Kurt Andersen: What are you staring at?
Nate Carley: Oh my God, Kurt Andersen!
Kurt Andersen: What do you want and how do you know me?
Kurt Andersen: [Looks at Nate with a dull look in his eye completely uninterested]
Nate Carley: I recently read your book and I am a big fan. I just wanted to say so.
Nate Carley: [Paused while looking skeptical]
Nate Carley: Why do you look so sad and what are you doing here of all p
laces?
Kurt Andersen: Well, you read the book. You know exactly why; fantasyland is all around us. I just went into the first bar I could find.
Scene: Julien Baggini and Nigel Warburton walk into the bar having a conversation. Julien Baggini seems unusually analytical of every word coming out of Warburton’s mouth. They walk up to the bar and have a seat next to the other two. Baggini talks to the bar tender.
Julien Baggini: Does this place have Kentucky bourbon?
Bar tender: Of course
Julien Baggini: How is it?
Bar tender: Ask that guy over there, it’s what he’s having.
Bar tender: [motions to Andersen]
Julien Baggini: [Directs attention to Kurt Andersen]
Julien Baggini: Hello, I’m a tourist sightseeing around America. Tell me, how do you like the Kentucky bourbon served here?
Kurt Andersen: Opinions are funny things in America. I’d refrain from asking anyone anything around here unless you have to.
Julien Baggini: What do you mean?
Kurt Andersen: America can be summed up in the following statement “If I think it’s true, no matter why or how I think it’s true, then its true, and nobody can tell me otherwise” (FL pg.49). They are unreasonable, magic believing, and anti-logical creatures. It can be dangerous if you aren’t careful. You might get swept up in fantasyland.
Nigel Warburton: [Cuts into the conversation before Baggini can respond]
Nigel Warburton: I think Jeremy Bentham would say that having a mindset like that isn’t a particularly bad thing. In fact, I think he would actually say that was a good thing. This stems from “Bentham’s theory about how we should live. Known as utilitarianism or the Greatest Happiness Principle, this is the idea that the right thing to do is whatever will produce the most happiness” (LH pg.122). Bentham would say that if creating your own reality created the greatest amount of happiness then you should do it.
Kurt Anderson: Who are you and why are you talking about Jeremy Bentham?
Julien Baggini: Forgive my new friend, he is a little scatter brained. Ever since I met him, he has only given me the thoughts of other philosophers to ponder and none of his own really.
Julien Baggini: [Speaks to Warburton defending Andersen]
Julien Baggini: I don’t think that this man is trying to decide what is best for the individual. I think he is talking more about what is best the collective. I wrote a lot about this sort of thing while traveling. I think it is best summed up in my experience in Japan. The stereo type of the Japanese society is that of conformism as if they were nothing but drones but that is not my experience. “They were not so much conformist as pro-social” (HWT pg.191). I think this might be what this man wants out of the American public.
Kurt Andersen: You know I can speak for my self right? My name is Kurt Anderson by the way, and this is Nate Carley.
Kurt Andersen: [Gestures to Nate Carley sitting beside him]
Nate Carley: It’s very nice to meet you guys. What do you think about sitting down for a chat about philosophy and the state of the world sense you all are so interested? I’ll buy a round of
drinks.
All in unison: If its bourbon agreed!!!
All: Sit down at the bar together.
Nate Carley: My question to you all is the following: Do you think philosophy can help people in America to learn to respect truth, facts, reality, and one another, and to reject falsehood, superstition, selfishness, polarization, partisanship, and mutual hostility based on differences of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, belief, etc.? If so, how? If not, why not?
Kurt Andersen: The lack of respect for facts and the over undulance in superstitions in America began with the Protestant Reformation in England. The idea that anyone could interpret the Bible then was radicalized by the puritans. When the puritans became too much for Europe they came over to America and started their own little world. They became even more fantastical in America and we are still reaping the repercussions of it all (FL Chp 4). America’s neglect of facts is a part of American life. From John Wesley, “America’s Spiritual Founding Father” (FL pg.47-49), and the “miracles now” mentality to Walt Disney and the creation of Disneyland in America. America is in love with the fantastical and they will step on anyone and anything while they sensationalize it. In short, no. I don’t think so.
Nate Carley: I agree, I think as long as people in America have the opportunity to disagree, they will. Especially when they have so many ideas to choose from like within philosophy. I can find a person that supports just about any idea under the sun in philosophy. I think within the right hands it can change lives for the better, but it definitely isn’t a sure thing and I think for America that is enough for it to go terribly wrong. I think people would just find a way to support exactly what they are currently doing.
Nigel Warburton: I agree, what immediately comes to mind are the philosophical teachings of William James. James’ theory on truth boils down to a quite simple phrase. “Truth is what works” (LH pg.166). This meant that truth is simply what works best for the daily lives of the individual. For example, if God being real for a person is useful in a positive way then that is a good truth for that person to have. If God being real doesn’t work for someone else, then that shouldn’t be true for them. Truth in this view is supposed to have a more practical application rather than one outside of the individual. If it doesn’t serve a practical purpose in a positive way to a person then there is no point in it being true (LH chp 28). Armed with a philosophical view like this I can’t see how anyone would come to respect any universal truth. With that gone everything else false apart as well.
Julien Baggini: Nigel, you hit the nail on the head! What you are describing is the philosophical tradition of pragmatism. “Pragmatism’s philosophical lineage extends back to British empiricism” (HWT pg.81). However, it is the philosophical tradition America was founded on. I agree that Americans will never reach a consensus on “the truth” as in a scientific truth that makes sense using facts about the world, we live in. However, I don’t think that America’s society has to suffer for it. You see, at least in the philosophical tradition, people can come to a consensus on a truth. One of the founding fathers of pragmatism Peirce said “The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate, is that we mean by truth and the objects represented in this opinion is real” (HWT pg. 84). This means that there is hope for a consensus of truth and that is the closest we can get. In fact, Peirce even said “To make single individuals absolute judges of truth is most pernicious” (HWT pg. 84). This “pernicious” form of pragmatism is exactly what took hold in America. This form of pragmatism, I believe, is the root cause of the real problem, that being the hostility toward others in America. “The solution is not to get Americans to think less like Americans, but to get them to appreciate better the virtues of their indigenous pragmatic philosophers” (HWT pg.89).
Nate Carley: Wow, great response! I think we can all get behind that idea and maybe we can all be a little more positive on the subject. Thank you all for joining me and the drinks were defiantly worth it.
That was a fun conversation. In bourbon, veritas!
ReplyDeleteJust one small quibble: I don't think Kurt's quite the sullen & surly contrarian you make him out to be, though his analysis of our history might very well predict that he would be. When you hear him speak, though, he comes across as a positive and even cheerful person.
I figured that he probably wasnt as sullen as I discribed here. I just wanted to portray the character that I had in my mind while reading. Kurt Andersen here is more so a projection of my emotions while reading him. However, i tried to do him as much justice as I could with his responses. I think everything I said here would be something he would say even though the mannerisms would be different.
DeleteNate, Thank you for your blogpost. I always appreciate your participation in discussion during class.I was interested in your take on this project. I enjoyed your creativity. It's funny reading your critique of Andersen. I wished that you, like myself, could have lived through the 60s, 70s, and 80s. What I read in "Fantasyland" was all too familiar to me. I would be interested in your thoughts after your read other history books on that period or watched some documentaries. You would have probably have enjoyed living then. I love William James' approach to philosophy and I appreciate Baggini's insight into Chinese philosophy. So much to learn, so little time to learn it. Thank you for inserting the video about Jeremy Bentham. It's always nice when they work. Good job.
ReplyDeleteThank You Don, Its always a pleasure working with you.
Delete