things that might have been otherwise

Philosophy texts can be rather dense – although I’ve occasionally found myself lost in the excitement of a good piece of argument, as often as not I have to concentrate very hard indeed while reading philosophy. This is probably why Mrs F tries to drag me away from the books now and then. She reads lots of fiction, and is always a little suspicious of those who read too much non-fiction.

So what do I read when I’ve packed the philosophy away for a while? Even after being discombobulated by some hardcore philosophy, I can always enjoy Tintin and PG Wodehouse. Both of these are pure escapism for me. So perhaps I’d better get back to some PG Wodehouse before I get stuck into the next round of philosophy.

I usually find that I cram in some extra light reading during the holidays, though the definition of light reading can be stretched a bit – one Christmas I read War & Peace while staying at my Grandmother’s. And this year I’ve been reading Life and Fate by Vasily Grossman, along with Debt: the First 5,000 Years by David Graeber. These latter two are very interesting, but they fall into a dangerous third category. Not directly applicable to my philosophical interests, and not quite ‘light reading’, either. I’m finding the Graeber book fascinating, but of course it is non-fiction…

I wonder what other philosophers read when recovering from the density they encounter in philosophical writing?

Equivocation is a logical fallacy where the same term is used in two different ways within the same argument. For example:
A candle is brighter than nothing
Nothing is brighter than the sun.

Therefore,
A candle is brighter than the sun.

Spot the problem here? ‘nothing’ in the first premise means nothing in the sense of absence of light. In the second premise, ‘nothing’ means ‘no thing’, ie, there is no thing brighter than the sun. In this case, the absurdity of the conclusion sets alarm bells ringing. But equivocation happens all the time, and can often be harder to detect.

I heard a good example on Radio 4 last week.

The Today Programme was reporting on research which suggested that obesity could reach crisis levels within a few decades. In the spirit of ‘something must be done’ the programme was canvassing experts as to how to combat obesity — better advice, labelling, perhaps even controls on fatty foods?

At this point, a spokesperson for food manufacturers was brought in to fight their corner. As you might imagine, he was sceptical of restrictions on foods.

The presenter asked Jones ‘why not bring in a tax on fatty processed foods? That might change people’s behaviour.’

The spokesperson’s response was robust — ‘All the evidence suggests that levying a tax on foods does nothing to change people’s behaviour.’

This was quite a strong claim, and the presenter picked up on it. ‘Can you tell us more about this evidence?’

The spokesperson responded — ‘Ahem, I’ve not seen any evidence that shows that tax on food leads to a change in behaviour’.

I laughed out loud at such a blatant equivocation. But the presenter moved on without challenging the spokesperson.

Can you see the problem with changing from ‘all the evidence suggests this is a bad idea…’ to ‘I’ve not seen any evidence which suggest this is a good idea…’? There is a not-so-subtle shift from assurance (‘all the evidence’) to ignorance (‘I’ve not seen any evidence’). Perhaps this is such a frequent move for those on the spot in the media that it would be tedious to challenge it.

Watch out for equivocation folks. It will, as Hume might put it ‘involve you in absurdities’.

PS – in equivocating to his ‘I’ve seen no evidence’ claim, our spokesperson commits a further fallacy, that of ‘argumentum ad ignorantiam’. This involves equating lack of evidence with a decisive proof against a claim. Not the same thing!

Check out some of our latest photos on Flickr. We spent just under two weeks in the Hebrides, taking in Barra, Eriskay, South Uist, Benbecula, North Uist, Harris, Lewis and Skye. Lots of breathtaking views and stormy squalls!

Note: updates on our Bongo travels are on our blog over at <a href=”http://fitzgeraldfreewheel.wordpress.com></a>

I’ve posted before on this blog about my struggle to reconcile my Quaker faith with my experience of academic philosophy. I didn’t get very far with my last post on the subject, either! But I had a great experience yesterday which helped my thinking a lot.

First, some background. I’m at a Quaker conference in Switzerland. I’ve been uplifted by meeting lots of Quakers, and generally reminded of why I value my Quaker faith so much. This got me thinking about how I have drifted in my Quaker faith a bit. Not in the sense of losing certain beliefs – this is not really a Quaker difficulty – but I have not been to Quaker meeting much, and my spiritual life has become a bit stagnant. So I went on a solitary walk up a hill to think and pray about it. I ended up praying a bit about my fears about faith and philosophy, and my sadness at abandoning my Quaker life to some extent. I ended up thinking something along the lines of: God, help me see how to flourish as a Quaker and a philosopher without compromising either path. I felt better for having opened my heart in this way, and felt OK with the fact that an answer might take some time to arrive.

Later yesterday evening, I bumped into a Quaker from France who is a philosopher of religion, just finishing a book on belief and atheism, though not an atheist himself. It felt a bit like bumping into a God-given signpost which said: does that answer your question?!

So now a bit more on my thinking and recent clearness on how to be a philosopher and a Quaker.

The simplistic view which worried me in the past is that analytic philosophy, with its fondness for logic, tends to brush aside unknowable truths, and works to reduce the world to small-scale certainties. This would seem to leave little room for faith. I am learning that this simplistic view is false.

For me, being a Quaker is about being part of a community which is committed to seeking truth and and acting faithfully. At out best, Quakers are keenly and constantly listening for new insights from the Spirit. Our individual spiritual paths can make for a confusing mosaic of beliefs. But one thing we do agree on is that no single person can have all the answers.

We aspire to be humble in our claims to truth – not to the point of crippling doubt or silence, but because the truths we seek are so profound and far-reaching, Quakers are rightly suspicious of neatly packaged answers. We are content for our faith picture to remain incomplete, and don’t expect to stop learning from God. Evolving insights and changes of view do not shake our faith. Instead, such updates encourage us to keep listening for and testing new insights as we find them. Our conversation with God continues. By listening carefully to each other, and being open about what we have found, we keep this conversation alive and grow together.

What of philosophy?

Notoriously, in the popular mind, philosophy asks daft questions and offers baffling answers. Or, perhaps, it demands narrowly defined logical proof, thus excluding many important parts of human experience – meaning, morality and faith to name a few. Having read a lot of philosophy, I can see where this pessimistic view comes from. I disagree with this view, however.

Philosophy doesn’t shrink from asking the big questions, and why should it? Our human nature drives us to look for meaning, purpose, and insights into the biggest questions. I see no problem with a discipline dedicated to grappling with these questions. All of what we now call science has grown out of philosophical impulses. It’s true that some philosophical ‘answers’ can be complex and unsatisfactory. But they are arrived at in good faith (most of the time) from a commitment to truth and consistency.

At our best, philosophers are a community of truth-seekers working together, listening to each other in our efforts to increase human wisdom and happiness. A good philosopher makes a cautious claim to knowledge, aware that some of our most famous philosophical arguments are later found to be false or confused. But we also know that even the humblest good-faith attempt to examine a meaningful question is time well spent. Neatly packaged ‘final’ knowledge and watertight proof may be elusive, but the basic process of questioning and arguing can give us understanding and wisdom. This happens as we make our questions more precise, and dismiss commonly-held bad answers. So good work is done even when answers are not final.

So what are the parallels? Are my faith and my passion for philosophy compatible?

I am increasingly confident that they are complementary. Perhaps not in the content of the beliefs I derive from them, but certainly in form. Both aim at enlightenment. Both are wide in scope and accommodate diverse attempts to answer the biggest questions. But both are careful in sifting – some questions are not meaningful for Quakers, just as some questions have little value for philosophers.

Both Quakers and philosophers are cautious about answers, too – we don’t try to claim too much. And we are always mindful that later insights will expose gaps in our current picture. I guess that will happen with this blog post!

(in writing this post, I realised that it was very short on examples of Quaker-philosophical questions and answers. Here are a few:
- how are we to live?
- what models can we draw on, and why are they helpful?
- what makes our humanity valuable?
- how can we make society better?
- where can we find meaning in the world?
- what are the most reliable ways of seeking the truth?
- how can we share and test our truths together in a loving way?

Some answers
- be a pattern, an example
- love each other
- all of humanity is precious
- simple moral judgements are often wrong
- questioning is good

Daily photo #142 the new Bongo, originally uploaded by johnfitzg.

We bought our wonderful Bongo Friendee camper van today. This will be our trusty steed during the next phase of the Fitzgerald Freewheel as we travel to places like the north of Scotland, west of Ireland and everywhere else!

#141 floor shadows, originally uploaded by johnfitzg.

Missed a day or two of my daily photos, so in a purist sense I’ve broken my 365 continuity…

Very sunny here recently.

Daily photo #140 sand fractals, originally uploaded by johnfitzg.

Walked along the beach to Cromer today. With the tide out, we saw lots of these wonderful patterns in the sand, where rivulets of water left fractal-like patterns.