Opposing views on issues of knowledge, truth, and reality

In the modern age it may not be “hard to imagine” that the subjective/objective distinction has no “metaphysical significance,” but it surely does not follow from a philosophical rejection of the mind-body dualism. Rejecting mind-body dualism, with its implication of mind as entity apart from body, does have metaphysical implications; but this is distinct from questions regarding the significance of the distinction between subjective experience and objective reality.

Over-reaching when we promote philosophy

Rebecca Goldstein over-reaches on behalf of the relevance and effectiveness of rational argument and the role that philosophers – with their rational arguments — played in bringing about an end to slavery and the plight of women (regarded as second-class members of society). Like with Yanni’s grand statement, so with Goldstein’s declaration of rational philosophy being the starting point of humanitarian developments, when we test the grand statement against the actual social and historical developments we find much reason for doubting and rejecting them.

The humanitarian movements that have helped to bring about the end of the institution of slavery have included social, historical, and economic forces not at all philosophical in nature; and have been executed by different people of different backgrounds, most of whom were not inspired by the “theoretical moral arguments” of some philosopher or other.

We Find Discrimination Everywhere!

In his latest book for the non-scientific layman, Leonard Mlodinow (See* below) recounts a joke in his discussion of the stereo-typing and categorization of people. As Mlodinow tells it, three gentlemen (a white Catholic, a white Jew, and a poor black man) die and head for the gate of heaven where the Lord will question them to determine their qualifications for entry.

Is torture of a person ever morally justified?

So I will go out on the limb and declare that torturing people in attempts to extract crucial information is not a morally justifiable act. It might turn out to be a prudent or utilitarian act, one that yields some desirable result. But in the end, the torturer (if he/she is honest) might have to admit to gaining a desirable result through immoral means.

Reacting to a racist remark on election night – a brief discussion

Racism has been a basic tenet of Republican Party policy and politics for quite a while – ever since the Democrats passed the Civil Rights laws. . . . [but] …But Racism exists in both parties. People of color in certain instances voted for President Obama because of President Obama’s color. Racism is not to be extrapolated to all republicans because of incidents like this any more than it should be extrapolated to all democrats of color. Such thinking is illogical and is a common bias..

MY VIEWS ABOUT TAXATION AND THE ECONOMY – By Robert Richert

A friend asked why I voted for Obama when my business has been so adversely affected by this economy. It’s a fair question! One of my responses is that deep wounds do not heal quickly. It took more than 12 years to recover from the Great Depression, and the crash of 2008 was nearly as bad as that of 1929; and it’s the worst economic crash since that time.

Richard Rorty and the false charge of relativism in Pragmatism

In a collection of papers titled Objectivity, Relativism & Truth , specifically in “Solidarity or Objectivity,” (p. 21) and ““Science as Solidarity,” (p.35) Richard Rorty claims (among other things) that his brand of pragmatism is not a relativistic philosophy and that a pragmatist has good reason for preferring the scientific approach to other philosophies.

Bertrand Russell on the Budda’s and the Christian’s Ideal, and Nietzsche’s ‘Pathology’

In his book, A History of Western Philosophy,* Bertrand Russell makes some rather surprising statements about love as definitive of two great religions, Christianity and Buddhism. It is in the process of contrasting what he sees as advocacy of love by Christianity and the Buddha with what he takes as Friedrich Nietzsche’s ethic, that Russell contrasts the Christianity’s and Buddhists love for humanity with Nietzsche’s complete lack of sympathy for others. In the process Russell effectively misleads us both with regard to the religious ideal and Nietzsche’s philosophy