smoothly, regardless of your rights.] Alright, so we have a thing (the bearing), its function (providing smoothness to a skateboard's rolling), and a right that people enjoy to contribute to that thing doing what it is supposed to do (allowing the ownership of WD-40). It is as if the first two-thirds of the sentence ("A well-greased bearing, being necessary for a skateboard's rolling smoothly") provides justification for the last clause. On this reading, you might just as easily rewrite the sentence as follows: "Given that a skateboard's rolling smoothly requires a well-greased bearing, skateboarders have the right to WD-40."
Alright, now consider the following scenario: Some advances in skateboard bearing technology leaves greasing your bearings unnecessary. While these advances are being made, countless skateboarders have been injured by the spontaneous combustion of cans of WD-40. If the declaration of skateboarders rights says "Given that a skateboard's rolling smoothly requires a well-greased bearing..." then if some event makes this statement untrue, would the final clause not be called into question? No longer does a skateboard's smooth rolling hinge on it being greased, so the rights might then need to be modified (especially since these poor kids keep losing their hands in tragic WD-40 accidents). It seems like it reads more like an "if-then" statement. IF a skateboard's rolling smoothly requires a well-greased bearing, THEN a skateboarder has a right to WD-40. It would be like saying, "given that the man murdered his wife, he must serve life in prison," which reads a lot like, "if the man murdered his wife, then he must serve life in prison." This isn't to say that the final clause is necessitated by the first part of the sentence (that would be one of those fallacy things...Denying the antecedent, I believe). Even if he didn't kill his wife, the man might have done something else to justify his lifetime incarceration. Similarly, there might be some other really good reason for skateboarders to own WD-40, but the development of new technology and the danger of WD-40 should give legislators pause to reconsider this particular bestowal of rights.
So does any of this work for the second amendment? Is it equivalent to say, "Given that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be be infringed"? I'm sure Scalia would say it is not equivalent, but he hasn't returned my e-mails, so who knows. But if it is, if Scalia is wrong, then can we not likely agree that a well regulated militia is not necessary for the security of a free state? Might we not then pause and reconsider the nature of the right to bear arms? I suppose that is what the Supreme Court did yesterday. And I'm not sure if I disagree completely with the decision; I just feel like we might do well to come up with a clearer statement regarding the right to bear arms and how it might be justifiably infringed upon. I think it is consistent with liberalism to have the right to protect yourself, and even to hunt so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. So what am I saying differently? I don't know. That was a bit of a waste of time, now wasn't it?
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Love Story
Sometimes, despite all the infidelities, you can still return to your first love. It is true: she must look past your indiscretions over the years, your distractions that kept you away from her; you must look past all the pain she has put you through, all the money you have spent on her. Perhaps you will be stronger for it, more committed, more devoted. Indeed, the benefits might be innumerable, their value, unmeasurable.
I say this with the confidence that comes only with experience. These past few months I have fallen back into a routine that I thought I had long abandoned. One I think my mother wished I had given up on. I sense she has never been incredibly comfortable with the twelve year, off again, (mostly) on again relationship. Despite all the ups and downs, I once again find myself skateboarding again.
It is not completely like riding a bike: I doubt I will ever again throw myself down a thirteen set or a handrail. I don't foresee myself pushing physical limitations for the sake of video footage. And I will probably never receive free boards or wheels again. But in some ways this is freeing. Knowing that I am once again skating for the pure love of it, for the communal aspects of it, for the thrill of it, knowing that makes it all the more fun. Knowing that at a quarter century I can still go to the local skatepark and find like-minded people is reassuring, given that I will likely be moving again in the years to come. And admittedly, knowing that I can still garner a few cheers for a solid landing is rather satisfying.
Sometimes it is rather nice to rekindle an old flame.
I say this with the confidence that comes only with experience. These past few months I have fallen back into a routine that I thought I had long abandoned. One I think my mother wished I had given up on. I sense she has never been incredibly comfortable with the twelve year, off again, (mostly) on again relationship. Despite all the ups and downs, I once again find myself skateboarding again.
It is not completely like riding a bike: I doubt I will ever again throw myself down a thirteen set or a handrail. I don't foresee myself pushing physical limitations for the sake of video footage. And I will probably never receive free boards or wheels again. But in some ways this is freeing. Knowing that I am once again skating for the pure love of it, for the communal aspects of it, for the thrill of it, knowing that makes it all the more fun. Knowing that at a quarter century I can still go to the local skatepark and find like-minded people is reassuring, given that I will likely be moving again in the years to come. And admittedly, knowing that I can still garner a few cheers for a solid landing is rather satisfying.
Sometimes it is rather nice to rekindle an old flame.
Skating in the Woods
Original video can be viewed here (and presumably made to fit the screen):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2iY22iQjwY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2iY22iQjwY
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Meeting people is easy
Chuck Palahniuk opens his book of essays with the following: "If you haven't already noticed, all my books are about a lonely person looking for some way to connect with other people." Perhaps this provides some explanation for my affinity towards his novels; I have been that person. The ways I have attempted to connect with other people include taking up skateboarding, being active in my church youth group, involving myself in the punk rock community, driving back and forth from Nashville, joining the Philosophy Club, and most recently, going off to grad school. While Palahniuk's examples tend to be a bit more absurd (starting fight clubs, joining masochistic writing communities, and most recently, signing up for a marathon porn shoot), there are certain themes that permeate his novels and tease out a salient feature of contemporary society. To my knowledge, there has never been a time when the majority of people spend a significant portion of their lives worrying about things not intrinsically tied to their survival. Let's call it leisure time. With this leisure time, we have come to fill our lives, not with people intrinsically tied to our own survival, but with people largely of our own choosing who enjoy filling their leisure time in similar ways. Let's call them friends. But as Philip Larkin has famously pointed out about your mum and dad, I think the same might be said of our friends: They fuck you up.
It seems that finding groups of people with similar interests isn't all that difficult, but making connections with those people gets harder with age. For better or worse, I spent the vast majority of my life in one city. As a result, I have spent a great deal of my mature(?) life with a small group of incredibly close friends. For this I am thankful. But that doesn't mean it didn't fuck me up. It's sort of like the time someone told me my parents' relationship gave me unrealistic expectations for a marriage (to which I replied: "But it is a realistic expectation"). Having my history with Kevin, Chase, Jason, Bobby, my coworkers from JCPL, my fellow students in the Philosophy Department, and all the other friends that have passed through Johnson City, contributed to me creating certain standards. Let's call them high expectations. As is the case with all expectations, when they aren't met, it can be a bit of a bummer. Which explains why I was only half-joking on all my trips back home when I said I might just stay in Johnson City.
Lately things have taken a turn for the better. I feel much more comfortable in my surroundings; I've created connections with some really great people; I'm trying not to take myself so seriously. But old habits die hard. Having the group of friends that I did back home--a tight knit group of intelligent, like-minded individuals (who sometimes tend towards the offensive and wildly inappropriate)--contributed to me creating certain intellectual dispositions. Let's call them prejudices. They're prejudices because as much as I would like to think all my beliefs and ideas are well founded on solid facts and sound argumentation, that's not the whole story. The truth is: They're prejudices because when my friends joined me in a chorus of "hoorah"s and "booh"s to the things we did and didn't agree with, I felt more justified in my agreement or disagreement. Let's call it herd mentality. Keeping the mentality when the herd is far away is not always so helpful. It has been pointed out that I have a tendency to be...let's say...less than charitable with alternative ways of thinking about the world. It is said that I can sometimes be dismissive. It is rumored that I can be a bit of an asshole. Let's call it self-awareness.
While the moral of the story is probably something like: "If you want to make connections with people you have to allow for a little rewiring," I'll admit I'm not overwhelmingly optimistic. Not to be too deterministic, but I do wonder how much change we are capable of achieving by our own lights (see Rickety Rosie). But maybe it is just an issue of mindfulness; now that I am more aware of my tendency to be dismissive of thoughts not my own, of how this might come off to people, I might just raise a red flag when I catch myself doing it. I might just take a breath, step back, and listen to what others have to say. Let's call it growing up.
It seems that finding groups of people with similar interests isn't all that difficult, but making connections with those people gets harder with age. For better or worse, I spent the vast majority of my life in one city. As a result, I have spent a great deal of my mature(?) life with a small group of incredibly close friends. For this I am thankful. But that doesn't mean it didn't fuck me up. It's sort of like the time someone told me my parents' relationship gave me unrealistic expectations for a marriage (to which I replied: "But it is a realistic expectation"). Having my history with Kevin, Chase, Jason, Bobby, my coworkers from JCPL, my fellow students in the Philosophy Department, and all the other friends that have passed through Johnson City, contributed to me creating certain standards. Let's call them high expectations. As is the case with all expectations, when they aren't met, it can be a bit of a bummer. Which explains why I was only half-joking on all my trips back home when I said I might just stay in Johnson City.
Lately things have taken a turn for the better. I feel much more comfortable in my surroundings; I've created connections with some really great people; I'm trying not to take myself so seriously. But old habits die hard. Having the group of friends that I did back home--a tight knit group of intelligent, like-minded individuals (who sometimes tend towards the offensive and wildly inappropriate)--contributed to me creating certain intellectual dispositions. Let's call them prejudices. They're prejudices because as much as I would like to think all my beliefs and ideas are well founded on solid facts and sound argumentation, that's not the whole story. The truth is: They're prejudices because when my friends joined me in a chorus of "hoorah"s and "booh"s to the things we did and didn't agree with, I felt more justified in my agreement or disagreement. Let's call it herd mentality. Keeping the mentality when the herd is far away is not always so helpful. It has been pointed out that I have a tendency to be...let's say...less than charitable with alternative ways of thinking about the world. It is said that I can sometimes be dismissive. It is rumored that I can be a bit of an asshole. Let's call it self-awareness.
While the moral of the story is probably something like: "If you want to make connections with people you have to allow for a little rewiring," I'll admit I'm not overwhelmingly optimistic. Not to be too deterministic, but I do wonder how much change we are capable of achieving by our own lights (see Rickety Rosie). But maybe it is just an issue of mindfulness; now that I am more aware of my tendency to be dismissive of thoughts not my own, of how this might come off to people, I might just raise a red flag when I catch myself doing it. I might just take a breath, step back, and listen to what others have to say. Let's call it growing up.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Slight change of pace
From Jonah Lehrer to Chuck Palahniuk:
"We now know enough to know that we will never know everything. This is why we need art: it teaches us how to live with mystery. Only the artist can explore the ineffable without offering us an answer, for sometimes there is no answer."
"Cassie said maybe if she was stupid and desperate, really clutching at straws and emotionally needy, utterly destroyed, she'd accept my proposal--so I figured there was still hope."
And now on to Philip Zimbardo...
"We now know enough to know that we will never know everything. This is why we need art: it teaches us how to live with mystery. Only the artist can explore the ineffable without offering us an answer, for sometimes there is no answer."
"Cassie said maybe if she was stupid and desperate, really clutching at straws and emotionally needy, utterly destroyed, she'd accept my proposal--so I figured there was still hope."
And now on to Philip Zimbardo...
Quotes that started my day...
...Both from Proust Was a Neuroscientist:
"To understand ourselves as works of fiction is to understand ourselves as fully as we can." I wish I had that one when I was working on my thesis.
"To say that we should drop the idea of truth as out there waiting to be discovered is not to say that we have discovered that, out there, there is no truth." --Richard Rorty
"To understand ourselves as works of fiction is to understand ourselves as fully as we can." I wish I had that one when I was working on my thesis.
"To say that we should drop the idea of truth as out there waiting to be discovered is not to say that we have discovered that, out there, there is no truth." --Richard Rorty
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
