ihorizon

Michael Shermer, certainly thinks not.

In his book: 'Why People Believe Wierd Things' in the chapter on 'the Ayn Rand Cult' he states that since no part of Philosophy can be observed in nature, it is not a tenable science. And therefore anything anyone believes is a free for all 'construct of humans societies' and naturally just as good or bad, of which he alleges, neither apply.

Consider him finishing this last sentence as a barracade SWAT team slam his back door off its hinges, seizing him and his lover for the unlawful sin of being gay and practicing it in their home. I'm sure as his teeth are busted inside his mouth, the taste of his own blood smeared with tooth fragment might make him think twice.

Science, is defined as:

n.

1.
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
5. Science Christian Science.

So it is true that science is meant to explain the method of phenomena, and philosophy seeks to derive conclusions based around this explanation.

More specifically philosophy is: the search for wisdom meaning and purpose relative (but not exclusively) to a 'way of life.'

That is because philosophy, unlike sociology, psychology, or even ontology, (the study of being qua being)--is what's called a 'normative science.'

Normative is refering to a study of the most logical solution to how something SHOULD be, or ought to be. 'Most logical solution' is pretty key here. This is because people will often pretend that the normative is completly subjective, (subject to infinite variance) and will say something like: "How could one possibly study how things should be?"

That is just what normative study is however. It's goal is to find the most logical answer possible. The three main branches of normative science are ethics, aesthetics, and logic itself which studies the validity of reasoning relative to truth or falsehood. Which by the way, would not fall under Shermer's definition of a science, ruling out logic itself, undercutting possibly everything he bases all of his own thinking on.


However, and on a non-normative note, there are other reasons why philosophy is a science.

First of all: Why couldn't the people making conclusions be observed as scientists observe animals in nature?

Philosophy IS a human construct. But why can't 'human constructs' be observed and studied? What about it being a construct makes it immune to inquiry?

Nonetheless, it IS a human construct, for a REASON.

All philosophies and political systems from all time depend entirely, whether implicitly or explicitly on a metaphysics, a view of the universe and a view of human nature. Particularly in post-modern society, the latter.

My real point in keeping with science is that human nature, IS directly observable through behavior, such as Psychology was until latent technologies such as brain scans--entirely based on human behavior.

Virtually ALL of our laws in the 'free world' are based off a view of human nature, and are entirely dependant on that view. It is an individualist view.

Think about it, why SHOULD someone have the right to privacy?**Wouldn't it be more effective to have everyone own everyone else's things? The arguement that anti-communnists use, isn't tenable, that is: that 'it just doesn't work.'

IT only 'doesn't work' because human nature is THOUGHT to be otherwise. Their are NO practical reasons why it couldn't, and in fact, if human self-esteem did not gain pride or even view itself as having an ego, it would work like a charm as very similar systems of order and lawful control existed for a great many centuries, as in for instance, ancient China.

The reason we have the laws we do, though the founding fathers never made it a science, others had, such the Greeks, Montesqieu, etc.--They took their philosophical 'conclusions' from observing humans interact. So, even though human nature has changed, one can make inferences into how things should be (normative) on that basis, then one can study the effectiveness of the application of those systems througout history relative to both psychology and human nature. How is that not a science?

Philosophy is not an arbitrary 'construct' but a deep human need. A need for order and for happiness.

Shermer says that 'humans define happiness' and therefore, no objective system of belief could ever be tested. This rests on the view that humans are infinately maleable and forever changing. Consider that in all of our history, the latter has been true, but not entirely the former.

Yes, we have been ever changing, note that in our physical biology we have as well, but that in our mental evolution, there are a great many common denominators one can derive as being 'evolving.'

It begins and ends with a set of needs that are not altogether different. All humans have needed ritual, all have needed a sense of the individual, of autonomy, no matter how collectivistic that society, all have needed the precense of other people, a sense of community, and all have needed happiness. Only slim minorities and very, very narrow fringe groups deviate from this.

I digress and admit that I do not have space to actually defend my position with enough facts that people might actually be inclined to read here on MySpace. These few paragraphs are meant to be a doorway or probe into refuting Shermer's point by merely presenting the premise: 1. That philosophy is a normative science, 2. that normative science is science, and 3. That nearly all of our socio-political systems in all of history and all systems of government, hold a conclusion about man's nature and have acted on the basis of that conclusion, most often, grievously, many times, grizzly.

For someone to say 'Philosophy is not a science' one is saying that no possible 'tentative conclusions' (since in science, there are no final ones) can be isolated from this study.

If everyone believed this to be true, the world would have been hurled into total chaos long ago, and all the benefits, all the coffee, all the bike rides, all the freedom Mr. Shermer seems to take for granted, would suddenly evaporate.

Not to mention good ol' sodomy.

Such would be the fate of the world if it rested on the toilet of contemporary philosophy.

Then again, perhaps it does.



** I found out recently that France is the only country which explicitly and directly recognizes the right to privacy found in The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen adopted in 1789. In the US it is only implied from the third amendment restricting unlawful search and siezure of property which has in the same time period as France, acted as equivelent to the direct right to privacy.

How many times am I going to have to re-begin my life before something clicks?

I know, I know, it's all up to me, I have it all in my hands,....already.

Well.....YE S, and,....no.

Yes, I CAN shoot for what I want, the things I want in life.

YES.

And I can obtain them.

Provided that they are all there. To begin with.

It seems more and more the need to reflect my values in someone else is the clear focus of all my efforts right now. that is, at this point in my life.
My art, and everything I see for its future seems less and less pie in the sky as I (slowly) do work. (I'm on my third painting right now, which they are all pretty large so it takes a while to do one.) So, what I mean to say is, that a significant other, and even an environment of others like me is the one thing that would make everything else complete.

It always has been important to me. But going out into the world and spreading my wings was the focus. In it's place these other needs have taken the fore front. I can't help but to think what most others are doing in my position: getting complacent, cashing in early. That means pretty much just giving into the pressure of having 'the real job' the real whatever, nevermind that that job takes up most of your time and remainder is spent either in liezure or exhaustion.

This of course did not come from a vacuum. Most intellectual or artistic people, with the lack of any group cohesiveness in our culture, combined with their typically post-modern/existentialist stance towards groups at all: being that man doesn't need anything outside of himself,(which is bullshit-man could live on a desert island just as happily as far as their concerned) especially people, that coupled with a fine dose of moral relativism and refuting that intellectuality is anything more than entertainment and has little or nothing to do with how we live our lives--we end up thinking: "what's the point?" Meaning, what is the point of 'intellectualizing' or as I so often hear: 'philosophizing.'?

The arguement behind all this of course is the numb-skull genius of the image of our current intelligentsia which subscribes to the current philisophical application of choas theory which essential runs along the lines of an equivication between epistemological and metaphysical. Being: something like: 'since some patterns are far too complex to dicifer as a pattern, it must not be a pattern, we just simply have conveniently chosen to see it that way.' THIS or: 'Since there is chaos in reality, that is, there is co-incidence, it does exist, everything must be that way and nothing is therefore ultimately provable, at all."

1. Becuase WE are unable to see the pattern, doesn't mean it's not ther2. Just because arbitraity may exist, doesn't mean it encompases everything, AND 3. Just because things aren't ultimately provable, doens't mean that they can't be immediately provable within the widest reach of our current model.

Hell, what else do we have to act on anyway? Sure we should strive to find the ultimate truth and that ultimate truth may mean that nothing ultimately matters. But WHO CARES? Who the fuck cares?

Can you imagine the scientists of Thomas Jefferson's day telling our founding fathers that their theories are 'not ultimately provable, and therefore you have no real right to implement them' (?!) Or, a government official writing into law the right to interrogate you on a whim, or to break into your house while you're sleeping since the right to privacy isn't ultimately provable to be of man's nature?

The thing is, most of what we live by is derived out of logic from philosophy, from a view of man's nature, that isn't at ALL provable in any way, what-so-ever.

It might however be probable. AND: It WAS derived from EVIDENCE such as can back up individualism, but just as much evidence can refute it.

Nevermind that these 'unprovable' rights are responsible for unparralled propesperity in human history.

See, with philosophy, one is not proving THAT something exists, such as a view of mans' nature, more than one is selling that view and saying: "This can work if you try it, it is probable." And to such a great extent, the political manifestations of individualism did.

Modern political scientists rely on this in terms of the past, but not in terms of the future. Philosophers are ten times as guilty throwing the baby out with the bath water altogether relying on prosperity running on the borrowed time of the fading traditions of the very idealism they refuse to acknowledge has any effect on their lives at all.

The point, after all is said and done, pretty much is just freedom. To be able to live free of the 'program' that is there in our heads on all levels. Other than that, and simultaneous with that is the creation of an intellectual culture, which has yet to REALLY be done. What we have right now are not the 19th century cafes of St. Germain in Paris, nor the great bohemian life that existed a 1980's New York village, nor any real culmination of thinkers or artists at all.

What we do have is absolute apathy and scatteredness. It's the same reason our administration can get away with arbitrary wars: People's immediate interests are not threatened directly. Nevermind of course what interests and what they consist of?

To the intellectual of today, those interests, if you keep him strictly interpreted in terms of his actions, mind you, are no different than that of the culminated genius of sports bar locals. That is, their interests are: intoxication, the materials they hold and the quality of their place of dwelling. Pretty much that's it, those are the REAL reasons behind working the real job instead working a job to simply fuel one's art career for example, living in shit in order to fuel the future. Which, I am proud to say, is pretty much what I'M doing.

I'm pretty damn proud of it I must say. I've finally I think once and for all, resisted the pressures or rather, 'been there done that,' at an early age and early enough have realized that having a place of your own, having the car, the family, etc., aren't bullshit per se, but are simply meant as a reward, NOT the MEANS. They are all luxury items. All of them, and this is what is I think more insightful: that all the things people regard as a means, as the minimal standard of living, aren't. And that doing away with all those things is the only way that permits the time, money and energy to really strive for one's goals.

i.e.: I work only 3 days a week. And I make more than enough, JUST more than enough to pay the bills, have a roof over my head (given that I choose to pay them and adhere to a budget) and to have luxury and entertainment to my satisfaction, not to mention, TIME.

TIME. That's where they really get you, time. And I have time to idle, to be inspired to ruminate, most of all, to do art.

I really had nothing more to say other than an update for myself, and for anyone else who cares, and to address how my actions are coming out of this broken record, finally, to change something and pursue what I want in life. The other point was to once again address the issue of anti-intellectualism and what can be done.

In my opinion what CAN be done is a matter of money and power. This is not an unfortunate thing by any means.

I consider what I would do if I were Bill Gates. I often imagine: chain of art schools, my own intellectual empire: my own cafes, bookstores, who knows:alternative high schools, REAL cultural influence etc. These are not my most treasured goals, but are possible with enough money. People generally just laugh at that, but really what are we living our lives for if not than to be the most we can be?

Many more have done it, have changed the world with their ideas, why can't we?

As I said, the trick is not giving into the sirens and living minimally until that reward comes as the result of action.

As my recently passed away good, good friend Tom Hutchins, a fellow artist who missed his day, but had great talent, said once so eloquently:

"Neal, remember, make pussy your self-administered reward for concentrating on your art, what I mean is: make sure the latter comes first."

Need I say more?

It occurs to me why I came to France.

When I sit here at 10:30 or so in the morning, at a sunlit café in Caen, a relatively medium sized city, it occurs to me that the France I wanted was exactly what I lost sight of. It also occurs to me that my flaw has been until now to lose track of the reasoning inherent in certain decisions and hence, in forgetting, to reproach myself and even allow others to reproach me for having made the decision in the first place.

I take that back, not in merely forgetting the instance, or the general reasoning but being unconscious of the exact root reason why any given decision was made, as well as an inappropriate and incorrect generalization of the goal itself.

For instance, my goal was to live in France, but really, unbeknownst to me, it was to live in Paris, and underlying this it was really to live in the citified regions of France and in fact, not even these, but an essence of France sub-summing the latter as well as a vast number of concretes.

Then I lived in Alençon, a town, not a city and in fact, contained very little of the essence of what I was looking for. In getting sidetracked and in not having a job, due to the limited jobs in Alençon, I thought all of France was Alençon unconsciously and had forgotten that there exists this “thing” that I wanted so badly here in France. But what was it? I knew this, but only on an implicit level.

What was this thing?

This morning upon arriving in Caen accompanying Mia on her way to work, I caught an eye after parting with Mia, of some café with a neon sign that read something in French I don’t remember. It was the first sign of a city within the city. It was held in the midst of the town hall, trees and the part of the town that is just beginning to lead into the center of town and in my initial steps outside the gates of her school and felt a surge of excitement rush into veins, sense of a vast freedom I’d forgotten. It was the first sign of life, of city life outside of those gates.

I began to see women, girls, possibilities, encounters, architecture and it occurred to me that these were the perceptual forms of all that I love and value. Being married to someone who does not value the same things at all that I value, there was no outlet of experiencing this. In the limited number of times I’ve come to Caen, I have always sensed this something, but never become explicitly aware of it, as such.

So, again, I ask myself, what is this thing?

The essence I sensed was the freedom inherent in the citified regions of this country signifying probably an essence of France, but on a universal level, the many choices inherent in any city, but more particularly the café street environment so prevalent here which provides a street life, even more so than in New York city.

Leading more into exactly what this is, is a contrast with that which it almost is. Le Mans is a town outside Alencon by about 50 km. I do not feel the same sense in this town that I do in Caen. The Reason? Le Mans is actually bigger than Caen, but I see many more residential established buildings than I see shops and café’s, stores etc. Which means closed streets without people to a great degree more.

Underlying this, is what a city, but particularly French cities provide: a concretization of the value of freedom channelled through men, people, those to share ideas with and to inspire.

As mentioned I neglected to investigate the reasoning in my decision down to its root and hence generalized the aspects of that goal that I was conscious of. (One contradiction will always lead to another.)

In doing this, I was unable to retrieve the data from the abstract principle to the perceptual. Since in this case, the goal was a perceptually based phenomena: the street life signifying the freedom I had, it was on the limits of my memory of the phenomena and the sensation it generated.

I can remember trying to squint the memory of the street life I fell in love with here. And the same sensation did not come to me. Hence only the fading memory of Caen and the street life was all I had to rely on to tell me the intitial reason for my decision to be in France. Aside and from the street life itself is the city itself and all the values it represents, the churches, the beautiful archictecture, all the city can provide, hairdressers, stores etc, but also the fact that in no other place in the world is the street life so lively and so dense.

The means with which to obtain it and relative to my particular situation were relative to me rational and directed. I foresaw that if the marriage would be, if anything went wrong, a conduit to this street life and the essence it represents, I would be on my own and the door to Europe would be open.

However, in having lost sight of not only the goal, and the means, but the fact that this was my initial plan: if things went wrong, I win, if things go well: I win. Win-win situation.

The essence was embodied also by the number women here who are so involved in the street life.

My friends and family reproached me for having made the decisions I made without realizing that for me this was a means to an end. But this is not what is important. What is important is the fact that the goal was a perceptual entity representing all that I value. In forgetting it, I said “why the hell did I come here in the first place, I must have been wrong about France.” And hence I began to think: I will go back to the States, or: I will live unhappily in Alencon.

The last principle involved here is that of the environment itself: Any environment contains a meaning inherent metaphysically to the human brain and as filtered through one’s psycho-epistemological interpretation of it. Alencon is all that I hate. I could list the reasons, the “non-values,” the seclusion, the mentality of the people, the lack of choices, the architecture etc., but I will get right to the point by seizing the root principle besides the street life it lacks: the continuousness of the city itself. Caen is a continuous environment relative to the size it occupies in squared km. The same plot of land in Alencon, consists of two isolated small towns: discontinuous.