Distractions

His picture of Americans, not just émigrés, was of immensely wealthy uncultured people who never have enough. In other words, Americans are insatiably greedy barbarians. Of course, maybe I just fixed on his perception because that sums up my feelings as well. There's not a lot of well funded, popular "high culture" going in the United States. This is exemplified in my recent, belated discovery that once proud Departments of Philosophy have been diminished and subsumed in something called "Cognitive Sciences." Most of this new department is about Artificial Intelligence, Robots, Computers and the like. Cognitive Science is the "vocationalization" of Philosophy; after all, it would not do to leave any endeavor unsullied by lucre.

I learned my original degree in Philosophy is no longer granted at my alma mater. (But, I disowned them before they did it to me.) In fact, it would be difficult to pursue my original interests, Ethics, History, etc, as those sorts of courses and studies have been abolished. On further research, I was heartened to find out that my first graduate school, CAL (University of California, Berkeley), still has a Philosophy Department. Even more outlandish, Berkeley's faculty is loaded with people who study things like Ethics, Politics and Society; even Metaphysics! What a relief! I always had good feelings about Berkeley, which I consider my true alma mater. Although I did not earn any degree at Berkeley, I had attempted to settle into the right place, after all.

Berkeley and San Francisco represent how far I am from most Americans, because most Americans detest and revile those same places I admire. I feel reasonably comfortable consorting with others who think Iraq and Vietnam were not only mistaken foreign adventures, but morally and legally wrong. I feel reassured when most people think the Bandit is a Fascist and should be removed from office, the sooner the better. Although I think it is superstition, I am far more amenable to hearing the parlor game of astrological signs and reincarnation than crazed screaming about The Lord. And, even though I am not an athletic type and not overly interested in "therapy," I prefer to learn about Tai Chi, Yoga and dancing rather than Second Comings and Apocalypse. In this last instance, the difference is between merely tedious and plainly appalling.

At least Tai Chi - stretching exercises - is helpful for my diabetes ravaged body. (I am no longer able to contort my body into Yoga positions.) I cannot imagine any of that stuff about Jesus or Mohammed would do as much for me.

All of that brings me back to my book, The Graduate Student's Question (GSQ). I had some doubts about it, but as time passes from the writing, I am more certain it is truly represents what I think. Worse, I think it is a correct assessment of the situation. I believe most of what's happening in the world supports my contentions. But, where does that lead? If the United States is headed to oblivion, and the Asian powers are stupidly on the same track, what good is my philosophy?

The answer is "someday." That's why I have concluded my brand of political philosophy is properly one kind of Utopianism. In this case, Utopian does not mean in Plato's Heaven; rather, I think Utopian means attainable goals we are seeking. I am a practical person, so I do not knowingly propose impossible dreams. I think we will eventually implement the Ideal State, or die trying. There is historical evidence that things are moving in my direction, if far more slowly than I would like. (That is not a proposal for an end in History, or an hypothesis that my ideals necessarily will be attained.)

As I got older, and especially as I shivered in the presence of approaching death, it became clear that what each of us can accomplish is limited. The question is, what is really important? I've decided that the life of ideas is it for me. (I thought the same thing 40 years ago.) In the end, even if my work has no impact, I think I am a Philosopher, because the most important thing is what it means. Where others scurry about building roads and bridges, or hasten to keep up with the Joneses, the philosopher's job is to ask 'why,' 'what does it mean.' In that, nothing has changed since the days of Socrates, Confucius and Buddha. I am convinced the abolition of University Philosophy is not only premature, but mistaken. While I firmly believe sooner or later we will make a thinking computer - an artificially intelligent creature, a critter that will have its own mind - that being will want to enroll in Philosophy 101 and the following courses, whether or not it conquers Homo sapiens. Some questions are not only eternal, but universal as well.

So, what are my philosophical concerns? They haven't changed that much over the years, but I have made progress. A lot of that progress is the result of stripping away the illusions and disguises we are taught in our early years. As Stephen J Gould was prone to say, 'the evidence is hidden in plain sight.' It's just a matter of focusing properly, and seeing what we see.

In Ethics, I now have an understanding of the basis of ethical propositions and their relation to intelligence. This is the theory of moral agents and moral choice. The key concept is choice. Choice underlies modern institutions, such as democratic government, yet we do not have a modern ethical philosophy that justifies and explains it. In this case, our practices are far ahead of our archaic common beliefs.

I think there is a close relation between voluntary agents and History (i.e., human history). So, Ethical theories have implications for theories of History. Are there Heroes? Or, as Lev Tolstoy had it, is it all inevitable (the Will of God)? Since I am adherent of the Chaos Theory of History, I don't think either Heroes or Forces (of whatever origin) explain its content. On the other hand, there clearly are short term 'causes and effects,' and it is within that local realm that voluntary and involuntary action are relevant.

Finding meaning in History not only precipitates discussion of the Theory of History, a subject invented by G.W.F. Hegel, but also of F. Nietzsche and Existentialism. All of those people and subjects, including Marxism, are left to us from Nineteenth Century German Romanticism which had dramatic and drastic effects in the Twentieth Century. I do not want to tread those paths, so the relation of volition to History must be something different. It is required to discover where Hegel et al went wrong.

I don't think it odd that Francis Fukuyama, the exponent of conservative philosophy (although recently somewhat repentant), is also interested in these same topics. In his End of History he used pieces of Hegel as support for his arguments. Of course, where that now leads is straight to Ayn Rand and today's Libertarians. It used to lead to Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin and Stalin. I think it is important to refute the philosophical basis  of conservatism, especially the sort Fukuyama flirts with, the militaristic (Plato's Thymus) and hero driven variety.

This leads to another practical connection: so-called Just War. I long ago concluded there is no such thing. There are only degrees of Unjust War. It seems to me that an ethical theory supporting democracy not only has to reject Conservatism, but must also find a basis for condemning war. This is mixed in with the idea of the Hero.

Those are the thoughts that concern me, and what I continue to work on. Maybe, after all, I'm just nobody. Who cares about those things or what I do? Well, I do, which is why I hope to be doing more of my own publishing in the future. (Of course, I'm poor, so not adverse to a no-strings-attached publishing contract. In Academia, that's called a "research grant.")