Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts

11 January 2010

Pascal's Wager...

..."God is, or He is not."
Blaise Pascal's Pensees


you cannot determine either by reason.

therefore you have to take a leap of faith or place a wager...

what are the possible consequences?

if you believe there is a god and there is, you then reap the rewards that the mythology promises;

if you believe there is no god, and there isn't, you lose nothing;

if you believe there is no god, and you are wrong and there is, you suffer all of the horrors the mythology forecasts;


of course, there is Richard Dawkins' anti-Pascal Wager -
"Suppose we grant that there is indeed some small chance that God exists. Nevertheless, it could be said that you will lead a better, fuller life if you bet on his not existing, than if you bet on his existing and therefore squander your precious time on worshipping him, sacrificing to him, fighting and dying for him, etc."
from The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins



however, no one will make any odds available...


now, not to waste Pascal's thinking, it is responsible for four really important things: 1) charted new territory in probability theory; 2) one of the first attempts at using the idea of infinity; 3) the first use of decision theory; and 4) made possible the future philosophy of pragmatism.

not bad for a non-betting man...

my wager?

i prefer playing the ponies...

horse racing gif


Pascal's Wager - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Posted using ShareThis

20 June 2008

weekender (bonus)...

if you hae been reading for awhile you have to realize that i do have a kinda strange sense of humor. just the regular weekender about birthing lizards this week is a little hint.

well, here is a bonus for this week that i was reminded of in reading something about Graham Chapman and Monty Python's Flying Circus. it is my all time favorite bit from the show and totally ill...


Mrs. Premise and Mrs. Conclusion visit Jean-Paul Sartre


total existential chaos...

28 February 2008

get out of hell free card...

I have received requests to explain my get out of hell free card again. It originally was in a post about Sen. Larry Craig in which I said some things that some people might consider, well, sinful? [here]

At the end of the post I explained why I didn't have to worry. Well, at least as far as the Catholic Church is concerned:
[i know. you all think i'm going to hell for this as well as some other things i've written, but i have a get out of hell card. i walked through the Jubilee Door at the Vatican in 1976. it's only opened every 25 or 50 years and any one who makes the pilgrimage has all sins forgiven through a plenary indulgence. so, according to the myth, i'm safe.]

So, to use an idea that one of the British Pragmatists used, though I cannot logically prove that God exists in any way, I find the possible alternative of an eternity in hell with fire and brimstone unacceptable. It's best to hedge all your bets then.

i'm hedging; i'm hedging...


[i'm also in no way serious]

21 October 2007

Nietsche...

October 15th was the 163rd anniversary of the birth of Frederick Nietzsche. sorry, i missed it. here is a belated birthday greeting...

is there in truth...
What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms -- in short, a sum of human relations, which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins.

We still do not know where the urge for truth comes from; for as yet we have heard only of the obligation imposed by society that it should exist: to be truthful means using the customary metaphors - in moral terms, the obligation to lie according to fixed convention, to lie herd-like in a style obligatory for all...


'On truth and lie in an extra-moral sense,' The Viking Portable Nietzsche, p.46-7, Walter Kaufmann transl.


and

je ne pense pas...
Did you hear about Rene Descartes' visit to England? He went into a pub and the barmaid said "Can I get you something, luv?''

He said, "I think not.'' And disappeared.


...et le monde continu ou pas!

29 April 2007

Nietzsche on christianism...

The Christian resolve to find
the world evil and ugly, has
made the world evil and ugly.


The Gay Science, 1882

29 December 2006

an explanation...

In previous posts I have cited a phrase that deals with athiesm that conflates it with deism. I found the original source and quote when reading a post from samharris.org. It is from an article he wrote appearing in the LA Times:
As the historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
Roberts' reasoning is really flawless. If you can recognize why you repudiate Allah, Shiva, Cthulhu, Zeus, Jupiter, The Great Spaghetti Monster, etc., you should be able to understand why an atheist rejects your god. It's the same rationale.

Harris' article is entitled 10 myths—and 10 Truths—About Atheism. It's a well presented argument.

The 10 myths:
1) Atheists believe that life is meaningless.
2) Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history.
3) Atheism is dogmatic.
4) Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance.
5) Atheism has no connection to science.
6) Atheists are arrogant.
7) Atheists are closed to spiritual experience.
8) Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding.
9) Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society.
10) Atheism provides no basis for morality.

For the 10 truths you have to read the article. Harris' truths are the rebuttals to each of the myths.

The truth that struck me the most was his countering to #10 -
If a person doesn’t already understand that cruelty is wrong, he won’t discover this by reading the Bible or the Koran — as these books are bursting with celebrations of cruelty, both human and divine. We do not get our morality from religion. We decide what is good in our good books by recourse to moral intuitions that are (at some level) hard-wired in us and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about the causes and possibilities of human happiness.

We have made considerable moral progress over the years, and we didn’t make this progress by reading the Bible or the Koran more closely. Both books condone the practice of slavery — and yet every civilized human being now recognizes that slavery is an abomination. Whatever is good in scripture — like the golden rule — can be valued for its ethical wisdom without our believing that it was handed down to us by the creator of the universe.

and so, I still believe in one fewer god than you do.

can you understand it better now?

just asking...

02 December 2006

i hate all of you...

WFMT, the classical music station in Chicago, has been playing excerpts from an interview with Sir Georg Solti for the past couple of days. It has been very interesting.

There was one excerpt that caught my attention and has kept roiling in the front of my head since hearing it. I'm going to be paraphrasing it from memory.

In the interview Sir Georg refers to hearing a story of Maestro Arturo Toscanini, one of the greatest conductors of all time. He said,
"There is a story about Maestro Toscanini, and if it is not true, I wish that it were. At a rehearsal the Maestro stopped and said to the orchestra, 'I hate all of you. You ruin all of the music I hear in my head!' It is true. I hear the music in my head in a certain way. It never comes out just the way I hear it."

It never can come out the way we hear it in our heads. Not just the music, but anything we hear in our heads.

I watch what goes on around me and realize that I have a certain belief, understanding, outlook that does not match what I see. I set myself up for failure, for disappointment, for anger and for hurt because of what I hear inside my head.

The Maestro realized that it was impossibe for him to get 100+ musicians to play each instrument and each note precisely as he heard it in his head. He was powerless.

This is true of everything. Not only music. Iraq? Religion? Politics? Career? Right to choose? Sexual orientation? Marriage? Art? Film?

I see each of these things in a very specific way. You don't see them in the same way. You see them in your own way. It leads to chaos.

The problem starts when you insist on my seeing things in your way only. It can never happen. I will only see things my way no matter what you say or do. You can pass laws. You can institute amendments. You can yell, scream, kick and hit me. You can make war on me. It will never make a difference. I will only see things in my way.

Over time, you may be able to persuade me to see things your way, but I still will never precisely see things your way. I have in my head all of the times before I was persuaded that put a different slant on what I see. There will be some nuanced difference in what I perceive. no matter what...

I accept this. There is no other way. We are a lonely species. We are disconnected from one another at the basic core. I accept, also, that you have the right to see things as you want to see them. I have no problem with that. I have a problem when you tell me that I don't have the right to see things the way that I see them. Conflict ensues.

the solution?

Miranda & Spock again...
Miranda: The glory of creation is in its infinite diversity.
Spock: And the ways our differences combine to create meaning and beauty.

too simple?

juat asking...

29 November 2006

at first I wrote...

and so it starts...
I've tried this blog thing before and the most difficult thing is keeping up with it, but I would like to try and make a commitment to add to it at least a couple of times a week. Sometimes it might be something important, but most of the time it will probably be just some things that have been on my mind, my life, my thoughts about the state of the world, my distastes, my likes, music, b.s., etc., etc., etc.

I've been reading blogs for awhile now and they are playing a big part in the way civilization is evolving. It's the time of instant response, instant rebuke, and instant interpretation. I wonder, however, if the instantaneousness of this whole thing is allowing for time to reflect on what's being read, yet alone written. Is there anyone who is looking at the signs of what is happening - the semiotics.

Semiotics is an important concept of study. According to Martin Ryder,

"Linguistic and Cultural Semiotics is a branch of communication theory that investigates sign systems and the modes of representation that humans use to convey feelings, thoughts, ideas, and ideologies. Semiotic analysis is rarely considered a field of study in its own right, but is used in a broad range of disciplines, including art, literature, anthropology, sociology, and the mass media. Semiotic analysis looks for the cultural and psychological patterns that underlie language, art and other cultural expressions. Umberto Eco jokingly suggests that semiotics is a discipline for studying everything which can be used in order to lie." (1976, p7). Whether used as a tool for representing phenomena or for interpreting it, the value of semiotic analysis becomes most pronounced in highly mediated, postmodern environments where encounters with manufactured reality shift our grounding senses of normalcy."

Blogging, in a way, is both the means and the end of semiotics. It is manufacturing reality as well as analyzing it. It is art. literature, sociology and mass media all rolled into one. It looks at cultural and psychological patterns, as well as creates them. It is almost oxymoronic.

So, why do I want any part of it? I, like everyone else, have a need to be listened to. The "act" in my life has always been that no one listens to me, so why bother. I've thought myself a failure for that and I'm getting over it. People either listen or they don't. I know longer care. I am going to be inspiring and powerful. As a result - FREE!

and so it starts...


Lately, I've been thinking about going back and reading what I've been writing for almost the last two years. [two years in January!] Above is the very first post I wrote for no matter what....

Looking at it again, I find it interesting, especially the semiotics part. The signs are everywhere to be found, not only in the world but also in this blog. There has been an evolution in what I've been writing and, yet, I sense that I've pretty much stuck to what I set out to do.

There have been changes over the course of the two years. I have turned to a pseudo-Socratic method of asking questions about what I bring up. Lately, I added the what's going on here... weekly post citing headlines from around the world and posing the question, "What is really going on here? I'm including music, video, humor, irony, photos.... I've tried to do more of an ongoing dialogue approach because I readily admit that I don't know everything. [Nor do I necessarily want to know everything. Somethings are better left in the ether!]

Though I'm still can be somewhat of a cynic, I have let more of myself be known to the world than ever before now. It is easier to do this when it's somehow more anonymous and you don't have a stake in losing something or someone. However, I am more at ease with myself and much more confident.

The end of the original post cites how the act I play is no one listens to me, so why bother? I am quite over that. It still pops up now and then, but even in my professional life I have become more demonstrative. It reminds me of something that happened a number of years ago and how incongruent it was with my act.

My mother was always one who thought about other people before herself. She was extremely giving, loving and caring. Catholic and Christian probably more than most regular people. There was one extreme that was part of it though. She worried about what others would think. My father and I could care less.

One Sunday I was over for dinner and a visit. I don't even remember what the conversation was about but she said, "What will the neighbors think?" My father and I, on cue, simultaneously turned to her and said, "Who the fuck cares?"

We both were totally shocked at what we said. Shocked that we did it at exactly the same time and even more shocked that we used the word fuck. Even my father very seldom used that word and it's the only time I remember him saying it in front of my mother. It was also the very first [and the very last] time I ever said it in front of her. It just was never done!

My father never cared what other people said about him. To this day, I really don't care what other people think about me. Yet, on the other hand, I didn't think, and sometimes still don't, that other people listened to me. Ironic.

This blog has helped me realize that people do listen to what I have to say and it's all right that they agree or disagree with it, yet I still don't care about what they think about me. It's there opinion. It's more important what I think about me.


do you find yourself this way sometimes?

just asking...

16 November 2006

an important question...

lately we all in the world have been bombarded by many important questions: Who should be our leaders? Is the conflagration in Iraq just? Is the US spinning down into a theocracy? Does nuclear power threaten more than just peace? Is marriage under attack?

But, isn't there a more underlying question? Something along the lines of "What really is important and might be the basis of all these other questions?

What gives meaning to everything else?

Some say religion or god. Some say philosophy. Some say humanity. Some say hope. Some say discovery.

The question I pose is quite simple and was put into play best by Richard Strauss in his opera "Capriccio."

What is more important? The words or the music? The poet or the composer?


I've literally seen hundreds of operas both live and on DVD/tape. Below is what I consider my favorite scene from all of opera featuring my favorite soprano, Renee Fleming. It is the final scene.

The countess confronted by the poet and the composer to make a decision as to what is more important - words or music - poem or composition - writer or musician - wonders why she has to make that distinction. This clip is eery in that the countess is both on stage singing the debate and in the audience watching it. The composer and the poet are also both in the audience. It's a tableau of life watching itself. The original reality?




I used to tell Ronald, "Life's a bitch and then you die." He would laugh hysterically. He died in 1990. I still miss him terribly some times. His death became a defining moment for me. I have not searched for the answers as much as the questions since that moment.

The answers are really unimportant. The questions determine what kind of life I have.

What do you think?

just asking...