Solutions to "intuiting about philosophy" - part 2

... continued

5. Does a person have a right to complain about the religious practices of his neighbors if the sound of these practices is reaching his home, loudly? Does this mean that he is being intolerant? Is this morally wrong?

Abhishek: Main branch - Ethics. This is because the question deals with morality and behavior. Specific branch - Normative ethics and Meta-ethics and Descriptive ethics. This is because the questions considers whether that person ought to act in a specific way (normative ethics); evaluating the rightness or wrongness of that action - morality (meta-ethics). It also considers whether that person has a "right" to act in a particular way, i.e. - people's views about the action (descriptive ethics).

Me: It is broadly stemming from Ethics or the study of the rules of behavior in a society. However, this goes more to the applied area of Praxeology where human action is studied in the context of its consequences on a larger societal setup as also the consequences of setting rules to be followed by certain components of society. Praxeology deals with areas like politics and economics where we discuss about not the behavior of one individual person, but a whole community. Note that if the individual X suffering on account of his neighbors (Y's) loud prayers, decides to engage in conflict or call the cops, then ANY such individual in that community must get the same right. (Unless the community has agreed that some members are ethnically superior to others, as is the case in ethnic dictatorships or nations with strong and fanatic religious majorities) If yes, then any other individual (Z) may protest about X's practices, which may be subtle, but the very idea that X eats meat (just an example) on the "holy" days can be intolerable to Z ... and so on. Taking this reasoning further we see that the issue of tolerating someone's culture/behavior, as long as it does not intentionally harm us, is an essential in a multi-cultural environment such as India. Now maybe you see the link to Politics. 

All the same tolerance with no limits can be considered a sign of weakness by some and can lead to deliberate attacks on the tolerant. This in turn necessitates conditions on the governance of the community. This raises questions of whether religion (or God) are / are not above the country. This also raises issues of economic stability which again have a bearing on the rules of governance. So you see, it is not an individual's moral choice alone, although every individual has a right to protest (in a democracy) against anything "intolerable". It is more of an issue to be resolved by the whole community or the government that represents it.

6. Is it appropriate to feed lots of chocolates to a chimpanzee to see if the chimp starts suffering from diabetes?

Abhishek: Main branch - Ethics. This is because the question deals with morality and behavior. Specific branch - Normative ethics and Applied ethics. This is because the questions considers whether that person ought to act in a specific way (normative ethics); and whether this action is moral in a particular with respect to a particular issue (clinical or medical ethics in this case) (applied ethics)

Me: Personally, I would be glad to have the chimp be tested in order that my diabetes can be eventually treated; or to think of it, I would actually feed the poor chap with lots of chocolate, which I am sure he would enjoy to the sweet end. But that's all from personal experience and desires. Now lets think professionally. ;)

Would I like to be in the chimp's place, suppose an superior alien race wants to test a virus? So this is a question pertaining an action by some humans and supported by a larger group of humans, either knowingly or otherwise. However, it is an issue where the individual has to take a decisive stand and its consequences need not affect the larger society directly. So we can rule out Praxeology or any other applied areas. This is Ethics, sub branch - Bioethics. The issue here is about how much we understand other forms of life and value life as a whole. It is at a deeper level how we evaluate the value of something which is not really tangible or direct, viz., the idea of Man's superiority and hence benevolence against his efforts for solutions (which may or may not materialize) to further his survival. This goes to the extent of discussing whether Man gets to play God. Read some essays by Peter Singer. Try doing this free course by Singer to get some perspective.

7. Is it 'OK' to mimic Shah Rukh Khan (dance or speech or fashion) because you adore him? Girls may choose Katrina Kaif.

Abhishek: Main branch - Ethics. This is because the question deals with morality and behavior. Specific branch - Normative ethics and Descriptive ethics. This is because the questions considers whether that person ought to act in a specific way - imitating a particular actor/actress (normative ethics), based on people's views about the action (descriptive ethics).

Incidentally, the part of the question that stated that a girl may choose Katrina Kaif is an example of descriptive ethics. Girls choosing an actress to imitate while boys choosing an actor is based on people's views about gender. Normative ethics would also involve asking whether it is okay for a boy to imitate Katrina Kaif? And a girl to imitate Shah Rukh Khan?

Me: I realized that I should have used a newer role model than K-K-K-Khan uncle, but I guess you get the point. Mimicking someone is the natural method of learning new things - when you are a baby, that's how you learnt to speak or move or dance (well you weren't really a baby then, I suppose) - when you grew older, that's how you learnt to socialize, to dress-up, etc. - when you get really old, you still use it now and then to learn new physical skills or complex tasks or to blend in. But you see, the dependence on this method as against deliberate cognition - analyse, classify, reason, discriminate, synthesize, hypothesize, verify, justify, ... - should decrease as you grow more mature. 

So you see, the issue is largely about what you feel is acceptable in society and hence what you should or not do. This is again Ethics, but as all of the students who answered so far have pointed out - Normative Ethics. What is the norm, i.e. standard of social acceptability? How should I behave to blend in more? As also, what do I think is heroic or idealistic? This last part usually depends upon the social norm, but need not be always so. So as long as it is a questions of and for an individual, it is normative ethics.

Now further on, while taking a decision about whether it is "OK" to do so, you end up dabbling with meta-ethics as well. If you extend the question to society at large and for all individuals, i.e. should all barbers trim the hair of youngsters in the Khan or the Kaif style and therefore should all heads of school make this a part of the school dress code, etc. you are questioning "whether it is right to act as per the norm" OR "should the norms be enforced". I am sure some of my students who had the misfortune of watching my hands work synchronously with my scissors, from very close, wouldn't dare support the allowance of fashion as a norm. In essence here you could go as far as to question, whether a philosophy which support / opposes normative thinking, is the better one. 

Coming to Abhishek's final comment there: There is indeed a connection between Descriptive and Normative theories wherein it is the people's views which eventually create the norm and you could question whether it is appropriate for a girl to dress like a boy or vice verse. 

8. What is a joke? What makes us laugh?

Abhishek: Main branch - Aesthetics. This is because the question deals with the study of art and beauty. Specific branch - Nature of Art and Aesthetic Judgement and Aesthetic Taste. This is because the question deals with what a joke is (nature of art), whether we consider a given something to be a joke based on our understanding of what a joke is (aesthetic judgement), and whether we find the joke funny - whether we appreciate it (aesthetic taste)

Me: Yes Abhishek & Aparna, it is Aesthetics and no Aparna it is not ethics, although it does raise ethical questions, such as whether we should laugh a certain community based on some of their common characteristics, etc. Humor is usually associated with the idea of difference or oddness, particularly with the difference in something or someone which makes the thing or person appear wrong in the given context. For instance imagine me hogging chocolates instead of the chimp, (Oh I'm loving it) or Abhishek dressed up like Katrina, or a plump chap slipping on a banana peel. Feels funny doesn't it. "How silly can these people be", "How weird would that look", etc.

Now think of the same in a different context: The great and handsome and muscular me (as I actually am) eating a chocolates with an air of gracefulness. (how sensuous - you would say) Abhishek dressed like Katrina when he was 2 year old. (Ohh! how cute - you may say) Plump guy slipping on the peel and hitting his head into a coma, and wait it minute - its your uncle!!! (now try laughing)

So you see, humor is an issue of evaluating the effect of certain situations on people and determining which ones they would find odd / wrong / weird, but without a feeling of personal involvement. It is a process of evaluation of the psycho-epistemology of people. (why you feel that which you feel) The degree of laughter and hence the degree of the humor presented as an art-form has to be evaluated on the basis of the metaphysics of the artist and the audience. (what do they think is unreal / unnatural, hence humorous)

 So here goes the first assignment. Abhishek you gave really good answers; Satya and Aparna - well tried - next time elaborate your thoughts; and everyone - put your thoughts in the comments (FB or blogger) for all to see and discuss. Thus Abhishek, you get a reward - You are hereby allowed (even at the peril of losing face) to wear ANY costume at the official ceremonies of the IPO (Please try to be more confirming, ;) ). 

So long. Stay tuned for the next assignment. (in a day or two ...)

Solutions to "intuiting about philosophy" - part 1

In the assignment posted a few days ago, I had asked learners to classify 8 different issues as to the branch of philosophy that deals with them. I got some really good answers from Abhishek, Satyasarvani and Aparna. Lets dissect these.

1. In what way should one submit oneself to God.

Abhishek: Main branch - Ethics; This is because the question deals with morality and behavior. Specific branch - Normative ethics and Applied Ethics; This is because the questions considers how a person ought to act (normative ethics). It also deals with a specific issue - religion and thus would be related to personal or private religious ethics (a part of applied ethics)

Me: The question is usually answered as a diktat from a certain theological standpoint and as such is outside the purview of systematic philosophy. i.e. One religion may ask its follower to submit via penance, while another may advocate highest learning about the world and beyond. These diktats usually have some reasoning (although based on fallacious grounds) which usually end up with "God said so" or that "God likes it like this" or some such variant. Philosophy is about asking questions and finding out deeper truths. Diktats are therefore not what philosophers do. However, questioning the rationale behind such theocratic doctrines is left to Philosophy of Religion. Ethics deals with behavior in human society, while the question above pertains to behavior towards that which transcends all that is human. Hence although normative ethics would analyse how people follow tenets of religion or applied ethics would discuss how subjugating oneself to God may be beneficial (or not) and how should one go about it, neither can define the method by which this may be done. So technically this question is theological and not philosophical, however, philosophy of religion is the closest tool to analyse various theologies and their take on this issue. 

2. What are the conditions for saying "I Know"? Is it sufficient to have heard it from someone or is it necessary to actually have seen it / sensed it?

Abhishek: Main branch - Epistemology. This is because the question is regarding the study of knowledge. Specific branch - Acquisition of knowledge : A priori and A posteriori knowledge. This is because the question asks whether obtaining knowledge should be experience-independent (A priori) or experience-dependent (A posteriori).

Me: This is definitely a question from Epistemology. Epistemology deals with what is knowledge?, what does it mean "to know"?, is knowledge subjective or objective? and so on. As Abhishek rightly points out, it is an issue of whether we need to have an experience of something to truly "know" it or is learning indirectly from a trusted source, sufficient. It further deals with issues such as sensory data (what we sense) as being different from perception (what we make of it and is it necessarily the same) and the cognition (what we consciously think about it and learn from it or connecting it with other knowledge) as being the ultimate stage of "knowing". It also questions - if we have never sensed it ourselves, then can we be sure about its existence?. In this, it enters into the realm of metaphysics and would need to discuss what is existence. Thus the Theory of knowledge is an epistemic inquiry with a metaphysical basis. 

3. What is the meaning of adding the number 1 to any number?

Abhishek: Main branch - Epistemology. This is because the question is regarding the study of knowledge. Specific branch - Nature of knowledge - Propositional knowledge. This is because the question is regarding knowing that (propositional knowledge) addition of 1 to number means something and about finding out this meaning.

Aparna: Epistemology, Rationalism

Me: The study of math entails the study and acceptance of many abstractions, one of which is 'numbers'. Although we can point out objects and count them, the idea of numbers remains abstract. Just to highlight this point, consider this question: If we count all the objects in the known universe (from people to mountains to fishes to molecules to toothpicks and then to stars and so on) we should be able to come up with some (very large) number. So, so far we know what each number we counted stood for. However, if we add 1 to this number, what would that stand for? (of course I already counted myself). So, if a number does not correspond to something, does it have meaning? Does meaning have to do with correspondance, or is it more about implication? (for example if an ant gave birth to another ant, then our counting would increase by 1 and thus the new number "would" exist and hence "has" meaning) Have a look at Max Tegmarks hypothesis for an interesting viewpoint. So to answer my question, this is partly epistemology, in the sense that we discuss about what is the knowledge associated with numbers or mathematical operations, but it is a more specific application of epistemology and partly metaphysics (what is the meaning of?) of reality into the field of abstractions, namely - Philosophy of Mathematics.

Response to Aparna: Rationalism like many other '-isms' (e.g. logical positivism) take different standpoints to answer a question. Strict Realism for example may say that the numbers are just referrals to real objects and as such have no meaning and hence addition by 1 is simply a mechanism to refer to 1 more object. So in the absence of objects, this process has no meaning. Whereas, Plato's idealism or even Tegmark's hypothesis would claim that the numbers have their own existence in a world transcending our's and thus addition is just our way of understanding relations between different, already existing numbers. So you see, that is what isms do. They however do not change the area of philosophy in which the question is posed. Sometimes, questions are posed from one ism to counter another. Very rarely, questions from one area (from any ism) may lead to redefining another area by reclassifying the issues that come under it. e.g. Darwin's observations and the scientific questions he posed, shifted the focus of origin of life from religion to science.

4. Is beauty really in the eye of the beholder or is it really about the hand of the artist?

Abhishek: Main branch - Aesthetics. This is because the question deals with the study of art and beauty. Specific branch - Aesthetic judgement - Objective and Subjective Nature of Art. This is because the question deals with whether beauty is objective - innate, or viewer-independent; or subjective - viewer-dependent.

Me: Abhishek, Satya & Aparna are all pretty much on the mark here. It is Aesthetics. It has been a raging debate in this field for more than 2000 years about whether beauty is objective or subjective (read more here). Aparna is close in saying that it is an issue of values; more specifically of value judgement. It calls for a metaphysical understanding of how (and why) one forms a value judgement about something. For example, the ancient Greeks held that strength and heroism was something to be aspired to and this is depicted in most art of that era. Another example is where a teenager who cannot handle his emotional turbulence, prefers the escape into the world of films or songs, almost all the time, and thus finds songs about dreams and maybe love, to be extremely beautiful. Read The Romantic Manifesto by Ayn Rand to a get a clearer picture of this issue.

The next four answers in the next post. Stay tuned ...

What qualifies Art?

Hello there!

Let's begin this new season of discussing philosophy online by starting with Aesthetics. This is part of getting-used-to training before the first round of the Indian Philosophy Olympiad is conducted (around November-End-December). These sessions will be largely blog assignments put up every saturday and feedback by the next saturday. I am trying to get the online lectures to work out for a larger audience (we could manage for a few people using Google / Yahoo or Tinychat last summer) and will inform you all asap.

So here goes:

What can be described as the qualities Art (read: a work of art) must possess to be described as art?

1. Beauty: How would you define it? Is it subjective? (i.e. lies in the eyes of the beholder)
2. Rationality: Should art confirm to logic? Can a artist not be wildly imaginitive? Should the work of art present its reasons to exist within it?
3. Truth: Should art confirm to reality? Can it not distort reality?
4. Heroism: Should art only describe the best and the most honorable in society? (many a times an artist shows a hero in contrast with a villain, this is allowed by the question) Can art not be about the bland, pallid, passive, commoner aspects of life?
5. Purpose: Should art have a purpose? Can it not be vague and apparently "meaningless"?

State your point of view to these as comments in as brief manner as possible. Later we examine more qualities, ultimately to try and determine those qualities which help us judge Art.

Philosophy Assignments - Discussing Aesthetic Criteria & more

Hello Guys!

I know I am supposed to be giving you the test right now, but am really down at the moment. So lets discuss the work you guys did in yesterdays assignment and add to it. Lets go question-wise

1. Apparently you didn't get the question. Ms Rand says that the sense of life is automatic and hence fallible, i.e. you may make up a wrong picture of things and thus go wrong in judging. The sense of life is therefore not the criteria for judgement, only a quick guide to appreciating art. It is individual and can differ from person to person as well as at different times in your life you may change your "sense". In this is it not very much like Kant's idea of "beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder"? Then again this sense has developed through the various things you saw, did, heard, felt, etc. and so although it is supposed to be a super-concept of sorts, it is also possible to be corrupted by emotions. (i.e. as against reason) Kant simply observes that this "sense" is "usually faulty" and hence argues that one cannot depend upon concept-delivery through art, but rather one should let everyone percieve their own concepts through the art, using their own "sense" of life. Then Kant takes the quest of judging art to other issues. Both actually agree that the sense of life is not objective enough to judge a work of art - Kant says that there cannot be a clearly objective criteria, while Rand goes on to give that criteria.
2. Most examples weren't good enough. Take Prathamesh's example about M F Hussein's painting of Mother India. The normative abstractions are the icons he has used to depict the specialities of the country. The cognitive abstractions are when he makes you think of the fuzzy boundaries (diffused and confused politics of our North-West borders) and the streaks of white which depict the Himalayas. The esthetic abstractions are in the use of red (specifically the color of Gheru) to indicate rural & traditional India and also the semi-clad lady which depicts the strife-torn and impoverished India.
3. Diksha you seem to have got the point, but try using your original expression, rather than the language of the book. Kevin be careful while using the word pleasure and also an irrational man can have a confused or emotively justified code of ethics. Prathamesh you need to improve your language, but I think you got the idea. The bottom line is that an irrational man cannot explain his thoughts or acts to himself or to another person; and thus needs an expression in form of art. Thus for him art is a means of justifying his thoughts to maintain his (false) self-esteem.
4. To put it simply, the criteris cannot be as to how much you agree with the artist's point of view. What is important, is ... What is the view of life projcted in the artists work? i.e. the abstract meaning conveyed, without getting biased by thoughts and norms outside of his work. With what degree of skill does he project his view of life? i.e. his technical mastery and the esthetic elements employed.

Now in the next chapter - Art & Cognition, the central thesis Ms Rand is making is that to understand art in general or in a specific work of art, one must understand the effect different arts have upon us, i.e. What view of life is projected and how different arts do it using different medium. Here she alleges that most recent esthetic philosophers have defaulted on Philosophy. What does she mean by this? Why should it matter? How does it affect the layman?