AnalPhilosopher

Here.

My beloved Sophie is 14 years old today. That's old for a dog, and she shows it. She sleeps most of the time and has a hard time getting around the house. I have to get up at least twice each night to let her out, since she can't hold her urine as long as she once did. I give her the canine equivalent of Tylenol (Rimadyl) for her aches and pains. But she has a good appetite and plays with Shelbie every now and then. Her eyes are still bright. It's sad to see her get old, because for most of her life she was full of energy. Here is my post of three years ago, when Sophie was 11. Here is my post of two years ago, when she was 12. Here is my post of a year ago, when she was 13. I love you, Sophie.

[A] conservative should be wise enough to know the difference between philosophical agreement and political alliance and to appreciate the value of both. Let our enemies break up over a premise here or an inference there; we have no need.

(Lincoln Allison, Right Principles: A Conservative Philosophy of Politics [Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1984], 4)

I'm sorry, but this sickens me.

I get a kick out of Linda Greenhouse's New York Times reports about oral arguments before the United States Supreme Court. See here, for example. She thinks that what is said by the justices during oral argument provides a clue as to how they will vote. That's risible. First, some justices don't ask questions during oral argument. Second, some justices play devil's advocate during oral argument. Third, some justices like to put attorneys through their paces. Fourth, some justices haven't made up their minds by the time of oral argument, so they're merely exploring issues. I'm not saying there's no point to reports such as these, but trying to predict how the justices will vote based on what they say during oral argument is silly, like trying to predict the future by consulting tea leaves.

Dr John J. Ray, my polymathic friend Down Under, has an interesting post about a new book on literature.

To the Editor:

I’m one of those atheists who Richard A. Shweder says is up in arms these days. Is it because my confidence in Enlightenment thinking is waning, as Mr. Shweder suggests? Actually, it’s the opposite: I’m alarmed that the Enlightenment principles embodied in our Constitution are being compromised, distorted and weakened.

We have a president who is reported to believe that a god is personally talking to him. President Bush wants to operate as a “unitary executive,” with the power to do whatever he wants despite what the law says.

Conservative politicians, including the president, use code words to send signals to their fundamentalist Christian base. Evangelicals are trying to rewrite American history, telling us that there is no such thing as separation of church and state and that we live in a Christian nation.

The same forces have tried to hijack science classrooms with creationist dogma and place religious commandments in courtrooms.

For more than 225 years, through divisive and painful fits and starts, our nation has been advancing individual and economic freedom. Atheists like me are up in arms because we don’t want to see our republic become a theocracy.

Jeffrey Zack
New York, Nov. 27, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: Oh no! Jeffrey Zack has broken the code!

Here.

Here is Mylan Engel's latest post at Animal Ethics.

It's snowing at my house in Fort Worth—and it's sticking. I rose at 6:15 A.M. to prepare for today's classes. Knowing that Texans are weather weenies, I called UTA's weather line. It said the university is closed for the day. I laughed and went back to bed. It was 32.9º and raining. In Michigan, where I was raised, this would be considered unremarkable. It wouldn't stop anyone from doing anything, and it certainly wouldn't cause schools to close. I used my fireplace this morning for the first time this fall, which shows you how warm it's been in these parts. Right now, it's 29.8º. The temperature has been falling since I got up. It's supposed to be 25º by morning. If the precipitation continues, we could have several inches of snow by then. Shelbie will love it. She's seen snow only once, a couple of years ago. I hope it melts by Friday evening, however, because I have a 10K race Saturday morning.

Addendum: The topic in today's Philosophy of Religion course was going to be miracles. My students probably think we had one!

11-29-86 Saturday. I’m writing this on Sunday morning, the day after riding 100.5 miles on my bike. I feel good. Here is a synopsis of yesterday’s events. I left the apartment at 8:40 A.M., determined to ride at least a hundred miles on the El Tour de Tucson route. The weather was expected to be warm and sunny, and it was. In fact, the temperature reached eighty degrees [Fahrenheit] and the relative humidity was only ten percent. That explains why I had the impression of not sweating. I did sweat, I’m sure, but it evaporated so fast into the dry air that I didn’t notice it. For a novice biker, this could be trouble. But I knew about it and kept the fluids circulating through my body. That staves off dehydration and fatigue.

As before, I headed for Sabino Canyon before turning west on Sunrise Drive. This is hilly, so I tried to both make good time and preserve my legs for the remainder of the ride. I just missed the forty-minute mark for the first ten miles (40:27), and that depressed me; but my goal was a fifteen-mile-per-hour average for the entire day, not for every ten-mile interval. I loved the northernmost ride, on Tangerine and Thornydale Roads. At the fifty-mile mark I was averaging well over fifteen miles per hour. And I felt great. But the ride south near the Tucson Mountains wore me out. It has lots of small hills, and the wind happened to be against me at that point, so I settled in for a grueling two hours of pedalling [sic; should be “pedaling”]. Music helped me get through it, as usual. Finally, I turned eastward and passed the San Xavier Mission. The wind was with me on the northward stretches, and that boosted my spirits. I turned northward on Harrison Road and headed for Speedway [Boulevard]. From there I pedalled [sic] home. As I neared the apartment, however, I noticed that I was close to a fifteen-mile-per-hour average for the last ten-mile interval. I sprinted at over twenty miles per hour for two miles, finishing with only seconds to spare. That took some of the sting out of not hitting fifteen miles per hour on the first ten miles.

Statistically, this was my forty-eighth consecutive [weekly] ride and seventy-sixth of the past eighty. It was also my sixth hundred-miler. Of the six, this was my second-best in terms of gross-average speed (14.38 [miles per hour]). I missed my mark of fifteen [miles per hour] by some nineteen minutes, about ten of which I “wasted” eating a chocolate pie and drinking orange juice near the midway point. But I’m happy with the outcome. (The best gross-average speed for a hundred-miler is 14.88 miles per hour, set on 9 March 1986. On that day, I never got off the bike.) This has also been my second-best month ever, in terms of average daily miles. I rode an average of 11.37 miles per day this month, beating the month in which I rode from Tucson to Jacob Lake (July 1984). The all-time record is 26.64 miles per day, set in August 1982 when I rode around Michigan. It has been a fantastic month for biking, despite my bout with hypothermia early on. I hit the century mark twice this month.

Here are some more statistics. (1) I’ve ridden 2646.3 miles this year. With three weeks to go before leaving for Michigan, I need an extra 33.7 miles to reach the 2800-mile mark. That’s a significant figure. I’ll reach it by either riding an extra cave route or riding to Picacho Peak instead of to the cave. (2) I’ve ridden a phenomenal 301.3 miles in the past three weeks (twenty-two days). And yet, I feel plump. Could it be that I’m eating too much? Certainly I’m not eating too much rich food, so perhaps I eat too much of what I do eat: bread, potatoes, eggs, and rice. (3) I like the Tour de Tucson route. I now have a specific goal in mind: completing a hundred miles of the route in six hours, forty minutes. That would give me a fifteen-mile-per-hour day. I’ll have to do it by myself, of course, for others slow me down. I have no friends who are better riders than I, although Brad Gibson has the potential. He doesn’t ride much.

Here is Victor Davis Hanson's latest column.

Here.

Weber's essay on "science as a vocation" is perhaps the best starting point for understanding the limits of scientific aspiration in our time. Weber praised scientists for living in the world of facts and criticized those who sought salvation by pretending that the old gods still exist. But he also reminded scientists that they have nothing privileged to say about the realm of value, the realm that matters most to human beings seeking knowledge of how to live. Like everyone else, the scientist must decide which ends to pursue, which gods to serve, which demon will "hold the very fibers of his life." And these are exactly the questions that the scientific method cannot answer. Divine salvation may be an illusion but so is believing that science can tell us how to live in the world it dissects and describes, and how to live well in a world where scientific power is so readily, so seductively, so dangerously, at our disposal.

(Eric Cohen, "The Ends of Science," First Things [November 2006]: 27-33, at 30)

See here.

The 2007 Hall of Fame ballot has been released. See here. There are 32 candidates, of whom 17 are new. In order to be inducted (not to be confused with indicted), a candidate must appear on 75% of the ballots cast. If I'm not mistaken, a voter can vote for as many candidates as he or she deems worthy. If a voter thinks nobody deserves induction, then he or she may vote for nobody. If a voter thinks 20 players deserve induction, then he or she may vote for all 20. I will "vote" in a few minutes, as an addendum to this post. Feel free to do the same.

Addendum: I vote for Tony Gwynn, Mark McGwire, Jack Morris, Cal Ripken Jr, Lee Smith, and Pete Rose.

To the Editor:

The Beliefnet.com poll cited in “Putting Faith Before Politics,” by David Kuo (Op-Ed, Nov. 16), indicating “that nearly 60 percent of non-evangelicals have a more negative view of Jesus because of Christian political involvement” should give pause to those who seek to use government to promote a religious agenda.

One of the lessons here is that using religion as a wedge issue and trying to translate religious belief into law can backfire, doing deep damage to the moral and prophetic voice of religion.

Our founders understood this and insisted that religion and government remain separate. As the recent election shows, they were right.

Marvin Nathan
Civil Rights Chairman
Anti-Defamation League
New York, Nov. 17, 2006

Here.

You've got to love North Texas weather. Here are the official high temperatures (in Dallas/Fort Worth) for the past week, in degrees Fahrenheit: 67, 72, 77, 76, 73, 73, and 71. Right now, at 7:00 P.M., it's 71.4º outside. I will walk Shelbie in a T-shirt in an hour or so. But guess what's coming? Winter! According to today's Dallas Morning News, it will be 75º with showers and storms tomorrow. The day after (Thursday), it's supposed to be 35º—that's the high for the day!—with freezing rain. The low will be a frigid 25º. (I hope my 17-year-old car starts Thursday morning. I teach at eight o'clock.) The newspaper's weather map shows a cold front bearing down on us from the northwest. It's like a grizzly bear coming at you, slowly but surely. I can't wait to use the fireplace!

Addendum: According to this site, "Texas" comes from "Tejas," which comes from "the Hasinai Indian word which translates into friends and allies." Texans are nothing if not friendly. Y'all should come and see for yourself.

The elites in Massachusetts are doing everything they can to keep the will of the people from being expressed. See here.

To the Editor:

Re “No One to Lose To,” by Maureen Dowd (column, Nov. 25):

Iraq is fast reaching the inevitable point of no return. The country is not being run by the so-called Iraqi government or by the Americans but by the religious men and their militias.

They’ve been preparing, and now sensing the withdrawal of American troops, they are positioning themselves for the worst to come: an all-out civil war and regional control.

Iraq will never be one country as it once was. As soon as the Americans leave, the intense and historical held-back resentment will unleash long-lasting major bloodshed, and only after that will the new boundaries be drawn and three autonomous regions emerge: Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. And there is nothing that any superpower can do to prevent that.

Lesson learned: President Bush, please give up imposing your Western idea of democracy in the Middle East, and don’t repeat the same mistake in Iran.

Ali Shahmiri
San Diego, Nov. 25, 2006

Note from AnalPhilosopher: Iraq reminds me of North America before Europeanization. Indian tribes (or confederations of tribes) were engaged in all-out war against each other. Tribe A would attack tribe B, which would retaliate, often years later. Tribe A would attack again, followed by more retaliation from tribe B. These were not peaceful peoples, despite what you may have heard from your politically correct teachers or read in your politically correct textbooks. Intertribal warfare was an integral part of Native American culture. If elders sought peace, young men sought war, for war conferred social status. (When Lewis and Clark told a young Indian man that peace was better than war, the young man asked, incredulously, how the tribe would get leaders.) What kept the warfare tolerable was the absence of high-powered weaponry. There is only so much damage you can do afoot (or, later, on horseback) with bows and arrows, clubs, knives, lances, and, later, single-shot rifles. If these tribes had had high-powered weapons, as Iraqis do, they would have used them. They would even have used weapons of mass destruction. I have no doubt of it. So what we have in Iraq is intertribal warfare, rooted in enmity, conjoined with modern weaponry. We need to get the hell out and let them kill each other.

Here.

Animal Ethics is celebrating its third anniversary. See here.

Here.

This will shock you.

Here.

William L. Rowe, Philosophy of Religion: An Introduction, 4th ed. (Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education, 2007), ISBN 0-495-00725-0.

Religion—institution, practice, way of life—is as old as humankind. Reflection on religion is younger, presumably, and philosophical reflection younger still. Today, six years into the new millennium, philosophy of religion is a robust and exciting field. And why not? It touches upon all the traditional areas of philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. It is done by theists, atheists, and agnostics, by Continental as well as analytic philosophers, by professionals as well as amateurs. There are conferences and periodicals devoted to the subject. Monographs and anthologies pour forth from both scholarly presses and commercial publishers. Most departments of philosophy offer a course in it. Professors, in my experience, enjoy teaching it. Students love it.

I’ve been teaching Philosophy of Religion since the spring of 1984, when I taught my first solo course as a graduate student (at the University of Arizona). Religious belief was the focus of one of the six parts of the introductory text I used: Joel Feinberg’s Reason and Responsibility, 5th ed. I was hooked. Since coming to UTA in the fall of 1989, I have taught an upper-level Philosophy of Religion course nine times, including this semester. I always enjoy it immensely, in part because I have such enthusiastic students. As soon as one course ends, I begin preparing for the next, even though it’s sometimes two years away. At least three of my scholarly publications began life as student handouts.

As you might expect, I’ve used many texts and approaches over the years. I’ve used monographs (e.g., Michael Martin’s Atheism: A Philosophical Justification [1990] and Richard Swinburne’s Is There a God? [1996]) and anthologies, coursepacks and handouts. I’ve assigned term papers, take-home exams, and in-class essay exams. I’ve even required homework, although not, to date, field trips. A few weeks ago, just to prove that I’m no Luddite, I began using the computer that’s been installed in the classroom. Instead of writing a complex argument on the board, which takes time, I went to my course blog on the classroom computer and displayed the posted handout on the screen. (See here, for example.) I am always on the lookout, as most professors are, for new techniques and materials. It’s not unlike the search for the Holy Grail.

William L. Rowe is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana. He is the co-editor (with William Wainwright) of a widely used anthology in the field as well as the author of several monographs and dozens of highly regarded articles. Rowe is an atheist, but he is scrupulously fair in his presentation and criticism of the various arguments and analyses. For example, Rowe defends the theist Samuel Clarke from the attacks of two atheists, David Hume and Bertrand Russell. Rowe argues that Clarke’s cosmological argument does not succumb to the criticisms of Hume and Russell. This doesn’t mean that Rowe thinks the argument succeeds, for he doesn’t. He thinks it fails for reasons other than those given by Hume and Russell. My students love this display of intellectual honesty. It shows them that philosophy is process-driven, not result-oriented. The goal is not to “win,” much less to show others up, but to get things right.

Rowe is the author of an introductory textbook entitled, appropriately, Philosophy of Religion: An Introduction. It first appeared in 1978. Subsequent editions were published in 1993, 2001, and 2007. The fourth edition, which I recently acquired and read as background for my course, is magnificent. I cannot recommend it too highly, either for my students or for those outside academia who want a survey of this exciting field by someone who has been toiling in its vineyards for more than three decades. I have already decided to use this book in my next course (scheduled for fall 2008). Rowe’s chapters will provide its framework. An anthology (that of Rowe and Wainwright) will supply the primary readings. I believe that students will welcome a textbook, and it will certainly allow me greater flexibility in my lectures, since I won’t have to provide background for each topic.

Rowe’s book covers the main areas of the field. Here, to give you an idea of these areas, are the chapter titles:

1. The Idea of God.
2. The Cosmological Argument.
3. The Ontological Argument.
4. The Design Argument (Old and New).
5. Religious and Mystical Experience.
6. Faith and Reason.
7. The Problem of Evil.
8. Miracles and the Modern World View.
9. Life After Death.
10. Predestination, Divine Foreknowledge, and Human Freedom.
11. Many Religions.

The book ends with a Glossary of Important Concepts and Ideas, a short but useful bibliography, and an index. Each chapter concludes with Topics for Review, Topics for Further Study, and Notes. The book is well edited (I found fewer than the usual number of typographical errors) and nicely produced. One of the few errors is an embarrassing one. The title page lists Rowe’s affiliation as “Perdue University.” Whoever prepared it must have had poultry for lunch.

Among Rowe’s merits, besides being scrupulously fair, is an uncanny ability to explain difficult concepts in a way that even novices can understand. From the time I first read Rowe, back in 1984, I was amazed by his expressive power. He is a model philosophical writer. I should know what this involves, for I studied under one of the greatest of philosophical stylists, Joel Feinberg (1926-2004). Rowe knows, as some philosophers do not, that examples matter. He moves effortlessly from the abstract realm to the concrete, from principles to applications, from theory (as it were) to practice. Each distinction is illustrated, each concept exemplified, each argument laid out (formally) and discussed. It won’t surprise you that I use one of Rowe’s essays—“The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism”—in my biennial Seminar in Research Methods and Philosophical Writing. In my opinion, this is one of the best philosophical essays ever written. It is, quite simply, a work of art—which shows that style and substance, beauty and precision, rhetoric and logic are not mutually exclusive.

I mentioned that Rowe is an atheist. If you’re a theist, don’t be dismayed. One of the interesting things he does in the essay to which I referred is distinguish between “friendly” and “unfriendly” atheism. An atheist is someone who disbelieves in the existence of God (as opposed to a theist, who believes in the existence of God, and an agnostic, who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God). So defined, either theism or atheism is true, and the other false. But Rowe thinks both theism and atheism can be justified, and therefore that there can be both rational theists and rational atheists. A friendly atheist is an atheist who believes that some (not necessarily all!) theists are justified in believing that God exists. An unfriendly atheist is an atheist who believes that no theists are justified in believing that God exists. Rowe is a friendly atheist, and so am I. Just as there can be friendly and unfriendly atheists, there can be friendly and unfriendly theists.

I believe Rowe’s friendliness toward theists explains his fairness in reconstructing and criticizing their arguments. Rowe is charitable to a fault. This is an important lesson for students of philosophy to learn, for philosophy, unlike, say, politics, requires charity. Before criticizing an argument, the philosopher must cast it in the best possible light. Opponents are to be given the benefit of the doubt, not the detriment of the doubt. If there is more than one interpretation of an argument or analysis, the interpretation that makes it the strongest is to be preferred. Theists are always in good hands when William Rowe examines their work, even when he ends up finding fault with it, as he often does. I have tried to be as charitable in my own work as Rowe is in his, and I try to inculcate this charitableness in my students. If I could give only one piece of advice to a budding philosopher, it would be “Be like Rowe.”

Much more could be said about Rowe and about this book. All of it would be positive. Okay, most of it. After more than two decades of reflection and correspondence, I still think Rowe is wrong when he says that Saint Anselm begs the question in his ontological argument for the existence of God. Note that I’m doing for Anselm what Rowe did for Clarke, namely, defending him from an attack by one or more of my fellow atheists. But that’s a subject for another day. If you’re interested in philosophy of religion, this is the book for you.

Here is the latest spoof from The Onion. Oh wait, it's from The New York Times.

See here for my post about College Republicans.

Political words have a rhetorical power; they move people. In many cases the words cannot be tied down to precise criteria nor translated into programmes of action, but they conjure up images and make the heart beat faster; they solicit support and they unite people into movements.

(Lincoln Allison, Right Principles: A Conservative Philosophy of Politics [Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1984], 3)

This is interesting. As a lifelong atheist—albeit a friendly one—and as someone who has taught Philosophy of Religion for nearly a quarter of a century, I have some thoughts about the increasing militancy (and incivility) of atheists such as Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins. They realize (1) that the overwhelming majority of human beings, even today, believe in a transcendent (supernatural) realm and (2) that there is no correlation between violence and religion. (As the author of the op-ed piece points out, the horrors of the 20th century were not motivated by religion. He should have added that they were motivated by leftism, which is a secular ideology.) What do you do when your atheistic message is not getting through? First, you yell, as if saying it louder (and more often) increases its likelihood of being true. Second, you whine in frustration, because you learn from experience that the yelling doesn't help. Third, you cast aspersions on the intelligence, knowledge, good faith, and character of those who don't share your disbelief. Dennett, Dawkins, and their ilk are symptoms of the failure of the atheism meme.

To the Editor:

My goodness, have these parents not tried alternative approaches to changing the behavior of their children? Do they not see that Americans as a whole are overmedicated? Have they not considered other alternatives to psychotropic medications, such as family therapy or diet or exercise?

Why do parents continue to look outside of their family system to “fix” their children? The answer is not in pills. I applaud Andrew and Leslie Darr, who your article says weaned their children off their medications after Mrs. Darr herself felt what it was like to be medicated.

If more parents of these “sick” children could experience what it is that these children are going through, perhaps the pharmaceutical companies and the psychiatrists would find themselves with less profits in their pockets but there would be better-functioning families.

Donna Klein
Morristown, N.J., Nov. 24, 2006
The writer is a social worker.

One of my friends from graduate school sent a link to this video of John Stossel. I haven't watched it yet, but I know that Stossel is intelligent and articulate, so I thought I'd pass it on.

Here.

Mindy Hutchison sent a link to this essay by William Saletan.

Ralph Peters says that Europe's Muslims are living on borrowed time.

This is hilarious. There is a debate—I'm serious—about whether what is happening in Iraq constitutes a civil war. One side says yes, the other no. There is no factual disagreement about what is happening in Iraq, so far as I can tell. There is only an attitudinal disagreement. One side doesn't like what's happening, and hopes to condemn it by calling it a civil war. The other side likes what's happening (or at least doesn't dislike it), and hopes to deflect criticism of it by refusing to call it a civil war. Semantics is a serious field. It is the study of how symbols, such as words, map onto the world. But this debate about "civil war" isn't semantics; it's semantic word play, a.k.a. linguistic gamesmanship, a.k.a. manipulative rhetoric.

What should a libertarian think about immigration? See here. (Thanks to Bob Hessen for the link.)

This quiz has me nailed. Thanks to Mark Spahn for the link.

Suppose you have moral qualms or health concerns about consuming factory-farmed turkey. What should you do? What can you do? See here.

Scott Turow is the acclaimed author of One L and many legal novels. Here is his essay on Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia.

Addendum: Turow, like many people with legal training, is a master rhetorician. Notice how he describes Justice Scalia as a "fevered" supporter of capital punishment. The implication is that his support is wild, unruly, emotional, and irrational. Is Turow, then, a fevered opponent? See here.

Here is an interesting story about e-mail etiquette. I use Thomas Jefferson's closing: "Your most humble and obedient servant." If that wasn't humiliating for Jefferson, why would it be for me?

Addendum: Other Jeffersonian closings are "Accept my best wishes," "I salute you with sincere affection," "Accept my salutations & respects," "Accept my friendly salutations & assurances of great esteem & respect," "Accept my salutations & best wishes," "Accept my friendly salutations & assurances of constant affection & respect," "I pray you to accept my thanks for the gooseberries and my respectful salutations," "I assure you with truth that no circumstances are more welcome to me than those which give me the occasion of recalling myself to your recollection, & of renewing to you the assurances of sincere personal attachment and of great respect & consideration," "Wishing you every blessing of life & health I salute you with constant affection & respect," "Present my friendly salutations to Genl. Clarke, and be assured yourself of my constant & unalterable affections," "Accept the assurances of my great esteem & respect," "Your most obedt. servt.," "I salute you with respect," "I am Dr. Sir Your's affectionately," "Be assured always of my affectionate friendship and respect," and "Ever & affectionately yours."

This gives new meaning to the expression "letting your children run wild." I wonder whether the parents of these children allow them to decide other things, such as what to eat, what to wear, when to go to bed, what to watch on television, and whether to take medication.

Charles McGrath reviews the Sony Reader here. He is none too pleased. One reason I collect books is to have reading material if book production ceases. I'd rather die than read a book on a Sony Reader. If that makes me old-fashioned, then I'm old-fashioned.

[T]he methods of science cannot vindicate the ends of science, and the knowledge acquired by scientific methods cannot always justify the particular experiments used to acquire it. Yet scientists desperately want such vindication in the eyes of their fellow citizens: Good science (meaning interesting, promising, exciting) needs to be seen as good (meaning virtuous, praiseworthy, compassionate) by everyone. And so scientists have invented a new method to defend the unfettered freedom of the old one: They claim the mantle of science while making ethical claims ("embryo research is good") that rest on no special scientific basis at all, and they portray their opponents as antiscience for raising ethical questions that are entirely consistent with the scientific facts ("embryological development begins at conception").

(Eric Cohen, "The Ends of Science," First Things [November 2006]: 27-33, at 27 [italics in original])

Here.

To the Editor:

The issue isn’t immigration. Virtually everyone favors immigration and realizes that this country was built by immigrants from many countries.

No, the issue is illegal immigration. Your editorial seems to sidestep what’s making this issue so divisive: following the law.

What we should be focusing on is illegality. Are we a nation of laws, or aren’t we? Would we, as a country, attempt to excuse the violation of any other laws? But that is what the McCain-Kennedy bill does, regardless of how many hoops are created for violators to jump through to make their illegal actions legal.

The only reason Congress is either too timid to address this issue or offers justification for illegal activity is that the size of the problem means there will be political consequences. It’s too bad that we don’t have a Congress that is smart enough (and has stomach enough) to simply enforce the law.

David Moorshead
Chicago, Nov. 20, 2006

Here.

11-25-86 . . . I mentioned the other day that the Reagan administration is embroiled in a fiasco over arms shipments to Iran. Now things have taken a turn for the worse, from the administration’s point of view. It transpires that money derived from the arms shipments to Iran was funnelled [sic; should be “funneled”] illegally to the Contras (or, as Reagan calls them, “freedom fighters”) in Nicaragua. Congress has refused all of Reagan’s requests for aid to the Contras, so apparently Reagan’s minions were trying to get aid to them under the table. Can you believe it? And most bizarre of all, the president himself didn’t know about it. His underlings have been contradicting each other for days about what happened, who knew it, and who is responsible. I can only hope, given my intense dislike for Reagan as both a person and a president, that this undermines his authority and credibility throughout the remainder of his term. Iran proved to be Jimmy Carter’s downfall (according to most political pundits); perhaps it will prove to be Ronald Reagan’s downfall as well. That would be deliciously ironic.

Here is a story about Thanksgiving misconceptions.

To the Editor:

As the body count in Iraq continues to rise, it becomes more obvious that the only way to save Iraqi lives is to remove American troops from that beleaguered country.

The number of Iraqis killed in the month of October was 3,709, according to a United Nations report. As of Thursday, the Pentagon has identified 2,860 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. How difficult is it to understand that these death tolls are directly and unequivocally related to the American invasion of Iraq?

It would not be “cutting and running” to abandon the disastrous prosecution of this war by the Bush administration. It would be the only way to stop the killing of Iraqis and Americans.

Richard Ellis
New York, Nov. 24, 2006

The understanding that science pursues is pure. Science is not a practical but rather, an intellectual endeavor, entirely concerned with the accumulation of knowledge. I do not mean to imply that the fruits of scientific knowledge are not routinely employed in practice, but only that the sole value pursued by science is truth. The significance of the various applications of the truths discovered by science to human life is a matter of moral, social, and political values, not scientific ones. Whether or not current theories in nuclear physics are true or false is a matter of scientific values, but whether or not those theories should be used to manufacture hydrogen bombs is a question of moral, social, and political ones.

The scientist, by virtue of the very nature and values of his trade, must be a revolutionary. I am not suggesting that he must be politically radical, but rather, that he must be a radical partisan of the truth; he must be ready to abandon any hypothesis or theory on a moment’s notice, if reason and evidence require it. The fact that a theory has been long held, is much loved, or occupies a central place in a civilization has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is true or false and thus, is irrelevant to the scientist’s decision to retain or scrap it. After all, each and every one of these things was true of Aristotelian physics and cosmology—they had prevailed for nearly two thousand years and enjoyed a central place in Christian doctrine and in the common folk-wisdom of the people of the West—but this did not prevent, nor should it have prevented, those like Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes, and Newton from abandoning them in what was, historically speaking, a blink of the eye.

(Daniel A. Kaufman, “Knowledge, Wisdom, and the Philosopher,” Philosophy 81 [January 2006]: 129-51, at 147-8 [italics in original])

Here.

It’s been four years since John Rawls died, so perhaps I should say something by way of tribute, even though I reject his egalitarian theory of justice. I’ve heard it said—usually as a criticism—that Rawls has had little or no effect on American politics. That’s silly. Philosophers influence public affairs indirectly, if at all. Philosophical ideas trickle down, and that takes time. Rawls’s ideas are now widely disseminated in academia, from law schools to political-science departments to economics departments to philosophy departments. The students who study Rawls go on to become lawyers, bureaucrats, professors, corporate executives, diplomats, judges, legislators, generals, and presidents—all of whom wield significant power. The decisions they make can, and sometimes do, reflect what they have learned, including what they have learned from Rawls.

Some ideas stand the test of time. Some don’t. Whether Rawls’s ideas have an effect on society—and, if so, what sort—is yet to be determined. I doubt that Rawls was the least bit dismayed at not seeing his theory of justice realized. He was writing for the ages, not for the here and now. And suppose Rawls’s ideas are never realized, or instantiated, in any actual society. That doesn’t mean his writings were in vain. Rawls was addressing other intellectuals, not the masses. He was grappling with perennial moral problems, such as the proper relation between the citizen and the state, the nature of justice, and how to create a durable world order. I’m fairly sure that Rawls will be discussed alongside Hume, Leibniz, Kant, and Hegel 100 years from now. Rawls revered and learned from these great thinkers. Future generations, I am confident, will revere and learn from him.

Yesterday, in beautiful, historic Fort Worth, Texas, I did the 25th annual Turkey Trot. I usually do the 10K at this event, but I haven’t been able to train properly because of a sore right pelvis (I think it’s a hip pointer). I did the 5K instead. The course wound through a residential area. I probably lost 30 seconds at the start because of the crowded conditions. Although I was lined up near the front, there were dozens of people in front of me once the gun sounded. I think many of them lined up on the side of the course and jumped onto the roadway. Many times I had to slow my pace in order to get around someone. It was hectic—and frustrating.

Although my pelvis ached throughout the run, I felt strong, aerobically. Three or four times I picked up the pace, passing people as I did so. After a few seconds of high effort, I would settle back into a sustainable pace. Before I knew it, I was at the two-mile mark. I picked it up again and finished strong. It’s always a treat to hear the cheers of spectators as you run toward the chute. Unfortunately, I just missed breaking the seven-minute-per-mile mark. I completed the 3.107-mile course in 21:47.61, which is a mile pace of 7:00.85. Had I gone 2.68 seconds faster, I would have been in the sixes. Oh well, it’s only a number.

Lots of people showed up to race in perfect weather conditions. (It was sunny and 50° Fahrenheit.) I finished 134th overall, of 2,576 finishers. That’s the top 5.2%. I finished 121st of 1,203 males, which is the top 10.0%. I finished 17th of 164 men in my age group (males 45-49), which is the top 10.3%. Here are the results. (Click on “2006 5k Results.”) I should point out, so as not to seem boastful, that many people walked the course. Some had dogs or baby carriers. The overall winner, Kip Kangogo, smoked the course in 14:45.70, which is a mile pace of 4:45.06. My next race is a week from tomorrow, in Arlington. I hope my pelvis is healed by then. This is the best time of year for running. Having suffered all summer in the heat and humidity, it’s a shame that my body isn’t allowing me to train properly for the races. I don’t think I would have won a trophy yesterday even if I were healthy, but it would have been nice to try.

Addendum: Several years ago, I laid out a 5K course in my neighborhood for training purposes. Yesterday’s race was my 500th 5K run, counting both races and training runs. I’ve run that distance more than any other. In case you’re wondering, the world record in the 5K is 12:37.35, by Ethiopian Kenenisa Bekele. My personal record for the distance is 19:05.73. Remember: I didn’t start running until I was 39 years old!

Here is President Bush's Thanksgiving Day proclamation.

Mylan Engel is really taking to this blogging thing. See here.

See here for my post on experimentation.

To the Editor:

A new approach to closing the education gaps between races is needed.

Instead of looking at the performance of unsuccessful schools, unsuccessful teachers and poorly performing minority students, why not look for the factors that underlie success?

A study of the successful Asian students who outperform whites and other minority students might yield some interesting insights that could be effectively applied to solving the problem of those “left behind.”

Lynn Garon
New York, Nov. 20, 2006

One of my colleagues sent this.

Here.

The Kentucky Supreme Court has ruled that the commonwealth's constitution, which prohibits cruel punishment, does not preclude painful methods of execution. In the court's words, "The prohibition is against cruel punishment and does not require a complete absence of pain." Isn't it absurd—a sign of moral decadence—that there is so much concern for the welfare of murderers (in this case, mass murderers)? Did they care about the welfare of their victims? Did they take steps to minimize the pain and suffering of their victims? Retribution—that is to say, justice—requires that murderers suffer just as much as their victims—and that when they have suffered just as much, they be exterminated.

Addendum: Here is a paragraph from the court's opinion:

As background to this matter, we believe it is appropriate to recall briefly the underlying facts in each case. Baze was convicted by a jury of two murders for shooting two law enforcement officers three times in the back with an assault rifle when the officers were attempting to serve him with five felony fugitive warrants from Ohio. See Baze v. Commonwealth, 965 S.W.2d 817 (Ky. 1997). A jury convicted Bowling of the murders of a husband and wife as they sat in their automobile in a parking lot outside a Lexington dry cleaning shop. See Bowling v. Commonwealth, 873 S.W.2d 175 (Ky. 1994).

Why do you suppose the reporter for The New York Times didn't mention this? Could it be that the Times opposes capital punishment? And don't say that it's immaterial. If it's important enough for the Kentucky Supreme Court to mention (as background), it's important enough to have been included in a news story about the ruling. This is advocacy journalism, folks. The Times continues to disgrace itself.

Perhaps one reason the debate about embryonic stem cells has become so prominent is that it combines scientific optimism and scientific despair so completely: the optimistic search for cures, the discontent that nature yields remedies for her afflictions so slowly, the resentment at Bush-administration moralists for standing in the way of scientific progress for nonscientific reasons. The greatest animus among scientists is directed at religious believers, often defined as anyone who seeks limits on scientific freedom for ethical reasons the scientists themselves do not find compelling. The deans of major research centers feel like persecuted Galileos, yet they defend their turf in the most unscientific ways: treating the paralyzed as props in the campaign for research funding, promising cures based only on preliminary experiments, caricaturing every opponent as an irrational fanatic.

(Eric Cohen, "The Ends of Science," First Things [November 2006]: 27-33, at 27)

Note from AnalPhilosopher: See here for Wesley J. Smith's commentary on this passage.

"Back on the Chain Gang" (1984).

It was bound to happen. Computers have become status symbols. See here.

I'd like to wish my American readers a happy Thanksgiving.

Addendum: Mylan Engel has some thoughts about the holiday. Feel free to reply to his post in the comments section of Animal Ethics. Comments have been enabled for some time. Be civil. Focus on Mylan's reasoning, not on him. If you think he says something false, say so and cite your evidence. If you think he's inconsistent (i.e., that his reasoning is invalid), say so and explain why. If you don't share his values, say so—and try to isolate the divergence. Mylan is one of the best people I've ever known. If you abuse him, you will be on my shit list!

To the Editor:

Re “Lost in the Desert” (column, Nov. 22):

Maureen Dowd reports on the hand-wringing among the political elite over what to do in Iraq. Might I suggest a simple solution: democracy.

According to polls, some 70 percent of the Iraqi people want the United States troops to withdraw completely and as fast as possible. That should be reason enough for the United States to leave at once.

On top of that, the midterm election results suggest that a substantial majority of the American people want the same, and that is also backed up by polling data.

In the face of this sentiment, it is amazing that since the election, the elite—Democrats, Republicans and pundocrats—are talking more and more about sending additional troops.

Have we no democracy left?

John V. Walsh
Shrewsbury, Mass., Nov. 22, 2006

Here.

Bob Hessen sent a link to this column by Alan Dershowitz—about former president Jimmy Carter.

Here are some of my favorite bloggers (in no particular order):

Dr John J. Ray (Dissecting Leftism)
Steve Rugg (JusTalkin)
Peg Kaplan (what if?)
Jeff Percifield (Beautiful Atrocities)
Ally Eskin (Who Moved My Truth?)
Dr Bill Keezer (Bill's Comments)
Dr Bill Vallicella (Maverick Philosopher)
Michelle Malkin (Michelle Malkin)
Donald L. Luskin (The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid)
Norm Weatherby (Quantum Thought)
Kim du Toit (The Other Side)
Glenn Reynolds (InstaPundit)
Thomas Anger (Liberty Corner)

If you think I'm missing a good blogger, let me know.

Here.

Jeffrey Hart argues that George W. Bush is not a conservative. One might reply that the president is a paradigm case of a conservative (i.e., a conservative if anyone is), and that any conception of conservatism that implies that he is not a conservative is, therefore, defective. Another reply is that conservatism is a family-resemblance concept. Why should we think, a priori, that there is a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for being a conservative? Is there such a set for liberalism or progressivism? What do all and only liberals (or progressives) have in common? I think Hart is persuasively defining "conservatism."

Jonathan Lear, in a discerning commentary on Aristotle’s conception of the contemplative life, has said that ‘the contemplative life is by its nature unethical’, and no one who has had experience with theoretical scientists and other research scholars, who are consumed by their inquiries—the most obvious contemporary counterparts to Aristotle’s contemplators—can deny that we often suffer from a distinctive lack of good sense—of sound behavior and sound judgment—in conducting the non-intellectual, ordinary parts of our lives; a quality that the expression ‘absent-minded professor’ only begins to capture. Singular devotion to a specific task and especially one that involves highly theoretical questions in science, abstract ideas in philosophy, mathematics, and logic, or perfectionist notions of goodness and beauty, can easily have the effect of erasing the world and the people in it. The scientist and the mainline philosopher, both of whom I will speak of as ‘contemplators’, in the Aristotelian sense of the term, fall into a kind of tunnel-vision, as a result of their utter absorption with the respective objects of their efforts. Without putting too hard an edge on it and intending the comparison in a purely descriptive sense, there can be an element of sociopathy to this form of life. Ordinary people and common life can be irritating, even hateful in their untidiness, their irregularity, and their imperfection, so the scientist or philosopher may be inclined to ‘correct’ them; to make them fit the particular image of perfection that he has formed in his mind.

(Daniel A. Kaufman, “Knowledge, Wisdom, and the Philosopher,” Philosophy 81 [January 2006]: 129-51, at 143 [footnote omitted; italics in original])

I refuse to believe that Robert M. Pirsig is 78 years old. Fifty-eight, maybe. Sixty-eight at the very oldest. If you haven't read his book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (1974), you should do so at your earliest convenience. It will transform your life. Do keep in mind, though, that it's not very factual on motorcycles. (Thanks to Gary from San Marcos, Texas, for the link.)

The weather doesn't get any better than it is right now in Fort Worth: 69.4º and sunny. If I could package and sell this weather, I'd be the richest person in the world, many times over.

To the Editor:

Representative Charles B. Rangel’s proposal to reinstate the draft is not a military strategy. Rather, it is intended to get the college crowd off its iPods and into the streets to end this illegal and immoral war.

Jerry Wallingford
San Diego, Nov. 21, 2006

Here is what I'll be eating tomorrow. You?

Mike Mussina. (For an explanation of this feature, see here.)

Here.

Here is a New York Times story about the perils, pitfalls, prospects, and pleasures of academic blogging. I've enjoyed my blogging experience tremendously, despite running across creeps like Brian Leiter, who, with his legion of sycophants, has done everything possible to drag my name through the mud. I've retaliated, of course, and will continue to do so until Leiter makes a public apology. Nobody abuses me with impunity.

11-21-86 Friday. There was tragic news today: Fred Berger [1937-1986] died. Fred had long taught philosophy at the University of California-Davis and was a visiting professor here at the University of Arizona during the fall of 1985. I took his seminar in the philosophy of law. The facts of his death are still sketchy, but according to Ann Hickman, who took the call from Holly Smith, Fred just dropped dead. It sounds like a heart attack. He was fairly young—probably less than fifty—and seemed to be in good health when last I saw him. It’s hard to believe. I assume that Bruce Russell has heard the news. Fred was Bruce’s dissertation advisor. According to Bruce, Fred was largely responsible for his success. He once told me in a letter that he (Bruce) “owes his career in philosophy to Fred.” I’m in a state of shock. I’ll have more to say about Fred’s death when the facts come in.

Today marks the eighth anniversary of this journal. I wrote my first journal entry on 21 November 1978. Little did I know that eight years later I’d still be writing. But I have [sic; should be “am”]. So far as I can remember, the only days that I missed were during my 1984 bike ride [across Arizona] and immediately thereafter. But I still intend to complete those entries from memory. [I never did.] I also took notes for several weeks when I lived in Madison Heights and Pontiac. These notes were supposed to provide the basis for more lengthy entries, but I never got around to it and don’t intend to. The notes will have to serve as the entries. Let’s see: Eight years amounts to 2922 days, counting the leap years of 1980 and 1984. Today’s entry therefore falls on the 2923rd day. For the past two years and eight months I’ve been drafting my entries on the [Kaypro II] computer. I can only hope to have eight more years of writing. By then, I’ll be a professor of philosophy with many published works, perhaps a couple of influential books.

What is it with American League Most Valuable Player voters? Justin Morneau of the Minnesota Twins was named MVP, over Derek Jeter of the New York Yankees. See here. That's ridiculous. Past undeserving winners include Juan Gonzalez in 1996, Jason Giambi in 2000, and Miguel Tejada in 2002. Add Morneau to the list. He wasn't the most valuable player of his team, much less of his league.

Addendum: According to the New York Times story, Jeter received one fourth-place vote and one sixth-place vote. Whoever cast these votes should be identified and strung up. What else besides bias—against Jeter, against the New York Yankees, or against middle infielders—could explain such voting?

Here is a New York Times story about religion and science. Let me use it as an opportunity to state some home truths:

1. Science is about the natural world. By definition, it has nothing to say about the supernatural world, including whether there is a supernatural world.

2. Theism is compatible with science. If it's not, then teaching science in public schools is an establishment of atheism, which violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

3. Theists have an explanation for the evil in the world, so the existence of evil—even horrendous, seemingly pointless evil—doesn't disprove the existence of God. Some of the scientists mentioned in the story need to get up to speed on philosophy of religion. They are embarrassing themselves.

4. Religion has been a force for both good and evil. To condemn it for the evil it does without commending it for the good it does is intellectually dishonest.

5. Religion is not the only divisive force in the world. The horrors of the 20th century were motivated by political (usually leftist) ideals, not by religion. So if religion is to be abolished for being divisive, then so should political ideals such as leftism be abolished.

6. Corollary: If inculcating religious belief is "child abuse," then so is inculcating leftism.

7. That religion, as an institution, can be explained in naturalistic terms (e.g., in terms of its psychological or social usefulness) has no bearing on (a) its truth or (b) its value. Morality, law, mathematics—even science itself—can be explained in naturalistic terms. Are they to be rejected as false or valueless? Indeed, everything that exists—every belief, practice, convention, tradition, institution, and emotion—can be explained in naturalistic terms. Nothing of an evaluative nature follows from this.

8. Scientists who make claims about the value or disvalue of religion—about whether it has been a net benefit or a net detriment to humanity, or to sentient life generally—are acting in a nonscientific capacity. Science—even social science—is value-free. It has nothing to say about what's good, bad, right, wrong, just, unjust, fair, unfair, beautiful, or ugly. Scientists who pretend that their scientific expertise gives them evaluative authority are guilty of scientism, which is an ideology.

9. Richard Dawkins is not merely indifferent to religion, as one might expect of a scientist; he is hostile to it. This cries out for explanation. Some scientist should try to discover the roots of his hostility. Is he afraid of dying? Was he abused by a preacher? Is he symbolically killing his father? Is he trying to get attention? Fame? Fortune?

10. Some scientist should conduct a study of theists and atheists to see which of them comes closest to living a morally upright life. The standard of uprightness would have to be neutral, obviously. One candidate is the utilitarian standard of Jeremy Bentham, which neither presupposes nor precludes the existence of God. Who produces the most overall utility: theists or atheists? This is an empirical question, well within the competence of (social) scientists to investigate. Do you suppose they're afraid of what they'll discover?

Enough for now.

Addendum: Joseph Bottum has some acerbic comments on the Times story here (see the third bulleted item).

To the Editor:

Re “Squeaker of the House,” by Maureen Dowd, and “The Unraveling Begins?,” by Thomas B. Edsall (columns, Nov. 18):

I’m surprised that neither astute columnist pointed out that Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi was protecting her left flank in choosing to back Representative John P. Murtha over Representative Steny Hoyer for House majority leader.

While Mr. Hoyer’s name was all but unknown outside of Washington, Mr. Murtha’s very public and noisy stand against the Iraq war has made him a favorite of the liberal bloggers who already feel they aren’t getting enough credit for the big Democratic gains in the midterm elections.

Mr. Murtha is one of the biggest stars of the rabidly antiwar wing of the party, and by supporting him, Ms. Pelosi has curried favor with an influential (though minority) bloc of Democrats.

Now she can say to left-leaning Democrats, “Well, I tried,” and can count, she hopes, on their support as she strives to legislate from the middle.

Sam Turich
Brooklyn, Nov. 18, 2006

I'm on record as saying that my favorite song of all time (because the greatest of all time) is Alice Cooper's "Generation Landslide." Can I change my mind? My favorite song (the greatest song) is AC/DC's "Shoot to Thrill." The live version is a headbanger's delight. Angus Young is God.

Addendum: If you haven't heard "Shoot to Thrill" (and want to), here is the studio version. Someone used it as the soundtrack of a video showing Russian-built airplanes taking off, flying, and landing (or crashing). Turn it up.

Addendum 2: Here is a live version, performed by the cover band Hell's Belles. Not bad!

Addendum 3: Here is a fan's tribute to AC/DC, with the studio version of "Shoot to Thrill" playing in the background. The sound quality of this video is better than that of the first. The images are nice.

Here.

One of my friends wrote the following letter:

Dear Ms. Constantinou,

A friend of mine recently drew my attention to your "All Men Are Bastards Knife Block" at the following site. I must say this is simply hilarious! Yours is obviously a sophisticated and discerning company that will surely appreciate a product we are presently developing: the "All Women Are Whores Piggy Bank." It is a cheap plastic container in the shape of a fat woman with a piggish nose and ears, and a slot at the vagina for depositing coins.

I believe this novelty item would make a suitable Christmas gift for persons of either gender aged 16 and above. Please let me know how many units your company would like to pre-order at this time. The suggested retail price is $140 Canadian. Imagine, promoting love and harmony between the genders forever, and making a generous profit at the same time!

I'm sure you will agree that our "All Women Are Whores Piggy Bank" provides a much better bang for the buck than your knife block. Unfortunately, I am having trouble marketing it in this backwater colony known as Canada, because over here we have so-called "human rights" laws that prohibit "the promotion of hatred toward members of an identifiable group." Only in Europe does genius truly flourish!

I look forward to your prompt reply.

Yours truly,
[Name withheld]
Director of International Marketing
Backlash Novelties Inc.
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada. T6E 2N8

What do you think?

11-20-86 I’ve leaped the first of the week’s two hurdles. This afternoon, from two o’clock until 3:15, I taught Joel Feinberg’s philosophy of law class. What fun it turned out to be! I was nervous at first, but I used humor to relax myself and the students. At the bell, I said “By now, you’ve realized that I’m not Joel Feinberg.” That caused laughter. The topic of discussion was the treatment of the dead. In a series of court cases, judges have ruled that various actions, such as disinterring or dissecting a corpse, cremating a body, or selling bodily organs, are illegal. I superimposed the Feinbergian framework on the cases to determine which, if any, of his principles [the harm principle, the offense principle, legal paternalism, legal moralism] would support the prohibition. The participation rate was high. Jordan Curnutt, Clark Wolf, and Eric Felton were especially good about contributing and keeping the discussion on track. At several points I interjected sarcasm and humor, but solely for pedagogical purposes. Before I knew it, the class was over. “Thanks for participating so much,” I said.

The class was followed almost immediately by a departmental colloquium. David Pears of Oxford [University] was the speaker. Before it began, I took my seat and was complimented on my teaching job by Tom Senor, Jordan Curnutt, and David Gill. “You did a good job,” they said. I thanked them. It’s one thing to earn the respect of undergraduates, but quite another to earn the respect of other graduate students, each of whom, in all likelihood, could have done as well [as] or better than I did. I assume that they were sincere and feel good because of it. The second hurdle of the week is teaching the second part of the LSAT [Law School Admission Test] course this Saturday. I need to review the materials tomorrow afternoon. But in the meantime, I want to spend some time relaxing.

Professor Pears, a pot-bellied, bespectacled man of about forty-five, spoke on “The Structure of Wittgenstein’s Later Thought.” Having read a short book on [Ludwig] Wittgenstein [1889-1951] recently and found that I agree with him on several points, I looked forward to the lecture. But Pears assumed far too much knowledge of Wittgenstein—not only of his intellectual life and works, but of the works of his critics. This made it extremely hard to follow the argument and analysis. Others admitted to me afterward that they had the same problem. Because of this, I didn’t stay around for the questioning period. I was tired and wanted to get home.

Kevin Stroup sent a link to this interesting column by Stanley Crouch. Evolutionary psychology tells us that males are status seekers, for males want females and females want males with status (which means resources). What counts as status (and hence, what marks status) differs by time and place. In one spatiotemporal region, it's horses. In another, it's having servants. In another, it's not having to do physical labor. In another, it's having a house with more room than one needs. In another, it's having jewelry. In another, it's having an expensive automobile. Black males in our culture are no different from white males. Both seek status. They differ in what they count as status. Keep in mind, too, that if one sort of status is inaccessible to a person, another will be sought. Perhaps black males sense, or believe, that the status of many white males is inaccessible to them. Whether this is so is another matter. To understand why people act as they do, you must study their beliefs, not how things actually are.

Over more than thirty years, Rawls failed to provide any reason to suppose the injustice of principles of justice not selected under conditions of artificial ignorance by the unnaturally risk-averse parties in the "original position." Rawlsians seem to suppose that from the proposition that principles that would be selected by such parties under such conditions are just, it follows that other principles—which might well be chosen by reasonable and well-informed persons outside the original position—are unjust. But that does not follow at all.

(Robert P. George, "Public Morality, Public Reason," First Things [November 2006]: 21-6, at 24 [italics in original])

Damn. Now I'll never know how O. J. Simpson would have done it, if—hypothetically speaking—he had done it.

Ryan Howard of the Philadelphia Phillies, who celebrated his 27th birthday yesterday, has been named the Most Valuable Player of the National League. See here. It is Howard's second full season in Major League Baseball. A year ago, he was the National League Rookie of the Year. Albert Pujols of the World Series champion St Louis Cardinals finished second in the voting for the third time in five years. He is rapidly becoming the Jan Ullrich of Major League Baseball. (Ullrich finished second in the Tour de France five times.)

Habitual drunk drivers who kill are murderers, plain and simple. It's about time society cracked down on drunk driving. This is a start. If you've had even one drop of alcohol, you have no business driving.

I watched an amazing two-hour concert on HDNet last night. It featured the rock band Styx, backed up by the Contemporary Youth Orchestra. I'm a longtime Styx fan, so the band's presence alone would have gotten my attention. But the kids that make up the Contemporary Youth Orchestra were amazing. I couldn't believe my eyes or ears. Many of them were in their early teens. The oldest was probably 18. During certain songs, the kids got out of their seats and danced on the stage. I've never seen anything like it in my life. I would pay to see this, if it came to my area. Did anyone see it? By the way, the members of Styx looked great. They haven't lost anything, musically. Tommy Shaw and James Young were superb.

Addendum: The concert will be shown at least three more times, starting tomorrow afternoon. See here. If you get HDNet, you have to watch it.

Addendum 2: While poking around on Styx's site, I discovered that the concert is available in DVD format. See here. Wonderful! I'm going to buy it. Take my word for it: You'll love it.

Addendum 3: Here are the songs performed during the concert, with comments by Shaw and Young.

To the Editor:

Re “For Montauk, It’s Lighthouse vs. Surf’s Up!” (front page, Nov. 14):

I have concluded that we have now reached the ultimate in the expression of selfish interests over the protection of national treasures.

A group of surfers apparently feel that their enjoyment of pursuing their hobby off the coast of Montauk Point should take precedence over building a seawall to protect the Montauk Point Lighthouse from certain destruction resulting from continued erosion.

So I won’t be accused of lack of empathy, I am a skier and I derive great pleasure from skiing down the slopes in Vermont or New Hampshire. But if there were ever a situation where one of my favorite ski slopes endan