Friday, January 30, 2009
Freedom
Intro
Americans sure do love this word. It's what our country was founded on, the source of our prosperity, and the reason why so many people around the world hate us. So, I'd like to define it.
Metaphysical Freedom
I spent about six straight months in college trying to define this word, culminating with a 40 page senior thesis (single space). Tragically, that was on metaphysical freedom, which I don't think is the concept at issue here. But I can't resist summing up my position.
Recently, I've been watching Dexter, a show about a sociopath with an irresistible desire to kill people who has trained himself to only kill bad people. He works for the cops, and when a guilty person slips through the legal system, Dexter satisfies his urges. Lately, he's been succeeding at overcoming these urges. In the process of killing someone, this piece of dialogue took place:
Dexter: I don't have to kill you.
Victim: Oh that's a relief!
Dexter: No, you don't understand. I'm still going to kill you, but the need isn't there. I think it's a very good sign.
Metaphysically, I argue that a free action is one which originates from the causal nexus which we identify as the decision-making part of our psyche. It's a way to carve out freedom within a causally determined world, which is a challenge. Whether Dexter's killing was free or not depending on the origin of the action. Prior to this incident, his urges were controlling him, and hence he was not free. Now he was making the choice to freely kill the man. In a way, it was kind of his first murder... Clearly there's a lot more there, but I'll move on.
Political Freedom
First, political freedom isn't just doing whatever you want - that's anarchy. We don't like anarchy because we don't like people infringing on each other's rights. This is the basis of the harm principle, so elegantly captured by Olver Wendell Holmes:
"My right to swing my fist stops at the end of your nose."
(There's actually a great set of follow-up questions on this site I just found... I might have to answer them sometime: http://doggo.tripod.com/doggfist.html)
The harm principle is very powerful, and is one of the fundamental tenants of Libertarianism. I'll tilt my hand and say that, while I'm still on the fence about economic issues, I'm extremely liberal on social issues. I believe that, as long as I'm not hurting other people, the government should leave me alone.
Other ideas expand upon this base. A lot of people believe that the behavior of one's society has an influence on individuals' decisions. Allowing use, for example, might make it more pervasive and acceptable. Also is the idea that there are necessary progressions from non-harmful activities to harmful ones. Drugs lead to violence, for example. (I wouldn't be a good Philosopher if I didn't point out that this is a slippery slope - a logical fallacy.) There's also disagreement about what does and does not harm other people, as well as what action, or lack of action, is necessary for someone to be considered a victim. These are both present in smoking ban debates.
I did a pretty bad exegetical job in that last paragraph - sorry I didn't explain the arguments very well (That's a logical fallacy called Straw Man).
Social Freedom
Social freedom is one of my primary confusions about America the freest country in the world. There are a lot of things that I can't do here that I could do in Europe. In the Netherlands, I could legally, at the age of 18, drink alcohol, smoke marijuana, hire a prostitute, be euthanized if I were terminally ill, swim in a pool without a lifeguard, and marry a man. Except for the swimming and the alcohol, I haven't felt the need to do any of these things in America, but I feel less free since the options have been taken away from me.
Liability is strange here. How is it the bartender's fault if she serves someone underage? The person taking the action should be responsible for the results. This statement rings true to me:
Americans want freedom without responsibility.
Economic Freedom
A lot of Americans seem to believe that taxes are lost income to them and associate freedom with low taxes. The Laffer curve and the Rahn curve tend to be used to support the idea that taxes and spending should be lowered. But they suffer from the same problem - it's clear that there is an optimum point of taxation and spending, but it's not clear where that point lies. There are things that I don't think the government needs to run (e.g. the post office), but there are some things that government can do better than individuals (create public transportation systems).
I think this balance should be a continual debate, but I don't see it as a debate about freedom. You have to pay for public services one way or another. Tax rates seem more of an issue of efficiency than freedom. How do we best take care of our necessities?
Conclusion
Maybe I struck on the core of the issue: debate. A free society is one in which you are allowed to express you views without risk of repercussion. Freedom means that you have a say, small though it may be, in the election of representatives and the formation of laws. People can live with social or economic policies they disagree with as long as we have the ability to affect change in them.
If this is what freedom is, I need to mention that, although America is good about this, it is not the first (Greece) or only (Western Europe) country to have this type of freedom. But I do agree that it is very important.
Freedom - The ability to affect change in one's government.
Americans sure do love this word. It's what our country was founded on, the source of our prosperity, and the reason why so many people around the world hate us. So, I'd like to define it.
Metaphysical Freedom
I spent about six straight months in college trying to define this word, culminating with a 40 page senior thesis (single space). Tragically, that was on metaphysical freedom, which I don't think is the concept at issue here. But I can't resist summing up my position.
Recently, I've been watching Dexter, a show about a sociopath with an irresistible desire to kill people who has trained himself to only kill bad people. He works for the cops, and when a guilty person slips through the legal system, Dexter satisfies his urges. Lately, he's been succeeding at overcoming these urges. In the process of killing someone, this piece of dialogue took place:
Dexter: I don't have to kill you.
Victim: Oh that's a relief!
Dexter: No, you don't understand. I'm still going to kill you, but the need isn't there. I think it's a very good sign.
Metaphysically, I argue that a free action is one which originates from the causal nexus which we identify as the decision-making part of our psyche. It's a way to carve out freedom within a causally determined world, which is a challenge. Whether Dexter's killing was free or not depending on the origin of the action. Prior to this incident, his urges were controlling him, and hence he was not free. Now he was making the choice to freely kill the man. In a way, it was kind of his first murder... Clearly there's a lot more there, but I'll move on.
Political Freedom
First, political freedom isn't just doing whatever you want - that's anarchy. We don't like anarchy because we don't like people infringing on each other's rights. This is the basis of the harm principle, so elegantly captured by Olver Wendell Holmes:
"My right to swing my fist stops at the end of your nose."
(There's actually a great set of follow-up questions on this site I just found... I might have to answer them sometime: http://doggo.tripod.com/doggfist.html)
The harm principle is very powerful, and is one of the fundamental tenants of Libertarianism. I'll tilt my hand and say that, while I'm still on the fence about economic issues, I'm extremely liberal on social issues. I believe that, as long as I'm not hurting other people, the government should leave me alone.
Other ideas expand upon this base. A lot of people believe that the behavior of one's society has an influence on individuals' decisions. Allowing use, for example, might make it more pervasive and acceptable. Also is the idea that there are necessary progressions from non-harmful activities to harmful ones. Drugs lead to violence, for example. (I wouldn't be a good Philosopher if I didn't point out that this is a slippery slope - a logical fallacy.) There's also disagreement about what does and does not harm other people, as well as what action, or lack of action, is necessary for someone to be considered a victim. These are both present in smoking ban debates.
I did a pretty bad exegetical job in that last paragraph - sorry I didn't explain the arguments very well (That's a logical fallacy called Straw Man).
Social Freedom
Social freedom is one of my primary confusions about America the freest country in the world. There are a lot of things that I can't do here that I could do in Europe. In the Netherlands, I could legally, at the age of 18, drink alcohol, smoke marijuana, hire a prostitute, be euthanized if I were terminally ill, swim in a pool without a lifeguard, and marry a man. Except for the swimming and the alcohol, I haven't felt the need to do any of these things in America, but I feel less free since the options have been taken away from me.
Liability is strange here. How is it the bartender's fault if she serves someone underage? The person taking the action should be responsible for the results. This statement rings true to me:
Americans want freedom without responsibility.
Economic Freedom
A lot of Americans seem to believe that taxes are lost income to them and associate freedom with low taxes. The Laffer curve and the Rahn curve tend to be used to support the idea that taxes and spending should be lowered. But they suffer from the same problem - it's clear that there is an optimum point of taxation and spending, but it's not clear where that point lies. There are things that I don't think the government needs to run (e.g. the post office), but there are some things that government can do better than individuals (create public transportation systems).
I think this balance should be a continual debate, but I don't see it as a debate about freedom. You have to pay for public services one way or another. Tax rates seem more of an issue of efficiency than freedom. How do we best take care of our necessities?
Conclusion
Maybe I struck on the core of the issue: debate. A free society is one in which you are allowed to express you views without risk of repercussion. Freedom means that you have a say, small though it may be, in the election of representatives and the formation of laws. People can live with social or economic policies they disagree with as long as we have the ability to affect change in them.
If this is what freedom is, I need to mention that, although America is good about this, it is not the first (Greece) or only (Western Europe) country to have this type of freedom. But I do agree that it is very important.
Freedom - The ability to affect change in one's government.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Normal
I recently heard a report on the NPR program “On The Media” concerning the revisions being made to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2008/12/26/05
This manual, created by the American Psychological Association, is used by the medical community to define what types of psychological states and behaviors indicate that someone has a mental disorder. Or, on the flip side, it defines what is normal. Hence, the word of the day. What does it mean to be normal.
In the area of mental health, normal is the preferred condition. “Doctor, I can’t fall asleep unless I’m wearing socks. Is that normal?” This preference also seems to extend into the area of relationships. “Man, I wish I just had a normal family.” “Gosh, why can’t I just date a normal person for once.”
In these examples, normality is a desirable state. But the word is also used in the opposite way when referring to achievements. Albert Einstein did not have a normal brain. Michael Phelps is not a normal swimmer. We all would like to be exceptional in certain ways, and being told we are merely normal would be crushing.
Do you want your children to be normal? You need some clarification to answer that. On the one hand, “normal” can mean “not harmful.” On the other hand, it can mean “ordinary” or “average.”
I’ll argue quickly that both of these connotations have issues. With the first, let’s name an example of a normal person. Next let’s name a normal family. Do you have your answers? If you do, I’d be willing to be that they’re fictional. We have a conception of normality, but I’m skeptical that it truly exists. Every person and every relationship has something wrong with it. Even if there are normal people, they are in the extreme minority. I guess my position is that abnormality is actually normal.
Concerning the second option, there’s an issue with associating average with bad. It reminds me of a joke that we had in my education classes at ISU – “The goal of No Child Left Behind is to have every student be above average.” By definition, half of all people are below average. It’s not necessarily a bad thing.
But nevertheless these connotations do exist, so the definition will have to try to encompass them. A common thread is that they indicate alignment with a perceived average. Whether this is good or bad depends on what is being measured. So I’ll go with:
“Normal” – a lack of novelty
There’s definitely a tension between wanting to fit in and wanting to be exceptional. Luckily, as long as our behavior does not injure ourselves or others, I think we can leave the question of normality unanswered. But this still doesn’t help me figure out whether the fact that I live in Normal, Illinois is a good or a bad thing…
http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2008/12/26/05
This manual, created by the American Psychological Association, is used by the medical community to define what types of psychological states and behaviors indicate that someone has a mental disorder. Or, on the flip side, it defines what is normal. Hence, the word of the day. What does it mean to be normal.
In the area of mental health, normal is the preferred condition. “Doctor, I can’t fall asleep unless I’m wearing socks. Is that normal?” This preference also seems to extend into the area of relationships. “Man, I wish I just had a normal family.” “Gosh, why can’t I just date a normal person for once.”
In these examples, normality is a desirable state. But the word is also used in the opposite way when referring to achievements. Albert Einstein did not have a normal brain. Michael Phelps is not a normal swimmer. We all would like to be exceptional in certain ways, and being told we are merely normal would be crushing.
Do you want your children to be normal? You need some clarification to answer that. On the one hand, “normal” can mean “not harmful.” On the other hand, it can mean “ordinary” or “average.”
I’ll argue quickly that both of these connotations have issues. With the first, let’s name an example of a normal person. Next let’s name a normal family. Do you have your answers? If you do, I’d be willing to be that they’re fictional. We have a conception of normality, but I’m skeptical that it truly exists. Every person and every relationship has something wrong with it. Even if there are normal people, they are in the extreme minority. I guess my position is that abnormality is actually normal.
Concerning the second option, there’s an issue with associating average with bad. It reminds me of a joke that we had in my education classes at ISU – “The goal of No Child Left Behind is to have every student be above average.” By definition, half of all people are below average. It’s not necessarily a bad thing.
But nevertheless these connotations do exist, so the definition will have to try to encompass them. A common thread is that they indicate alignment with a perceived average. Whether this is good or bad depends on what is being measured. So I’ll go with:
“Normal” – a lack of novelty
There’s definitely a tension between wanting to fit in and wanting to be exceptional. Luckily, as long as our behavior does not injure ourselves or others, I think we can leave the question of normality unanswered. But this still doesn’t help me figure out whether the fact that I live in Normal, Illinois is a good or a bad thing…
Monday, January 19, 2009
The Plan
"I don't really know why people do blogs; it seems so self-indulgent to me."
That was me not a month ago trying to figure out why people feel their lives are interesting enough to write about online. But, at the risk of being hypocritical and self-indulgent myself, I've decided to join the fray. We'll see how it works out.
It's a strange audience to write to... Trying to figure out if I'm going to limit it to a select few or just throw it out to the entire world. For now, I think I'll go for the latter. Keep me from gossiping.
So what do I have to contribute to all this noise on the internet? I don't think my day-to-day life is anything too notable. Those of you who want to hear about actuarial science probably already know a lot more about it than I do. No, I think instead I'll focus on my primary hobby - thinking. One of the main things I like to think about is definitions. Clearly, I know you can look up denotations in the dictionary, but I find connotations far more interesting. So I'll have some of those. I'll probably also throw in some musings about art, American culture, religion, politics, etc. Maybe a top-10 list occasionally. We'll see where things go.
For now I'll structure these pieces around defining a word and see how far that takes me. I summoned up all my cleverness to come up with the title of this blog, a combination of define and infinity. I'm hoping this save me from feeling the need to come to a conclusive result after a finite period of time - sometimes that's just not possible.
Finally, I'll make ever effort to be concise and humble, even though doing so will go against 98% of my natural inclinations.
Happy Obama Eve!
That was me not a month ago trying to figure out why people feel their lives are interesting enough to write about online. But, at the risk of being hypocritical and self-indulgent myself, I've decided to join the fray. We'll see how it works out.
It's a strange audience to write to... Trying to figure out if I'm going to limit it to a select few or just throw it out to the entire world. For now, I think I'll go for the latter. Keep me from gossiping.
So what do I have to contribute to all this noise on the internet? I don't think my day-to-day life is anything too notable. Those of you who want to hear about actuarial science probably already know a lot more about it than I do. No, I think instead I'll focus on my primary hobby - thinking. One of the main things I like to think about is definitions. Clearly, I know you can look up denotations in the dictionary, but I find connotations far more interesting. So I'll have some of those. I'll probably also throw in some musings about art, American culture, religion, politics, etc. Maybe a top-10 list occasionally. We'll see where things go.
For now I'll structure these pieces around defining a word and see how far that takes me. I summoned up all my cleverness to come up with the title of this blog, a combination of define and infinity. I'm hoping this save me from feeling the need to come to a conclusive result after a finite period of time - sometimes that's just not possible.
Finally, I'll make ever effort to be concise and humble, even though doing so will go against 98% of my natural inclinations.
Happy Obama Eve!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
