Hi Jacob,

Regarding the thread about academic philosophers, I want to say a few things about being smart, and the drastically false supposition that some people have that that adjective somehow describes me.

I think that by "smart," people mean some combination of informed and intelligent. Above an IQ (which is, approximately, a measure of learning speed) of 120, in the everyday world, not much separates individuals. My measured IQ reaches that, but that isn't saying much. For example, part of a test that psychologists use to clinically assess intelligence involves being given a set of blocks with simple, filled-in shapes painted on each face. There might be a triangle on one; another might be all-red, etc. You're shown pictures of patterns that can be replicated by taking nine blocks and turning the faces around to match each picture that you're given. This activity is timed. I'm quite bad at that test. I've always been a horrible navigator, and arranging blocks to match patterns depicted in pictures is something that I can do, but rather slowly. On the other hand, there are other aspects to the test that I'm relatively strong in, namely the verbal ones. That's the only area where I shine.

I mention this because I think that it's important to understand what intelligence is. It seems to have something to do with being able to manipulate symbols and identify patters in order to achieve one's goals. There are creative aspects to this. There are also measures of crystallized intelligence (i.e. the knowledge that you already have) and fluid intelligence (how agile you are when you're forced to solve various problems in real-time, such as repeating long sequences of numbers backward).

If you want to compare intelligence to what a computer does, it's roughly analogous to the speed of the CPU (really, the throughput--how much sheer volume of data the CPU can perform computations on and output during each processing cycle) and the size of its registers (memory residing directly on the CPU, which is analogous to working memory) and the speed at which data can be accessed from storage (e.g. a hard disk). But a computer doesn't have spontaneous impulses and drives, unless you think of the OS or software apps as simulating those features of humans. (I don't.)

Or said another way, some of us are a Porsche. Others are a Toyota. I fall in the latter category, and I hate the people who are in the former. :) This is where differentiation and hard work come in. I'll never be able to perform as a Porsche does. I don't have the hardware for it. But this particular Toyota travels to some neat locations, whereas the Porsche over there never leaves the race track. To get to a particular destination, you have to hop in the right car, regardless of its make. People's interests and aptitudes--regardless of intelligence--vary. While someone else could research and write about the metaphysics of identity far better than I ever could because of their intelligence and creativity (which is correlated with intelligence), most people simply don't care. But I do, and so that's one of the areas where I do work. Of course I wish that I were smarter and more creative, but I have to work with what I've been given. Even so, that it's that bad, and I don't spend much time thinking about it. Instead, I try to contribute to my field. I find the process inherently rewarding--even thrilling. I've never been able to share what that's like with other people, but if it were possible for someone else to get inside of my head when I'm "doing" philosophy, they'd enjoy themselves (actually, this is complicated; they'd enjoy themselves periodically).

Intelligence is sort of like bodies. I'll never be a power lifter. I don't have the frame or musculature for it. I'll also never be able to run a 4:00 minute mile. This body wasn't "designed" to be able to do those things. But I can do other things--namely, reading (and to a much lesser extent, comprehending) and writing. And that's what I try to do well (except when I'm going in a hurry, such as right now!).

I don't like being called smart or intelligent because it implies that there are others--the "unwashed masses," as you'd say--who aren't. But I disagree. There's nothing special about me, possibly other than my interests. I consider myself cognitively average on a good day, and I mean that honestly. My ability to write semi-cogently might create the illusion that something special is going on, but it's not.

The only thing that might be a little weird about me is that I spend hours each day actively studying philosophy, and writing. Other people work out (as do I, though I'm lazy), and some of us study. I can't explain why I do this, except that ever since I was a little boy, I've *desperately* wanted to KNOW! (That I've found out so little over the course of these decades doesn't bode well for my alleged intelligence.) Also, I have a memory from when I was four years old related to an important philosophical question. That's how it started. Maybe I, like other boys, just naturally wondered about something that had been on my mind. Subsequently, I had some other unusual thoughts that would take decades to truly understand.

One funny aspect of my development is that I had ZERO! interest in (my understanding of academic) philosophy until I was in my early 30's, but ever since then, I've been on a tear--a mental, apocalyptic typhoon of frighteningly intense activity. It's taken me a lifetime to experience ordinary life and reflect on it before I could truly appreciate what I could do with philosophy. And now, I'm doing it.

Had I been straight, or had I been born two decades earlier and didn't have ready access to the vast resources (journal articles, books, philosophers that I can e-mail), things might have worked out differently. I was also held back by the fact that no one in my family that I know of has an academic bent. Absolutely no one knows anything about philosophy. I come from an intellectually impoverished background, to put it in the kindest possible terms. Maybe that's one reason that my own academic work has truly been ruthless. My mind *smashes* obstacles in the way of obtaining the knowledge that I'm after. (It's a little more complicated than that, because that sounds like science, but what I do is different.) Whatever I lack in raw ability I make up for, to some extent, with intense desire and persistence. The ability to write polemics helps, too. :)

But there's nothing special in any of this. Other people are just as devoted to racing cars or playing poker. Yes, philosophy is special to me, and I think that (at least applied) philosophy is demonstrably important and yields practical results, but that's based on personal values, which are a complicated thing and surely influenced by genes and culture. At the end of the day, what I do amounts to neurons "moving" in certain ways in my brain, and words on a page. That doesn't sound exciting, but for me, the experience of doing it is. It's an introvert's version of an epic adventure, such as Columbus's discover of Hispaniola.

I happen to want to know (that's a problematic word, but I'll use it for convenience) what it means to be good, why one should be good, what (if anything) the "self" is, where motivation (whatever that is) originates, what values are, what the nature of human existence is, what (if anything) might happen to us after bodily death, and what the meaning (if any) of being alive is and from which sources such meaning obtains.

In saying this, I worry that a lot of people will think that philosophy is purely speculative and deals with quasi-religious questions. Generally, that's not true. Philosophers mostly perform conceptual analysis and use logic to draw out reasonable conclusions for topics lying within the major branches of the field. For instance, in ethics, one relatively recent popular topic (as far as journal publications went) was the question, "Is forgiveness the refusal to punish?" To a philosopher, such a question is *electrifying* because it suggests the hypothesis that forgiveness *is* a refusal to punish, and analyzing what that might mean is quite fascinating. (The consensus is that no, forgiveness it not (merely) the refusal to punish. :) )

But those types of questions are far removed from the types of questions that I'm most interested in. However, they *are* representative of what academic philosophers do--at least, a large number of them. And as dumb as such questions might seem to a casual observer, they have important implications for things such as legal theory and criminology.

Back to intelligence. It's absurd to suggest that there are "unwashed masses" out there. That's a derogatory way for one person to refer to everyone who isn't him. Truly "smart" people don't waste their time putting initials behind their names and trying to persuade others of how smart they are. That's a waste of time. It would be like spending decades of your life with the grand aspiration of getting the world-wide high score in Donkey Kong!

Smart people figure out what they're good at, and do that thing. Smart people try to help each other, because they know that we're part of a society. Our "self" exists because the society exists, and it's healthy to the extent that society is healthy. (That's why it's important to be moral; to not be is literally self-defeating. It would be like a liver cell injecting a poison into the body that it's part of in order to show a kidney cell that it's a worthless member of the "unwashed masses!") I'm concerned with the mental and physical (which is another way of ultimately saying moral) health of society (among many other topics). Making wise decisions takes knowledge won through hard study, prudence, and hard work. But the rewards are potentially very great.

In our society, we're trained to battle it out with others in competition for scarce resources. I want everyone to succeed. The idea of being smart and others being "dumb" is absurd. My own ability to do philosophy is predicated on health (you need sanitation, nutritious food, and doctors), leisure time (which requires a diverse economy with a value storage mechanism), and gifted teachers (which implies a historical tradition and institutions). We're not the individual "I's" that most people think that we are. We're cells in a body. Everyone has to do their part, or the body won't function optimally. It could even collapse and die.

I'm trying to do the best that I can with what I've been given, but there's nothing special here. I hope that everyone else will focus on whatever it is that they've been given and are good at, and do that thing relentlessly. We're part of a communal adventure. (There *are* grand narratives, regardless of what the postmodernists preach. We use them to collectively invent meaning.) I believe in win-win games, not, "I'm better than you," or, "It's not enough for me to succeed, but everyone else must fail." That's insane.

In the end, being smart is about having the insight to understand your limitations and place in the order of nature, the humility to respect and care about others, the courage to write off-the-cuff posts on RfM with all kinds of logical contradictions and grammatical errors because one is in a hurry and trying to convey something he thinks is important anyway, and the wisdom to do those things that lead to health and sustainability, that is, to human flourishing within the context of a society. I can't fix a car, but I hope that I can impart some sense for the value of philosophy. (Every once in awhile, I could use a good mechanic.)

Just like weight training, the secret to becoming smart isn't a secret. You have to lift weights over a long period of time, add weight slowly, and work hard. And be prepared to suffer a lot to build muscle fiber thickness!

The journey is the reward, especially when you can go on it with people that you really like.

Be Well,

Steve

I think the input of academic philosophers would be great on this board. I've always thought the issue concerning belief systems is the teachings they embody, not necessarily the truth claims. (However, when JS claims that God established his authority to restore Christianity, the fact that everything he did--as a matter of historical record--is the very opposite of what's claimed about him, makes a difference). But, generally, if the religion centers on some mythological character, or the system returns to an actual person who is mythologized (think, George Washington), it doesn't matter. What is the content of the teaching? Philosophy can help analyze the content of the teaching. Can't it?

It's not a matter of whether someone is smart, dull-witted, intellectual, elite, or unwashed. It's more a matter of people, like me, simply not having got the vocabulary or background to put any of my ideas into a rigorous, academic philosophical framework.

I would love it if someone could address Mormonism's issues from a philosophical framework. For example, what is wrong with authoritarianism. What is wrong with assigning sex role stereotypes to people. Should women TRY to be SAHM and only enter the workforce if need makes them? Should men lead the family? And if not, can philosophy establish a reason why not? What is prayer? Is obedience a good policy? Is there any legitimate need for belief? Or is faith always synonymous with weakness of some sort?

Seems like plenty of questions that a systematic analysis could address, or already has addressed, but only philosophers know it.

I’ll respond but I want to put it into context. You issued a call for “academic philosophers” and asked them to “Do your(their) duty!” (no emphasis added)

I replied thus,
“I agree, we all could use a good dose of critical thinking training. I don't think that "Academic Philosophers" are necessary, really your post smacks of Platonic Utopian ideas that have been soundly and roundly criticized as the source of many a totalitarian regime.

Laugh at me if you must for taking you out of context and being an uneducated, unwashed, man who needs your enlightened guidance. However don't ignore others just because they aren't "Academic".”

And received this response,
“Jacob,

There's a reason that I said *academic* philosophers. Many people study philosophy, but the best bets, in my experience, to use it to help people are those who teach it and publish in the field, particularly in ethics. It has everything to do with familiarity with the published literature, and with thinking and conceptual analysis techniques. It takes years and years of reading and guidance to be able to put together the many different skills required to effectively philosophize to be able to X-ray problems and interpret them in a useful manner.

Philosophers are the radiologists of the soul.

(Technically, I should restrict that to philosophers of mind, social philosophers, philosophers of psychology, and ethicists.)

Steve”

A litter further down I made this statement which I assume is what you are responding to.
“Lest you think me totally counter the idea of philosophy and learning let me clear up the matter. I am counter the idea that I need to be diagnosed and examined and cured of the fictitious disease of not being smart enough.

Steve you seem to be a highly intelligent intuitive being. Don't let the idea that you can become better lead you to believe that you aren't good enough.”




Steve you are a smart guy, I really believe that. For whatever reason you seem to lack confidence, something I admittedly have in spades. So my response to your esoteric letter is this. I think you put yourself and your opinion up on a pedestal because you aren't comfortable enough with either. Come down and play in the mud, it really is quite liberating to be fully self-aware. Salute e Buona Fortuna.

This place is about peer support.

And even the uneducated, less than smart people can have wonderful insights that could benefit everyone

Education, sheep-skins, -- over-rated.


Realized that the day I witnessed two full Harvard professors heatedly screaming at each other ---

---- about locker space.


On the other hand, some of the wisest I met were rail workers in a steel mill in Ohio.

I completely agree. I grew up in an a world of academics. Fortunately, they all would have loved going out hand hoisting a few with those steel workers, in order to have a good time, and maybe gain some insight that can not be learned in a book.

I grew up around academics. Any argument that was made that depend on the academic nature of the person was dismissed outright. The idea of an "academic" philosopher would be laughed out the door. Either your points are valid or they are not, hanging the world "academic" in front of Philosopher only makes me think that the person is trying to gain undeserved credibility over other philosophers.

Either you are a philosopher with legitimate credible ideas or you are not.

The idea that "smart means insight" is insulting to a great number of people that are not all that smart but but have wonderful insights.

You need to come down from your academic tower and mingle with the lesser.

And the biggest bunch of whoie in a pack of whoie.

"In the end, being smart is about having the insight to understand your limitations and place in the order of nature"

Insightful, resourceful, imaginative, creative or intuitive people learn how to overcome their limitations and can change their place "in the order". I know lots of people that have.

The most clueless person i've ever known had a PhD. in Philosophy. No matter how hard I tried, he couldn't carry on a conversation, put out an original thought, or even have an opinion. Apparently he landed his doctorate by written word only. The man didn't have anything to say that worth the education his 80 year old parents paid for.

As soon as he graduated, his family of 5 children and a wife were literally homeless. The guy didn't have a lick of common sense. He refused to take a job that was more than 20 miles from the town they were homeless in. He was TBM to the core. God will provide. The bishop told him he wasn't giving them anything if he wasn't willing to take a job outside of his circle. Ended up a neighbor who was NOT a mormon, but was a widow, took in their family of 7.

It was more than I could stand to watch. All 5 of their children have led lives of chronic turmoil and crisis. Divorces, homeless, small children in the droves. Not a lick of common sense in the entire mess. Its so sad to see it carry on through the generations. These are people with more education than most people ever dream of. From my observation, what's lacking is plain common sense and a work ethic. They think a degree equals money. They don't seem to realize that a degree equals permission to apply for a job. After that, you'd better show up and have something to offer.

Don't be hating on the high IQ types. I'm in that group and feel guilt that I didn't make more of my potential. I realize now that I had an anti-academic family even though they did read a lot.

My low EQ has virtually extinguished any benefit I might have derived from the high IQ. So I can move those blocks around and find those patterns, but somehow thought the Joseph Smith story made sense. WHy? I needed emotional support and maybe, just maybe, I could get some from being Mormon.

As I got older and became a parent, I read and read and learned about a study that you would really, really love. An investigator followed a large number of children from the forties on up to the present.

They were all high IQ. He wanted to see how our nation, our states "nourished" said gifted children and what would the result be? The smartest guy of the bunch, IQ just below 200, lives on a ranch in Montana. When he isn't working, he jots down mathematical problems. He has done some amazing work, which will never be reviewed by peers, because he doesn't have academic credentials sufficient to allow him to present a paper anywhere.

A couple of my children had IQ's higher than mine. One of them still reads calculus books for fun. He took mathematics in college and breezed through the classes, loving it, but could never make it to the finals because the final tests required him to find another room in the college on a certain day not the regular day of the class. He would have to schedule and keep a unique appointment, making sure he was fed, clean and went to the bathroom ahead of time. It was too much.

That's my son, the musical genius, who has schizophrenia and is disabled.

Another one with a super high IQ is dead. When your IQ is that high, you figure you could lose half your brain power and still keep up with other people. He took a lot of drugs/alcohol. He went to college as well and just took the tests after reading the book. Refused to go to class but could pass the tests just from the book. Made the teachers feel superfluous, so you can imagine what his grades looked like.

It's all about balance. Too much beauty or too much brains are a liability, no different than being ugly or stupid. Just a different kind of challenge.


Anagrammy

I certainly do not hate on the high IQ types. I just can't stand the high IQ types that think they have better insights into life because of their high IQ. You know, the type that thinks that being an academic philosopher makes them some how better and more insightful than a philosopher.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/13/2013 08:28PM by MJ.

Don't think anyone is hating high IQ types.

But will say some of the wisest folks I have ever met were those whom conventional testing would say had low-IQ.

And some of the very brightest high-IQ by conventional testing (read - Harvard, Johns Hopkins types) were some of the least wise and most foolish.

Concur on balance.

Hey anagramy, you write faster than I do! No surprise. Your post had nothing to do with my previous post. Just so others know.

I told you I was a lazy writer. I wasn't kidding. I start a post and then take forever to finish before I hit the post message button.

By the way, I don't think it counts for much, but I also have a high IQ. It hasn't served me all that well.

I prefer to go into seclusion and cater to my creative side.

However, i'm glad I come out of my shell and spend time with people like you. It was fun, just not long enough.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/14/2013 12:33AM by madalice.

Anagramy, if you had low eq, you've overcome it.

Everyone can think. Everyone can sing in the shower.

You can tune into American Idol and listen to the auditions of people who sing well in the shower, or so they think. We're all asking ourselves, doesn't that person know they can't sing? They truly don't hear the difference between themselves and a true musician who has practiced thousands of hours.

Everyone can think (sitting on the toilet). But some people spend thousands of hours practicing thinking. Here's some truth GP: you won't get any more credit (from the masses) for all of the energy you've applied to philosophy than a serious musician gets for the energy she puts into music.

Anagrammy, I have to call bullish*t. Prove it and we'll work out a nice donation to RFM.

If a musician is good, they can get recognized as being good even if they became good with relative few hours of practice. But if a musician stinks, they stink even if they put in thousands of hours of practice.

Same with philosophers. It does not matter if you spent a thousand hours thinking up BS, if you spew the BS, it is still BS.

Some how saying "Wow, I think it was wonderful that you spent all that time thinking up such total BS" isn't a complement.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/13/2013 09:08PM by MJ.

Thank you for providing an example of my point.

Yes, I will support the idea that spending lots of time thinking, or even claiming that one thinks does not equate to having good ideas. <<----- That is not an attack, that is a simple truth.

And thank you for providing ample evidence to back up that claim.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/13/2013 10:21PM by MJ.

thingsithink Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "you won't get any
> more credit (from the masses) for all of the
> energy ......."

Why, you write 'the masses' like it is a bad thing.

Let's say I did. I do think that often an uneducated group can incorrectly assess skill (uneducated with respect to the particular skill in question). I could be wrong. Miley Cyrus may be brilliant and thousand of musicians waiting tables just suck. Maybe Thomas Kincaid is the painter of our times. Sometimes brilliant and/or hard-working people make it to the top. But sometimes it's just the loud-mouth, self-promoter who sells his wares to the ignorant who is recognized.

I think sometimes a large group of people get sucked in to something that is pure nonsense. They don't realize it. It's their world. They think its wonderful because they just don't know any better. Then some of them learn a few things and start meet ups at Starbucks.

Clearly you are intelligent, a critical thinker, and have thinking for oneself/self-reliance.

So consider:

The planet is divided into “the masses” (or choose the denoted word), vs. the implied worthier betters. Some clearly are superior. There is no doubt, because there is a line. A measurement.

Likely the division is clearly demarcated by some kind of critical parameter (such as, oh, race, gender, age, sexual preference, physique, national origin/nationality, vogue beauty ideals, religion - Jews had it rough for a bit - occupation, bank account, degrees, special affiliations that make one very special, landholdings, stockholding, specialness of residence like – on the beach, royal knightly blue blood, rich blood, lineage of Abraham, - so forth, it all kinda gets boring) which, while critical for dividing the worthy from those not so, is apparently completely whimsical, because there are so many lines.

Now – where do you suppose this (frankly artificial, as the dividing parameter is arbitrary) stratification comes from, and why is it there?

Not a criticism. I mean, the phenomenon does seem pervasive.

"The planet is divided into “the masses” (or choose the denoted word), vs. the implied worthier betters. Some clearly are superior. There is no doubt, because there is a line. A measurement."

I wasn't thinking that. I was thinking that sometimes we/I am part of the ignorant mass and sometimes I'm not - depending on the topic. I guess I'd mostly be in the ignorant mass and hopefully occasionally find myself in the other group.

So, the planet is not divided into "the masses" v.s the implied worthier betters. I guess the individual is divided - sometimes an ignorant fool and sometimes a brilliant person.

I don't have a formula for determining how, when, why someone moves from one group to the other regarding a certain topic or skill. I guess I'd say some form of study raises the odds.

Ah! That is complex. Dynamic. Thanks.

Still though - wonder what causes the other....

Have to think on that.
Interesting.
Thanks.

Doesn't stratification begin with selection of mates based on symmetry of features?

And isn't that hardwired?

One can extrapolate that natural selection began exaggerating the sexual variations which were found to be attractive to the opposite sex and resulted in more offspring. So we have very red faces in baboons, extremely long tailfeathers and headdresses in birds, etc.

It accounts for large breasts in human females (other primates don't seem to need them) and, when coupled with a highly socialized society would certainly render certain individuals to be deemed superior, of higher status, etc.


Anagrammy

Hi,

I suspect that every writer would like to influence lots of readers. However, most philosophers generally write for a specialty audience that's very, very small. If you're lucky, a few hundred individuals might read your journal publication, world-wide.

Einstein wanted to know the "mind" of "God." That's what he explored through theoretical physics. I feel the same way. For me, philosophy is akin to a religious pursuit. I want to understand the nature of the world, and the limits of what I can and can't know. I want to be able to reason better, use terms more precisely, and be able to juggle ideas in such a manner as to be able to solve real-world problems, or if not that, then come closer to solving them.

Most of what counts as philosophy sits somewhere between hard-core logic and literature. Here are some recent (mostly philosophy, with a few related) journal publications and their abstracts:

Potochnik, Angela, and Brian McGill. "The Limitations of Hierarchical Organization." Philosophy Of Science 79, no. 1 (January 2012): 120-140. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed November 13, 2013).

The concept of levels of organization is prominent in science and central to a variety of debates in philosophy of science. Yet many difficulties plague the concept of universal and discrete hierarchical levels, and these undermine implications commonly ascribed to hierarchical organization. We suggest the concept of scale as a promising alternative. Investigating causal processes at different scales allows for a notion of quasi levels that avoids the difficulties inherent in the classic concept of levels. Our primary focus is ecology, but we suggest how the results generalize to other invocations of hierarchy in science and philosophy of science.

----------

Ihde, Don. "Can Continental Philosophy Deal with the New Technologies?." Journal Of Speculative Philosophy 26, no. 2 (May 2012): 321-332. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed November 13, 2013).

The article discusses the history of U.S. Continental philosophy in the context of the academic organization Society for Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy (SPEP), focusing on reflection on technology in relation to philosophy of science. The thought of philosophers including Martin Heidegger and Herbert Marcuse on technology is noted.

----------

Thomasson, Amie L. 2012. "EXPERIMENTAL PHILOSOPHY AND THE METHODS OF ONTOLOGY." Monist 95, no. 2: 175-199. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed November 13, 2013).

The article discusses methods in ontology and modal questions, weighing the relative merits of experimental philosophy and conceptual analysis. The author argues that a constitutivist approach, which uses thought experiments and ties semantic rules to modal realities, should be used alongside experimental philosophy.

----------

Nason, Shannon. "Contingency, Necessity, and Causation in Kierkegaard's Theory of Change." British Journal For The History Of Philosophy 20, no. 1 (January 2012): 141-162. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed November 13, 2013).

In this paper I argue that Kierkegaard's theory of change is motivated by a robust notion of contingency. His view of contingency is sharply juxtaposed with a strong notion of absolute necessity. I show that how he understands these notions explains certain ambiguous claims he makes about causation. I attempt to provide a coherent interpretation of his view of causality that is consistent with both human choice and the causal sequence of change. I end by suggesting a compatibilist interpretation of Kierkegaard's philosophy.

----------

ROSS, STEVEN. "THE NATURAL AND THE NORMATIVE: SUPERVENIENCE AND COUNTERFACTUALS." Philosophical Forum 43, no. 2 (Summer2012 2012): 197-214. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed November 13, 2013).

The author discusses the philosophical interpretation of cruelty and artistic expression through the idea of supervenience, which the author interprets as causation. The author describes normative states versus natural states, aesthetics, and moral life. The author uses examples to illustrate his philosophy such as analyzing a painting by artist William De Kooning and discussing the thermodynamics of water.

----------

Keizer, Henk. 2012. "Spinoza's Definition Of Attribute: An Interpretation." British Journal For The History Of Philosophy 20, no. 3: 479-498. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed November 13, 2013).

Since it has generally been accepted that to Spinoza attributes are real features of substance, the interpretation of his attribute definition has become a notorious problem. The reason is that interpreters have failed to see that the definition formulates a purely epistemological account of the state of affairs. The article presents and justifies such an interpretation. It will be shown that the definition in spite of its epistemological character implies a real ontological definition, which specifies the critical features of an attribute. As to the reason why Spinoza has stated the definition in an ‘indirect way’, it is shown that it is likely that he has done so in order to have a more efficient, a more unambiguous and a more elegant definition. The relevance of the new interpretation is not only that it provides us with an interpretable, transparent attribute definition, but it also contributes to the establishment of a coherent picture of Spinoza’s metaphysics around this definition.

----------

O'Connor, Brian. "Idleness, Usefulness and Self-Constitution." Critical Horizons 14, no. 2 (June 2013): 181-199. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed November 13, 2013).

The core argument of the paper is that the modern philosophical notion of self-constitution is directed against the prospect of human beings dissolving into idleness. Arguments for self-constitution are marked by non-philosophical presuppositions about the value of usefulness. Those arguments also assume a particular conception of superior experience as conscious integration of a person's actions within an identifiable set of chosen commitments. Exploring particular arguments by Hegel, Kant, Korsgaard and Frankfurt the paper claims that those arguments are problematic in the various ways in which they suppose usefulness and explicitly or implicitly take extra-philosophical views of idleness.

----------

Smith, Michael. "FOUR OBJECTIONS TO THE STANDARD STORY OF ACTION (AND FOUR REPLIES)." Philosophical Issues 22, no. 1 (October 2012): 387-401. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed November 13, 2013).

The article presents authors views on the objections to the theory of action of an agent. It informs that the identification of some putative action that an agent performs by tracing its effects back to some bodily movement has a great impact on a person. It further informs that one must stuck to the standard theory of action.

----------

Rauti, Antonio. 2012. "Multiple Groundings and Deference." Philosophical Quarterly 62, no. 247: 317-336. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed November 13, 2013).

The idea that reference is multiply grounded allows causal-historical theories of reference to account for reference change. It also threatens the stability of reference in light of widespread error and confusion. I describe the problem, so far unrecognised, and provide a solution based on the phenomenon of semantic deference, which I differentiate from reference-borrowing. I conclude that deference has an authentic foundational semantic role to play.

----------

Aldama, Frederick Luis, and Patrick Colm Hogan. "Puzzling Out the Self: Some Initial Reflections." English Language Notes 49, no. 2 (Winter2011 2011): 139-160. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed November 13, 2013).

An essay is presented which discusses the concept of the self, with particular focus given to philosophical and scientific approaches to defining and understanding the self. Cognitive science and neurobiological investigations into the self are described, and phenomena including mirror neurons, evolution, and adaptation are examined. Also discussed are the concept of self in the Vedāntic tradition, reductionism, Marxist ideas of individualism, and the relationship between social life and biology. The construction of identity is also touched on.

----------

Baynes, Kenneth. "SELF, NARRATIVE AND SELF-CONSTITUTION: REVISITING TAYLOR'S 'SELF-INTERPRETING ANIMALS' KENNETH BAYNES SELF, NARRATIVE, AND SELF-CONSTITUTION." Philosophical Forum 41, no. 4 (Winter2010 2010): 441-457. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed November 13, 2013).

The article offers the author's insights on the thesis of Charles Taylor that humans are self-interpreting animals. The author explores the significance of the theses if Taylor in which he says that the thesis proposed an account of describing oneself as expressivist and describe humans as strong evaluators. He says that the thesis of Taylor that humans are self-interpreting animals can also be incorrect sometimes and focuses on autobiographical self.

----------

Buss, Sarah. 2012. "Autonomous Action: Self-Determination in the Passive Mode." Ethics 122, no. 4: 647-691. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed November 13, 2013).

In order to be a self-governing agent, a person must govern the process by means of which she acquires the intention to act as she does. But what does governing this process require? The standard compatibilist answers to this question all assume that autonomous actions differ from nonautonomous actions insofar as they are a more perfect expression of the agent's agency. I challenge this conception of autonomous agents as super agents. The distinguishing feature of autonomous agents is, I argue, the nonagential role they play in the formation of their intentions. I offer an account of the relevant role.

----------

Lewis, William S. "Evolutionary Psychology in the Service of Moral Philosophy: A Possible Future for Ethics?." Journal Of Speculative Philosophy 25, no. 1 (February 2011): 48-63. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed November 14, 2013).

The article explores on Ethics as a discipline in learning the evolutionary moral psychology in line with the future of Ethics. According to the author, Ethics does have much to learn in line with its sciences that study the evolutionary mechanisms by which ethical judgment develops. Moreover, evolutionary moral psychology suggests that innate moral sentiment provides input on tendencies on ethical practices.

----------

FISCHER, EUGEN. "HOW TO PRACTISE PHILOSOPHY AS THERAPY: PHILOSOPHICAL THERAPY AND THERAPEUTIC PHILOSOPHY." Metaphilosophy 42, no. 1/2 (January 2011): 49-82. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed November 14, 2013).

The notion that philosophy can be practised as a kind of therapy has become a focus of debate. This article explores how philosophy can be practised literally as a kind of therapy, in two very different ways: as philosophical therapy that addresses 'real-life problems' (e.g., Sextus Empiricus) and as therapeutic philosophy that meets a need for therapy which arises in and from philosophical reflection (e.g., Wittgenstein). With the help of concepts adapted from cognitive and clinical psychology, and from cognitive linguistics, the article shows that both philosophical projects address important and literally therapeutic tasks and explains how they can do so with genuinely philosophical argument and analysis. This brings into view new applications for philosophy, a need for therapy in core areas of the subject, and the outline of a new approach to meet what will be shown to be a central need.

----------

HANNA, JASON. 2012. "The Moral Status of Nonresponsible Threats." Journal Of Applied Philosophy 29, no. 1: 19-32. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed November 14, 2013).

Most people believe that it is permissible to kill a nonresponsible threat, or someone who threatens one's life without exercising agency. Defenders of this view must show that there is a morally relevant difference between nonresponsible threats and innocent bystanders. Some philosophers, including Jonathan Quong and Helen Frowe, have attempted to do this by arguing that one who kills a bystander takes advantage of another person, while one who kills a threat does not. In this paper, I show that the proposals offered by Quong and Frowe have unacceptable implications. I then argue that those who claim that nonresponsible threats may be killed face a dilemma generated by the possibility of a stationary threat, or someone who endangers another person's life without moving. Unless we arbitrarily distinguish between stationary and moving nonresponsible threats, it is unclear how the permission to kill nonresponsible threats is to be explicated. I conclude that nonresponsible threats are not legitimate targets of self-defense.

----------

Bertelsen, Preben. "General psychological principles in Kohut's self psychology.." Journal Of Phenomenological Psychology 27, no. 2 (Fall96 1996): 146. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed November 14, 2013).

Examines how a general psychological model of intentional reflection can be developed on the basis of H. Kohut's self psychology, a model that illustrates one of the central organizational principles of human psychology. What self psychology is; How it differs from Freudian psychoanalysis; Its relationship to the phenomenological-existential perspective.

----------

Rowe, Christopher. "Socrates on Reason, Appetite and Passion: A Response to Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Socratic Moral Psychology." Journal Of Ethics 16, no. 3 (September 2012): 305-324. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed November 14, 2013).

Section 1 of this essay distinguishes between four interpretations of Socratic intellectualism, which are, very roughly: (1) a version in which on any given occasion desire, and then action, is determined by what we think will turn out best for us, that being what we all, always, really desire; (2) a version in which on any given occasion action is determined by what we think will best satisfy our permanent desire for what is really best for us; (3) a version formed by the assimilation of (2) to (1), labelled the 'standard' version' by Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, and treated by them as a single alternative to their own interpretation; and (4) Brickhouse and Smith's own version. Section 2 considers, in particular, Brickhouse and Smith's handling of the 'appetites and passions', which is the most distinctive feature of interpretation (4). Section 3 discusses Brickhouse and Smith's defence of 'Socratic studies' in its historical context, and assesses the contribution made by their distinctive interpretation of 'the philosophy of Socrates'. One question raised in this section, and one that is clearly fundamental to the existence of 'Socratic studies', is how different Brickhouse and Smith's Socrates turns out to be from Plato himself, i.e., the Plato of the post-'Socratic' dialogues; to which the answer offered is that on Brickhouse and Smith's interpretation Socratic moral psychology becomes rather less distinguishable from its 'Platonic' counterpart-as that is currently understood-than it is on the interpretation(s) they oppose.

----------

I wanted to give everyone a sense for what's out there, and to show that it would be difficult for a non-specialist to just start reading and be able to understand an article. This is true for different sorts of philosophers, too. Just as an oncologist wouldn't be able to perform an orthopedic surgery, an action theorist (philosopher) wouldn't necessarily be able to keep up with the certain methodological innovations in epistemology. As you can also tell, it really does take a lifetime, and lots of very hard work, to be able to write articles such as these.

There's a difference between Plato (and ancient philosophy, which is studied extensively today) and a modern analytic philosopher. There's more logic and less wisdom, you could say. The topics considered are truly fascinating. If you truly want to get to the bottom of a particular problem that you're highly interested in, philosophy is the only way to get there, and it will take huge sacrifices. Again, I recall Einstein. In today's world, which encourages the unbridled support of riches, the truly "religious" seem to be those who dedicate their lives to research--to understanding.

It's useful to read through some of the abstracts, above, and ask: Who is more intelligent--this philosopher, or the Prophet(tm)? What's more useful--a false story from a plagiarized book, or a treatise on evolutionary psychology and moral theory?

When you see the world's knowledge--the knowledge encapsulated in the minds of the world's greatest thinkers, and expressed through their publications--the fraud of something like Mormonism becomes immediately evident.

As I once said to--of all things--a creationist chemistry professor a dozen years ago: "'God' is way too big for your little book."

I hope that the articles I cited above support that.

Steve

As I once said to--of all things--a creationist chemistry professor a dozen years ago: "'God' is way too big for your little book."

Damn it, Steve. You made perfect sense up until that.

Things,

There's no pleasing you. :)

Steve

My father used to say "I should have been born rich instead of good looking."