Someone suggested that there be a thread where people might post articles that they find interesting.
Post an article that you like, and give a brief summary or description of what it’s all about.
I’ll start. Here’s an article by David Lewis called Elusive Knowlege. It’s basically about when skeptical arguments can be properly ignored. There’s a little more to it than that, but I wont spoil it.
Good paper. On another forum I’ve been a big advocate of fallibilism lately in order to antagonize skeptics who misuse the term “skeptic” since they think they can have their cake and eat it too, while assuming the cake a priori. Very tricky.
Basically, it is seeking to re-ground Neo-Confucianism by using Neo-Confucian vocabulary to deal with modern problems/advancement without sacrificing the original moral force of the Neo-Confucian concepts. This is accomplished fairly well with li (principle) by translating it as “pattern”, an equally valid rendering as the more common “principle” and then equating pattern with the Dao (Way) in keeping with Zhu Xi’s position on the matter. His take on qi is slightly more innovative, in that he renders it as vital matter – rather than the static, dead thing the west has inherited from the Greeks, he posits qi as a replacement concept that is more in keeping with various advancements (varying from Whiteheadian to quantum mechanical).
He then ties this into ethics and the human problem, again with varying success since he is reluctant to abandon Zhu Xi’s notion of the gradiated turbidity and purity of qi, but at the same time recognizes them as incompatible with the natural world as we presently understand it. He tries to go a semi-positivistic route to get around this and . . . well, it gets rather messy.
But the section on qi alone makes the article worth the read. The rest is OK, but I imagine it will be unsatisfactory to both the Confucian-minded and Western-minded individual. Hey, a good compromise leaves both parties unsatisfied, right?
Here’s one that Orwell wrote about Ghandi. I like it because it offers a fresh perspective on what some would call “saintly” behavior and what it actually entails. Also, to most it’s pure comedy. Enjoy.
This one gives sort of a realist perspective on political leaders. If you like Macchiaveli then you’ll like this guy. It’s called, “Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands” by Michael Walzer. It basically talks about why a truly moral person can’t succeed in politics. Check it out!! links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0048-3 … 0.CO%3B2-7
This one you’ll have to download from this link. It’ll be in .pdf so make sure you have adobe reader. It’s called
Moral fictionalism, preference moralization and anti-conservatism:
why metaethical error theory doesn’t imply policy quietism
It’s a big complicated bunch of reasoning, mostly economic reasoning about why certain humanitarian goals are good not just for the poor people that they help, but for the capitalists too!! Doesn’t that sound exciting?
This one is called: Objects of Knowledge and Belief : Acquantance and Public Figures and it’s by Jaakko Hintikka. It’s along the lines of some of what David Lewis says about the knowledge de dicto, de se,(or knowledge by description vs knowlege by acquanance) and possible worlds. I’ll post more about that later if anyone’s interested. I found this one to be a bit challenging, but what good is a piece of philosophical literature that isn’t!! Maybe someone can read up on this one and we can flesh out some of the distinctions. Hope you like it!
The Knowledge and Belief paper is indeed challenging . . . but I have to ask myself: why do I care? It seems to me that it is more about the ambiguity of language than anything else, but when things are placed in context that ambiguity fades. Are the fat man and the bald man in the doorway the same I’d know if I was there and unless I’m reading a pulp serial from the '30s where I need to worry about whom “the burly detective” is referencing, it really shouldn’t be a problem.
But I’m more than willing to be corrected on that front. I’ve only read it once – perhaps I am missing something?
I dunno man. I’ve gotta write an essay on two or three of these and it’s due like 3 days ago. But at least I’ve been sick, and my grandmother died so I’ve got an excuse to turn it in late and it’s given me extra time to read them again!
I think part of what he’s trying to do is emphasize the importance of context when it comes to determining knowledge. It doesn’t really seem appealing to me as something that I’d read for leisure, but when you think in terms of a debate, it’s a helpful point to consider as you assert things along the way.
That could be why I was confused, most of the philosophy I read focuses on context so much that the thing actually being discussed occasionally disappears from view or is declared to be non-existent! I just didn’t see what was “new” about it.
One thing that he says about cross identification by description vs. by acquantance makes me think. Think of how the Tao which can be spoken or whatever isn’t the eternal Tao. There’s the whole descriptive part where you explain to someone the way, but that’s only part of the whole picture. They have to have that direct experience, or that knowledge de se in order to really have a complete understanding. I’ll think more about this later.
Ok here’s a few from a guy named DC Williams. I’m going to admit that I haven’t every bit of all of them, but I’ve been over some of his stuff recently and found him to be quite interesting. He’s written on a variety of subjects, and I’ve chosen a few of them to post here with the hopes that someone might become interested and that a discussion might arise. I’d like to know more about this guy because he’s recent and not as boring as alot of the things I’ve read.
They’re called…
Definition of Yellow and Good: links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-3 … 0.CO%3B2-M
Here’s an old one from that bleeding heart bastard Peter Singer. It’s called: Famine, Affluence and Morality.
This guy basically says that we good people in the rich countries of the world are all assholes for not giving up our luxuries in order to provide for the less fortunate in the world. I’d love to see the critical minds at ILP attack this guy. I really hate him. Here it is… links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0048-3 … 0.CO%3B2-3
Universality (jian ai) is an old concept and it falls apart for a variety of reasons. I think that essay is particularly pertinent because, knowingly or unknowingly, Singer used the classic Mencian example of humanity (the drowning child) and mis-applies it in precisely the same way as the Mohist in the section discussed.
I’d argue that in “Beyond an Enlightenment Mentality: Blahbidty-blah blah” by Tu Weiming (available on jstor but I’m not at work right now) he argues that the Mencian definition of obligation, while it rejects the Singer neither he nor I (being a huge fanboy) would go so far as to endorse the radically individualized notion of the “playa” which Singer would be “hatin’” on.
God I just had to read this one and it gave me the worst headache ever. This stuff is making me crazy!!! I dunno if I can link to it, but you should be able to find it if you search for:
Title: The Truth in Pictures
Source: Philosophy of science [0031-8248] Perini yr:2005 vol:72 iss:1 pg:262 -285
I’m trying to find one by Nagel that’s part of a book he wrote called “the view from nowhere”. I think it’s called “Birth, Death and The Meaning of Life”.