(Successor site to CoPhilosophy, 2011-2020)
A collaborative search for wisdom, at Middle Tennessee State University and beyond... "The pluralistic form takes for me a stronger hold on reality than any other philosophy I know of, being essentially a social philosophy, a philosophy of 'co'"-William James
But much else remains inconclusive. Keep asking questions, be well, keep in touch. Happy holidays!
Farewell
Last words, for now:
WJ's last published essay was inspired by his odd correspondent *Benjamin Paul Blood, who was convinced that nitrous oxide and other "anaesthetic" substances provide a revelatory key to greater depths of reality. That essay concluded:
...Let my last word, then, speaking in the name of intellectual philosophy, be his word.–“There is no conclusion. What has concluded, that we might conclude in regard to it? There are no fortunes to be told, and there is no advice to be given.–Farewell!” --A Pluralistic Mystic
But of course there is advice to be given: Be not afraid, keep asking questions, pay attention, stay healthy, don't worry, be happy, enjoy the journey, don't be a stranger...
Don't just list your sources, link to them (and other relevant external content)-please do not include whole URL addresses in your published text, linking hides them nicely. Embed videos and summarize their contents. Make sure the formatting is correct after you Publish. Posting will close after Dec.6. If you are unable to post, send your report directly to me - phil.oliver@mtsu.edu - and include footnotes to all terms you intended to link.
OPEN YOUR EMAIL AUTHOR INVITATION, then look for the NEW POST tab in the upper right on our blogsite (do NOT create a new blog, post your final report on our site)... The topic should complement, clarify, and elaborate on some central aspect of your final presentation. Share and defend your own view(s), if you have any. Try to imagine what your best critic would say, and how you'd respond. Address one or more of your discussion questions.... Aim for a minimum of 1,000 words... Include relevant links (at least half a dozen or so) in lieu of footnotes/bibliography, video & textual embeds(a couple), andgraphics(one or two): let me know if you need instruction on how to do it... When referencing texts we've read in the course, cite page #s and abbreviations (MacA, McK, GT, etc.)... Make sure your post has formatted correctly. If not, use the Clear Formatting command in the toolbar in the upper right, above, to fix it... You can continue to edit and revise until the final draft is due...
Chapter 13 of Question Everything: Now What? confronts readers with critical and difficult questions that challenge humanity's trajectory and the individual's role in an increasingly complex world. The essays "We're Doomed: Now What?" by Roy Scranton, "Are We the Cows of the Future?" by Esther Leslie, and "The Courage to be Alone" by Megan Craig offer extensive analysis of society and the individual role in it; displaying unique perspectives and solutions to crises that face all of humanity.
In this post, I will analyze the central themes that unify these essays, summarizing each of the author's viewpoints and addressing potential criticisms that test each argument's stability and applicability to the threats that engulf modern society.
"We're Doomed: Now What?" by Roy Scranton
Scranton's essay tackles the climate crisis as he argues that the global warming humanity faces evolved from a physical challenge to an existential one. The optimistic narratives that suggest technology and politics alone can save us, in his view, harm society on a grand scale due to the lack of emphasis on the inevitability of the planet's degradation. With people being unwilling to accept the tragedies that may occur, society fails to prepare itself philosophically, ethically, and emotionally for the events to come ahead, as the unrealistic and hopeful view that is adapted obstructs the development of a rational outlook. This philosophical shift invites immediate survival strategies and allows one to consider their role as a steward of knowledge and the meaning to all life collectively. The essay challenges readers to adopt a view that Scranton names the "Deep Time Perspective," which acknowledges humanity as a brief chapter in Earth's vast history. Through this view, societies' tendency to value anthropogenic prosperity over the long-term benefit of collective life becomes immoral, with humanity failing to understand the value and weight of their existence.
Scranton's view on the inevitability of our destruction isn't baseless, as organizations such as NASA have expressed similar takes on the issue, suggesting that some aspects of climate change are truly irreversible. I agree with Scranton on many of his points, as it is impossible to refute the benefit of humanity holding a realistic awareness of its status; however, in my view, abandoning the concept of hope is almost never beneficial. Scranton's suggestions parallel many of the ideals held in stoicism and directly align with the utilitarian philosophy that philosophers such as Peter Singer held (LHP, 239). The concept of accepting tragedy as it comes with the willingness to embrace any circumstance is one that stoics suggest is most beneficial to moving through crisis and is an ideology that Scranton strongly pushes in his essay. Along with this, Scranton suggests the unwarranted philosophical acceptance of speciesism, suggesting its prevalence as a key reason for the ecological damage committed in modern society. I personally slightly disagree with Scranton's utilitarian mindset when it comes to anthropomorphic dominance on the planet, as although I do believe it is important to take all life into consideration when making decisions, I do not believe it to be unethical to value human beings over all other life forms, as human lives have more innate value than any other creature in my perspective.
"Are We the Cows of the Future?" - Esther Leslie
In a provocative exploration of biotechnology, Esther Leslie compares humanity to cows, as the worth of individuals has been diminished by elite groups to that of cattle in modern times. The essay critiques the commodification of life, noting the ethical dilemmas posed by surveillance capitalism, genetic engineering, and artificial intelligence. Leslie's presentation of the dystopian future that humanity awaits paints a picture of human life shaped by algorithms and corporate interests, where free will is almost entirely non-existent. The essay discusses the concept of profit thriving off innovations in society, which often causes ethical considerations to take a backseat to the immediate gain of an individual. Leslie argues that individuals should question the frameworks that govern our society to ensure that we have not created a system that will eradicate humanity's greatest unique attributes.
I agree with Leslie on many of her larger themes; however, I struggle to believe our society will become as dystopian as she suggests. In many ways, the enrichment of our society and the development of our technologies have benefited the overall well-being of mankind and, if further developed, could bring about prosperity to a greater multitude of people. The pros of technological development must be considered alongside its limitations to ensure its proper use and benefit are maintained worldwide.
"The Courage to Be Alone" - Megan Craig
Craig's essay offers a refreshing perspective on solitude, reframing it as a positive and worthwhile state in contrast to society's perception, which views it as a negative state that brings about distressing emotions. She argues that in a hyper-connected world, the ability to embrace solitude is an act of courage, fostering introspection and resistance to societal pressures. Craig draws directly from individuals such as Henry David Thoreau and Soren Kierkegaard, who express the idea of being alone to cultivate creativity, clarity, and self-awareness.
I agree and disagree with Craig on many of her points in the essay, as being alone can benefit many in society while also being devastating to others. Many individuals suffer from immense loneliness that predominates negative mental health in an incredibly judgemental society. Experiencing greater amounts of loneliness can be devastating to individuals who do not experience much while also being beneficial to those who treat other people's validation as an irresistible drug.
Now What?
Ultimately, each of these essays holds a unified theme of dealing with unavoidable tragedy from different perspectives. Scranton's essay expresses the crises that humanity collectively faces on a planetary scale, Leslie offers insight on the crises of societal development, and Craig offers insight into the crisis one will find within oneself, allowing each author to offer solutions to each of these crises as they apply to everyday life. Through navigating the problems of progress, uncertainty, and courage, the essay authors give insight into the status of society as a whole and offer unique perspectives that each contribute to the prosperity of society, as the essay explains how one can prepare oneself philosophically, ethically, and emotionally for the challenges ahead of us all.
Discussion Questions:
- Is it better to prioritize the immediate benefit of mankind or all collective life?
- Should society continue to progress in technologies that could replace the need for human attributions?
- Is being alone beneficial in a society where isolation and loneliness are more prevalent than ever in modern history?
For twenty years, this epic and life-changing philosophical method went untouched until the great William James gave it its rightful attention... well at least that is how Mr. James himself would describe it. If you didn’timmediately connect the dots, I am going to be discussing pragmatism.
The word itself was derived from the Greek word “pragma” which means action and was first introduced into philosophy by Charles Pierce in 1878. Pierce originally defined pragmatism as todetermine an object's meaning and clear up perceptions, we must analyze the practical implications. William James touches on how some philosophers have dabbled in the ideas of pragmatism but have all failed to label it and do it justice. A lot of William James’ lecture I read in a very boastful fancy man voice.
I would like to ask you all to continue to read my post in a fancy pants voice and here is a picture of the man himself to give you some inspiration.
In all seriousness, what does pragmatism really mean? Very early on in our class when reading Little House of Philosophy chapter 29, we immediately associated pragmatism with the squirrel example. I opened my assigned lecture and in scanning through the first paragraph I saw the word “squirrel” and immediatelythought to myself “I am so thankful I kind of know what’s going on.” In his 1903 lecture “What Pragmatism Means”, James explains a thought-provoking moment he experienced while camping in the mountains with friends. Picture a tree with a squirrel on it, a man is continuously going round the tree to try to be facing the squirrel, but the squirrel always keeps the tree between it and the man. The question is raised on whether the man is actually “going round” the squirrel. James, so humbly, acknowledges his own intellectual qualifications to settling this dilemma. He says it all depends on the practical meaning of “going round”; if it is defined as the man hitting the positions of north, east, west, and sound then he has done that, but if it is defined as being positioned as some point on all sides of the squirrel then he has not done that. William James points all that out to simply say something along the lines of, well both sides are right, and both sides are wrong depending on the practicality of the matter.
Here is a squirrel to help you visualize this scenario taking place.
To my own disappointment, pragmatism is not just about squirrels. Although if you have name suggestions for the squirrel pictured above, I am open to all ideas.Through James’ lecture, two main components of pragmatism are identified, being method and truth.
It stood out to me that pragmatism has no set beliefs or stances to abide by, but rather it is to be used as a lens to view all theories through.The majority of philosophers we have looked at seem to be telling you a direct path to live a happy life or how to go about matters to reach some state of potential fulfillment. William J just wants you to trust the process for real.The pragmatic method’s purpose is to settle metaphysical disputes that otherwise could not be concluded. Additionally, if no distinct difference in consequences of one side or the other being true or not can be traced then the alternatives practically mean the same thing. If the outcomes of believing X and Y show no difference, then X and Y are essentially the same. Whether we realize it or not, I believe our brains naturally gauge situations this way on some scale.At least after my time in lecture, I know for sure Professor Oliver does.
William James emphasized his thoughts on the concept of truth. He claims that we claim ideas as truths if they agree with other aspects of our own experiences. Pragmatic truth does not simply look at reality. It is important to note the pragmatic distinction between truth and fact as well. As just defined, truth is based on its usefulness in the real world and how it results from own experience whereas fact are inarguable physical observations such as “the sky is blue.” A particular quote that stuck out to me is “reasons why we call things true is the reason why they are true.” This quote for some odd reason scratched an itch in my brain. I believe here he is saying we believe wholeheartedly in our own personal truths due to the reasoning for them being true. A very relevant topic in our modern society. Before I start a ramble on that aspect, let me move on to the final heavy hitter I noticed in William James’ lecture.
Pragmatism is very anti dogmatic as James dismisses the idea of absolute “solving names” such as “God” and “energy”.He viewed words like these as steppingstones to ask more questions and to search down more avenues rather than ending the discussion with them. Whichimmediately led me to ponder James’ point of view on theology, thankfully he discussed that as well. His overall stance on religion is that if theological ideas prove to do good for real life, then they are true for pragmatism. If religious practice demonstrates positive practical consequences, then it has William James’ stamp of approval... and my stamp of approval as well.
Okay so now I have discussed much more than just a squirrel and given the title of my assigned lecture I guess I should perhaps give a conclusive statement for the meaning of pragmatism. Pragmatism is a tool to utilize in analyzing all sets of beliefs; it is concerned with the practical implications of a belief in the real world to determine its true value. I found it hard to necessarily disagree with this particular lecture because there are no philosophical principles to form an opinion on.No beliefs or set principles, just a squirrel, a pretty rad method, and a justifiable viewpoint on truth.
Discussion Questions:
1. Have you applied the pragmatic method to any aspect of your beliefs?
2. Are there any truths that you claim because have been pragmatically justified?
3. What would you name the squirrel I included at the beginning of this post?
