Post your questions and comments before Tuesday, if you can. Take a look at those Pinker videos below if you get a chance. Begin thinking about your final report topic, if you haven't already.
- What do you think of the Spinoza epigraph? Do you see a connection to our discussion of public schools and the complaint of some in our society that they shouldn't have to subsidize the education of "other people's kids"?
- Do you agree that pessimism, cynicism, and the ceding of purpose to religion have been long-germinating seeds of un-enlightened thinking in America?
- Do you like Pinker's response to the student who asked "Why should I live?"
- What do you think of Jennifer Michael Hecht's perspective on suicide?-
*“None of us can truly know what we mean to other people, and none of us can know what our future self will experience. History and philosophy ask us to remember these mysteries, to look around at friends, family, humanity, at the surprises life brings — the endless possibilities that living offers — and to persevere. There is love and insight to live for, bright moments to cherish, and even the possibility of happiness, and the chance of helping someone else through his or her own troubles. Know that people, through history and today, understand how much courage it takes to stay. Bear witness to the night side of being human and the bravery it entails, and wait for the sun. If we meditate on the record of human wisdom we may find there reason enough to persist and find our way back to happiness. The first step is to consider the arguments and evidence and choose to stay. After that, anything may happen. First, choose to stay.” Stay: A History of Suicide and the Arguments Against It by Jennifer Michael Hecht
- Do you find dogmatic certainty "incredibly seductive"? 5 Do most people?
- Do Montesquieu and Xenophanes (see post below) have a point? 8
- Do we have "an urgent need for a secular foundation for morality"? 10
- Are you a cosmopolitan?
- Is entropy "relevant to human affairs"? 16
- What do you think of William James's statement to Henry Adams about entropy etc.?*
*...The "second law" is wholly irrelevant to "history"—save that it sets a terminus—for history is the course of things before that terminus, and all that the second law says is that, whatever the history, it must invest itself between that initial maximum and that terminal minimum of difference in energy-level. As the great irrigation-reservoir empties itself, the whole question for us is that of the distribution of its effects, of which rills to guide it into; and the size of the rills has nothing to do with their significance. Human cerebration is the most important rill we know of, and both the "capacity" and the "intensity" factor thereof may be treated as infinitesimal. Yet the filling of such rills would be cheaply bought by the waste of whole sums spent in getting a little of the down-flowing torrent to enter them. Just so of human institutions—their value has in strict theory nothing whatever to do with their energy-budget—being wholly a question of the form the energy flows through. Though the ultimate state of the universe may be its vital and psychical extinction, there is nothing in physics to interfere with the hypothesis that the penultimate state might be the millennium—in other words a state in which a minimum of difference of energy-level might have its exchanges so skillfully canalisés that a maximum of happy and virtuous consciousness would be the only result. In short, the last expiring pulsation of the universe's life might be, "I am so happy and perfect that I can stand it no longer." You don't believe this and I don't say I do. But I can find nothing in "Energetik" to conflict with its possibility. You seem to me not to discriminate, but to treat quantity and distribution of energy as if they formed one question... Letters of Wm James, June 17, 1910
- Do you agree that "the ultimate purpose of life, mind, and human striving [is] to deploy energy and knowledge to fight back the tide of entropy..."? 17
- Is it no longer reasonable to be a mind-body dualist? 22
- Does everything happen for a reason? 24
- Do you like Jefferson's analogy between language and light? 27
- Can our norms and institutions rescue us from parochialism? 28
- What's the best counter to the counter-Enlightenments of our tie? 29
- COMMENT: "Belief in an afterlife implies that health and happiness are not such a big deal" 30
- Do the "masses" need religion to be moral? 32
- Do you hate the idea of progress? 39
- Was Pangloss really a pessimist?
- Does the daily news cycle and our close attention to it give us a badly skewed and falsely-pessimistic perception of the state of things? 41
- Can the "better angels of our nature" overcome greed, lust, dominance, vengeance, self-deception etc.? 45
- Do you share the mood asymmetry of Tversky's thought experiment? Do you think it is justified by entropy? 47
- Do you dread losses more than you look forward to gains, etc.? 48 Does this make you a pessimist by nature? Can you reverse this mindset? Do you want to?
- Have you found that time heals most wounds?
- Is pessimism about war an instance of innumeracy?
- How wide is your circle of sympathy? 49 Do you think it's wider than, say, your grandparents'?
- Is it to our credit that we no longer accept childhood bullying as natural? (Or is we over-inclusive?)
- Do you agree that the litany of what most of us believe (life is better than death, health is better than sickness etc.) is a clear mark of progress? 51
- Are you surprised by the statement that "the world has made spectacular progress in every single measure of human well-being"? 52
- Are we ignorant, pessimistic, or both when we underestimate progress in global health? 53
- Is the Singularity (and radical life-extension) near? Will it ever be? If not, do you regret that? 61
- What do you think of Pinker's inclusion of prayer on his list of historical quackery along with sacrifice, bloodletting etc.? 63
- What do you think of Stephen Dunn's poetical view of prayer as talking to a more moral version of oneself? Or of Emerson's view, in Self-Reliance?*
* Prayer looks abroad and asks for some foreign addition to come through some foreign virtue, and loses itself in endless mazes of natural and supernatural, and mediatorial and miraculous. Prayer that craves a particular commodity,--any thing less than all good,--is vicious. Prayer is the contemplation of the facts of life from the highest point of view. It is the soliloquy of a beholding and jubilant soul. It is the spirit of God pronouncing his works good. But prayer as a means to effect a private end is meanness and theft. It supposes dualism and not unity in nature and consciousness. As soon as the man is at one with God, he will not beg. He will then see prayer in all action. The prayer of the farmer kneeling in his field to weed it, the prayer of the rower kneeling with the stroke of his oar, are true prayers heard throughout nature, though for cheap ends.
- What do you think are the prospects for "a grand convergence in global health" by 2035? Will bad ideas like conspiracy and anti-vax neutralize or reverse the progress due to the good ideas inspired by science? 67
- Is the obesity epidemic really, by historical comparison, "a good problem to have"? 69
- Is it deplorable that most of us have never heard of Bosch and Haber, who saved 2.7 billion lives, but have heard of Kardashians and Britney Spears? 75
- Is environmentally-motivated opposition to trans-genic crops an "indifference to starvation"? 77
Here are some things that stuck with me...
ReplyDelete1) Why do you think progress unguided by humanism not considered progress? (12)
2) Do you think that social media has watered down the potency of language with character counts, limited filming, and focusing on the personal image? (27)
1. Progress sans humanism is in many ways just what we've got right now, and its deficiencies are evident in the various crises(political, social, ecological...)that afflict this historical moment. Growth and profit for their own sake, without sufficient regard for the human toll on future generations, make us the kind of Oncelers Dr. Seuss parodied. Real progress doesn't just mean the few get fatter and richer while the quality of life declines for the many, it's an expansion of life, liberty, happiness, opportunity, etc. for the whole human community.
Delete2. Social media definitely dilutes language, civility, our capacity for sustained attention, and in so many ways encourages the worse angels of our nature: narcissism, subjectivism, misanthropy... and yet, I still think social media is a potential source for good. It will probably fall to the next generations to figure out how that's going to work.
I think that the major news outlets skew and give a falsely pessimistic perception of things. I believe that news outlets utilize propaganda to elicit an emotional response from the population. I took a few courses on it previously and realized how the claims and statements in the news were taken for truth and causing a more significant division between friends and even family. The division was, unfortunately, more evident during this past election. I have personally stepped away from the news due to the fallacies and polarization. Instead, I find information through research and also read articles to fill my cup.
ReplyDeleteThat's definitely true of the worst news agencies, particularly those that cynically tout their "fair and balanced" approach while blatantly and unapologetically shilling for their partisan political preferences. I don't watch local news anymore, but I do think we need to find some way of reinvigorating local print journalism. There's a crucial watchdog checks-and-balances function to be performed by the Fourth Estate, that citizen "journalism" has not shown itself capable of executing. And I think we need to accept more responsibility, as citizens, for not letting ourselves be manipulated by our news messengers.
DeleteDo the "masses" need religion to be moral? 32
ReplyDeleteReligion and morality do not create a symbiotic pair. when I visited the Supreme Court building in Washington DC which in this country is the most high interpreter of the law, at the top of the chamber etched into the stone are figures from history that designate symbols of justice from around the world. These are not representatives of a single religion or even a single continent but from many different places and many different schools of thought. The law and according to enlightenment just punishment and not arbitrary torture are important in creating a system of government that ensures the rights of man.
Is entropy "relevant to human affairs"? 16
my first thought when I asked myself this question was the process that happened during George Orwell’s Animal Farm. Another way to explain how entropy is relevant to human affairs is to look at it from a biological point of view and to think about how the chromosomes that we are born with. Each time one of our selves divides the telomeres that are part of our chromosomes become shorter. As part of our bodies this shortening of the telomeres makes it more difficult for the cell to replicate chromosomes in exactly the same way at least that's the way I understand it. So, entropy can affect not just the way we interact with each other as our relationships change and become different but even within our bodies we change, and we become different and therefore entropy is a basic part of who we are and how human affairs unfold.
I agree. But the question is about "the masses," not the Supremes or other elite interpreters, executors, and authorities of law. Dostoevsky's "Brothers Karamazov" has a chapter, "The Grand Inquisitor," which makes just this claim about the "masses" and morality: most humans cannot bear the responsibility of freedom and agency, they cannot bear the cross of suffering without the promise of otherworldly redemption, they do not find life of earth satisfactory or gratifying... and thus, they willingly cede their autonomy to the Church and its functionaries. Kant's Sapere Aude does not speak to them, and cannot motivate them to be good. They will accept arbitrary direction, in exchange for the perception of lessened suffering and future happiness. I don't believe it. But the continuing prevalence of mainstream religiosity in many parts of the world (including ours) suggests that the Inquisitor is not entirely off-base either.
DeleteEntropy is basic to a physical-level description of our lives. But how relevant is it to our day-to-day vision of the meaning and possibilities available to us? That's the debate between Henry Adams and William James. I'm with WJ, we don't have to be pessimists just because the universe as we know it is presumably and ultimately (in billions of years) destined to expire.
How would the world be different if Enlightenment was a popular religion? Could Enlightenment function as a form of faith and morality?
ReplyDeleteI'm not for enshrining a Church of Enlightenment, with hierarchy and clergy and tax-exemption et al. But I'm all for a higher appreciation of the spiritual dimension of increased learning, greater knowledge, and the resultant amelioration of the human condition. Wider recognition of the obvious, that life is better than death, health is better than sickness et al, would surely reinforce our shared sense of virtue and rectitude. But "faith" (belief without evidence) would not be required.
Delete1. Pinker talks about the millions of lives saved by scientists who discovered vaccines and other medical advances. (p. 63-64) Would you say today's anti-vaxxers are guilty of the "sin of ingratitude?" Or at the very least are they simply unenlightened and guilty of a "sin of ignorance" (I say that partially tongue in cheek, but I don't think ignorance is an excuse in many/most cases)?
ReplyDelete2. Did the progress of the Green Revolution outweigh the negatives listed at the bottom of p. 76? Do you agree that this is usually the case -- that the benefits of progress outweigh any associated costs, and that science can solve any new problems that arise as a result of said progress?
1. Indeed. Ingratitude is benighted, unhappy condition. I've met ignorant people who comported themselves cheerfully enough (like the guy who told me, early in the pandemic, that he didn't know such a thing as plague was even possible), but if you don't even know that medical science has doubled our lifespans in little more than a century you lack the minimal information to generate the appropriate level of gratitude (which is quite high).
ReplyDelete2. Yes definitely, in the case of humanistic progress that saves and improves lives on a global scale. Confidence that the new problems spawned by technology will eventually be ameliorated by further inquiry, castigated by some as a variety of scientism, seems to me to have no real alternative. We're not now in a position to renounce science-based technology. What we must do, though, is always evaluate technological impacts in terms of human costs. Embracing every new technology regardless of the human impact is inhumane. Something akin to the Whole Earth approach, treating science/technology as our tools and not turning ourselves into the tools of our technologies, seems right.
"Intellectual culture should strive to counteract our cognitive biases, but all too often it reinforces them." (p.48)
ReplyDeleteIn what ways have you noticed this play out in our culture today?
"Experiments have shown that a critic who pans a book is perceived as more competent then a critic who praises it, and the same may be true of critics of society." (p.48)
Do you agree with this? Please share an example supporting your personal opinion of this perspective.
I think Pinker's example is a good one: the innumeracy that leads commentators to say that we're as war-like as ever because we still have wars, failing to acknowledge the difference" between a handful of conflicts killing dozens, and dozens killing millions.
DeleteSpecific examples are hard to produce, without insider knowledge of how particular critics are perceived by editors. But anecdotally, it does seem that negativity in the reviews I read (in NYT Bk Review eg) outpaces positivity, and those are the reviewers who get more assignments.
Is it deplorable that most of us have never heard of Bosch and Haber, who saved 2.7 billion lives, but have heard of Kardashians and Britney Spears? 75
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, absolutely. This fact shows the extent of how our culture has shifted both our values and morals. It is truly heartbreaking how much time our children and adults spend on social media following and trying to imitate other people. Imagine what our kids could be accomplishing if they tried to imitate those who didn't care about fame or credit, such as the people who saved billions of lives (unlike the "influencers" we see today). I recently had a friend of mine ground her daughter because she had logged 8 hours in one day watching Tik Tok videos. Yet, the mom had to look on her daughter's phone because she, too, spends hours scrolling. One of my favorite sayings is, "More is caught than taught." Every time I read this or it comes into my mind, I am beckoned to ask myself how can I change? What can I do in my own life to overcome this issue? This question pushes me to desire more and to push myself to ask more questions, seeking deeper meaning. Though we can't know everything, I think it is exceptionally important to hold yourself accountable for the knowledge you have acquired and act accordingly. Knowledge is useless unless you put it into practice. Use it!
Most of us probably need some sort of intervention, to get us to put down the phones and turn away from the screens. Maybe a support group.
DeleteDo you think everything happens for a reason? 24
ReplyDeleteShort answer, no.
This saying has always bothered me, and I think it is because I was taught growing up that God has a plan for everything that happens to us and around us, and we are at the mercy of His will. “God is in control and His will be done in all things.” “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28). I could never reconcile that with the horrible things that happen in the world, especially to innocents. Yet, that view was always countered with, “but God gave humans free will, so when bad things happen, it’s because of human choosing.” It was a tiresome, cyclical argument that I soon stopped trying to fight.
I agree with the statement on page 24, that “misfortune may be no one’s fault.” Sometimes, things just happen. Coincidences are real and the universe is indifferent to human folly. The perspective of entropy (a new one to me until this class) makes the most sense of any reasoning on the topic that I’ve heard—there are so many more ways for things to go wrong than for them to go right.
I do think one could argue that there are causes (vs. reasons) for why things happen. The fender bender happened because you ran the red light, but it was a coincidence that you left the house at just the exact time that caused you to approach the light when it was red instead of green, etc. I can drive myself crazy thinking about scenarios that might or might not have happened based on timing and circumstance. If I hadn’t decided to go to a certain college and was randomly paired with my roommate, would I have met my husband? What might my life have looked like if I hadn’t been born into this family in that particular town, and on and on.
I may have just talked myself into circles on this one, but it’s a fascinating concept. A friend and I talk about this a lot. She believes the universe can guide us down our destined path if we will listen and that everything does happen for a reason. I do not, although as you can see, I’m not good at explaining why. But because of free will, I don’t have to, right? Regardless, I stand firm in my belief in randomness, coincidences, and that fate is not a thing.
1. Pinker claims that "intellectuals hate progress." Is it possible that it is just human nature to be afraid of change? (pg. 39)
ReplyDelete2. Based on the Optimism Gap, why is it that people see their own situations so much more positively than their society's or their nation's? (pg. 40)
How wide is your circle of sympathy? 49 Do you think it's wider than, say, your grandparents'?
ReplyDeleteI tend to be a very sympathetic person. It does not take much for me to feel sympathetic for someone. I am always trying to find the good in people, so it makes me feel bad for them when something bad happens to them. I have known a few people that do not have much good left in them, but I still tend to feel for them when something happens to them.
My circle of empathy is much wider than my parents and grandparents. While they are still very caring people, they have been through more and been around people longer. This gives them more experiences with different situations that people will go through and they may feel sympathetic for a person because they have been through something similar. I simply feel sympathetic for people because it seems that something bad has happened to them, not because I have been through a similar experience.
My questions from Steven Pinker's Enlightenment Now:
ReplyDelete1. In Chapter 4, Progressophobia, the author states how intellectuals hate progress (pg. 39). Yet, in Chapter 1, Dare to Understand!, Deutsch argues how progress is possible (pg. 7). If intellectuals hate progress, how it can it somewhat be possible for them or how can they attain progress?
2. In Chapter 1, Dare to Understand!, Enlightenment is tied together through four themes: reason, science, humanism, and progress. Do all four of these themes tie Enlightenment as a whole? Should other themes be added?
Do you think everything happens for a reason? (pg. 24)
ReplyDelete"In this primitive but ubiquitous understanding, everything happens for a reason, so when bad things happen- accidents, disease, famine, poverty- some agent must have wanted them to happen" (pg. 24).
I have grown up in the church since I was born. My parents were both youth ministers for 15 years, and my father was a deacon in the church. As a part of my faith as a Christian, yes, I believe that EVERYTHING happens for a reason. Yes, I know that not everyone will agree with me on this. "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him and have been called according to His purpose" Romans 8:28. Yes, bad things happen to good people all of the time. Bad things have happened to me still being a Christian. Yet, those bad things and times have produced my faith to become stronger and for me to become stronger as a person. I have trust that there is a purpose and plan for those things, and that those things are a part of my story through God.