Virtue Quest

How could you not love that face?

Don’t worry, I’m not going all gushy on myself. Nor do I expect you to.

So one of the things I do to escape from stress is to read about the history of philosophy. So far I have a rough knowledge of Western thought from the Greeks up through about the beginning of the fourteenth century, and a couple bits of Muslim, Indian, and Chinese philosophy from various parts of history.

Anyway, I was reading about John Duns Scotus (ca. 1265 – 1308) in Frederick Copleston’s masterpiece, and I came across the following provocative passage:

Scotus often gave a peculiar stamp or emphasis to the elements he adopted from tradition. Thus in his treatment of the relation of the will to intellect he emphasized freedom rather than love, though he held, it is true, to the superiority of love to knowledge….

This helped me to articulate something I’ve known for some time but have never quite managed to say clearly.

Let me ask you a question. What does your will do? What is the action of your will? What is its purpose?

Okay, that was three questions, or at least, (more…)

Where to begin...?

As a sophomore in college, I had a single dorm room. No roommate. A space entirely my own. And I remember that, after the first ten minutes, it terrified me. I don’t think I ever finished entirely unpacking.

I had no one to tell me where my things were supposed to go.

I know that most normal people – you do realize I’m rather abnormal, I hope – would feel the thrill of freedom and the drive to creativity in deciding for themselves where their own things should go. But I was very caught up in a way of thinking limited to “right” and “wrong,” that had no room for “good” and its chums “better” and “best”.

It was actually the required class on Western Civilization that woke me up, or started to. (more…)

First off, I apologize for the sparse posting this week. Many turkeys in the oven, so to speak.

Fiction as a “virtual reality”

We're in trouble now!

This is a little off topic for the blog, but what the heck: it’s only a blog after all. In addition to this blog, I’m a fiction writer as well. Being both neurotic and an introvert, I spend way too much time interrogating myself about whether it’s good or realistic or productive or whatever to write stories.

This is how I justify it to myself. I hope that my justification has some basis in reality. (more…)

Here’s a resource to find out just how many ways your thoughts can go wrong: The Fallacy Files!

Use with caution. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing!

Hat tip to Mark, who’s forgotten more about the internet than I’ll ever know.

"And sorry I could not travel both / And be one traveler, long I stood..."

Discernment is the process of seeing something more clearly. The reason to see something more clearly is to know how to act toward whatever is seen.

Pretty simple, right?

It’s one of those “easier said than done” things. There are two obstacles, at least two that I’ve encountered in my own life:

1. Admitting that I don’t see things very clearly to begin with
2. Actually acting on what I’ve discovered to be true

Seeing clearly

In terms of virtues, discernment falls under the virtue of prudence or wisdom: it is the skill of looking closely at oneself and the world to find a clear understanding of what one is to do.

There are other aspects of prudence, too. (more…)

So the Pope is in Spain, and he dedicates La Sagrada Familia – The Holy Family, for non-Spanish-readers – and all the news can say is that the Pope “rails” against gay marriage and abortion.

Being a Catholic, and a fan of Gaudi’s architecture, the inaccuracy and bias in these stories is blatant and obvious to me.

If that’s how they report on stuff I know something about, why should I trust them on stuff I don’t know anything about? That’s why I’m always looking for accurate sources of information.

By the way, check out the pix of the building itself available at Wikimedia Commons. That’s where I found this one:

For me? Aw, you shouldn't have!

I had one of those “a-ha” moments over the weekend. I was thinking about words, as I often do, and I was trying to find a way to articulate the difference between recognizing life (or a friend or a privilege or whatever) as a gift and taking life for granted. And I realized, the phrases look roughly identical.

A grant, after all, is a kind of gift. It is something given to me by someone else.

So I started exploring whether there are any words we use for that sense of entitlement we call “taking something for granted” that don’t in fact refer to receiving something from someone else. (more…)

Not actually all that logical

My good friend Amy said:

The problem here is that you can’t teach people how to think. Not, at least, without heading straight long into [indoctrination] schools (Communist, Nazi, etc). Not a soul on the planet will tell you they don’t know how to think, even if their life is a long string of screw ups. And who gets to judge whose thinking is “right”? (After all everyone must think to act, even if poorly.) Other than practical matters of social order and universal natural law, I think humans might be best to leave that judgment to God.

There’s a lot going on it that. (more…)

Gossip is for the birds

The Harvard Business Review interviews Professor Joe Labianca about a study in which he found that gossip was neither counterproductive nor unprofessional.

This goes against conventional wisdom, and a number of managers have commented that the study is bosh. But it’s always good to give someone the benefit of the doubt till you know all the facts. So the first thing to ask is, what was the gossip they were looking at? How did they define it?

Prof. Labianca says:

Gossip is merely the exchange of information between two people about a third, absent person.

Now, given that definition, I can understand how he came to his findings. I doubt there are very many conversations that don’t, at some point, involve some absent person. I wonder if he included performance review discussions or anything said in the HR department as “gossip?”

In fact, what Prof. Labianca is talking about is a form of social networking (to use contemporary jargon), though he certainly will get more attention for calling it gossip. His findings indicate that people who engage in this sort of interaction are perceived as more influential, and also have a greater understanding of the social dynamics in the workplace. This seems to me about the same as saying that people who drink water quench their thirst.

That’s not necessarily a bad thing. After all, one of the great benefits of science is that it allows us a way to question conventional wisdom, to challenge our assumptions, and therefore to get at the truth.

My only problem, really, is with the word “gossip” being used to describe this broad area of interactions.

The dirt on gossip

Words do matter. “Gossip” – a wonderful Old English word that comes from the word for a godparent – has held the meaning of idle or frivolous talk since the sixteenth century, and specifically the meaning of baseless rumor since 1811. It is that “baseless rumor” sense that gives the word a negative connotation, and rightly so. Spreading rumors about others is an attack on their dignity, and is simply unjust.

In other words, gossip is always “unprofessional” because the distinguishing feature is injustice. What turns a conversation from “sharing” to “gossip” is when someone tells some unfounded opinion or story about someone else. The basis of gossip is exactly prejudice, judging a person before (pre-) knowing the truth about them.

Is gossip good?

Even so, it would not surprise me that people who engage in gossip – even according to my more restricted definition – are seen as more influential, or that they have a better sense of the social dynamics of the workplace. They may, in a strictly economic sense, be more efficient workers.

Why? Because their focus is on the various relationships in the workplace. They may be speculating without basis, but the very fact that they spend time thinking such things through gives them an insight into what’s going on. It also gives other people the impression that they know what’s going on, and therefore have greater influence.

But this insight and influence, even if it is genuine, comes at the cost of their humanity. It requires a basic disrespect for the reputation and dignity of whomever they are gossiping about. In the long term, the attempt to make connections by gossiping actually leads to an inability to relate honestly with other people.

In short, even the claim of efficiency is groundless. Gossip simply is a bad habit, a vice. And the solution is to practice treating other people with greater respect and honor, just as you would want them to treat you.

We're history!

Before I got sidetracked by technical wonkiness, I was reading over a bundle of articles spawned by an opinion piece that Princeton professor of philosophy Kwame Anthony Appiah published in the Washington Post. He asked the big ol’ question: What will future generations condemn us for?

He lists four contenders, and challenges others to add to it. His list:

1. Prisons: way too many prisoners in America, and conditions are inhumane
2. Industrial meat production: eew
3. Institutional and isolating treatment of the elderly: we’re lacking in filial responsibility
4. Environmental destruction: especially desertification

Ross Douthat and Andrew Sullivan take up his challenge, adding:

5. Abortion (Douthat)
6. Any meat consumption at all (Douthat)
7. Therapy for homosexuals (Sullivan)
8. Torture under Bush and Cheney (Sullivan)

Will Wilkinson notes that all these “predictions” line up pretty well with the author’s current political or moral standards; therefore, they have no predictive value in themselves. He adds:

If we don’t assume that history is a story of progressive evolution, we could ask a different but parallel question. Which of today’s practices would our ancestors condemn? This is a much easier question, because we know what they did condemn. The harder related question is why it is that we are so sure that we know better than they did, and that our grandchildren will know better than we do.

And Tyler Cowen offers:

I would suggest an alternate query, namely which practices currently considered to be outrageous will make a moral comeback in the court of public opinion.

Prof. Appiah (who seems enamored of lists) does lay out his criteria for predicting barbaric practices:

1. First, people have already heard the arguments against the practice. The case against slavery didn’t emerge in a blinding moment of moral clarity, for instance; it had been around for centuries.
2. Second, defenders of the custom tend not to offer moral counterarguments but instead invoke tradition, human nature or necessity. (As in, “We’ve always had slaves, and how could we grow cotton without them?”)
3. And third, supporters engage in what one might call strategic ignorance, avoiding truths that might force them to face the evils in which they’re complicit. Those who ate the sugar or wore the cotton that the slaves grew simply didn’t think about what made those goods possible. That’s why abolitionists sought to direct attention toward the conditions of the Middle Passage, through detailed illustrations of slave ships and horrifying stories of the suffering below decks.

Now, as much fun as it is to list off the worst moral outrages of our time, I think it’s much more important to look at the criteria we use to make moral judgments. After all, it’s possible to be right about one or two issues without having solid principles; but then what do you do when you’re faced with a new moral conundrum? Take a poll?

So, taking Prof. Appiah’s list as a starting point, I’d note that his first criterion is a non-starter: the moral conversation has been underway for millennia, and there’s nothing new under the sun.

His third criterion is a great analysis of shame as both a personal and social phenomenon. Shame avoids the reality of its own guilt. Well noted.

But his second criterion really shocked me. Let me repeat it:

defenders of the custom tend not to offer moral counterarguments but instead invoke tradition, human nature or necessity.

Can you guess the portion I object to?

Human nature is the foundation of morality

It is literally nonsense to say that an argument based on “human nature” is not a “moral” argument. There is no moral argument that is not based on human nature, because morality is exactly about human actions. The entire notion of “good” or “right”, morally speaking, is about what is “good for a person” or “right for a person”.

Now, I am guessing that he was objecting to arguments against homosexual behavior which claim that it is unnatural; he states his horror at past punishments of homosexuals. Or perhaps he was objecting to arguments against abortion which claim that the baby is a human person from the moment of conception; though he doesn’t mention abortion in the article.

But the single issue he mentions that doesn’t fit the stereotype of “liberal” or “academic” agendas is the isolation of the elderly. And his argument suddenly becomes personal – that is, it becomes about persons, about human beings, and what is fitting to their nature.

It is undignified for people to abandon the members of their own family. It is inhuman to go off on vacation and let your grandmother die of heat exhaustion. It is unconscionable for a society to neglect those who have given their lives to build up that society.

Why?

Because it is part of human nature to be interdependent, to be social, to live in families and communities where we support one another.

Otherwise, without an idea of human nature, why should we be outraged at all by the mistreatment of our elderly?

Future shock

Now, the whole reason to ask what the future may think of us is to open up a new perspective on what we are doing now. It’s a way of asking, what’s the moral thing to do right now?

I would suggest that the reason we treat our elderly (and our prisoners and our animals and our environment … and, for that matter, our employees or employers and our neighbors and immigrants and so on) with neglect or even disdain is that we have uprooted ourselves from human nature in our approach to morality.

We have replaced human nature with “utility” or “efficiency” or “profit” or some other mechanical notion that treats people like things, that objectifies them. I don’t think we have to wait for tomorrow to condemn such an attitude. I think we condemn ourselves if we maintain it.