Midterm- Respectful "Debate"

 This scene is modeled around a debate like the presidential debate. But, it’s pretty twisted from what probably comes into your mind, as both sides agree on most things and are respectful to each other. One candidate is more pleasing and seems more kind, like Biden, and this is the author of How the World Thinks, Julian Baggini. The second candidate is very sure in his answers, but he isn’t always kind in how he words his answers. This is the author of Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire, Kurt Anderson. (His character had to be the Trump character only because his argument is one-sided and Baggini’s includes other sides, though I know Anderson definitely has no views like Trump and is the exact opposite in most every other way.) The "moderator" is really just author of A Little History of Philosophy, Nigel Warburton, giving facts and context as to certain philosophers or ideas. And lastly, philosophy student, Barbara Frizzell, will ask the questions that the candidates will answer and give her opinion at the end. (Barbara Frizzell, Section 11) 

 

FRIZZELL: Hello, Mr. Anderson and Mr. Baggini. Thank you for being here Mr. Warburton. Today our topic is what philosophy prioritizes and rejects. I also want y'all to explain how or why it is/does these things. Now for the first question. Does philosophy respect truth, facts, reality, and one another? 

 

ANDERSON: I would say that it mostly does, but I want to stress the importance of reality in philosophy. Very early on in America “we let a hundred dogmatic iterations of reality bloom” and the “result was an anything-goes relativism that extends beyond religion to almost every kind of passionate belief: If I think it’s true, no matter why or how I think it’s true, then it’s true, and nobody can tell me otherwise… [This is] the real-life reductio ad absurdum of American individualism… and a credo of Fantasyland,” as I call the United States (p49). This issue in how America philosophizes and thinks blatantly denies reality, which is extremely important when you are trying to understand the world. This problem permanently took root in America in the 60’s, as I consider this the time when “reason and rationality were over,” specifically focusing on the countercultural movements and the people pushing against those movements (p181). 

 

FRIZZELL: Mr. Baggini, your response to this comment? 

 

BAGGINI: I agree that sometimes the West is too pragmatic, especially in the US. When people take pragmatism to the extreme “relativism in which anyone can claim as true whatever they happen to find useful” it becomes “dangerous.” (p84) “Americans, with their frequent paeans to the common man, appear to have more faith in ordinary people than in experts and elites. Afterall, populist discontent with elites is a phenomenon across the Western world, but only America gave a vulgar property developer the presidency.” (p86) I think that maybe if people require it, it would be best if they adjusted to a different kind of pragmatism that acknowledged that things aren’t true because they say it is. 

 

WARBURTON: This new pragmatism can be found in Richard Rorty. He wasn’t concerned with a one true reality, but his pragmatism was different from the dangerous pragmatism that you described. “He declared that ‘truth is what your contemporaries let you get away with’ and that no period of history gets reality more nearly right than any other.” “[He] simply rejected the idea that any one view is correct for all time.” (p169-170)

 

BAGGINI: Exactly, “pragmatism for Rorty is driven by the value of solidarity, which means that ‘the value of cooperative human inquiry has only an ethical base, not an epistemological or metaphysical one’. The function of belief is to bind us together, to make collective endeavor possible. It simply doesn’t matter whether those beliefs correspond to some absolute reality.” (p85) 

 

ANDERSON: I agree that dogmatic pragmatism is the true problem, but I still think that reality matters most in philosophy, even if it disrespects others. 

 

FRIZZELL: And now it’s your turn Mr. Baggini. Do you think philosophy respects truth, facts, reality, and one another? 

 

BAGGINI: Yes, and the most important aspect to me is that philosophy should respect others. I’ve had to practice this respect constantly while I researched other philosophies to compare them to that of the West “One value of comparative philosophy is that by exposing the different assumptions of others… our own assumptions will come to the fore.” (p xiv) I have found that “If we assume too readily that we can see things from others’ point of view we end up seeing them from merely a variation of our own.” (p xix) By “borrowing another way of thinking, [we] can bring a fresh perspective to or world.” (p115) This is summed up perfectly by Rene Descartes, who “wrote in his Discourse on Method, ‘In my travelling, I learned that those who have views very different from our own are not therefore barbarians or savages, but that several use as much reason as we do, or more.’” (p xxi)

 

FRIZZELL: Mr. Anderson, your response to this comment? 

 

ANDERSON: I think the idea of this sounds nice, but as I’ve looked within America, I know I could not uphold this idea. A quick disclaimer: “I don’t consider all religion or all alternative belief systems or all conspiracy theories or all impossible dreams misguided. Each of us is on a spectrum between the poles of rational and irrational.” (p4-5) “[But] what’s problematic is going overboard and letting the subjective entirely override the objective, people thinking and acting as if opinions and feelings were just as true as facts.” (p5) “[B]eing American means we can believe any damn thing we want, our beliefs are equal or superior to anyone else’s, experts be damned. Once people commit to that approach, the world turns inside out, and no cause-and-effect connection is fixed.” (p7) This was worsened through anthropology in the 60’s, which is “where the exotic magical beliefs of ‘traditional’ cultures were the main subject, the new paradigm took over almost completely- Don’t judge, don’t disbelieve, don’t flash down the street pointing your professional plastic finger…In the 1960’s much of anthropology decided that oracles, diviners, incantations, and magical objects should be not just respected but considered equivalent to reason and science.” (p192) “[O]nce the intellectual mainstream thoroughly accepted the notion that there are many equally valid realities and truths… all the barbicans could have their claim taken seriously.” (p196) “[American] Christian religiosity, in particular our pseudo-hyperrational kind, [which] amounts to belief in the grandest and greatest conspiracy of all: God the mastermind plotting and executing His all-encompassing scheme, assisted by a team of co-conspirators, the angels and prophets.” (p89)

 

BAGGINI: “We must acknowledge that the strict secularization of philosophy is itself a philosophical position that requires justification. To simply stipulate that faith separates you from philosophy is as deeply unphilosophical as stipulating that a sacred text must have the last word. Both positions need to be argued for as a shared philosophical enterprise.” (p51) So, I think what you are arguing is relevant as long as you acknowledge that secularization is not greater than theology. Relevant to this is William James’ idea that “religious belief appears to work. It has a cash-value in terms of giving people meaning, purpose, values, and a sense of belonging.” (p87) James thought that “religion is true because it is useful, and since that is the same as saying it is useful because it is true, it is true.” (p87) 

 

WARBURTON: William James thought “pragmatism is concerned with practical consequences - the ‘cash-value’ of thought. [He thought] if nothing hangs on the answer, it doesn’t really matter what you decide.” (p165) “[He thought that] it’s not that truth is ‘out there’ waiting for us to find it. Truth for James was simply was works, what has a beneficial impact on our lives.” (p165) “According to James’ pragmatic theory of truth, what makes... [something] true is that believing it produces useful results for us.” (p167) “He thought that [the ‘God exists’] statement was true” because “it was a useful opinion to have” (p167) and is “good for the believer to believe it.” (p168). 

FRIZZELL: How would you answer William James' "really vital question for us all: What is this world going to be? What will life eventually make of itself?"

 

BAGGINI: I want to first add that “a rigorous application of pragmatist philosophy [does not] justif[y] the everyday religious beliefs of millions of Americans” and James himself did not defend Christian fundamentalism. I just want to point out that “a more broadly pragmatistic outlook can help explain the persistence of religious belief.” (p88) Which, Anderson, I believe is one of your main points in the first place. But as to the question, I believe that as the West starts to accept that the East's non-secular ideas had valid implications here in the West, we can begin to heal the large divisions across the West. 

 

FRIZZELL: It is now time for the second question and this time, Mr. Baggini will go first. Does philosophy reject falsehood, superstition, selfishness, polarization, partisanship, and mutual hostility? 

 

BAGGINI: I would have to only agree that philosophy rejects selfishness, polarization, partisanship, and mutual hostility. Falsehood and superstition are subjective, and their credibility depends on the culture, religion, and philosophy of a region or time. As I said earlier, Rene Descartes, who “wrote in his Discourse on Method”, came to the same conclusion as I did that “’those who have views very different from our own are not therefore barbarians or savages, but that several use as much reason as we do, or more.’” (p xxi) “Western philosophy’s self-image has largely been constructed by distancing itself from ideas of the philosopher as a sage or guru,” or what could be classified as superstition. (p24) “This distancing has blinded it to the obvious truth that a good philosophy requires some kind of insight.” (p24) “Insight without analysis and critique is just intuition taken on faith. But analysis without insight is empty intellectual game-playing.” (p24) As for philosophy rejecting selfishness, polarization, partisanship, and mutual hostility, I’d point to Mencius, who said “’tak[ing] up one point… disregards a hundred others.’” (p262)

 

ANDERSON: Speaking directly to the question, philosophy does reject falsehood and superstition. But, philosophy does not and should not reject selfishness, polarization, partisanship, and mutual hostility. This polarization, partisanship, and mutual hostility is seen in the 60’s in how the “right hated how relativism undercut various venerable and comfortable ruling ideas- certain notions of entitlement (according to race and gender) and aesthetic beauty and metaphysical and moral certainty.” (p196) “[A]nything-goes relativism… helped enable extreme Christianities and consequential lunacies on the right- gun rights hysteria, black helicopter conspiracism, climate change denial, and more.” (p196) This polarization and partisanship is totally necessary because these people clearly acted awful and no one should be a bystander in this situation. I’ve said in many ways earlier why I believe philosophy rejects falsehood and superstition, with America’s Fantasyland as the best example. Going back to William James' questions, I'd say life is headed towards complete fantasy, or America will wake up from this nightmare and start to move out of Fantasyland and into reality. 

WARBURTON: It seems to me that you all somewhat agree with philosophy within America, but Baggini disagrees in that this idea of philosophy does not apply to the world’s philosophy. 

 

BAGGINI: My point exactly. Trying to fit Eastern philosophy in a Western philosophy box is impossible. While comparing the two kinds is useful to help us better understand ourselves, we should not force other countries to fit into our idea of what philosophy is. 

 

ANDERSON: I can agree with this. My main point is also that the West should deeply analyze itself to better understand our history and why we think the way we do today. And maybe, people will become better for it. 

 

FRIZZELL: Thank you all for your time, facts, and opinions. I’d like to close with my philosophy professor’s comment about philosopher, John Stuart Mill. He said Mill would say that America is sick with polarization, partisanship, and villainization, that it is not understanding or openminded to people of different views. I would have to agree, the parties and arguments in this country are too divided.  While I believe America needs to closely analyze it’s past, I also agree that the world’s philosophies are just as important as the West’s. Perhaps one day, we would be able to use knowledge from the East to fix major issues of the West, such as including more unity and harmony into our lives and culture. 

I also wanted to include this video. It doesn't have much to do with the topics discussed above, but it shows how respect can produce a productive conversation. I would consider my fake "debate" (it's really just a conversation, but I had more fun imagining it was a debate) to be very respectful, which is extremely different than the recent 2020 presidential debate. This link is to a 6 minute youtube video of Trump and Biden interrupting each other. The way it is edited is hilarious (to me at least) and shows how when people don't respect one another, they sound like little whiney children and the conversation isn't productive at all. 

Barbara Frizzell, Section 11