|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
|
|
|
Business & Finance Resource Center The Radical Academy Blogs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
INDEX:
We have received lots of e-mails regarding the essay on age-of-consent laws, most of them asking us for information about such laws for a particular state. Our answer to such inquiries must be: The Radical Academy does not and cannot give legal advice. Our article about age of consent laws was meant to point out the "craziness" of such laws because they are arbitrary, capricious, and without "objective" foundation. This is also true of many other laws we have to put up with. I would advise you to contact your local ACLU or check on the state statutes yourself. Since laws change sometimes and it takes a while for them to become known to the public, it is always dangerous to speak to a specific situation. I will have more to say about "consent" laws regarding sexual activity, smoking, drinking alcohol, and such, in an upcoming brief which will be on this page. So check back soon. Believe it or not, our age of consent article has generated more e-mail than any of our other essays. J.D. What political party do you belong to? That's an easy one. I do not belong to any political party. I see no difference of any consequence between the Republicans and the Democrats. Obviously, I would not join the Socialists or any variation thereof. As close as I can come to a political party that meets my criteria is the Libertarian Party, but even there a few differences exist. I am, more or less, a Classical Liberal (not a modern one!), a believer in a constitutional form of government, preferably a republic, and I am supportive of democracy while distrustful of it. The national government should be very limited and should not assume the role of National Nanny. It only has three functions as far as I am concerned: (1) to protect individual rights and liberties from internal aggression, (2) to protect all of us from external aggression, and (3) to provide courts to hear and settle disputes between and among individuals. I am not, therefore, a supporter of any type of welfare state. I believe in private charity and I believe in voluntary cooperation with my fellow humans to improve my life and theirs on a mutual-aid basis. I provide a little more slack to local and community governments, but not much. I believe in a free market economy, but businesses should be accountable for any harm they do. They should not be regulated; just subject to the same criminal and civil laws we are all held to as individuals. J.Dolhenty I have a request to compare and contrast the thinking of Nietzsche and Freud. Wow! If I were to do justice to that, it would take a few books. But let's briefly see where both of these men fit into some sort of picture. It has always intrigued me as to why FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE (1844-1900) is considered to be a philosopher at all. But it seems that he was discontent with all the traditional conceptions of truth and knowledge and decided it was up to him to create a new worldview of what turns out to be essentially Nonsense. He declared that "philosophy" must create new values, new ideals, and new civilization. Nietzsche accepts the basic notion that the "will" is the principle of existence and it is the "will to power" that is important because life is a striving for power and this striving is "good." Life, according to Nietzsche, is a force of self-assertion and that is why there is a need for a new and more powerful type of person, the Superman. Strength must overcome all weakness, meekness, and pity. Man must stretch his powers to the limit and become Superman. Any moral code that does not include an aristocracy of ethics, built by superior men, must be regarded as useless. Any religion or philosophy that glorifies meekness, the poor, humility, and such, is condemned by Nietzsche. The notions of peace, happiness, self-denial, effeminancy, and so on are repudiated. The traditional virtues are condemned. The best society is one of the strong, the brave, the domineering, the proud, the Superman. The danger of life, Nietzsche thinks, is the mania of equality. And, ladies, he thought that women are inferior to men. They just don't match the male gender when it comes to initiative, energy, and "will." So he was against any form of socialism, communism, or democracy, because such social systems prevent the development of strong individuals, the Supermen. For Nietzsche, only one "ethics" is possible: MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. And, here, he is at least consistent with his foundational beliefs. Of course, from the standpoint of philosophical realism, this is not ethics at all. It is chaos and dangerous chaos at that. I personally consider Nietzsche to be a pseudo-philosopher, a man who is more "artist" than philosophic thinker. He never presented a full-blown philosophic system and he certainly does not fall into the category of a philosophical Realist. He does not present us with a coherent theory of truth, because for him there is no truth (Subjectivism). His moral philosophy, if that is even what it can be called, rests on no objectively justified principles, but amounts to the powerful (the Superman) doing whatever he wants (Relativism). The universe for Nietzsche is a terrible place. It doesn't care one wit about man and is not friendly to him at all. Life is terrible and there is no way out except death. We struggle to realize our wills only to be crushed in the end (Death). Nietzsche was the ultimate pessimist! SIGMUND FREUD (1856-1939), the founder of the school of psychoanalysis, is not, strictly speaking, a philosopher, although, of course, his psychoanalytic theories have serious philosophic underpinnings. They also have had serious consequences. He, like Nietzsche and so many other "moderns," was an anti-Realist, wallowing in the philosophies of Subjectivism and Relativism. While Freud tried to present his theory of psychoanalysis as being "scientific" (and his followers still try to do so), the fact is that there is no scientific evidence whatsoever supporting his theory. First of all, Freud began with a basic assumption about man and the universe. He assumed that all phenomena are determined by the laws of physics and chemistry and man is ultimately subject to the same laws (Determinism). Freud assumed that all the slips of the tongue, faulty actions, and dreams we have are determined by hidden causes in our mind. Nothing is accidental; everything in principle can be traced to causes which are somehow in a person's mind. This is assumption number one for which, by the way, no objective evidence is produced. The second assumption, which arises out of the first, is the existence of "unconscious" mental states. Now we're not talking about memories or other mental states here which may rest hidden within us but are not recalled immediately or capable of being recalled to our consciousness. Freud would consider these to be "preconscious." The "unconscious" of which he speaks cannot become conscious at all under normal circumstances. The mind, then, according to Freud, includes entities of which a person can have no ordinary knowledge at all. Again, remember that this assumption rests on a prior assumption for which Freud produces no objective evidence. This second assumption also lacks objective evidence of any scientific sort. The third assumption relates to Freud's concept of man as an entity wherein the "instincts" are the motive forces within our minds that drive us to think and do certain things. One of these "instincts," and probably the most important one for Freud, is sexual in nature. Hugh Hefner did not start the Sexual Revolution; Freud did. While Freud did recognize and discuss other basic "instincts," such as hunger, self-preservation, and the "death instinctg," it was his beliefs about the "sexual instinct" that brought him to everyone's attention (sex can do that!). The fourth assumption regards his developmental theory of individual human character. He accepted the notion that specific "traumatic" experiences could continue to exercise a deleterious influence on a person's "mental" health, even though those experiences had been long forgotten. This is why Freud put so much emphasis on early childhood experiences. He then developed this assumption into a set of theories about the stages of human development, most of these relating to stages of sexual history (the oral stage, the anal stage, and so on). There is, of course, no empirical evidence supporting these stages of human development. Anyway, these four assumptions seem to form the basis for his psychoanalytic theory and then, of course, they formed the framework for his clinical techniques. Freudianism is a matter of dispute among psychologists and philosophers today. Many, if not most, condemn psychoanalysis as totally or almost totally unscientific. It is more akin to witchcraft than medical science. I am inclined to say that psychoanalysis is more like the modern-day cults, a pseudo-religion or a quasi-spiritual faith. The basic problem with Freud's theories is to what extent they are "falsifiable." Freud claimed his theories were "scientific," but a scientific theory must be falsifiable. It appears to me there is no way to either prove or disprove his theories. That being so, his theories would not be falsifiable. At least, I have not seen the evidence that argues them to be such. And, if his theories are not capable of falsification, his theories are not scientific, at least in the sense we ordinarily mean. I have to ask the question regarding Freud, and also regarding Nietzsche: where, oh where, is the EVIDENCE? What does COMMON SENSE, CRITICALLY EXAMINED, have to say? The theories of both Freud and Nietzsche begin with unwarranted assumptions unrelated to any consistent and objectively determined theory of truth (Subjectivism), fall into the trap of non-cognitive ethics (Relativism), contain a denial of free will (Determinism), a pessimistic and negative (in Nietzsche's case - nihilist) view of man and the universe, and end up being nothing other than pure Nonsense, and, worse, dangerous nonsense at that. The effect that both men have had on our culture is, of course, not to be disputed. Nietzsche's "philosophy" had some influence on the rise of fascism and nazism (his thought had more influence on politics than on other areas of thought). Freud's nonsense certainly has had an influence on our language (how many times do we use "id," "ego," "superego," "unconscious," "instincts," "oral stage," "sublimation," and the "Oedipus complex" in our ordinary conversations?), and it has greatly affected the development of the "mental" health movement, particularly in the United States. The fact that psychiatrists can disagree so violently in a courtroom about the "mental" status of a defendant should cause one to pause and question the scientific validity of psychoanalysis and psychiatry. So, to sum up briefly, I would say: Nietzsche and Freud were both purveyors of Nonsense and guilty of the "intellectual insanity" of which I so often speak and write. Both were outside the tradition of classic philosophical Realism, and were probably unacquainted with that tradition. That, however, is no excuse for the errors they committed. We have rational minds and rational means of determining truth. But you have to accept that a thing called truth exists in the first place, before you can find it. They were ultimately Subjectivists and Relativists and so genuine truth eluded them both. Such is the ordinary state of mankind today, unfortunately. J.Dolhenty. AK asks: Are you not being dogmatic in your treatment of "dogmas"? (see the list in About the Academy) Of course, I am being "dogmatic." The question is not whether one is being dogmatic, but whether one's assertions are true or, at least, possess a high degree of probable truth. I will assert and argue that the dogmas which I oppose (assuming you have read them from the list on the "About the Academy" page of The Radical Academy) are, in fact, not true and are, in fact, simply expressions of the intellectual nonsense that, unfortunately, is so often encountered today among so-called modern "intellectuals." All of the "dogmas" listed there derive from the "philosophies" of Epistemological Subjectivism and Moral Relativism, two doctrines which are self-contradictory, inconsistent, and impractical (they cannot be lived, although they can be "thought"). These two dogmas live in textbooks and classrooms, but not in the real world. When they are applied in the real world, we end up with the mess we are currently experiencing. These two dogmas - Subjectivism and Relativism - are really expressions of the modern mind (although they have a root in ancient history) and result from the failure to correctly deal with the basic philosophical principles involved and a refusal to confront the mistakes that were made in ancient and medieval philosophy (assuming one even knows what they were, which most philosophy students today do not). As the X-Filers say, "the truth is out there." But one needs to know where to look. It is unfortunate that most of today's "scholars" are fumbling around in the vast wasteland of Subjectivism (really, universal skepticism) and Relativism (really, ancient sophism) and are spending their time beating to death what is obvious to any rational observer who uses his common sense (critically examined, of course). The fact is that Philosophical Realism (common sense contextual realism, critically examined) has definite doctrines to defend and has been doing so (quite nicely, in fact) for over 2000 years. It is the philosophy that the majority of men (and women) have thought and lived and applied to their daily lives. It has stood the test of time! So, yes, my friend, I am being being "dogmatic" (and proudly so) when I tell you that the list of dogmas of which you appear to speak (those listed on our web page) are pure and simple nonsense which have led to terrible consequences for mankind now and for at least the past three hundred years. Do not confuse "being dogmatic" with "being intolerant." I am certainly not intolerant and no one has ever accused me of that. I believe in open debate and am perfectly at ease with admitting I am wrong or mistaken. My interest is in the pursuit of "truth," wherever that may lead. But "philosophic truth" is not the same as "scientific truth," and one must not assume that the criteria for determining "truth" is the same in both cases. I suggest you read my essays listed on our Directory page. And then I will be happy to debate with you whatever position you care to assume (except Universal Skepticism, a debate impossible to win and impossible to live!). --Jonathan Dolhenty AP sent an e-mail with this statement (and only this statement!): "There are more things in heaven and earth, Dr. Dolhenty, Than are dreampt of in your philosophy." I am not quite sure what you mean by your statement. And I'm not sure whether or not you understand what I mean. First of all, the philosophy which I support (common sense philosophical realism) is not built on "dreams," but on objective evidence, evidence which is clearly accessible to any thinking person. It is, in other words, "public" evidence, not private intuitions, personal revelations, subjective mental states, mere opinions, or undisciplined speculations. Secondly, this philosophy is not built on "feelings" or "emotions," but on rational thinking, reasoning, the use of one's intellectual faculties. Feelings and emotions and other subjective states may be important, to be sure, but these are not the things upon which to build a philosophy . There are many things philosophy itself does not directly address "as philosophy." Speculations about UFOs, for example, or the existence of ESP. They may be addressed indirectly by philosophers, and I have done so in the past. Many subjects of wide interest are directly addressed by other disciplines such as theology or religion, parapsychology, and so forth. But philosophy itself is concerned with facts and values based on facts. We may, however, speculate on things for which objective evidence is lacking, but these are only speculations. The criterion of truth is objective evidence. This has to be so or there is no such thing as truth at all and then we can know nothing. And if we know nothing, then the game is up and anything, no matter how insane or rediculous or harmful is acceptable and we are all at the mercy of mere opinion and idle speculation. I would suggest, if you haven't done so, that you go to The Radical Academy and read my essays on the basics of philosophical realism. Then please contact me again and explain clearly what you mean by your message. I am interested in what you have to say. J.D. E-mail inquiry: I am interested in all the information about Apollonius of Tiana. Can you give information about books on him, and where to get them? Thank you, Sonny. My reply to Sonny: I assume you are referring to Apollonius of "Tyana" (c.3 - c.97 A.D.). He was a Greek philosopher and seer, born in Tyana, Cappadocia. He was a zealous neo-Pythagorean teacher, hailed as a sage and a worker of miracles. He was worshipped after his death and was presented in his biography as a short of heathen rival to Jesus Christ. The biography I refer to above is "Life of Apollonius" by Philostratus. This might be available in some university libraries. You'd have to check. Some reference to him is made in "Caesar and Christ" (Vol. III of The Story of Civilization) by Will Durant, a work that almost any library of any size should have (actually, any student of human civilization really should have the entire set by Will Durant, which is still in print and not all that expensive, especially through some of the book clubs). Anyway, check the index in Vol. III for some information about Apollonius and then see if you can find a copy of the biography by Philostratus. You might try a philosophy search through the philosophy search engine we provide on the Search Page in The Radical Academy. That might yield some results. P.S. After I replied to Sonny's e-mail, I did use the philosophy search engine and plunked in the name "Apollonius." And! I got a direct link to an online edition of "Life of Apollonius" by Philostratus. Ain't the Internet grand? I have been asked about the books I recommend and why I recommend certain books. Here is my reply. O.K. I've had it! I have been bomblasted by Conservatives and Liberals, Patriots and Libertarians, the Left and the Right, Fundamentalist Christians and Gay Rights Activists, Feminist Militants, Empirical Scientists, Materialist Philosophers, New Age Guru Supporters, and all sorts of other "special interests" that seem to think I am personally insulting them and their cause by suggesting some of the books I review and recommend at The Radical Academy. (If that many groups are unhappy with me, I have to be doing something right!) But let me explain myself. I may recommend a book for at least three reasons:
I was brought up in the Age of Forbidden Books and the Vatican's Index. Fortunately for me, my parents didn't buy that particular idea, and I was permitted to read everything and anything I could get my hands on. They figured: "If he doesn't understand it, it won't have a negative effect anyway." Because I recommend a particular book in no way means I endorse the main thesis of the book nor accept its premises. I main be sympathetic with the main thesis and disagree with some, many, or most of the details. I may agree with the details and reject the main thesis. I have been criticized by the Fundamentalist Christians for recommending Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and Bloodline of the Holy Grail, and The Hiram Key. These books challenge the "conventional" wisdom of the history of Christianity. Hey! Don't argue with me. Challenge the evidence presented in the books. The books are important. If the conclusions drawn in each of the books are true, our knowledge of Western history will be deeply affected. Challenge the challengers! I have been taken to task by the Empirical Scientists (including a historian or two plus a theologian) for even suggesting that the books by Graham Hancock and Zecharia Sitchen should be presented to our audience. They are cultural and religious heresy! Really? We already know all there is to know about the origins of human civilization? Don't you so-called scholars remember when Troy was just a "myth" and Newtonian "science" was the true and only view of reality? The archaeologists have told us for generations that the pyramids were really tombs and built by slave labor. Yet they have failed to produce the necessary bodies and explained how human labor alone could account for the engineering feat itself. I have been trounced on by the Libertarians and the Objectivists for suggesting that individuals are not really "autonomous" and that property rights are not prior to the right to life (and a good life, at that!). Well, I have never met an "autonomous" individual who existed outside of a social or cultural context. There is something called the Common Good. There are Duties and Responsibilities to others and the world doesn't (and can't) live on Egoism and Self-Gratification alone. So, now and then, I recommend a book by someone who challenges their point of view. Good! Regarding my Philosophical Realism: I have been criticized by some "spiritually oriented" and pro-New Age people for seemingly being a stark-raving "Hard" Realist who thinks that spiritual values and truths are either non-existent or unimportant. This seems to be because I subscribe to the first principle of Realist Philosophy which says that there is a Reality that exists independently of the human mind and which we do not create. Well, I do say that. There is a Reality which is "out there" and which we do not create or construct. Deny that and you are doomed! If you don't believe me, please step out in front of the next automobile coming down the freeway and tell it not to hurt you because it doesn't really exist, it's just your creation, your construction, and it is an illusion. I dare you! There is a Reality which we do not create or construct. Period. But that's not ALL there is. There are subsets (realities) which we do create and construct. There are immaterial (i.e. spiritual) realities which do exist. Not EVERYTHING is "out there." Some is "in here." And there is "subjective" knowledge (or truth), just like there's "objective" knowledge (or truth). REALITY consists of many "beings," some of which are "material" and some of which are "immaterial." And, furthermore, we can KNOW these beings, we can know REALITY, and we can know Realities. A true and authentic REALISM avoids the extremes of Metaphysical Idealism (we or some Absolute create reality) and Metaphysical Materialism (all reality is just matter-in-motion). Also, there is a subjective and an objective component in our very "knowing." The "idea" or "concept" is itself a subjective factor in so far as it exists in the knowing faculty, the intellect. But, and this is a very big but, the idea or concept has its foundation in an objective reality. If this were not so, we could not communicate with one another about anything. We would have a conversation with ourselves alone. In fact, we couldn't even do that since our language comes to us from "outside" of us. Ask yourself: If we created our own Reality, what language would we speak to create our own reality? Anyway, I realize I may have emphasized "objective" reality to the detriment of "subjective" reality and may not have done justice to the spiritual dimension of the human condition. I can only say in my defense that I have been fighting the evils of Metaphysical Idealism ("I create my own reality") for so long that I tend to forget the importance that true spirituality plays in our lives. I will certainly do something soon to compensate for my omission. Regarding my so-called anti-feminism: I have been accused of anti-feminism. Well, that is interesting. At least one person has told me that I should not have recommended the book by Carolyn Graglia, Domestic Tranquility: A Brief Against Feminism. Now, when I asked that person whether or not she had read the book, the answer was negative. She criticized me only because of the title of the book! It is important to realize what Carolyn Graglia is not saying and this may be forgotten by the ordinary reader. She is not saying that women should not have equal rights, or equal opportunities, or a level playing field in the economic or political marketplace. What she is saying is that women should not feel guilty about being homemakers and raising children, and they should not let the extreme feminists badger them about their FREE choice to do so. I support her analysis and her conclusions. She has done a superb job of getting it CORRECT. Like it or not, the BEST place to raise a child is in a two-parent home, one where the mother is around to run the operation. If you disagree with that, please, please, show me the evidence to the contrary! (Now, I probably should point out that a two-parent home is the ideal and if, for reasons beyond your control, you happen to be raised in a one-parent home, this does not doom you to eternal damnation. It's just that it's not the ideal situation. You would have been better off in a two-parent home all other things being equal. But, one of the great things about human beings is that they can overcome adversity as long as they stay out of the recently popular "victim" mode of thought.) Regardless of what the extreme feminists want you to believe, the fact is that women have traditionally ruled the roost. If it weren't for the real and true "feminine mystique," most of us men would be uncivilized barbarians. The real woman brings to civilization the "civilizing" factor. Otherwise, we men would still be out there brutalizing one another for the sake of our male egos. (And, of course, this is still happening in all too many places even today.) So, I say in my defense. I am far from being anti-feminist. It is the extreme feminists who are really anti-feminists. They think, by aping the masculine image and demanding to be treated just as "one of the boys," that they will be promoting their "proper" place in our society and culture. No Way! I want men to be men. I want women to be women. We all have equal rights before the law and before God. But no one can make us the same. We are different and, no matter what others may say, I say: "Vive la difference!" (And, by the way, la difference is a feminine noun.) Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Book...
|
|||||||
|
Ask the Academy Main Index |
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
||
|
|
||
[Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer]
Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, & 2002-03 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.