TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2023
California then: As we noted this morning, clarity tends to be hard.
Indeed, according to the later Wittgenstein, bungled attempts at clarity have defined high end "philosophy" all through the annals of time. Writing for the New York Times, Professor Horwich put it like this:
HORWICH (3/3/13): Wittgenstein claims that there are no realms of phenomena whose study is the special business of a philosopher, and about which he or she should devise profound a priori theories and sophisticated supporting arguments. There are no startling discoveries to be made of facts, not open to the methods of science, yet accessible “from the armchair” through some blend of intuition, pure reason and conceptual analysis. Indeed the whole idea of a subject that could yield such results is based on confusion and wishful thinking.
This attitude is in stark opposition to the traditional view, which continues to prevail. Philosophy is respected, even exalted, for its promise to provide fundamental insights into the human condition and the ultimate character of the universe...
If so, then we are duped and bound to be disappointed, says Wittgenstein. For these are mere pseudo-problems, the misbegotten products of linguistic illusion and muddled thinking...
There's more to the professor's short exposition, but there you pretty much have it. After a type of clarification is performed, philosophy's problems turn out to be "mere pseudo-problems, the [fruit] of linguistic illusion."
Putting it a slightly different way:
Even at the (allegedly) loftiest levels, clarity is extremely hard. Indeed, much of our time-honored, allegedly deepest thinking is actually "based on confusion!"
Or at least, so the later Wittgenstein is said to have said.
That's the way the cookie crumbles within our "deepest" thinking. Within our everyday human discourse, clarity tends to be very hard; "muddled thinking" is everywhere. And it isn't just clarity which is hard. Demographic diversity tends to be rather hard too.
Given the way we humans are built, it's very, very, very hard to run a coherent public discourse. It also tends to be hard to run a diverse democracy. That isn't the doing or the fault of any particular demographic group. It's simply the fruit of the way we humans tend to react to the presence of a wide array of culturally differing groups.
This brings us to a rumination about California then. The year in question was 1960. As we'll note again tomorrow, this whole country was quite a bit smaller back then.
Clarity tends to be very hard. Given the way we humans are, diversity tends to be challenging.
How do we react to the presence of Others? Given the way we humans are built, this isn't one of the strongest suits of our war-inclined species.
The ultimate character of the universe is inaccessible to the human intellect.
ReplyDeleteYup. A man would love to know his mind but his mind is all he has to know it with.
DeleteActually, there are now ways you can make reliable objective measurements of what is going on in someone's mind. You cannot know a person's subjectivity, but consciousness is only a small part of what the mind does.
DeleteSome of the best stuff is unconscious.
DeleteIt is harder when you ignore context as Somerby routinely does. Context tend to disambiguate language, which eliminates a lot of the muddle Somerby finds.
ReplyDeleteWe humans are not all “built” alike. Somerby appears to know very little about neurodiversity. His inability to consider context may arise from his own cognitive diversity. But failing to understand context, he seems not to realize that others around him do not think the way he does and we ate not all alike.
are not all alike
DeleteBut its true that we didn’t eat alike, so you’re right about that, too.
Deleteanon 4:55, compared to all the weird trolls here all the time, TDH disambiguates pretty good, neuro-diversity -wise. But maybe he doesn't realize that language itself is a metaphor for what the words intend to symbolize. Also, humans aren't like the Vulcans on star Trek. Also, Wittgenstein isn't that relevant to political thought. But TDH is also right about there being all this muddle, disambiguate as much as you possibly can, the fact is there's mostly muddle when politics gets discussed.
DeleteIt is interesting that this is the sense you make of what Somerby and his commenters have been saying. It does seem to me that it is hard to discuss these ideas with people who do not share a background acquired at a good college.
DeleteNotice that this person is using AC/MA's nym in a way different than the regular commenter AC/MA usually does, and may not be the same person.
anon 7:02, that was me, just didn't capitalize the initials. I really didn't comment here on the substance of what has been asserted by any of the commenters here, other than to assert there is a lot of "muddle." I was making fun of your terminology - "disambiguate" and "neurodiversity", but in fairness didn't understand what you were saying - maybe just that everyone sees things differently, plus I don't know what you meant by TDH not understanding "context." I'm happy to discuss these ideas of your, whatever they are. but what does going to a "good college" have to do with it?
DeletePeople with a college education tend to understand what is meant by context and also know the meanings of words like disambiguate. Maybe not "neurodiversity" since that has been specific to neuroscience, psychology and clinical psychology (which is about abnormality). When you don't know the meaning of words used, I suggest looking them up, not making fun of the person using them.
DeleteOne of the problems with using a nym is that people will assume you are a different person if you change that nym. Except for those chasing Corby/Perry/a, since their goal is to run someone off this blog, not to communicate with anyone.
Unfortunately, many of our speakers and writers are not even seeking clarity. They're trying to persuade us to agree with a particular POV. Obviously politicians and advertisers do this. That's their job. But, too many media people, who ought to be seeking clarity, are also trying to persuade us of their POV.
ReplyDeleteThey don't even talk enough about how late-stage Capitalism inevitably leads to Fascism. Never mind make it abundantly clear.
DeleteWhy do you assume that clarity is not a better way to persuade than advancing a POV? These are not mutually exclusive, the way you claim they are.
DeleteOne way people muddy the water is by lying, for example that Lizzie Skurnick is their cousin.
DeleteYou'd have more credibility David, if you didn't lie about who your cousin is.
Well, David has other cousins, who aren’t Lizzie Skurnick.
DeleteI don’t like Others at all. They’re very annoying.
ReplyDeleteIt's the bigotry they're always pushing on others, which turns me off.
DeleteJust understand that when anonymices say that we are not all alike, they are NOT celebrating diversity or inclusion.
DeleteHow on earth can you think that?
DeleteYou know it too.
DeleteNo, and I strongly disagree. But you are just trolling, in your Boebertesque manner, not thinking about who wants funding and interventions for neurodiversity in schools, or research funding. You are just tossing your poo, much like Lauren did on her night on the town.
DeleteYou are right, I’m not thinking about who wants interventions and
Deletefunding for neurodiversity in schools. That’s because you aren’t really speaking of neurodiversity when you contest Somerby’s idea of the human condition.
You’ merely wish to obscure the fact that you’ve got a rock behind your back for every blogger who doesn’t think like you. The world is full of you.
What a nasty piece of work you are.
DeleteNice and slow, take your arm out from behind your back.
DeleteNicely handled, Cecilia. This bizarre assembly of people, some (but far from all) of whom are quite bright, who have somehow convinced themselves that the freedom to call themselves literally anything under the sun is just not a big enough shield to hide behind as they dare to make a post on a political blog, for crying the hell out loud, is one of the most grotesque things that I have ever encountered in my whole life.
DeleteEric, you haven’t lived.
DeleteCecelia is not Boebert. Boebert is a woman (fake boobs aside), Cecelia just pretends to a women.
Delete7:37 you mean: pretends to be a woman.
DeleteYes, we are all aware, you needn't keep reminding us, but do as you like.
Whatever. Call me Cecil and move on.
DeleteIt was better the first time: Cecelia pretends to a woman.
DeleteCecelia, the idea of names is that people choose them (or their parents do) and then they become part of an identity formed by an individual. It isn't that they are arbitrary, nor that they change all the time, unless you are a crook using aliases or running from creditors. Names matter. If you don't want to be called Cecelia, that is your right, but don't ask others here to name you -- that is contrary to the way names work in our society.
DeleteIf you were to call yourself Anonymous, as several others do here, you would be telling other people that you do not want to be identified by a specific nym here. That should be your choice if you don't care about your name and don't want others to assume you are pretending to be female because you are using a female pretend name.
It would be nice if you could stick to discussing issues here, but you mainly are just here to name call. When you start that kind of fight, don't be surprised when others do it back to you.
I prefer to call you Lauren. It meets your goal is pretending to be female while also meeting mine, which is to remind you that you are the stupist, meanest creature to crawl out of a hick town without a GED and are probably too stupid to write a substantive comment, just as Boebert is unprepared to do the job of House member.
Did you see that she is now pretending that she didn't know that her boyfriend from Aspen, who she has been dating for months, is a Democrat? How stupid is that! I'll bet he knew her politics. Just like we all know who you are, regardless of what name you use.
According to Pod Save America, Boebert's words to security were "Do you know who I am?" Then she threatened to call the Mayor (who is a Democrat) and also said she was on the board of the DCPA. That was a lie -- she is not one of the Directors or Trustees.
DeleteLike Trump, Boebert appears to think it is OK to say whatever comes to mind, true or not. When did such lying become a Republican trait?
The extremist right is now claiming that Boebert was set up by her boyfriend (since he is a Democrat). I think it is more likely she pulled this stunt to gain attention and demonstrate that our freedoms are being repressed. The audience included children age 10+, so Boebert seems to feel that Americans should be free to grope in public and vape in front of children.
Who in their right mind is ever going to vote for this woman again?
No one in their right mind ever voted for her.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOmg Perry Corby troll! How's trix??? How have you been doing? Are you playing bridge?
Delete""There are no startling discoveries to be made of facts, not open to the methods of science, yet accessible “from the armchair” through some blend of intuition, pure reason and conceptual analysis. Indeed the whole idea of a subject that could yield such results is based on confusion and wishful thinking."
ReplyDeleteThis is true but not in the way Somerby suggests. Before the development of the scientific method, which tested hypotheses about what is true in the world against evidence gather via experiments that tested philosophical propositions, all knowledge was developed via armchair contemplation guided by logic and introspection. That changed with Sir Isaac Newton and his contemporaries, who conducted experiments and used data to test the ideas of the Greeks, such as Aristotle and others, who were the foundation of natural philosophy. Newton overturned a lot of that prior philosophical thinking by producing data that showed the prior thinking could not be true. He started with optics and progressed to testing other laws of physics.
This should be common knowledge to high school kids, but it seems to have escaped Somerby. But this is what Wittgenstein means when he says that a lot of philosophy is bunk. Somerby takes this a big step further and suggests that all of philosophy has contributed nothing to modern knowledge. Somerby says:
"Even at the (allegedly) loftiest levels, clarity is extremely hard. Indeed, much of our time-honored, allegedly deepest thinking is actually "based on confusion!" "
This is a misreading. Time-honored deep thinking is not based on confusion -- the problem is that it is not based on empirical observation but on speculation and reasoning. When evidence began to be collected using scientific approaches, matters were clarified and the incorrect prior writing of the ancient Greeks was tossed out while physicists, biologists, psychologists and other scientists started from scratch to build a knowledge base on a foundation of empirical evidence.
Somerby wishes to conclude that because the Ancient Greeks could not know modern scientific facts using philosophical methods, the rest of humanity cannot reason itself out of a paper bag. But that is grossly unfair. First, most humans are not trained in philosophical discussion when they engage in everyday discourse. But more importantly, it is wrong for Somerby to throw out the major contributions that still stand in philosophy, such as logic and formal mathematics. These are as valid as ever, they are not based on language or linguistic illusion (as Wittgenstein complains) and they are still useful, especially in applied ways in computer science and other sciences.
But in the final analysis, it is hard to believe that Somerby really cares about Wittgenstein beyond using some of his statements to advance Somerby's own complaints about humanity and human inability to think (none of which is justified by cognitive science or psychology). He is borrowing from Wittgenstein for his own purposes, just as he grabbed Warren Zevon's phrase because it fit what he wanted to say (not because of what Zevon himself intended it to mean). If Somerby gave a fig about philosophy, he would still be reading it. His main purpose these days seems to be to excoriate his targets and we all know who they are.
“This is true but not in the way Somerby suggests. Before the development of the scientific method, which tested hypotheses about what is true in the world against evidence gather via experiments that tested philosophical propositions, all knowledge was developed via armchair contemplation guided by logic and introspection.”
DeleteI want to be on the same page with this, but give some examples.
Only 14 minutes to rewrite it. Perry, did you rewrite that on the phone or do you do it on a laptop?
DeleteEratosthenes measured the Earth by observation, not speculation.
Deletehttps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-philosophy/
DeleteWhen they talk about Cartesian they are referring to the work of Rene Descartes, who reformed mathematics while Newton was reforming physics. Newton invented calculus in order to advance his own work in physics, based on Cartesian math (algebra) whereas Leibnitz based his calculus on geometry.
The best description of how Newton changed philosophy is in the subsection called Methodology I: The optics debates of the 1670s:
"The field of optics has its origins in the Ancient Greek period, when figures like Euclid and Ptolemy wrote works on the subject, but they often focused primarily on the science of vision, analyzing (e.g.) the visual rays that were sometimes thought to extrude from the eye, enabling it to perceive distant physical objects. In the early modern period, Kepler and Descartes each made fundamental contributions to the field, including the discovery of the inversion of the retinal image (in the former case) and an explanation of refraction (in the latter case). Newton’s work helped to shift the focus of optics from an analysis of vision to an investigation of light. In “New theory about light and colors”, published in the Philosophical Transactions in 1672, Newton presented a number of experiments in which sunlight was allowed to pass through one or two prisms in order to probe some of its basic features. The paper recounts a number of experiments that Newton says he had conducted several years earlier. "
Until Newton, students were taught the writings of the Ancient Greeks, including on optics. Newton changed that by publishing his own findings based on experiments, contradicting quite a bit of the beliefs of the Greeks. Newton was a professor at Cambridge and taught classes about the ideas of the Greeks in natural philosophy. When he taught his own research, no one showed up -- he lectured to an empty room (legend has it). Students in the 17th century learned Greek and Latin in order to study their works in the original. After Newton and Descartes, science became something you could study using modern languages, but Greek and Roman remained the preparation for a college education until the early 20th century when engaging in modern science no longer required it.
Cont from above...
Delete"Indeed, if we resist the temptation to understand Newton as working within a well established discipline called mathematical physics, if we see him instead as a philosopher studying nature, his achievement is far more impressive, for instead of contributing to a well-founded field of physics, he had to begin a process that would eventually lead aspects of natural philosophy to be transformed into a new field of study. This transformation took many decades, involving a series of methodological and foundational debates about the proper means for obtaining knowledge about nature and its processes. Newton himself not only engaged in these debates from his very first publication in optics in 1672, but his work in both optics and in the Principia generated some of the most significant methodological discussions and controversies in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. These debates concerned such topics as the proper use of hypotheses, the nature of space and time, the best understanding of the forces of nature, and the appropriate rules for conducting research in natural philosophy. Newton’s achievement was in part to have vanquished both Cartesian and Leibnizian approaches to natural philosophy; in the later eighteenth century, and indeed much of the nineteenth, physics was a Newtonian enterprise more than anything. But this achievement, from Newton’s own perspective, involved an extensive, life-long series of philosophical debates. "
This is written from a philosophical perspective about what was left of natural philosophy after the experimentalists developed a new science that was empirical, not philosophical. Newton was on the cusp between the two, but his findings changed optics because they were true, because they were based on empirical observation and data from experiments and not from merely thinking about how things ought to be, as the Greeks did. This was the birth of modern science and Newton is revered because he did major work illustrating how a scientific approach could produce reliable knowledge.
-------------------
This is what Wittgenstein was discussing when he talked about the limitations of language-based reasoning about the natural world. Several fields have broken away from philosophy to become their own subfields of knowledge, including psychology and biology and music (which has a scientific side to it, not just performance and composing).
This meaning about why science is hard to study using language and reasoning alone, without observation and experiment, is very different than Somerby's application of Wittgenstein's concerns to conversations between people using language, where language is constrained by culture and agreed, shared knowledge about meanings of words.
I am assuming that anyone cares about this besides me. Newton was a fascinating person. Historians say that he died a virgin. Clearly there is some neurodiversity in his makeup. I am in awe of him because he and his contemporaries made possible all of the modern conveniences that we take for granted, a world that generates knowledge in a reliable way, builds upon previous discoveries, works collaboratively and makes advances by asking key questions and testing ideas using data. This is what is meant by living in a reality-based world.
DeleteOne reason Newton was able to invent calculus was because he was in lockdown (due to the plague) on his mother's farm, with no company. He had the peace and time to devour Descartes' new mathematics and extend it to his own problems in physics. Imagine trying to do science when you must write letters back and forth, without phones or internet to collaborate with colleagues in other countries.
Newton was very cool.
And yes, I use a laptop and I do this off the top of my head because I used to teach history of science when I was a professor. I played bridge today (and yesterday), because it is mentally challenging. There is none of Somerby's muddle or the in-fighting of trolls. It depends on making valid inferences, remembering all of the cards that have been played, and developing a strategy in the face of changing circumstances while trying to figure out what is in your partners' and opponents' hands. People are nice to each other while trying to win.
I'm glad for that bonhomie around the table. That is great and must feel better than here on the comment section where your kind-of aggressive comments and dominating posting style may not meet with the favor you feel they deserve. Cheers.
Delete“This meaning about why science is hard to study using language and reasoning alone, without observation and experiment, is very different than Somerby's application of Wittgenstein's concerns to conversations between people using language, where language is constrained by culture and agreed, shared knowledge about meanings of words.”
DeleteWhen is language not that?
Anonymouse 8:29pm, I like you. However, are you sure?
DeleteWhat were Newton’s positions on diversity and inclusion?
Corby, do you feel sometimes like spanking Bob's butt? Just taking out these political passions on his backside but good?
DeleteNewton thought that there is a force of “gravitation” between any two bodies, an attraction proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them.
DeleteThis was a quantitative, cosmic law.
He used calculus to determine the consequences of this law. He found that they agreed with observations.
My theory has always been that she’s Bob’s old girlfriend who is compelling to wrathful women and bitchy males.
DeleteTo sum up, humans are rational, but there are issues related to nonconsequential behavior and subjective priors.
DeleteWhy are trolls so obsessed with nyms?
DeleteSomerby has once or twice described a girl he had a crush on as a teen, but he has never mentioned an actual girlfriend, live-in, wife or any other female attachment besides his mother (who he wrote a one-man show around).
A theory needs to be supported by facts.
You’re it.
DeleteMy commenting shows disagreement with Somerby's writing. How does that equate to a past relationship? I've never even been to Baltimore (or Palo Alto either).
DeleteYour little quips may seem like snappy comebacks to you, but they don't make sense and actually reveal your inability to engage in meaningful talk because you can't think clearly about anything.
I repeat, what evidence do you have in support of your theory? Remember that it demeans Somerby, who may be gay or have other diverse preferences, or not even believe in relationships (like Bill Maher) or be too suspicious of the motives of women to want one in his life, or prefer to live like a monk with a vow of chastity, or he is married to God. There are so many possibilities besides the one that places me in his life. But perhaps this is projection and you are the one who wants to be by his side beneath his pear tree.
Because a relationship involves a minimum of two people, when you attempt to malign me by linking me to Somerby, you malign him too, given that he has made other choices. Had you even considered that? I'll bet not.
It totally makes sense that she would be an old girlfriend of Bob's or some old figure trying to settle a score. Whatever they're a fucking loser.
DeleteBut could Newton account for these occurrences:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/shorts/Cq_Azya7_c8
Well, we know how Bob has reacted to the presence of those who have noted the seriousness of a demented lunatic being placed in charge of the United States. It’s to make of ludicrous excuse he can think of to justify him and his enablers, until he needs to retreat to jeering ignorance ( Trump Trump Trump..)
ReplyDeleteThese were arguments he was bound to lose, as he had nothing to bring to the table except petty resentment.
Maybe we are not wired to argue in good faith
based on respect for objective truth and facts. This is certainly true of Bob.
There are only two human beings I admire more than I admire Isaac Newton: David and Cecelia.
ReplyDeleteRecently, the Trump campaign hosted a dinner to spread their propaganda, it was attended by top executives, producers, and reporters from corporate media.
ReplyDeleteThis is the kind of corruption Somerby used to call out, but now he is silent on the issue, preferring instead to try to manufacture ignorance by incoherently yammering on about shielding the children of right wingers from being deprogrammed from their warped indoctrination.
Cecelia is close to perfect. She lacks only one attribute. She is not a cousin of Lizzie Skurnick.
ReplyDeleteYou sure?
DeleteIf you were Lizzie’s cousin, you wouldn’t be able to restrain yourself from bragging about her.
DeleteActually, I certainly could.
DeleteNot that she’s not cute as heck.
DeleteDiversity is not difficult if you genuinely respect other people.
ReplyDeleteSo do you?
ReplyDeleteI'm not the one with a problem with diversity.
DeleteSince this is your scarecrow, I’ll take it that divergent and diverse opinions on anything aren’t your forte.
DeleteWhat do you think you have just said?
DeleteYou seem to be claiming that because I disagree with you, I do not respect divergent opinions. But that raises some problems: (1) are right wingers really divergent and if so, with whom? Certainly not each other or dear leader Trump, who they follow like a cult leader. (2) Was Somerby referring to diverse opinions, which would be an unusual use of the word diversity, or to the diverse people you find in a multi-cultural society? (3) When you read Somerby's mind, how do you know you are getting it right?
Somerby says: "Demographic diversity tends to be rather hard too."
How do you know that you are demographically diverse from me when you know nothing whatsoever about me? And vice versa? You are talking about opinions but Somerby is talking demographics.
demographics definition: "Demographics are statistics that describe populations and their characteristics. Demographic analysis is the study of a population-based on factors such as age, race, and sex."
Or maybe you are suggesting that I do not respect your confusion over your sex? But I am not the one who has been calling you a man pretending to be female by adopting the nym Cecelia. And just because I have named myself after you, doesn't mean we are diverse or not diverse, since you know nothing about me.
But your hostility is noted. That seems inconsistent with any plea to respect diversity, but we already knew that isn't on your agenda.
Meanwhile, the Senate is attending to serious matters:
ReplyDelete"A group of 46 Senate Republicans sent a letter to Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday asking that he reverse his decision to relax the Senate dress code."
It doesn't seem to be on Somerby's radar that right wingers are attempting to reinstate dress codes in public schools too, especially for female students. In the senate, men have been required to wear suits and ties, but in public schools girls bear the brunt of restrictions on their clothing, because boys might be distracted by them. Who is distracted in the senate when a man doesn't wear a tie?
I get the sense that this is mostly about telling other people what to do, restricting personal freedom of expression or culture, not about respect for the senate. If right wingers truly respected the senate, they wouldn't try to bring guns onto the floor and they wouldn't engage in stunts that demean our democratic processes. Hell, they wouldn't have encouraged the 1/6ers to break into the building to help overturn a valid election.
I don’t think that Schumer could dictate a dress code for the country.
DeleteMy condolences.
What do you think the word "relax" means when applied to a dress code? It means he took the code away -- he is not trying to impose it on the country.
DeleteWhat is wrong with you?
Right you are that Schumer can’t dictate a national dress code. Being the gleeful mensches that we are, we’re just happy that he can’t do it despite your obvious concern in bringing it up.
DeleteMenschen.
DeleteYou aren’t.
DeleteFrom Political Wire:
ReplyDelete"Nathaniel Rakich [ABC News]: “On its own, no — any single special election can be influenced by any number of factors, including candidate quality or parochial issues. But Democrats have been posting special-election overperformances of that magnitude all year long, in all kinds of districts. And on average, they have won by margins 11 points higher than the weighted relative partisanship of their districts.”
“That’s more than just an impressive streak — it’s a potential sign of a Democratic wave election in 2024. In each of the past three election cycles, a party’s average overperformance in all special elections in a given cycle has been a close match for the eventual House popular vote in the eventual general election — albeit a couple of points better for Democrats.”