Growing up enlightened

LISTEN. Going for the pre-op consultation this morning, this surgery adventure is about to get real. If I must be carnally invaded (and I must, dogwalks have become excruciating), minimally is the adverb of choice. It seems the enlightened thing to do, under the circumstances. 

This evening in Enlightenment we'll open Susan Neiman's Why Grow Up? Subversive Thoughts for an Infantile Age. Being enlightened, for her as for her hero Kant, means accepting the way things are while still striving to do what can be done to make them better. It's very close to what I (following William James) call *meliorism, and what my mentor Lachs calls Stoic Pragmatism... (continues)

Questions June 8

 Why Grow Up? Subversive Thoughts for an Infantile Age, by Susan Neiman (WGU)

Please add two or more questions from the Introduction/Part One, and respond to one (yours or mine or classmates') in two or more paragraphs... before Tuesday if possible. We'll try to cover everything essential by 7:30 each week, going forward. If anyone has more to say we'll reconvene after a break. Those who need to leave can do so with a clear conscience.

• Do you think of growing up as "a matter of renouncing your hopes and dreams"? 1
• Do you like the "well-meaning Uncle's" advice? Or the Rolling Stones'? 4
• Is Kant right in "What is Enlightenment?" about why people "choose immaturity"? 5
• If distractions, especially "since the invention of cyberspace," are "literally limitless," is Enlightenment in Kant's sense a realistic goal for most people? 9
• Do you agree that it takes courage to think for yourself? 11
• Is travel necessary for growing up? 13-16
• Is Larry Summers wrong about language-learning? 16
• Do you believe the best time of life is between the ages of 18 and 28? 20
• How innocent should childhood be? What do you think of the way French children were raised in the 17th century? 24
• Do you wish you'd had a Samoan childhood? Do you think tests in school prepare you for life? 27
• Is it bad to be WEIRD? 32
• Should philosophers pay more attention to child-rearing and parenting? 36
• What do you think Cicero meant by saying that philosophy is learning to die?
• Do you feel fully empowered to "choose your life's journey"? If not, what obstacles prevent that? 37
• In what ways do you think your parents' occupations influence the number of choices you'll be able to make in your life?
• If you've read 1984 and Brave New World, which do you find the more "seductive dystopia"? 39
• Are we confused about toys and dreams? 40
•  
  
  
  American moral philosopher and author, Susan Neiman, talks us about why we have been tricked to think we are happiest when we are young and why it is we need to grow up. Watch the full interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeNQV... Institute of Art & Ideas

• Do others make the most important decisions for you? 41
• Do you "make a regular appointment with your body"? 42
• Do you trust anyone over 30? 45
• Is it "reasonable to expect justice and joy"? 49
• Are you "committed to Enlightenment"? 51
• Do the passions for glory and luxury make us wicked and miserable? 53
• What does it mean to say there are no atheists in foxholes? Is it true? 54
• Was Rousseau right about inequality and private property? 55
• Should philosophy be taught to children, so as to become thinking adults? 57
• Should children "yield to the commands of other people"? 61
• Should parents "let the child wail"?
• Are Rousseau and Kant right about the true definition of freedom? 62
• Is Rousseau right about desire? 65
• Did Rousseau's abandonment of his children discredit his thoughts on child-rearing? 69 Or show him to be a hypocrite for saying no task in the world is more important than raising a child properly? 72

“What is Enlightenment?” (1784) 

by Immanuel KANT (1724-1804) 

Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. Sapere Aude! 1 "Have courage to use your own understanding!" - that is the motto of enlightenment. Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so great a proportion Of men, long after nature has released them from alien guidance (naturaliter maiorennes,)2 nonetheless gladly remain in lifelong immaturity, and why it is so easy for others to establish themselves as their guardians. It is so easy to be immature. If I have a book to serve as my understanding, a pastor to serve as my conscience, a physician to determine my diet for me, and so on, I need not exert myself at all. I need not think, if only I can pay: others will readily undertake the irksome work for me. The guardians who have so benevolently taken over the supervision of men have carefully seen to it that the far greatest part of them (including the entire fair sex) regard taking the step to maturity as very dangerous, not to mention difficult. Having first made their domestic livestock dumb, and having carefully made sure that these docile creatures will not take a single step without the gocart to which they are harnessed, these guardians then show them the danger that threatens them, should they attempt to walk alone. Now this danger is not actually so great, for after falling a few times they would in the end certainly learn to walk; but an example of this kind makes men timid and usually frightens them out of all further attempts. Thus, it is difficult for any individual man to work himself out of the immaturity that has all but become his nature. He has even become fond of this state and for the time being is actually incapable of using his own understanding... (continues)

A vision of moral purpose

	Steven Pinker ⁦‪@sapinker‬⁩ In this important essay ⁦‪@MaxCRoser‬⁩ explains the mission of ⁦‪@OurWorldInData‬⁩ & articulates a vision (which I share) of moral purpose: Open-mindedly trying to understand the world's problems & seeking practicable solutions, confident some might work. ourworldindata.org/problems-and-p…   6/7/21, 10:18 AM

Phil.Oliver@mtsu.edu

👣Solvitur ambulando

💭Sapere aude

Doubt from the heart

	TPM Philosophy Quote ⁦‪@tpmquote‬⁩ Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts.--Charles Peirce   6/7/21, 11:00 AM

Phil.Oliver@mtsu.edu

👣Solvitur ambulando

💭Sapere aude

Pascal: sit still

An exaggeration, surely. But I'll wager he was onto something.

"All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone."
- Blaise Pascal pic.twitter.com/p5wMRRNffa

— Ethics in Bricks (@EthicsInBricks) June 7, 2021

Thanks to social media we can sit alone in a room and be heard around the world. Is that progress?

"Just because your voice now goes all across the world does not mean you are any wiser than when it only went to the end of the bar."
- Edward R. Murrow pic.twitter.com/v0ppOPRJa8

— Ethics in Bricks (@EthicsInBricks) June 7, 2021

Mutual accommodation

"...[Some] evangelical churches...claim vaccination confers the mark of the beast. (Note, too, that the E.E.O.C.'s definition of "religious beliefs" includes "moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.")

Not all religious objections need to be accommodated, though. A requirement can be deemed a bona fide occupational requirement even if it effectively discriminates against people with anomalous views; and the same logic can apply to an institution's residents, students or patients. We seek to accommodate religious (or religious-like) views so long as that accommodation doesn't come at serious cost. When that's not possible, it's no expression of hostility to the religious to ask them to make accommodations. At least in the tradition I was raised in, this was understood. There were inconveniences associated with sticking to the demands of our faith. We bore them willingly as part of the service we were offering to God." -The Ethicist

https://t.co/UC8Rx6yHH2
(https://twitter.com/NYTmag/status/1401624960775380995?s=02)

Harsh

Stoic pragmatism is an enlightened hybrid.

Stoicism "nasty, fatalistic, bordering on fascist"-@wmarybeard maybe just a bit harsh
(https://twitter.com/OSOPHER/status/1401677771189989377?s=02)

Time, our most precious commodity

Yet we must not
diabolize time. Right?
We must not curse the passage of time.
--Jennifer Michael Hecht
https://t.co/5A5Vy0NBrw
(https://twitter.com/OSOPHER/status/1401513904581320706?s=02)

Turning Child Care Into a New Cold War

Enlightened societies support working parents and children. Tennessee's junior Senator does not.

Republicans talk a good game about families. And then stiff them.

For a country brimming with “pro-family” politicians, the United States sure is a tough place to raise a family.

We Americans like to think “We’re No. 1,” but one recent study found that the United States was the second worst out of 35 industrialized countries as a place for families. We ranked behind Bulgaria. Behind Chile.

Now we have a historic chance to support children and families, for President Biden’s American Families Plan proposes programs such as high-quality day care and pre-K that are routine elsewhere in the world. You might think that the “pro-family” Republican Party would be eager to translate platitudes into practical help. But you’d be wrong.

“You know who else liked universal day care?” tweeted Senator Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican. She cited the old Soviet Union, apparently suggesting that there is something Communist about day care, and falsely claimed that participation would be mandatory under the Biden plan...

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/05/opinion/sunday/child-care-pre-K-republicans.html?smid=em-share

Innate rectitude?

Are ideas of justice & fairness universal? Do children have an innate sense of right and wrong? Hard to believe it's now been 10 years since I discussed these topics with the incomparable @DavidEdmonds100 & @philosophybites.  Podcast available here:
https://t.co/HyqCi29cZZ
(https://twitter.com/_John_Mikhail/status/1401213468594917376?s=02)

Our benighted consumer culture

The "good" 'ole days? pic.twitter.com/Ftzzz5IFCq

— Brian Leiter (@BrianLeiter) June 5, 2021

The "good" 'ole days? https://t.co/Ftzzz5IFCq
(https://twitter.com/BrianLeiter/status/1401261901447892998?s=02)

Arc of Enlightenment

Arc of Enlightenment in a rational, civilized world:

Data → Facts → Information → Knowledge → Insight → Wisdom
(https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/1401201102645776392?s=02)

how the light gets in

"There is a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in."
- Leonard Cohen https://t.co/iBSPbgyf04
(https://twitter.com/EthicsInBricks/status/1401546912227074060?s=02)

David Hume

David Hume (1632-1704) brought the odd consequences of empiricism fully into the open. Hume's philosophy was a thorough-going skepticism, the likes of which had not been seen since the ancients. Hume was one of the most brilliant of the Enlightenment enthusiasts, but he also recognized that reason-understood both as scientific method and as rationality more broadly conceived-had overstepped its limits. There is much, he saw, that reason cannot do, assurances it cannot deliver, proofs it cannot produce. Hume's skepticism was, paradoxically, the clearest example of solid, self-scrutinizing Enlightenment thinking. His conclusion was that even the best thinking cannot do what the Enlightenment thinkers thought it could do. Hume's skepticism was based on a number of doctrines that had emerged from the debate about knowledge that had now gone on since Bacon and Descartes. Hume was an avowed empiricist. All knowledge, he repeated, must come from experience. He also accepted the distinction between experience and the world to which it refers. But, then, can our belief in the "external" world be established by way of experience? No, nor can our belief in the "external" world be established by way of deduction without simply begging the question. Hume concluded that the most basic beliefs, upon which all of our knowledge is founded, cannot be established by reason. Similarly, in the realm of morals, Hume applied his skeptical eye and concludes that "it is not against reason that I should prefer the destruction of half the world to the pricking of my little finger." Reason cannot motivate us to be moral. Nevertheless, our emotions can and do. Each of us is born with a natural capacity for sympathy and a natural concern for utility (about as nuts-and-bolts a practical notion as philosophers ever employ) with which we construct, among other things, our ideas about justice and society. Hume tended to naturalism, the idea that what reason can not do, nature will do for us anyway. If reason cannot guarantee us knowledge, nature nevertheless provides us with the good sense to make our way in the world. If reason cannot guarantee morals, our human natures nevertheless supply us with adequate sentiments to behave rightly toward one another. But if reason cannot justify the belief in God and the religious prejudices that go along with it, then so much the worse for religion. Hume was an unrepentant atheist. If the learned tomes of Scholasticism did not succeed in providing sound arguments or good evidence for religious beliefs, then "commit them to the flames," pronounced Hume, infuriating the theologians. Luckily, he did not prescribe the same harsh treatment for other unprovable beliefs, such as our belief in the existence of the "external" world and our belief in the importance of morals. Reason may have its limits, but our sentiments and our natural common sense, cultivated  through our social traditions, have power and virtue too. Hume reminds us (again) of what has long been neglected in the search for rational certainty that defined so much of modern philosophy. A Passion for Wisdom

ReplyForward

Adam Smith

"The rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.” Adam Smith, progressive opponent of libertarian "free market" ideology. His "other hand," even less visible today.https://t.co/04XJcQMFSY

— Phil Oliver (@OSOPHER) June 5, 2021

Scottish economist and philosopher Adam Smith (books by this author) was baptized on this day in 1723 in Kircaldy, Fife, Scotland. We don’t know much about his childhood, but it’s rumored that he was carried off — briefly — by gypsies at the age of four. He was absentminded and eccentric, talking to himself often, suffering from imaginary illnesses, and given to such engrossing daydreams that he occasionally walked out of the house in his nightgown.

Smith entered the University of Glasgow in 1737 at the age of 14. After he graduated, he won a scholarship to Oxford, which he found academically lackluster after the dynamic Scottish Enlightenment atmosphere in Glasgow; he largely taught himself while he was there. He became a professor of logic and, later, moral philosophy at the University of Glasgow, and he considered his time there “by far the happiest and most honourable period of [his] life.” His social circle included a chemist, an engineer, a publisher, several successful merchants, and fellow philosopher David Hume.

Smith published his first book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, in 1759 to general acclaim, but it’s his second, The Wealth of Nations (1776), for which he is chiefly known today. It took him ten years to write, and in it he posits that the pursuit of individual self-interest will lead, as if by an “invisible hand,” to the greatest good for all. He tended to oppose anything — government or monopolies — that interfered with pure competition; he called his laissez-faire approach “perfect liberty.” He’s been painted by some in recent years as a staunch defender of free-market capitalism, supply-side economics, and limited government. Other economists argue that this image is somewhat misleading, and that his devotion to the laissez-faire philosophy has been overstated. For example, he had a favorable view of taxes in general and progressive taxes in particular, as he wrote in Wealth of Nations:

“The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. … The rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”

He did argue, however, that the tax law should be as simple and transparent as possible.

Shortly before his death he ordered his unfinished manuscripts and personal papers destroyed, as was the custom in his time. Lost to posterity are volumes on law, science, and the arts. His Essays on Philosophical Subjects was published posthumously. WA

==

"Adam Smith (1723-1790) was David Hume's best friend and closest colleague. What Smith shared with Hume was a love of history and literature and a conservative concern for the nature of what we would now call liberal society, with its definitive (if controversial) institution of private property. Most of all, Smith shared with his friend Hume a deep sense of the ultimate importance of ethics and an understanding of human nature. He is best known as the father of the free-enterprise system, and the author of the "bible" of capitalism, ism, An Inquiry into the Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776). It was the beginning of modern economics and of what we might call the philosophy of the free market system. In Wealth of Nations, Smith gave a partial defense to the long-demeaned demeaned concept of self-interest. The law of "supply and demand" assures us that, with time, the best and cheapest products will earn the richest rewards, and the overall interests of both consumer and manufacturer will be optimized. It was a simple idea, elegant and radical. Self-interest could serve the public good. This did not mean that self-interest interest should now be considered a virtue, however, and there was nothing in Adam Smith to support a "Greed is good" mentality Still, one can easily imagine what a breath of fresh air the citizens of the late eighteenth century must have experienced when they were told, after two millennia of carping on the evils of money and the sins of avarice, that self-interest had its benefits, not just for one but for all. To the delight of novice entrepreneurs, Smith also argued that government, which had hitherto controlled or regulated virtually every major commercial transaction, should not interfere with the economy. "Laissez faire," was the language of the day, "Leave us alone." Smith's proposals also meant that the guilds and guild-like corporations would no longer monopolize industry. Enterprise would now be "free." On the basis of Wealth of Nations, Smith has been widely cited (mainly by those who have not read him) as the classic defender of commercial individualism, of power and profit. The truth is that Smith, years before he wrote Wealth of Nations, published an account of human nature in terms of the moral sentiments, distinctively human feelings that moved men and women to live harmoniously together in society. Thus, despite the booming thesis of Wealth of Nations, Smith believed that people are not essentially selfish or self-interested but are essentially social creatures who act out of sympathy and fellow-feeling for the good of society as a whole. A decent free-enterprise system would only be possible in the context of such a society." A Passion for Wisdom

==

In other words, Smith would have rejected the position of people like MTSU's favorite son James McGill Buchanan, and its Political Economy Research Institute...

Integrity

Younger Daughter wanted to gamble, to celebrate her 22d birthday and her recent college graduation. So she and Mom traipsed off to southern Indiana, while I stayed home with the dogs and cat and taught my Enlightenment class. 

And, I found yet another compelling Cornel West sermon on YouTube. This one happened to be at Southern Indiana University, not far from the gambling den in Evansville... (continues) 

Importance

Wherever a process of life communicates an eagerness to him who lives it, there the life becomes genuinely significant...there is the zest, the tingle, the excitement of reality; and there is 'importance' in the only real and positive sense in which importance ever anywhere can be. On a Certain Blindness in Human Beings

This essay by William James expresses one of the core insights of enlightenment, as I understand it: an acknowledgement that others' inner lives, opaque as they may be to an "external observer,"  are every bit as important to them as mine is to me. We cannot know them as we think we know ourselves, but we must respect their shared humanity.

Judgement vs. rules

"Growing up is more a matter of courage than knowledge: all the information in the world is no substitute for the guts to use your own judgement. And judgement can be learned – principally through the experience of watching others use it well – but it cannot be taught. Judgement is important because none of the answers to the questions that really move us can be found by following a rule." (11)

Surprising thing for a Kantian to say! What is a "categorical imperative" if not a rule? 

Distraction

I spent too much time yesterday fiddling with the storage on my phone, trying to figure out how to "manage" my photos and other files. So, I can entirely relate to what Susan Neiman says about the time we spend dealing with distraction... (continues)

Questions June 1

 Please add at least two questions. Respond to at least one (yours or mine or classmates'), before Tuesday if possible. We'll again split our focus three ways.

• What do you think of Rousseau's conjecture that humans are naturally self-interested and unsociable but not "dominated by the selfish passions"? 68 Was Hobbes closer to the mark when he said life in a state of nature would have been a "war of all against all" and "nasty, brutish, and short"? Is there any way to know who's right about this?
• Do you think the modern coffeehouse does, or could, play a large part in our enlightenment -- in creating civil public spaces in which sociability and "politeness" are encouraged, and in which esprit quickens the mind and sharpens our discourse? 86 Or is it just another commercial space in which people retreat behind their (literal and figurative) screens and keep to themselves? (Do you have a favorite coffeehouse in middle Tennessee that you can recommend for its civilizing value?)
• Was Descartes right that "the mind has no sex"? 91 Do most of our contemporaries agree? How do the new gender-fluid and gender-neutral attitudes enter into your thinking about that?
• "Literacy...enabled men and women to read the works of philosophers and novelists; it also inspired them to respond, to answer back." 98 Do fewer and fewer of us read philosophy and literature for both pleasure and enlightenment? If so, is that mainly due to the Internet and social media? Can it be effectively countered by parents reading to and with their children? 
• Any comment? "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them."
• Do philosophers and other intellectuals generally make an attempt nowadays to shape "public opinion as a political force"? 113 Should they? Or should academics stick to their knitting, as it were, in the ivory tower? Should more academics take on the role of public intellectual? 
• Any comment? "There is something devastatingly hollow about the demonstration that thought without action is hollow, when we find the philosopher only thinking it." John Lachs
• 
  

 

 

Would you go up to a stranger in a coffee shop and ask them for the latest news? Dr Matthew Green takes us back to the 17th and 18th century when London's original fleet of coffeehouses were very different from the current crop of branded cafes. Matthew calls for a coffeehouse revolution to bring us out of digital isolation and back into physical community.

 

Online, it is often hard to tell information from misinformation. Enter the public intellectual, an academic who engages with the media and translates scholarly work for the masses. In this informative talk, Erica Stone argues that our universities have a duty to engage with the public.

A pair of public intellectuals. Cornel West zooms with Chris Phillips' class. It can be exhausting, listening to Professor West, but also at moments exhilarating. I love what he says about education at around the 38-minute mark: it's about getting us to shift our attention from superficial things to substantive things... and to think for ourselves (he mentions Kant).

And here they are, pre-pandemic: