Iraq election

The newspapers are reporting that the voter turnout in Iraq was expected to be around 57%. Preliminary estimates of the actual vote are around 60%, so that is a little encouraging. Although there were a few Sunni-majority areas where the turnout was virtually nil, it seems that this was less because of the death threats and more because the religious leaders in those areas called for a boycott. (Or-- what is more likely the case now that I think about it-- those areas where folks received death threats may be the same areas in which the leaders oppose the vote?)

There were 9 suicide bombers. Reports I read were a little vague but it seems 35 people were killed altogether.

I still have my worries, but the vote gives me a little hope that something good can come from all of this violence and madness. It really says something about the people when they turn out despite everything. Twenty-two months of American occupation after Saddam's regime was toppled-- a feat the Iraqis had nothing to do with-- they finally get to do something for themselves. The New York Times had this quote today in an article about the elections: "The election was a victory of our own making," said Mr. Rubaie, the security adviser. "Today, the Iraqi people voted with their own blood."

On the lighter side ... H2G2

It's true! The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy movie is coming soon! Here's a link to the official movie site. Any web search will give you tons of other interesting sites as well. http://hitchhikers.movies.go.com/main.html

I'll add just two more links ... one is a really interesting site, the idea for which was Douglas Adams's own. It is an on-line encyclopedia written by average folks like you and me. Anyone can contribute entries. The idea was to create a real sort of Hitchiker's Guide for earthlings. You can find it at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/. It looks to me as though the contributors tend to take the entries relatively seriously.

And the other is an older, more tongue-in-cheek version of the same thing called Project Galactic Guide. This one was created first, by fans. I don't think it was ever endorsed by Adams. Many of the entries are in imitation of Adams's style - some do it well - many do it abominably poorly. Still, there are many good entries: http://www.galactic-guide.com/.

I've been waiting for a good movie adaptation since ... well, probably half my life! I remember when PBS showed that BBC production, I think it was in the mid- to late- eighties. It wasn't all bad, but it was a disappointment overall. This time, I am expecting something significantly changed from the book. Because of this, I think I will like it better. The previous adaptation tried to follow the book exactly and a lot of things just didn't come through very well because of it.

The movie comes out on May 6th ... That's finals week ... that's perfect!

elections

I am anxious about the elections in Iraq tomorrow. The whole situation is so ugly, I don't want to think about it, but it is more and more on my mind. I know it's going to be awful - more people will die, and voter turnout will be pitiful. Still, president bush will tout the day as being a great day for democracy and the Iraqi people. I won't go on and on about it, because I know everyone has their own opinion. I guess I just want to express my sadness over it all.

Amateur

Those of you who have read this blog so far (if there are any of you) will immediately recognize that I am a very foolish person. I know this. I haven't sat through ... let's see ... about five years' worth of philosophy classes without recognizing this. It is not without considerable embarrasment that I admit it.

The reason I know how foolish I am is that I have been given this tremendous opportunity to have a college education and I wasted it on learning philosophy, which is one of the most useless degrees one can get. Not only that, but I enjoyed every minute in the classroom. How foolish is that? It amazes me what a dunce I am.

It's true, philosophy majors do better in law school than pre-law majors, and we do better in business school than business majors. Philosophy majors do better in graduate school than any other humanities majors. The only problem is, I'm not going to graduate school. And if you're not going to graduate school, then philosophy is a waste of time.

I will never make a major contribution to the world of philosophy. I will never teach philosophy. After graduate school, I will not be able to keep up with current theories and philosophical thinking. In fact, I am barely acquainted with current thinking now. As in other fields, philosophy is making extraordinary advances.

I have spent 5 years of time and effort to become an amateur.

more relativism/absolutism

This is continued from Tuesday the 18th. This is just a light and informal way for me to explore philosophical concepts in a casual way. I hope readers will be intrigued and ask questions so we can dig more deeply into these issues. It will be good practice for me. Some people think these issues are trivial, or nonsensical, or a waste of time, but I don't. I enjoy following ideas to see where they go. Sometimes they lead to very real and practical insights and innovations. Even when they don't, the exercise is good for the mind.

I said I disagree with relativism about truth. 'Why,' you may be asking. 'It sounds so perfectly reasonable.' Well, I admit that for practical day-to-day purposes there is a lot to be said for it. But I cannot believe that relativism is actually true. (I mean relativism about truth. From this point on when you see 'relativism' or 'absolutism', just imagine the words 'about truth' right after it.)

The reason is this: relativism portrays us perceivers as having far more power over reality than we actually have. If I say the color swatch is blue, then it really is blue, according to relativism. If my neighbor says the color swatch is yellow, then it really is yellow. When this is a trivial issue, it seems quite acceptable (and socially pragmatic) to say the swatch is blue for me and yellow for her. But what if ... I don't know ... what if we were in business together as interior designers - and we're trying to coordinate colors for our client? Aren't we going to disagree strongly? And if there is no objective truth to the matter, then what are we arguing about? This isn't merely a question a taste - it's a question of what color we are actually looking at.

'But that's beside the point,' I can hear you say. 'People are merely accustomed to thinking that their own way of perceiving is the correct one, and so they disagree. They are laboring under the misapprehension that their own truth is the only one. But no actual conflict exists, because they are both correct from their own point of view.'

I disagree. I think there is such a thing as absolute truth. The reason I believe this is that my perceptions have seemed to me to be mistaken from time to time. Suppose I see a big modern office building in the distance. It looks to me to be square. As I approach, I realize that it has all kinds of funny angles, and the outside walls are not square with each other. Some of the angles are greater than 90 degrees. As a relativist, how could I make sense of this? Was the base of the building square while I was far away, and then became some other shape as I got closer? Afterwards, even when I am far away I will recognize the building and I will no longer think it square. How is it that I discovered the building was not square, if whatever I perceive is true for me? Haven't I discovered an objective truth, or at least realigned my beliefs to more closely conform to an objective reality in some way?

I have a classmate, David, who speculated that when we say 'objective' what we are really talking about is a synthesis of subjective views. His idea was that our own views are instilled by-- or are at least strongly influenced by-- the traditions, beliefs, and culture to which we are exposed. In other words, 'objectivity' is a kind of sum total of everyone's subjective views. David's idea does not seem to me to be the right one. How are all these subjective views synthesized? What are the rules? If enough people change their minds about something, does reality then change?

David said that today we think the earth is round. At times in the past, the majority of people have thought that the earth was flat. We believe that the earth was always round even when the majority thought it flat, but we can never know this - we can never go back in time and check to see if the world was flat at some time in the past. (I think we can know it, but that is a different issue.) The ultimate point David was making was that those people in the past believed they were in possession of the objective truth that the earth was flat. Today we believe we possess the objective truth that the earth is round. How can we be certain that our truth will not be overturned by some new truth? Therefore our truth is subjective, not objective.

The way I look at this subject is different from David's way. What I think is important to keep in mind is that we discovered that the world was not flat. If objectivity is the sum of all subjective views as David was arguing, then I don't understand how such a discovery could be made. If almost everyone thought the world was flat, then how did they change their minds? It wasn't as though someone went around convincing people to believe the world was round, and eventually the world came to be round. No, rather a very few people saw that the world was round and showed others their discovery. (And the idea was met with much skepticism, by the way.)

Kids - where do they come up with this stuff?

Good morning. I don't have much time - I need to go off to work in just a few minutes. I want to write about something my adorable children said this morning. I have two daughters. Havilah is the older one. She will be five in March. Simcha turned three in October. They are the sunshine of my life. This morning I got up early. Simcha was awake already and Havilah got up right after me. Michelle usually sleeps the latest and she's still asleep now as I write this. I got cereal and orange juice for Simcha and myself, chocolate milk for Havilah. We sat down at the table together to eat.

Simcha has been quite chatty all morning as usual, singing little songs to herself and playing. Havilah has been more quiet than usual. Suddenly Havilah said to me, "Daddy, I think I like the radio." Where do they come up with this stuff? We hardly ever listen to the radio. A minute later after we were done eating, Havilah says "Dance to the rythm! Dance to the rythm!" Right in time, Simcha raises her arms and says through clenched teeth, "Dance to the beat!" Only she's only three so it sounds more like "dance toa beet". Actually I can't remember if that's exactly what they said, but it was something close to that. Maybe they said "sing" instead of "dance".

Now Simcha's saying, "Simon for president! Simon for president!" Amazing how their young minds work. They love to try out new words and make connections between things. I love them more than anything else in the world.

Relativism or Absolutism about truth?

Today a metaphysics classroom lecture became a classroom discussion which became a post-class debate. During the lecture we were looking at arguments for and against the possibility that truth is relative. Relativism about truth is the position that truth is dependent on some perspective. Absolutism about truth is the position that truth is independent of any perspective.
One kind of relativism is the position that whatever some person thinks or perceives is true for that person. This idea seems to strike a chord with a lot of people, perhaps because it allows them to get along more peacefully in a pluralistic society. Increasingly, we have to deal on a daily basis with people of diverse backgrounds, traditions, beliefs, etc. We appreciate those other perspectives, we recognize their value, and we do not wish to offend others. We may not agree with someone else's perspective, but when we try to look ot those other perspectives objectively we are often forced to admit that the foundations of those foreign perspectives are just about as solid as our own. When two perspectives conflict and both views seem to be equally supported, or at least neither can be refuted, it often seems to make sense to say that both are correct.

For instance, I look at a color swatch and to me it looks blue. Someone next to me looks at it and says, "What a lovely shade of purple." Well, which view is correct? Is the swatch blue or purple? Seems like we can't say - we both could probably make a really good case for our viewpoints if we tried - so, we say that both statements are true. To me, the swatch is blue. To the person next to me, the swatch is purple.

But is it really the case that the swatch is both blue and purple? Let's change the example a little bit. What if the person next to me says, "What a lovely shade of yellow." Is it still true that we are both correct? Relativism about truth says yes, the swatch really and truly is blue for me and yellow to the other person. (Assuming that both of us are sincere about what we see.) Our perceptions create reality.

I disagree with this kind of relativism, but I shall write about that another day.

Jack Johnson

Saw a fabulous documentary on PBS last night about a boxing match that took place on July 4, 1910 between Jack Johnson and Jim Jeffries. (I think I got the names right - I remember they're all J's.) I didn't catch the whole story - only the last twenty minutes or so. Johnson was black and Jeffries was white. The whole nation was waiting to see who would win. Johnson won. Jeffries had been undefeated until then, but he was in really bad shape at the end. The crowd, which was all white, started yelling, "Don't let the nigger knock him out," so they ended the match before that could happen and declared Johnson the winner. Afterwards there were riots and killings and everything over it, all over the country. They showed some newspaper clippings from various towns that said things like, "12 blacks ran amuck, until police rescued them". On a train a black man was talking about the fight and a white man slit his throat, killing him. There were stabbings and beatings. An editorial in the Los Angeles Times warned the black community that the fight had not changed their complexion and nothing had changed. You are not any better just because of a boxing match.

I hate the fact that we are always looking for some way to subjugate one another.

I am proud of Johnson. I am not black, but I am proud of him as one human being can be of another human being. He conducted himself well and he fought for a cause that was larger than himself. After the fight Jeffries admitted that even in his prime he had never been as good as Johnson. With his prize winnings Johnson bought a house and moved in on July 7. That night, a white man with a rifle attempted to break in and kill him, but the police stopped him. That was only the beginning of Johnson's troubles. That's about all I remember of the documentary.

A new beginning

Just created my own blog. On a whim. I hope this will be a good way to hone my writing skills. I want to just type and let the thoughts flow. This is the area of my writing that needs the most work. Once the thoughts are out, I can refine them.

Issues of the day:
175,000 estimated dead from the tsunami, and my customer is upset because she still hasn't gotten the customized plaque she ordered as a Christmas present. I'm sorry, really I am. But she needs to get a sense of proportion.

Graduation in May and I am apprehensive. What will I do afterward? Michelle and I want a house of our own, but we also want to be in a good school district just in case homeschooling doesn't work for us. So many things to think about. Still, I intend to enjoy this last semester to the fullest. Metaphysics and phil of law are good classes. Also taking a fitness course and a management course in small group dynamics.

This morning got up at 6:30 and exercised. Felt good but now I am completely winding down and it's only 3pm. Of course, this is no different from any other day, so I'm still glad I exercised. But today is a little different in that I think I'm going to have to get to bed early.

I don't know why I started this. So far I'm just rambling on about mundane inconsequentials. Oh well. i'll try to make it a habit anyway, 'cause it's good for me.