Americans and the Origins of Man

[Hype]

What bothers me as much as anything else this fuckwit says, is his insistence on addressing Dawkins as mister rather than dr. Bush league intellectual goonism. Fucking coward.

To be perfectly honest, most professors -- at least, most I know -- would prefer to be addressed by their first name, at least by peers. If you look at the author's name on books published by academics versus books published by self-help scam-artists, it's always struck me that professors almost never add "Dr." or "Ph.D" to their name (they don't need to affirm their credentials), but pretty much every fad diet or fad self-help program is by some "Dr. Snakeoil McFuckface PhD."

Worse, I've noticed a tendency, especially among smarmy religious apologists, to refer to academic opponents (especially in debates, but also in interviews) as "Professor --" or "Doctor --" in a way that's almost sarcastic. They seem to be implying something like: "The good professor doctor here make have a lot of book learnin', but up in his ivory tower, he's forgotten what real humans are like.
I've also heard Dawkins ask people to call him "Richard" quite a few times.

yes, but these fuckwits are the mouthpieces for the rampant anti-intellectualism that exists today. The PhDs I know use their letters on on business documents, but differ wildly on their preference in classroom settings. On student work, the proff is almost always addressed by Dr. if that is their title. I have no doubt bill, in the above vid, purposely omitted the title. Dawkins would most likely not care to have his credentials noted by bill, but universities still bestow the letters. Until they stop, I'll always appreciate the acknolowledgement even in the face of humility or false humility within the ranks

Bill O' is a weird case. He has two graduate degrees (M.A. and M.P.A.). At that level, it's generally understood that, at least after an introduction, you can be on first-terms with academics. My practice is to always address academics whose qualifications I know by their title(s) if I have not spoken to them before. Usually at this point they either ask to be called by their first name, or they sign an email with their first name alone. Once they do this, I switch.

Jon Stewart (and Stephen Colbert) has called Bill out before for basically playing a dumb character.

[SR]

Yes, not equivalent but better. Those degrees should render him mute on issues of science or logic as that vid demonstrates.

And Colbert and Stewart are just being charitable.

[Hype]

Yes, not equivalent but better. Those degrees should render him mute on issues of science or logic as that vid demonstrates.

And Colbert and Stewart are just being charitable.

Well, I'm actually accusing Bill of being even more insidious than you were... he almost certainly does know better. He's also a Roman Catholic, so he's not defending the heretic protestant nutcases, and they ought not to consider him an ally. His view, even in that video, is roughly in line with Catholic doctrine. He's just also a loudmouth asshat (I suspect this is his real personality, not merely part of the dumb character he plays on TV).

He's basically a potato with two masters degrees.

[kv]

It's just people scared to die...scared that this is it.

[Bandit72]

It's just people scared to die...scared that this is it.

I guess people need to get used to the fact.

[Hype]

It's just people scared to die...scared that this is it.

That's a major part of it. One of the papers we're teaching is on Epicurus's argument that death is nothing and so shouldn't be feared. Their responses suggest they are having trouble with the logic of it. A lot of them respond "But people are going to fear death anyway, so this argument is stupid." Which misses the point...

[mockbee]

It's just people scared to die...scared that this is it.

That's a major part of it. One of the papers we're teaching is on Epicurus's argument that death is nothing and so shouldn't be feared. Their responses suggest they are having trouble with the logic of it. A lot of them respond "But people are going to fear death anyway, so this argument is stupid." Which misses the point...

The fear of acquiescence.

The fear of the acceptance of the fear of the unknown.


That's fine, but why do they have to get all up in everybody else's business about their insecurities?

[SR]

I've read the notebook and I understand the logic, but there is something in me instinctually that makes me repel from death. Someone asked my mom why she feared death and her reply was....'it's just so final'. I understand that. Death terrifies me.

I might note as well that it didn't when I was younger. As my mid forties arrived people, a lot of people, some very close to me died. Those absences had a HUGE effect on me. Before then, I didn't think much about it at all.

[Bandit72]

I've read the notebook and I understand the logic, but there is something in me instinctually that makes me repel from death. Someone asked my mom why she feared death and her reply was....'it's just so final'. I understand that. Death terrifies me.

I might note as well that it didn't when I was younger. As my mid forties arrived people, a lot of people, some very close to me died. Those absences had a HUGE effect on me. Before then, I didn't think much about it at all.

I had a similar experience when I was 26. My best friend dies of a massive heart attack due to a congenital heart defect. He was basically a time bomb and could've gone at any time. Looking back it was luck he was at work and not driving a car with passengers or similar. Before then I was like you, I didn't think much about it. But since that day, I still do. Sometimes it scares me and there are obvious reasons as to why. Other times I'm pretty chilled about it. It is so final, but at the end of the day, you won't care, and your brain won't be able to compute that it's final. Only as a conscious, thinking person can you give yourself horror stories about it.

[Hype]

You guys might like to read not Epicurus (SR, did you confuse Epicurus and Epictetus again? ), but this great article we taught (and on which I have lectured) called "How to Be Dead and Not Care". Here's a PDF: http://philosophia.uncg.edu/media/phi30 ... otCare.pdf

It's really short, it's meant for 1st or 2nd year undergrads, and although it does some good old hardcore analysis, it's also written in a style that I think is readable and fun.

The reason I recommend it here is that Rosenbaum offers some possible explanations for why we fear death, which is what you guys were talking about, and then addresses these.

If you don't read it, here's one key passage:

Another possible explanation for the fear of death in at least our society, broadly speaking, is that people have been exposed for so long to the thesis that there is a life after death that even if they do not explicitly accept the view, they are somehow strongly affected by it. Since they have no information about what really happens to a person after the person dies, they feel that what happens then could well be awful. Wanting desperately not to experience the awful, and not knowing that they will not, they fear. If this is so, then, ironically, fear of death has its psychological roots in the belief in a life after death.

One might try to account for our fear of death based on the fact that the conclusion of the Epicurean argument leaves plenty of room for maneuver. It
would allow, for example, dying or death (possibly), but not being dead, to be bad for a person. One might hypothesize that those who view being dead as a
bad for them and thus fear it do so out of confusion. They take dying or death with being dead, and then think that being dead is bad. On that basis they may
fear it. Their fear could be based on a truth, that dying or death is (or could be) bad for them, and at the same time a confusion, that there is no difference between dying or death and being dead. Such a confusion might well receive aid from the fact that "death," as commonly used, is ambiguous, as I noted at the outset. Nagel's argument benefits from such a confusion. Whatever the explanation or explanations, it is obviously possible to account for our fear of death while at the same time accepting the conclusion of the Epicurean argument.

What's important about this, I think, is to recognize that, as SR notes powerfully above (and has reflected on well in the past): we have good reasons to think death of OTHERS is bad. It harms us, makes us sad, counts as a loss for us. But this isn't a reason for us to think that our own deaths are bad for us. My death's being bad for my loved ones isn't bad for me when I'm dead.

But Tom Nagel (and a few others) have famously tried to argue that, in fact, my death is bad for me, even after I have died. Rosenbaum's defense of Epicurus is an effort to remind us that this is either confused, or based on beliefs we have no evidence for (i.e., of an afterlife), and which, if true, make at least the fear itself somewhat absurd anyway, and the belief that it's bad half-attenuated (i.e., heaven + death = good; hell + death = bad).

[SR]

You guys might like to read not Epicurus (SR, did you confuse Epicurus and Epictetus again? ), but this great article we taught (and on which I have lectured) called "How to Be Dead and Not Care". Here's a PDF: http://philosophia.uncg.edu/media/phi30 ... otCare.pdf

It's really short, it's meant for 1st or 2nd year undergrads, and although it does some good old hardcore analysis, it's also written in a style that I think is readable and fun.

The reason I recommend it here is that Rosenbaum offers some possible explanations for why we fear death, which is what you guys were talking about, and then addresses these.

Yes, I did. I'll read this in order to comment, but Epictetus did write those very sentiments in the notebook.

[SR]

I've read the notebook and I understand the logic, but there is something in me instinctually that makes me repel from death. Someone asked my mom why she feared death and her reply was....'it's just so final'. I understand that. Death terrifies me.

I might note as well that it didn't when I was younger. As my mid forties arrived people, a lot of people, some very close to me died. Those absences had a HUGE effect on me. Before then, I didn't think much about it at all.

I had a similar experience when I was 26. My best friend dies of a massive heart attack due to a congenital heart defect. He was basically a time bomb and could've gone at any time. Looking back it was luck he was at work and not driving a car with passengers or similar. Before then I was like you, I didn't think much about it. But since that day, I still do. Sometimes it scares me and there are obvious reasons as to why. Other times I'm pretty chilled about it. It is so final, but at the end of the day, you won't care, and your brain won't be able to compute that it's final. Only as a conscious, thinking person can you give yourself horror stories about it.

This is true, and to the extent that I have thought about it, which is a lot (I spent many days on death watch with both my parent and held their hands when they left....and my sister died very prematurely and I've gone over the known facts and wondered if she suffered), I hope mine is very quick and very painless. My dad was cognizant for 5 days before he died, and he expressed the knowledge as "torture".

[Hype]

Yes, I did. I'll read this in order to comment, but Epictetus did write those very sentiments in the notebook.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on Rosenbaum's defense of the Epicurean argument. It is, imho, a good sign that both Epicureans and Stoics came to a similar conclusion about death (despite logically distinct arguments), because their views about the good life were, in many ways, starkly contrasted (in a quick and dirty nutshell: Epicureans focus on pleasure-maximization, Stoics focus on emotion-minimization and control; both see the end goal of these methods as something like acquiescence to Nature, or peace of mind). It suggests that the conclusion is correct, and that we should take arguments for it seriously.

[Hype]

That's fine, but why do they have to get all up in everybody else's business about their insecurities?

In Epicurus's case, it's a moral argument: life would go better for you (or I, or anyone else) if you (or I, or anyone else) didn't fear death. That's not an argument for invading anyone's private life arbitrarily, but it is a claim which, if proven, renders those who fail to accept it either irrational or ignorant. If this raises the question: why be rational, why know? Well... that just depends on what you want out of life.

[SR]

Yes, I did. I'll read this in order to comment, but Epictetus did write those very sentiments in the notebook.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on Rosenbaum's defense of the Epicurean argument. It is, imho, a good sign that both Epicureans and Stoics came to a similar conclusion about death (despite logically distinct arguments), because their views about the good life were, in many ways, starkly contrasted (in a quick and dirty nutshell: Epicureans focus on pleasure-maximization, Stoics focus on emotion-minimization and control; both see the end goal of these methods as something like acquiescence to Nature, or peace of mind). It suggests that the conclusion is correct, and that we should take arguments for it seriously.

Shall do, but I have to print to read. I see the conclusions here are different, but the premises are similar, which is all I recall on the matter from The Enchiridion.

[Hype]

Yes, I did. I'll read this in order to comment, but Epictetus did write those very sentiments in the notebook.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on Rosenbaum's defense of the Epicurean argument. It is, imho, a good sign that both Epicureans and Stoics came to a similar conclusion about death (despite logically distinct arguments), because their views about the good life were, in many ways, starkly contrasted (in a quick and dirty nutshell: Epicureans focus on pleasure-maximization, Stoics focus on emotion-minimization and control; both see the end goal of these methods as something like acquiescence to Nature, or peace of mind). It suggests that the conclusion is correct, and that we should take arguments for it seriously.

Shall do, but I have to print to read. I see the conclusions here are different, but the premises are similar, which is all I recall on the matter from The Enchiridion.

Why do you think the conclusions are different? Epictetus does sound remarkably similar to Epicurus:

But if you are averse to sickness, or death, or poverty, you will be wretched. Remove aversion, then, from all things that are not in our control, and transfer it to things contrary to the nature of what is in our control.
[...]
Men are disturbed, not by things, but by the principles and notions which they form concerning things. Death, for instance, is not terrible, else it would have appeared so to Socrates. But the terror consists in our notion of death that it is terrible.

[SR]

again I confused the issue/point. The conclusions are similar.

[Hype]

again I confused the issue/point. The conclusions are similar.

It's okay. What is it... 9 AM over there?

[SR]

..it was....but no excuse there, been up since 5 and had an hour and a half work out and errands already. I might have bumped my head.

[Bandit72]

Hype, I'm assuming you have read it, what is Hitchen's book God is Not Great like? I was going to order it today. I know I can get audio or pdf, but I'd rather physically have it. Can you or anyone else recommend some others aside from Dawkins or Krauss.

[Hype]

Hype, I'm assuming you have read it, what is Hitchen's book God is Not Great like? I was going to order it today. I know I can get audio or pdf, but I'd rather physically have it. Can you or anyone else recommend some others aside from Dawkins or Krauss.

Yeah. So, I really liked "god is Not GREAT", as a sort of Orwellian essay-style exploration of Hitchens' experiences and explanation of his view. He wasn't a philosopher, or a careful thinker -- his most admirable skill is his rhetorical prowess (a kind of modern day Sophist), and that just makes for really fun reading that you should take in with a critical eye. Don't let him convince you to agree, just because what he's saying *sounds* right. I mean, sometimes he will be right, but not always. I'd say go for it.

As far as other books on this sort of topic, I don't think Dawkins' book is that good (and I say this as a fan of at least two of his earlier pop-biology books that I think are EXCELLENT), though I know some non-academics who enjoyed it because they felt like it got things across in a way that they identified with. I think Krauss is an absolutely terrible thinker who started cashing in on the pop-science cache of being "the physicist" of the atheist movement. His book has been handily criticized by philosophers of physics.

Of all the pop-sci/pop-philosophy books on atheism/belief/etc., I think the one I'd most recommend is Dan Dennett's Breaking the Spell. I enjoyed it. I think it was well-researched and well thought out. I've also met Dan, and I know that he was sincere about writing something that wasn't just cashing in on the faddishness of atheism. It is a longer book than the others though.

But if you want my absolute #1 recommendation: read ANYTHING by Rebecca Goldstein. She's Steven Pinker's wife. But more importantly, she's an amazing writer and a great philosopher, whose recent book is one that I wish I could gift to everyone I know: http://www.rebeccagoldstein.com/publica ... 9t-go-away

She also has this one that might be more directly related to this subject: http://www.rebeccagoldstein.com/publica ... rk-fiction

Absolutely 100%, read Goldstein.

[Bandit72]

Yes I know what you mean. He is a fantastic orator and does have that great power of convincing 'one' that every thing he says is correct. Of course, what he says about Islam I actually believe is correct.

Thank you for the reccomendations, I shall take them on board and buy a few you mentioned including Christopher's book.

[erotic cheeses]

It is frightening. I'd like to know specifically why it's "10,000 years" Do these people believe in dinosaurs? Or did 'God' decide to go one better by creating human life in their minds?

Bill Hicks explains this once.. there was a guy, a Catholic Bishop I believe, who added up the ages of the people chronologically in the Bible and reached something like 4004 years BCE . (+2012= 6016, give or take). So they usually say "Less than 10,000."

The other great thing about the "10,000" number is that that would place the origin of the Earth AFTER the domestication of the wolf. That's why I said that belief is beyond crazy... it's not just a singularly stupid belief to have, it also means you have a ton of other associated beliefs, like that the Earth was created AFTER humans domesticated wild animals, developed agriculture, learned to use tools; it also means you think all of geology, physics, chemistry, and many other sciences is false too.

I personally know one postgraduate who is a young-Earth Creationist, so I suspect that the majority of those 25% are in theology or law or other stupid departments.

"Oh Lordy it's a great fucking lizard" (bill hicks) God rest his soul

Where is the usa's. Bill hicks replacement?

[Pure Method]

I am interested in Goldstien but man I hate Steven Pinker. I should probably not hold that against his wife, though.

[Hype]

I am interested in Goldstien but man I hate Steven Pinker. I should probably not hold that against his wife, though.

I don't hate Pinker, but I can see why people would. And to be fair to Goldstein, she's been married several times before (Goldstein is not her maiden name), and Pinker seems not to have changed how she writes at all.