Okay, two notes here. The first ‘Kelly Clarkson’ remark is a reference to The 40 year old virgin (in the male chest waxing scene, as it was said as an expletive). The second thing was that I decidedly did not put any racist or homophobic language in the title, as I thought the title might be too offputting for readers to actually read the article (so I’m putting in this video instead to highlight what my piece today is about):
A list of gaffes
I have found a lot of interest in offensive language and gestures, the notion of offense and political correctness lately. Here’s a list of stories I’ve found:
I can find more if I really wanted to, oh yes, there is the all-famous Christian Bale incident, where the BBC had broadcast it uncensored.
Clearly, all of these incidents have unique features to them (Miley Cyrus, for instance, has a desire to want to be contraversial (such as wearing that Iron Maiden shirt the other day; Jeremy Clarkson is just being Jeremy Clarkson, and the Royals and Thatcher seem to represent an upper class of the political elite (at least, of their families, anyway.
Howeverr, there is a general moral panic about offensiveness and political correctness. Anyone Tsar or Romanov in broadcasting and media should be shitting themselves, cos the villagers could be burning their homes any time now. Question is, why is it happening now? I think it’s the economy, this seems to be a referred pain of social ills, like in the film Children of Men, when the extinction of humanity reminds the British about the ills of….terrorism and illegal immigration?
Often I have come across the thought that being alienated from one’s ends is absurd, or rather, in some way incomprehensible.
What would this phrase possibly mean? Here are some interpretations:
1. To be alienated from your ends is to not act in accordance with your prima facies motivational states, those being desires, beliefs, and other such attitudes and epistemic states which form our preferential set.
Response: our percieved ends do not necessarily need to be our actual ends. There are many cases of self-deception, or simply not being aware of one’s ends. Nussbaum gives an example in Flawed Crystals (or is it The Golden Bowl?), where the Henry James character kept his feelings of love hidden from himself, only by discovering it, is it instantiated. But it was, however, hitherto unawares to the agent.
2. To be alienated from your ends is not to act in accordance with things in your preferential set?
Response: This requires clarification, what exactly does this mean? Surely there is always a case where there is an ellipsis to one’s own ends?
Response*: Consider the case of carrying out posthumous tasks. Perhaps for instance, you have a friend who tended to a garden, or campaigned against noise pollution; perhaps you, the agent, have no interest in these activities. You might even hate gardents or enjoy the late night party with loud music; such that pursuit of these ends are contrary to your own motivational set. If this is the case, does it look like there is an alienation of one’s ends? Perhaps.
But there is still an ellipsis. Conflicting desires are not a sufficient condition of alienation, nor are they necessary. Most preferences we have may have conflicting desires. I may desire to lie in bed for a few minutes, this may lie against the desire to get to work early, or get more work done, or curb one’s own laziness. The desire to have a lie-in for a bit longer may also be strong, so strong to overwhelm one’s pre-existent motivations. A conflict is not a sign of alienation.
Did you know that Courtney Cox was the first person on TV (allegedly) to say “period” (referring to mensturation)? What a blood revolution. Its strange how men are so taboo about a very everyday and uniquely female experience. They are scared of it that’s why! Attitudes towards mensturation are very peculiar. Early biblical accounts put it on the same level as having sex, in terms of its spiritual impurity.
Last night, Antisophie gave me a phonecall and told me that a Vatican astronomy expert said that the Church should not rule out the possibility that there could be life on Mars. I’ve often thought about how a Christian would consider the issue of extra-terrestrial life. My prima facie thoughts would be that a Christian has motivations not to accept such a possibility; but what kind of Christian would that be?
Such a Christian would maintain that Jesus is the source of all salvation; that humanity is the pinnacle of creation, and that as createes in Eden; we have taken on damnation by original sin. It would be those things, core to Christian belief, to which we would deny alien life; why?
Because Jesus is the source of all salvation; if (counterfactual) we entertained there was alien life who was conscious and aware and sentient like us; it too would require salvation. Or, would they? Would these aliens require Jesus’ salvation? Or would they go to hell because they never knew Jesus? Or, if we are really pushing it; did God have anotherson whom which he sacrificed for another terrestrial race? The latter is a very hard and challenging thought that, I suppose, a believer wouldn’t want to accept. I’m not asserting these questions are problems, but they are things a believer would want to answer; for the conceivability and overall cogency of their view.
If there was life outside of Earth; are we then the pinnacle of creation? If there is life outside of earth; are they tainted by original sin?
On the one hand; I don’t really think there should be much of a conflict; but then, Master Destre said to me; “Think harder, Magister”, his eyes, penetrated through me as his pupils sharpened and focused at me with his dry, icy gaze.
Think about the beliefs that we hold; and think about the comfort that we have when we believe them to be true. Of course, there are many beliefs to which we are uncomfortable about, that we hold true. The fact that we have things that we do not like to admit, but are nonetheless true, and we believe so, shows that we do not simply believe in things we want to.
Perhaps it is a sign of rationality or reflexivity if one demonstrates that their beliefs are subject to some experiential or rational tribunal; where the tribunal of truth and validity lies either outside of us (experience), or imbued within the laws outside of us (reasoning). Is it easy to believe that God loves us? No, it is not; to believe that God loves us, is hardly evidenced in the world. Where is God in the natural disasters of the world, our own personal tragedies, and the fundamental injustices that we inflicts upon our siblings. It is not easy to beleive that there will be a happy ending, especially for those who are heavily involved in the relief of the plight of others. What there is, is a hope, a hope that salvation will come; and this is seriously challenged by the presence of bad fortune and evil in the world. It is far from easy for the intelligent person to believe in God; or for the genuinely compassionate to have hope, in the face of utter despair. Yet, some still do…
What about the flexibility of scientific practice? Imagine to find your life’s work, celebrated by generations after you, being destroyed, or modified beyond your recognition, in the name of truth-preservation. What certainty or fortitude is there in physics? The scientific outlook is one based on shaky metaphysical grounds, shaky empirical methodology, and uncertain substantive conclusions. Rightly so, many would affirm. But, here we have a worldview very uncertain, always subject to change, in constant flux. It is this kind of worldview that tensely is distinct in form from that of the religious belief worldview. The world of the religious beliver is one that has a hope for certainty and truth, and underlying resolution; in the light of flux; and science, is the acknowledgment of flux, and perhaps, the search for similar certainty? We then might say, young charge, that this is not a difference in ideology. Cultural mindset perhaps? To challenge the sensibilities of how one live’s their lives and sees the world? We must always doubt; perhaps this is the test for believers; to find tthe most proper channel for their belief in the light of a powerful rational method. Do we oppose it, or try to find resolution? Or, better still, adopt the rational method as standard, and consider our epistemic norms; such as the good deontic conception of principles like “follow the conclusions to wherever they take you”.
Epistemic norms? Something I find quite interesting, myself…
What if we were to say that a given modal logic could have a mapping relation upon another aspect of reasoning? Or in other words, if we could have a discourse or sets of truth values and operator functions about the world, in this case, modal logic, so our operators here would be at least necessity and possibility; but then to make a further claim that these operators, and moreover, their behaviour, have an isomorphism with another operation. For example…CAN isomorphs to POSSIBLE and OUGHT isomorphs to NECESSARY, we might be able to translate one discourse into another.
My suggestion, or hope, is, we could make a modal analysis of morality in such a way.
Let us say, that I am in love. Is this in virtue of my own desire to want to love? Or my genuine non-self-referential care for another?
Why does it have to be one or the other? Why not both? Okay, maybe we could concede something like that, however, I think there is a genuine problem where these come apart.
Imagine that there is a person, who cares for his dying wife. This person tends to her, worries about her when she is not around, would do anything for her comfort, and constantly assuring her, and considering her wants, needs, and their importance of a shared bond,
I’m going to throw a thought here now. What if there were two kinds of mindsets realised in the same activity:
The self-interested – where one tends to care about another, they do so to fulfill their own desire; to be the kind of person who is caring or heroic, daring and compassionate.
The genuine lover – where one cares about another and their feelings of wellbeing depend on the other. It is imperative that it is realised that caring for another, and the other’s wellbeing is a necessary condition for one’s happiness and consolation. The dependence relation is not clearly egoistic, however, but is a recognition of their inherent worth (this is purposely undefined and question-begging).
Michael tells me that I am cutting the situation in a way that shouldn’t be cut (Michael say that we are all trivially egoist about everything, but this isn’t a bad thing…). I am, as a ceteris paribus point, am not going to address this.
What is my point here? As the experience itself; when I love another, how is it that I can tell that I am acting out of duty and the inherent worth of another, or acting out of the ends of pursuing my own self-satisfaction through another? How can we tell if we are genuinely acting from love? Away from selfish automatons…
Sinistre
p.s. I consider this thought in compliment to paper I once ready by Michael Smith (A Humean Theory of Motivation): where he poses this thought: fhow is it phenomenologically secure that we are not confabulating about the reasons for our motivation? – the example given was a counterfactual case where a man bought a newspaper from a certain stand only because a mirror was there; if the mirror were not there, the man would eventually go to another stand…I don’t think this thought applies to the situation I presented.
Let me start off with a situation that I want you to think about:
What would you rather have in the world:
Living as a hero or eminent individual, in a world where people are, as a matter of fact, of the greatest offence and and repugnant of moral character. Where you live among them as an eminent individual. The whole world is of mediocre character and advancement, yet you are their most advanced inidividual, whom which they admire.
Being the same kind of person (in terms of your character dispositions, moral beliefs, motivations etc. but; everyone else in the world is much much more eminent than you, and you are the ridicule of society, in such a way that you pale to them in inferiority.
In both cases; lets say you are, in fact, the same person; but it is the world outside that is different. What world would you live in?
Conclusions?
I’d imagine (just a guess) that most of you would choose ‘2′. If that were true, would that identify some fact about our psychology? Namely, of an intuition about the reality of moral properties in the world?
Two thoughts if this is the case:
1. To say we have an intuition (strong or not) about moral properties doesn’t instantiate that they are true. Mackie (Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong) himself admits that we may have intuitions about morality, which are, very much cultural. This is, what he thinks is the failure of conceptual analysis;
the Judaeo-Christian morality imposed upon us has infected so much of our culture and thought (Anscombe believes this too; Modern Moral Philosophy [and, this doesn't mean you have to endorse any athiesm or disbelief about these religions, merely just acknowledge their cultural influence]).
2. I am doubtful (that means not certain either way); that this intuition test works. I may be begging the question in the way I have constructed the thought experiment that sort of implies the conclusion I want you to make.
1. It has been revealed yesterday that John Prescott, former Deputy PM, that he has bulimia; this is very shocking; for various reasons, one, because he’s infamous as a big man, he’s percieved as very fierce as a politician, and also, he is male. Yes, we all know it can happen that men can have eating disorders; but it is challening to our social intuitions (in a good way) that anyone could experience bulimia.
2. The revelations of the mass media and their idols; celebrities can be a good thing when it comes to illnesses; consider Kylie Minogue’s breast cancer scare; it brought about awareness for many women to check themselves for cancer.
3. I looked up a bit more about male celebrity eating disorders; I found out the following had experience of eating disorders: Russell Brand, Elton John, Rory Bremner and most surprising, David Coulthard.
The conclusion I would like to make is maybe celebrity culture and the focus and idolatry of individuals isn’t so much of a bad thing; the Greek Gods had flaws, and people learned from their indulgences.
Pro-ana groups, and pro-mia groups are websites, online support groups, and other internet oriented pages where information about eating disorders are put forward in a non-judgmental environment. Normally, when the issue of eating disorders come up; the standard reply is stop it; or, like all mental illnesses, an outright rejection and ignoring of the issue and the individual. Pro-ana, and pro-mia groups form as a centre for those who are going through these consumption patterns to find communal expression, for the pain that they feel, the pressures they face, and proffer to each other support and understanding; the kind that is emptathetic; that expresses I understand what you are going through.
Sometimes understanding is more important than passing judgment. What people want in times of distress is understanding, perhaps even contact with those who go through the same.
Pro ana groups vary in their sentiment; some go far to express that behaviours of ‘ana’ and ‘mia’ are not only acceptable, but desirable; others can be more moderate and emphasise the importance of an informed decision and the consequences; others give caloific information or recommend alternatives, or ways to limit damage, but nonetheless accepting the importance of the role of the ana/mia behaviours. It is far from clear to say that they ‘promote’ eating disorders.
It is important to note that the term of ‘pro-ana’ or ‘pro-mia’ doens’t refer to a specific movement or organisational body, in the same way that pro-paedophilia groups used to in the mid-late 20thC. The phrases denote a family of different kinds of groups, interests and values.
Prime says that:
Sufferers of eating disorders are allowed to come together and give tips on how to be thin, and perpetuate the norm that thin is beautiful.
It’s slightly more subtle than that; the reasons people have for engaging in these behaviours is far more diverse than image issues alone; there may be other underlying thigns. Coping mechanisms for various thigns that people face in life.
On a ‘lifestyle choice’
It’s a real life occurence, a cultural presence; rather than a Royal College of Psychiatry quarterly statistic. And in all fairness, it is the former more than the latter; that is to say. Those eating patterns are part of the life that is soaked in values, self-images, celebrations of physical ideals, pressures, romances, family, friends, fitting in, and all those everyday things that people live in; people live in lifestyles, not medical journals. A human face to a human behaviour. Not a scientific category which demeans people.
The question is, which I can’t really answer; is whether ‘lifestyle choice’ is a term of acceptance or promotion, or a more ambivalent and human referring term than some greco-romano medical term. Either way; to humanise the face of suffering is to understand it moer; it is possibly the worst thing to impose foreign labels upon people, tha tthey submit to and become defined by. It is, a form of self-oppression. Understanding is the key, not explanation or prognosis.
Prime on ‘motivations’
These groups do indeed provide techniques and coping mechanisms that people may not have been aware of before. But to shoot the messenger isn’t the way to deal with the message we get from the prevalence of self-harmers in society. If you kill a revolutionary you don’t end the revolution. The pro-ana/pro-mia phenomenon is a challenge to our ideas; we don’t fight ideas with actions like prohibition of thought, we fight it with open discussion and mutual understanding of the points of contention.
I repeat what I said earlier, ‘ana’ and ‘mia’ are not necessarily related to body issues; although there is a strong case to be made for it; similar point here; don’t shoot the messenger. It is culture and the hegemony of fashion and those ideals perpetuated by the whole of society through simulacrum that we need to attack, not the group who maintain it, but are affected by it the most; analogous claim, if we are having a crisis about our resources in oil, it is not the rig workers we blame, but those who control the rigs and pipelines.
The suggestion of poliing the internet, is like policing thought, or our way of expression. Some things we can never stop by means of prohibition. If we ban alcohol, there will come a black market of contraband; if we ban freethought through mainstream publication, we get eccentric and low-key publishers circulating texts that do not have the rigour and quality of blind review and proofing.
I think I will have to Sinistre*’s point of ambivalence and promotion of ana/mia to be a moot one; this is a case-by-case consideration.
Conclusion
Understanding is key. Like Sinistre* said at the start; this is an old issue in new clothing, or a new media in old issues. I firmly believe that ideas are things that can never die; so long as there are still people around to think them. Like the idea of equality, or democratic change, we find these sociogenic ideas come to fruition and their discourses may come to fruit through many ways. The most important feature of a change in society is the idea underlying it, not the people who instantiate it.
