Trust

"A social organism of any sort is what it is because each member proceeds to his own duty with a trust that the other members will simultaneously do theirs."
— William James

#philosophy #quotes #bot https://mastodon.lol/@Phil_O_Sophizer/109564291074074511

“You need a human in the loop”

But not just any human.

"…A.I. can be helpful if we're looking for a light assist. A person could ask a chatbot to rewrite a paragraph in an active voice. A nonnative English speaker could ask ChatGPT to remove grammatical errors from an email before sending it. A student could ask the bot for suggestions on how to make an essay more persuasive.

But in any situation like those, don't blindly trust the bot.

'You need a human in the loop to make sure that they're saying what you want them to say and that they're true things instead of false things,' Ms. Mitchell said…"

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/21/technology/personaltech/how-to-use-chatgpt-ethically.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
How to Use ChatGPT and Still Be a Good Person

The experience of time

Time Is Way Weirder Than You Think The neuroscientist Dean Buonomano talks expansively about time — what it is and all the ways humans perceive its passing.

...We discuss what time would be in an empty universe without humans, why humans have not evolved to understand time the way we understand space, how our ability to predict the future differs from animals’, why time during the Covid lockdowns felt so bizarre, why scientists think time “flies” when we’re having fun but slows down when people experience near-death accidents, what humans lost when we invented very precise clocks, why some physicists believe the future is already determined for us and what that would mean for our ethical behavior, why we’re so bad at saving money, what steps we could take to feel as if we’re living longer in time, why it’s so hard — but ultimately possible — to live in the present moment and more... LISTEN https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/13/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-dean-buonomano.html?smid=em-share

What Would Plato Say About ChatGPT?

A.I. can be a learning tool for schools with enough teachers and resources to use it well.

...As Plato was wrong to fear the written word as the enemy, we would be wrong to think we should resist a process that allows us to gather information more easily.

As societies responded to previous technological advances, like mechanization, by eventually enacting a public safety net, a shorter workweek and a minimum wage, we will also need policies that allow more people to live with dignity as a basic right, even if their skills have been superseded. With so much more wealth generated now, we could unleash our imagination even more, expanding free time and better working conditions for more people.

The way forward is not to just lament supplanted skills, as Plato did, but also to recognize that as more complex skills become essential, our society must equitably educate people to develop them. And then it always goes back to the basics. Value people as people, not just as bundles of skills.

And that isn’t something ChatGPT can tell us how to do...

  https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/15/opinion/chatgpt-education-ai-technology.html?smid=em-share

"I Can’t Stop Talking to My New Chatbot Pal"

ChatGPT makes a lot of mistakes. But it’s fun to talk to, and it knows its limitations. ["Knows" as in "understands"? No.]

...One primary criticism of systems like ChatGPT, which are built using a computational technique called “deep learning,” is that they are little more than souped-up versions of autocorrect — that all they understand is the statistical connections between words, not the concepts underlying words. Gary Marcus, a professor emeritus in psychology at New York University and a skeptic of deep learning, told me that while an A.I. language model like ChatGPT makes for “nifty” demonstrations, it’s “still not reliable, still doesn’t understand the physical world, still doesn’t understand the psychological world and still hallucinates.”
... https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/16/opinion/conversation-with-chatgpt.html?smid=em-share

The end of the student essay as we've known it?

ChatGPT Is Dumber Than You Think

Treat it like a toy, not a tool.

"When OpenAI released ChatGPT to the public last week, the first and most common reaction I saw was fear that it would upend education. "You can no longer give take-home exams," Kevin Bryan, a University of Toronto professor, posted on Twitter. "I think chat.openai.com may actually spell the end of writing assignments," wrote Samuel Bagg, a University of South Carolina political scientist. That's the fear...
Imagine worrying about the fate of take-home essay exams, a stupid format that everyone hates but nobody has the courage to kill." --Ian Bogost, Atlantic

I don't hate that format, or think it stupid. A student blogpost is basically a take-home essay. But I've already shifted to more in-class presentations, maybe the advent of essay-writing AI will and should encourage more of that. More oral exams too.

Or maybe I can just continue to trust most of my students to do their own work, and verify that they've done so the old-fashioned way: by talking to them and getting to know them. 

Better that, I think, than allow the small fraction of would-be cheaters to dictate the terms of our classroom activity. 

The experience of young Luddism

'Luddite' Teens Don't Want Your Likes

…"I still long to have no phone at all," she said. "My parents are so addicted. My mom got on Twitter, and I've seen it tear her apart. But I guess I also like it, because I get to feel a little superior to them…"

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/15/style/teens-social-media.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
'Luddite' Teens Don't Want Your Likes

Life is Hard is good

How Vast Is the Cosmos, Really?

Life is an accident of space and time. 

There are billions of planets in our galaxy, and billions of galaxies in the observable universe. Those numbers are impossible to picture, but NASA's newest space telescope is helping us see the universe's depths in unprecedented detail. Still, there's one big mystery that humans might never be able to solve: How vast is the cosmos, really, and what does it contain?

If humans were to find evidence of life elsewhere in the universe, it would be a scientific marvel, but also an emotional and spiritual one, the physicist Alan Lightman noted in an essay earlier this fall. Our questions would multiply: "Where did we living things come from? Is there some kind of cosmic community?"

Lightman explains why life in the universe is likely really, really rare. "We living things are a very special arrangement of atoms and molecules," he writes. But these questions aren't just about other planets and galaxies; they're also about us, here on Earth, and why we may want to believe that our lives and our stories are one of a kind. What follows is a reading list on why things are the way they are—from life on Earth down to creepy coincidences at the coffee shop—and how we deal with the unknowable.

This is an edition of The Wonder Reader...

Planetary perspective

Not there yet. 

Why is it that to function in society with strength and efficiency, we need to ignore the incomprehensible miracles that surround us constantly? Why is it that to function in the world, we must take on an oblivious self-confidence by placing ourselves in a tiny world, a small and limited subset of reality? Why is it that we abandon awe and limit ourselves to the prison that is right in front of our noses, guided primarily by our animal instincts while ignoring our full perception of the world? We have the capability to project our conscious thought backward or forward billions of years yet act as if all that matters is the past and/or immediate future. ”
― Ron Garan, Floating in Darkness - A Journey of Evolution

The wisest humans were [are/will be] good ancestors

"Philosophy isn't just in your head. Philosophy is everywhere." 

  

"This film completely reframes the narrative of the typical 'environmental documentary', instead focusing on the behavior, trends, and impact of humanity from a psychological and ethical perspective. It is truly groundbreaking to capture such a diverse array of thought leaders and scientists in one film - offering disparate yet complementary perspectives on why we find ourselves in this current state of uncertainty and how we can all engage - do our part for positive change. From the incredible visuals, score, and narrative journey... Filmmaker Susan Kucera does a brilliant job for nimbly transcending the doc-status-quo, opting instead for a more intellectually challenging and inspiring course for this remarkable film!" - written by "aaron-13968" on IMDb.com

The experience of meaning

…in an absurdly indifferent universe, per Albert Camus

That's all

Final presentations are concluded, final reports should now all be posted. If you've neglected to post, or have been unable to do so, email it directly to me - phil.oliver@mtsu.edu.

Have a good break. Hope to see you in a future class. If you're graduating, good luck. Keep in touch!

How Standardized Testing is Ruining our Education System Ashley Gracia#7

 

If the video is not working, please follow this link.

The video linked in the presentation can be found at this link. I recommend the entire video, but I only really discuss it up until the timestamp [2:44]

Is life worth living

 Is life worth living william james #7

Final presentation 

link for video

William James Lecture 8, Monistic VS Plural Nathan Buckley #11

William James Lecture 8

Nathan Buckley, #11

This lecture is mainly about 2 ways of pragmatic thinking, the monistic way and the pluralistic way of thinking, and how people's lives can change just by changing the way they think.

Lecture 8 starts out with a poem titled “To You” by Walt Whitman, which James then proceeds to break down and analyze in a pragmatic manner. James describes the 2 ways to look at the poem as, a monistic way and the pluralistic way. The monistic way is the more relaxed way of looking at it, where you lie back and reflect on the past actions that you have made, and stand by your “true principle of being.”, standing by the decisions you've made and feeling safe. On the other hand, a pluralistic outlook would consist of looking back onto your life in more of a negative manner, as you reflect on your lows in life. After you assess your past mistakes or tragedies, you then pick out some high points in your life which you're proud of, then reflect on both in such a way that you accept it, and move forward knowing that it paved the way to who you are today. Both ways of reflection lead to the same end result, however, coming to terms with what you have done in the past, and painting yourself in a gold background. In the grand scheme of these ways of thinking, the pluralistic way is more in touch with pragmatism. The way it dwells into the grand scheme of things piece by piece and dissecting it to reflect on each individual concept embodies the pragmatic way of thinking a lot more. This example also helps show the difference between tough-mindedness and tender-mindedness, which James talks about as well throughout his lecture.

James later on in his lecture dives into the concept of pragmatism and how it has affected his output in life, and how important these ways of thinking were in his day to day life. A quote from the lecture that really stuck with me is when James said “ The possibility of this is involved in the pragmatistic willingness to treat pluralism as a serious hypothesis. In the end it is our faith and not our logic that decides such questions, and I deny the right of any pretended logic to veto my own faith.” James talks about how the pragmatic way of thinking shouldn't change your morals and faith, but just as a way of thinking in a progressive way to benefit yourself. That isn't to say however after changing the way you think that you would reconsider religion, as James stated “ Pragmatism has to postpone dogmatic answers, for we do not yet know which type of religion is going to work best in the long run. The various over beliefs of men, their several faith-ventures, are in fact what are needed to bring the evidence in.” Like stated before, there are the 2 types of mental strength, tough-mindedness and tender-mindedness, and depending on your own personal mental strength can affect the outlook you have on religion as a whole. James believes that the stronger your mental strength is, the less you need religion, and if you're more on the tender side and have a pluralistic outlook that you lean on religion more as an outlet for security and safety. James said “Nirvana means safety from this everlasting round of adventures of which the world of sense consists.”

Overall, James gives great insight into the different times of pragmatic thinking, and uses plenty of poems and excerpts to help heighten his points about these ways of thinking. These pragmatic ways of thinking can drastically change a person's outlook, and how they handle and approach different situations, as well as helping them reflect on situations from the past in order to grow as a person. This lecture was definitely worth reading in my opinion, and is really interesting to see how other people would think about a situation compared to myself.

Magical Thinking in Silicon Valley and on Wall Street - Gabriel Rocha #12

Since the first stock exchange was created, in the Netherlands, around the year 1600, the business cycle of the financial markets has created several widespread booms and busts, bubbles, and then the popping of such bubbles. 
            In chapter 45 of Fantasyland, Kurt Andersen brings up the discussion of how the economy in the US has been over and over again stretched every few decades, with the creation of bubbles followed by an economic crisis. He believes that the free market is to be blamed and that the 2008 meltdown was due to deregulation. He points out that Americans got used to believing that they could spend as much as they wanted and that the bill would never come, but, as it happens, the bill always comes eventually. I believe he’s right in his overall assessment of the crises he mentions in the chapter, but he doesn’t really explain what caused the problems to begin with, which leads him to conclusions that do not entirely follow his premises. 

The Federal Reserve (commonly referred to as Fed), Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac are the primary causes of the problem. All of those “private” companies are under the government’s control in some way or another, so when Andersen says that Wall Street is fueled with magical thinking, he forgets to mention the gas station that provides the setting for this magical thinking: Washington, DC. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are GSEs (Government-Sponsored Enterprises), which means that they have, with the blessing of Congress, easy access to low-interest rates money to borrow from the government, besides having a duopoly in the sector they operate. The Federal Reserve is said to be a private bank that has the mission to keep inflation and unemployment low. The problem is that the president of the Fed is indicated by the president, so it would be naïve to say that the government has no say in the policies carried out by the Fed. 

The Fed prints money whenever it feels like doing so;  more than ¾ of every dollar in existence today was printed over the last two years, and all that just to pump up the markets in an attempt to prevent layoffs during and after the pandemic. The result of that is that during a period in which the economy should’ve shrunk, almost every sector of the financial market got to new all-time highs, creating a distortion that made it even harder for the economy to reflect the effects of the crash that happened in March of 2020, when the world realized that Covid was getting more serious. Reality, however, is an anchor that brings markets back down to the ground. High inflation numbers in the U.S., not seen since the 1980s) and thousands of employees of tech companies (and other sectors of the economy) have been laid off after the Fed stopped pumping money into the economy, a hangover that could not have been avoided forever. 

The big issue caused by all this money printing is inflation. Unlike we tend to think, money is subjected to economic laws such as supply and demand laws. What do I mean by that? If too much money is thrown onto the markets over a small period, but the demand for it stays the same, all the money in circulation will lose its value. How, then, the Fed injects money into the economy? Buying assets. The federal reserve buys bonds, mortgages, or any financial asset like stocks or ETFs, and that creates distortions in the prices of all assets, directly or indirectly. Take the example of the Fed buying up several millions of dollars worth of a bank’s stock, that stock’s value will go higher even though no new wealth has been created by the bank. This bank, in turn, will be able to lend more money to its clients, and these clients might decide to buy up houses. If enough people do that, the prices of houses will also go up when they wouldn’t otherwise. Now imagine every sector of the economy being affected by this money, and we have bubbles being created everywhere. Low-interest rates and inflation are the reasons why many Americans stopped saving money and began spending it, a creation of the magical periods of easy money that Andersen talks about in his book. The incentive for the regular American to put money in a savings account was diminished by the less than 1 percent a year yield, and it was replaced by the low-interest rate to take loans. This flipped mentality used to be more common in low-income and developing countries, where people tend to spend all they have and not save anything since their currencies are usually eroded by inflation. That scenario, however, has taken over the American culture over the last few decades. Big banks and the Federal government have their large share of the blame to take, but the everyday American also has to redevelop a sense of responsibility and perhaps a small amount of skepticism to distinguish what is real from what is just magical thinking. People negatively affected by the 2008 meltdown were not only those that have no idea how interest rates work, but a more than large majority of the U.S. population. People fooled into buying a house they could not afford should take their small share of the responsibility of entering into something they could not pay for and not let that happen again moving forward. 

This video below is a bit long, but it explains in an elucidative manner the other effects of inflation and their impact on society.

            

Truth vs. "Alternative Fact"

 Kurt Anderson is very "vocal" about his thoughts on the American government, saying: 

"Dozens were elected to congress and became convulsive, tail wagging, Republican dogs"-- with a continued explanation of-- "they hate, or think they hate, the status quo, that including the government itself." 

 That is a lot of information to get started on (more so, lots of opinions).

Now, to provide a little bit more insight, let's look at a different quote that Anderson notes in the same chapter of his book, Fantasyland, by a talk-show host named John Zeigler. He says: 

"We've effectively brainwashed the core of our audience. and now it's gone too far. Because the gatekeepers have lost all credibility in the minds of consumers, I don't see how you reverse it."    

According to fantasyland, the news is what people want. They push what others want and when they realize the reality, a depression starts and people retaliate. Also, what we watch younger affects what we believe to be right. This supports the notion that conspiracies are to support one's beliefs and if it doesn't support, it is merely a conspiracy. We can see this with a fill-in-the-blank example: 

_____ (Democrats/ Republicans) ______ (defend/reject) democratic favored conspiracies.  

It's pretty common knowledge that not everything you find on the internet can not be considered 100% accurate, or "factual".  Here, we have a source, a person in the media industry, telling us just that, and that because of the amount of non-credible information out there, it is harder for people to know what they should and shouldn't listen to. Over the years, news has become less news and more media a source of entertainment rather than information; giving people what they want to hear rather than what they want to know. The media looks into what people are interested in, and what people are more likely to watch because the audience enjoys the voice of their own thoughts. What Anderson tied this to was the people in the media. The people that hold influence because of these news reports and false scandals that people take so keenly a liking to. A person that Anderson looks to directly is previous president Trump. 

Even before he ran for the role of president, Trump had a way of spreading news. Even before the media really- he held people's attention with outbursts of news- calling magazines and articles, and things like it, "garbage" and "trash". Kurt describes his actions as having "Kids-R-Us" syndrome, acting in a way of a "spoiled, impulsive, moody, seven-year-old brat". 

The New York Times even wrote once, giving him even more publicity:

"Trump understands at least one thing better than almost everybody"- that the - "breakdown of a shared public reality, built upon widely accepted facts, represents not a hazard but an opportunity." 

 

Trump has painted himself as an image that had to be noticed. He even admitted that he played off peopled people fantasy's by saying "I will give you everything- every dream you ever dreamt for your country." he described this as "winning". He campaigned his own voice by telling people to forget the press and to just read the internet, that it is where he gets all his info. 

Looking today, Donald Trump's Twitter has been suspended once, with the official safety account tweeted "we have permanently, suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence". Before his account had 88 million followers, they locked it because of the hots at the capital over conspiracies on the election. 

Senator Mark Warner tweeted later in response to the suspension - "an overdue step, but it's important to remember this is much bigger than one person. It's about an entire ecosystem that allows information and hates to spread and fester unchecked." 

Democrats took advantage of this comment while republicans were enraged to push back, saying things and calling it a "left platform". 

In conclusion to this, the internet is a place of opinion and less fact. A place for people's voices to be recognized and observed to be factual by like-minded people. Debates will be made, and facts might be presented eventually, but be aware that not everything is a fact, but more a fantasy. 

__________________________________________________________________

"You're entitled to your own opinions and your own fantasies, but not your own facts - especially if your fantastical facts hurt people" 

- Thomas Jefferson.

William James' Principles of Psychology and Reframing the Information Diet

 Focal Point from Jamesean Psychology

    The philosopher William James made the case in his "Principles of Psychology" text that one's psychology should not be understood outside of the context of their consciousness and physiology, as well as the influence of reactionary states to one's environment. Although I would personally agree with James here to the point of free will existing only as an illusion, I understand that is where we diverge. Nonetheless, I think that this approach to comprehending the psychology of ourselves and others is the only contemporary way to do so accurately. Through that method and its relation to modern day political and idealogical divides, I think there is much room for empathy towards those who carry opinions and beliefs that seem only possible to grasp if one's intellect where to parallel that of a sharp baboon. 

 What is an "Information Diet"?

    Stemming from the phrase "you are what you eat", I believe that there is an incredible amount of influence derived from what we see, hear, and read each day. Perhaps this seems obvious, but one aspect of this view that is commonly neglected is the fact that, similar to meal intake, one's information diet begins the moment they are suitable to digest it. In fact, while one can seemingly change their mind at any point in life, neuroplasticity is nearly eliminated beyond the age of 25-26. Sure, it is certainly still possible in later adult life, but when considering why your grandfather still calls them "colored people", try to perceive the odd slur from a holistic standpoint, with the knowledge that many ideologies we hold in adult life were acquired on the foundations set forth in our youth. 

Social Media and Informational Calories

   While it almost seems to be a cliche at this point to discuss social media and its relation to news/ideological information, the popularity of the main platforms deems it hard to negate. In relation to caloric intake, I see information to parallel food here again in the concept of the dangers of overconsumption. If it is indeed that the information you regularly intake is what shapes your worldview, and influences your view of yourself and others close to you, then not only the content is critical to consider but also the capacity. One could argue, and I believe I do, that the more often you are shown/reminded of an idea or bit of information, the more likely you are to believe it is true. If this is an accurate representation of those who frequent social media, although this could also be applied to any form of regular media consumption, then this strikes me as a potentially dangerous mechanism. 

    The dangers of this are two fold: first, this would incentivize content creators (news organization, blogs, influencers, etc.) to push for consistency, not only in frequency of release, but also in consistency in the information presented, and whatever opinions are typically attached. This could be argued, but I don't believe that *most* people primarily seek out information that is counter to their codes. The second danger is that, algorithms which are designed to keep users engaged by any means necessary, are now designed to stamp each user's individual viewpoints by spamming their feeds with a reminder that all that they believe is the only true belief. 

    One of the reasons these two products of the "consistency" mechanism are both so equally as damaging as they are effective is that overconsumption of media can warp one's view of how populations are represented. For example, roughly 80% of the content on twitter is generated by about 10% of the users. Let that sink in...

    If one is to assume that what they're getting is an accurate view of any given population, and the reality equates to only a fraction, then this stands as a threat to nearly all group populations. 

The Time for Empathy is Now

    If we can understand that there are malicious operations fueling the fire for "bad" ideas, and it is those exact ideas in combination with the underpinnings of one's upbringing (both genetic and environmental) that sculpt the crux of their psychology, then we must also understand that we all got to where we are today more or less in the same way. While the practicality of remaining pragmatic will still entail standing behind what we believe in, and those beliefs will often be accompanied by a population standing in opposition, neglecting the parallels in our psychological origin stories is a quick way to dehumanize one another, a feature that has thus far caused nothing besides undue hate and suffering. It is now more than ever that we must be honest with ourselves and how we view the people around us in understanding that we might be far more alike that we seem. 

William James on Healthy Mindedness

Savannah Spann #7

    

    What is human life's main concern? This is one of the biggest questions in the world of philosophy. Often the answer to this question is happiness, how to achieve and maintain it​. Most people seek persistent enjoyment, which produces a sort of religion based around the gift of a happy existence​. William James coined the phrase, "the religion of healthy mindedness" to describe somewhat of a pursuit of happiness and refusal to feel otherwise. This religious belief system is not Biblical, although some writers and philosophers may claim that it is. It is a practice of positive thinking and disregards teachings of sin.​ The idea is that these positive thoughts can actualize positive events in the life of the believer. 

   This lecture came from James' Varieties of Religious experience where he expands upon his study in human nature on spirituality. He analyzes the concept of religious belief, being that one's salvation depends on their belief in a god before having any proof that it exists. In his lectures, James infers that individual religious experiences are far more important than the precepts of organized religions as a whole. 

    The Religion of Healthy Mindedness  is the fourth lecture in the series. It expands upon this theory and suggests that people use religion and spirituality, especially in Christianity, to justify the blatant disregard for the fact that life is not all rainbows and sunshine. They think as if all is good if the follow their beliefs and vice versa. When opposing facts are presented to suggest that life is not 'happy" such people use blindness as a weapon to protect against anything that may change the emotion​. To an actively happy person, evil is outside of their beliefs​.

    He divides the healthy minded view from Whitman into voluntary and involuntary types​. Involuntary describes the immediate sensation of happiness one gets from what is right in front of them​. Voluntary describes the belief that good is the essential and universal aspect of being and deliberately excluding any evil from view​. James uses Walt Whitman as the prime example of the voluntary view. Whitman refused to express negativity and saw everything as good, "his optimism is too voluntary and defiant"​. Some may define his optimism as

"quasi-pathalogical"​.  James even questions his motives to the extent of a theory that his forced positivity is a scheme to convince people that harsh consequences of the Industrial Revolution were a good thing.​

    Being "healthy minded" as WJ puts it, is almost like an intentional ignorance. This begs the question can you really speak things into existence. I believe that the mind is very powerful, but it can not guarantee anything. You can believe that you will have a wonderful day all you want, and if you do it is indeed more likely to happen. However, some things in life are just completely out of our control. 

The Big Thing Effective Altruism (Still) Gets Right

The fall of Sam Bankman-Fried helps us see the movement’s vices, but that shouldn’t blind us to its virtues, either.

...If it would be monstrous to let a child drown in front of you because of a modest expense, then isn’t it monstrous to let a child die
a world away when the same modest expense might have saved his or her life?

If you buy into this thought experiment — and I largely do — then you face the difficult question of deciding where its logic ends. When the choice is your comfort or another’s life, then even the most modest luxuries come to seem immoral. Following this moral logic to its outer edges is manageable only for the saintliest among us — Larissa MacFarquhar’s “Strangers Drowning” is an unforgettable exploration of what that level of commitment looks like — but a bit more altruism is in reach for many of us. For me, Singer’s parable has been a provocation worth wrestling with and one that has substantially increased my annual giving..

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/04/opinion/charity-holiday-gift-givewell.html?smid=em-share

What Makes a Life Significant Matthew Zipp #7

 What Makes a Life Significant?

William James often pondered the questions of whether or not life was worth living as well as what makes a life significant. Due to these questions that James proposed, he ended up publishing an article called “What Makes a Life Significant.”

William James was born in 1842 and eventually grew into a leading spokesperson for pragmatism. James was one of the most influential philosophers in the United States during the late nineteenth century. He would eventually become known as the “Father of American Psychology.” William James also spoke out for and promoted individualism.

As far as what makes a life significant, there is no one true answer. Most people have a different perception of the meaning or purpose of life than that of their peers. Some perceive the purpose of life as doing well and finding purpose. Some people also perceive the purpose of life as contributing to their community or seeking knowledge. While there is no specific answer to the purpose of life, many take it at face value and view the purpose of life solely as procreation. Clearly, procreation is not all that there is to human life as I’m sure many would agree.

In William James’ writing, “What Makes a Life Significant,” he lays out criteria for the components of a “significant life.” Among these components are consciously chosen ideals, bold energetic activity, and using our minds and bodies in the ways they were intended to be used. When James mentions consciously chosen ideals, he means carefully chosen ideas that can be pursued. A large part of James’ thought on significant life is that one must pursue significant ideals with determination. James uses two criteria to determine whether an ideal is considered significant or not. William James focuses on the intellectual conception and novelty of ideals. When he speaks about intellectual conception James is mainly referring to someone consciously pursuing something rather than remaining “unconscious.” James says “if we have it; and it must carry with it that sort of outlook, uplift, and brightness that go with all intellectual facts.” He is basically saying that an ideal is significant if it is something that you can carry with you as a part of you and be proud of it.

                        

When James speaks about the novelty of ideals he dives fairly deep. He makes a key point that the ideal itself does not need to possess novelty, but rather, the ideal needs to be novel “at least for him whom the ideal grasps.” However, he goes on to mention that “ideas are relative to the lives that entertain them.” Personally, I agree with James’ statement here. James is explaining that while not all ideals are significant, all lives require significant ideals in order to achieve significance. In the section of What Makes a Life Significant I have been referring to James also states that education is simply a matter of multiplying our ideals or introducing new ones. This made me think about teachers or professors a bit differently because I had never thought of them as people meant to multiply my ideals. Their ideals are to spread knowledge and inform the following generations. This makes my ideals feel minuscule and selfish and makes me question if I am living a significant life in contrast to them.

While reading much of William James’ work, I find myself questioning ideas such as the meaning of life, if life’s worth living, and many other recurring themes in his writing. In recent years, I have begun to perceive the true meaning of life as simply to live it to the fullest or make the absolute most out of it. You are only here for as long as you’re alive, so why waste any of your time? It is going to be quite some time before we witness the development of consciousness transfer technology so time for everyone on Earth is limited. There is no time to waste in creating a significant life for yourself and potentially those around you.

                      

I feel like William James looked at life similarly. As far as how he describes a life’s significance, I feel like, in layman’s terms, he is saying to not waste the moment, find something you care about, stick with it, and contribute to your community. Some of William James’ philosophy is rooted in cosmopolitanism due to the education he received between America and Europe. Cosmopolitanism, in political theory, is the belief that all people are entitled to equal respect and consideration no matter what. Therefore, James was a large advocate for being well-rooted within your community. I do enjoy the idea of cosmopolitanism. All of us humans are in this life thing together. Everyone should be entitled to respect and consideration, today, we see so much disrespect, hate, and intolerance. Inequality is the largest issue in this modern age. I along with James believe that it is important to contribute to the strength of your community.

Towards the end of James’ essay, he speaks about how people are often blind to the significance of their peers and remain envious and greedy rather than taking action. I feel like this is an issue that is still present today. Today so many people are full of greed only looking to make a benefit or a profit for themselves. This is extremely common among record labels and managers trying to steal money from artists or producers. I believe that some people are mistaken about what makes life significant. The significance of a life is not related to how much money you make. Your life is defined by your actions.

In conclusion, a significant life is defined by one's ideals and how one pursues them. While everyone has ideals they are not always significant or pursued with diligence. It is extremely common nowadays for people to not chase their dreams and settle for less. In order to live a significant life you must chase your ambitions, be active in your community, and be proud of that.   

 

 

IS LIFE WORTH LIVING

POSTED BY William James # 7

    Is life worth living? That’s a question that most people if not all have wondered. 

Some people find that for them it is not. So what’s the answer. Well personally for

 me I think it is. However, William James the Philosopher says Maybe it is. William 

James one day saw a sign that said “ life is worth living” on top of a bridge. This 

made him think that ripples in the water we make ripples in the world. Everything we do 

effects somebody. We effect the people we know by the way we act. If we kill 

ourselves those ripples will effect the people around us. Is life worth living 

        William  talks about life and how we effect everything around us. He uses the 

analogy of the rock dropped into the water. We are the rock and when we enter the 

water the rock is lost, that rock is our material life. The first wave of ripples is the 

effect we leave on the people who knew us, which is our social self. Finally we look to 

the our farthest ripples and those are our spiritual self. The main point that I took out    

of this analogy was that there is more to life than our physical self. 

    If William James believed there is more to life than our physical self I do not 

understand why he said that MAYBE Life is Worth Living. Seems to me that if we 

effect the the people around us and the spiritual world and are not just a bunch of

nerve endings and brain matter then life is defiantly worth living. 

    I am going to say life is defiantly worth living. People care about you and so does 

God. We are not on this earth to just live it up and then die. We are here to bless and 

help others. When we go through rough times imagine getting through it and then 

helping others that are going through the same thing. I do not think suicide is the right 

answer and if you or someone else is thinking about it then please talk to someone or         

go to the Suicide Hotline website. People are worth a lot, and life is worth living.

    In conclusion, we make a difference in then world whether we think we do or not. 

The question of if life is worth living is not obvious all the time. Like William James 

said just because we think our life is worth living does not mean you can force that 

idea on others. Everyone’s life situation is different. Some people have it rough. 

However, because we have influence on others and the spiritual world we should think 

twice about ending our lives. Human life is valuable and we are not just nerve endings 

and brain matter. I think life is worth living.

Gun Violence in America

 Rumi Arif Wein 

 

What began as a gun use and safety training association has now become a large corporate factor in American politics. The National Rifle Association establishes propaganda in America through fear-mongering, media, and lobbying.

As mentioned in Kurt Andersen's "FantasyLand, How America Went Haywire",

 The NRA tricks Americans into thinking that they are under a danger they can only liberate themselves from through militarization. They are particularly constantly fighting against gun laws and pushing the narrative that they won’t work to discourage mass shootings. The organization's corporatism has caused a new, uniquely American perspective on legislation: that other laws work, but laws against guns just can’t.

 

The NRA are known to meet gun violence protesters with confrontation and often baseless counter-arguments. Their firm belief is that gun control will create greater unsafety for the people of the United States, and they have backed these beliefs with a powerful propaganda campaign. While they have many ways to combat anti-gun opinions, a particularly influential method was to create false narratives around media coverage of school shootings. “Our freedom is under attack like never before,” said Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre. “When a deranged criminal murders innocent children, they blame us.” The bill that Cox is referencing was an Obama administration body of legislature created to establish stronger background checks. The bill eventually was shot down.

The NRA has also publicly conspired that shootings were only covered so much because they secure high ratings for the media outlets, but if Americans should believe that gun legislature is taking their guns away from them, what is the solution to mass killings? During a press conference after the Sandy Hook massacre, the organization's Vice-president, Wayne LaPierre, doubled down on the NRA's solution: Armed laborers, and armed teachers in schools across America. This is an opinion some Americans now align themselves with, even though the idea has clear dangers and drawbacks.

Another and more prominent form of propaganda dissemination the organization uses is the lobbying of politicians and public servants at the congressional level. Pictured below is an eye-opening graph of the top recipients of NRA contributions in just the U.S. Senate.

The NRA has spent over 2 million dollars currently in 2022 on lobbying alone, and in 2018 spent over 5 million dollars in buying out politicians in the name of their business. Some benefitting from corporate donations by the NRA include Mitt Romney (Utah senator) who has been paid over $13 million, and Marsha Blackburn (TN senator) who earned $1.3 million in donations. Here is a source where you can find these senators, and others, listed alongside how much they've earned in NRA donations.

NRA corporatism is greatly affecting America. Other countries don’t allow the NRA to purchase their ads in politicians campaigns, and they have regulations that limit how much corporations can donate to politicians. The responsibility that comes with having platforms so large that they can sway public opinion is understood in many places. The American public is a part of why America is so unique in its mass shooting problem, they have been misled to believe gun legislature might make things worse.

 

Gun control works, heres how we know it works

 

In countries where there are stricter gun laws, much fewer people die.

In his paper with Eric Grinshteyn, Dr. David Hemenway, professor of Health Policy at Harvard, put American gun violence in comparison to other high income OECD countries. What they found was America with its more relaxed gun laws, has a gun homicide rate over 25 times higher than other countries. For children 15-24, the rate was 49 times higher. They also noted that 82% of all people killed by firearms were from the United States. These are truly horrifying statistics and can be correlated with the gun laws in these countries. The study also states that since 2003, other developed countries have decreased their gun death rate with stricter laws around guns, while the U.S.’s rate remains steady.

 

Another way we know gun control works is through state legislation around guns. California, for example, has heavy legislation around guns, and has a firearm death rate 37% lower than the national average- a score of 8.5 for gun deaths per 100,000 people. In contrast, Mississippi has extremely weak gun laws, and because of this it sports a death rate of 28.6. When more guns are present, more gun related deaths occur.

 

To conclude, America needs stricter gun laws because it will protect our people.

Gun control laws work because we have seen them lower death rates in other countries, and in our own states. And, we must recognize that the influence of corporations in America is greatly affecting our safety, as well as contributing to gun violence. This form of gun-cult narrative is being promoted by the outsized power of the NRA. Who in the service of increasing their profit margin, will spend copious amounts of money on politicians and media outlets to fear-monger, and promote anti-gun restriction laws. The problem of gun deaths in this country is influenced by criminal corporatism that stands not for the people, but for profit incentive.

 

Do you think that corporations like the NRA should be able to donate to politicians and media outlets?

Do you think that they have the public’s best interest in mind?

 

William James and "The Sentiment of Rationality"

John Wright #12

   "This feeling of sufficiency of the present moment, of its absoluteness,- this absence of all need to explain it, account for it, or justify it,- is what I call the Sentiment of Rationality."- William James

    

    At the age of 40, James had his essay entitled "The Sentiment of Rationality" published in the Princeton Review in 1882. In roughly fifteen sentences, he gives the reader the his answer to what that means. Even so, he uses another 110 paragraphs explaining what makes his take on rationality different from other previous philosophers, and explains in detail the flaws in their own logic and emotion. He addresses two common beliefs in philosophy that he describes as "sister passions", these being the passion for simplicity and the passion for distinguishing. He points out how viewing either as an absolute answer to rationality is flawed and argues that true rationality must be a balance between these two passions. 

    He discredits the ideas of the pre-socratics and theologians that everything is one thing. Such as Thales belief that everything is water, and many religious thinkers vowing that everything is God. With five words he states that, "Absolute existence is absolute mystery". Here we see why he argues against simplicity. It relays no true understanding of the world, and leaves so many questions and holes that are too easily filled with an unfulfilling answer. James then goes on to show his comedic prowess by delivering a clever quip about how this very idea of simplifying objects and meaning to one answer is why so few people care for philosophy

    What about the sister passion of distinguishing, or clarity? Well James also cleverly dismantles this idea that to truly understand the world things must be broken down into their basic parts and analyzed with a microscope and a fine toothed comb. He uses the example of how a Beethoven string quartet could be described as a "scraping of horses' tails on cats' bowels". He addresses that describing the music in this way is an adequate description, however, it no longer describes the music in a way that makes rational sense. 

    In James's view, absolute ideas do no lead to rational conclusions. Dogmatic theories may clear up some aspects of our world while clouding or overcomplicating others. This is why he advocates for a balance between the two passions that arrange our personal philosophies. 

  

  While at first glance it may seem like James completely disregards the use of religion in the quest for rationality, this is not so. Many philosophers, before, after, and during his time, dismiss the value of religion and claim that atheism was the more logical path. He addresses that as humans we have an inherent need to believe in something, or to have faith. "The truths cannot become true till our faith has made them so." Faith is what allows us to continue on and not give up on ourselves, it is what gives us the willingness to act. In James own way, his faith in free will is what allowed him to start living his life to the fullest. This faith allowed him the control of his life that he so desperately needed. Moreover, without faith in something, the only logical philosophy is meaningless Nihilism. 

                      

    James perfectly sums up his own ideas by saying that "No philosophy will permanently be deemed rational by all men". In James's view, the best philosophy is the one that works best for someone and allows them to live a life that improves ones life and allows them to live a more full and happier life. He closes his essay with saying that "The ultimate philosophy, we may therefore conclude, must not be too strait-laced in form, must not in all its parts divide heresy from orthodoxy by too sharp a line." 

Originalism: The Philosophy Invading the Supreme Court by Ardiola Medi (#11)

Posted for Ardiola Medi #11 

When Roe v Wade was overturned through the Dobbs v. Jackson ruling, Originalism started to make headlines. The philosophical method of interpreting the constitution played a large part in the decision that would delegitimize the precedent set for the right to privacy. Six out of nine of the current Supreme Court Justices, being Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, are proponents of this method. Although espoused by the more conservative justices, the method of Originalism has been used by liberal judges for progressive means and seems to be a standard for constitutional interpretation. So, what is Originalism? 

 

I will explain the philosophy of Originalism through former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who made the method of interpretation popular. He says that "The Constitution that I interpret and apply is not living but dead, or as I prefer to call it, enduring. It means today not what current society, much less the court, thinks it ought to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted." As an originalist one would keep what the founding fathers intended when crafting the constitution in mind. For Originalist interpreters to understand what the founding fathers intended they are often required to view text like debates in the Constitutional Convention or the Federalist Papers. Some consider how people of the time period interpreted the constitutional for further insight. An example of Scalia using this form of interpretation is in District of Columbia v. Heller. Scalia conceded that the Second Amendment protected the right to possess firearms without being in service to a militia. He came to this conclusion by Originalist means arguing that ordinary citizens of the time understood and practiced the constitutional right in this way. 

 

At first glance, Originalism seems like a valid way of interpreting the constitution, the philosophy supposedly would produce objective, non-politically charged rulings. Recently though it seems as if Originalism has been co-opted by Conservatives to push their own politics in terms of the right to privacy, Thomas intending to go after gay marriage next. Critics of Originalism propose that relying on the intent of the founding fathers inhibits progress. It is argued that beliefs the founding fathers may have had about women and people of color would not align with modern sentiments towards the civil rights of these groups. This critique does not hold up with those that believe the meaning of the constitution should not be misconstrued or cherrypicked to promote political values. What I believe is a more valid critique of Originalism is that it requires interpreters to be historians, and they tend to be mediocre ones at best. This is one of the reasons the rulings seem to lean conservative, they are interpreting history with bias.  

Justice Alito's conceding opening in Dobbs v. Jackson is an example of this. He says, "the right (to abortion) is neither deeply rooted in the nation's history nor an essential component of "ordered liberty". He is quite wrong. From the time settlers first arrived abortion was legal. Abortions before "quickening" were openly advertised and commonly performed at the time the Constitution was adopted. It was only in the mid 19th century that states began passing laws that made abortion illegal. One of the reasons included fear that the population would be dominated by the children of newly arriving immigrants, whose birth rates were higher than those of "native" Anglo-Saxon women.  

 

I do believe a good thing about the invasion of this form of radical originalism is that it brings critics to think about the process of amending the constitution. If you cannot possibly interpret the constitution outside the intent of its framers, then amend it. It’s a very hard process but when we cannot possibly escape our original intent it’s the best means to ensure our rights. Otherwise, promoting a pragmatic approach to interpreting the constitution along the standards of originalism is a good way to combat radical forms of originalism.