The Blog : Cogito Ergo Blogo

posted by Charles Griswold

Many thanks to all of you who called during Tuesday's Philosophy Talk (May 3). We very much appreciated your interest! There are a number of fascinating issues we touched upon, and some we did not. Among the latter is the relationship between interpersonal forgiveness and political forgiveness. For an example, see the front page story in the NYT (April 18, 2005) about a traditional forgiveness "ritual" currently being practiced in Uganda. It is explicitly meant as an alternative to the more familiar procedures of criminal justice (proposed actions by the International Criminal Court are mentioned in the article). The offenders go through a ritual that includes dipping their right toe in a raw egg (the symbol of innocent life, we're informed) and paying some sort of reparation. After several such steps, they are accepted back into the community, in spite of horrific injuries they may have inflicted. So this comes to something like pardon. One of their victims expresses deep disagreement with this process, indicating that she's not forgiven her attackers at all--first they need to be punished. Question: is this ritual of reconciliation really about _forgiveness_ at all, or about something else? Do forgiveness and justice clash? Necessarily clash?

John Perry's "To Blog is to Forgive?" is helpful in formulating an answer to these questions.

by John Perry

In the movie “The Interpretor” Nicole Kidman stars as Silvia Broome.  She grew up among the Ku, in the fictional nation of Matobo.  When someone commits murder among the Ku, they are allowed to live for a year.  Then they are dumped in a lake with their hands tied.  The victim's family members must decide whether to plunge into the water and save them, or let them drown.  The prevailing wisdom among the Ku seems to be that those who save the murderer, in effect forgiving them, and releasing themselves from anger and resentment, are better off for it.
Many thinkers agree with this idea of the Kus, that forgiveness is good for the forgiver.   Thus Francis Bacon:

This is certain, that a man that studieth revenge keeps his wounds green, which otherwise would heal and do well. 

And Ann Landers:

One of the secrets of a long and fruitful life is to forgive everybody everything every night before you go to bed.

So perhaps it is a good idea to forgive others, to insure one’s own peace of mind, so that resentment doesn’t gnaw away at one.

posted by Philosophy Talk

We at Philosophy Talk are pleased to announce that Charles Griswold, our guest for today's show on the topic of forgiveness,  has agreed to guest-blog.   It should be a fun show on a topic much discussed in religion and politics, but not much discussed by contemporary philosophers.   We are grateful to Charles for agreeing to appear on the show and also grateful to him for agreeing to guest blog.  Please make him feel welcome by commenting extensively on the threads he starts!

posted by Ken Taylor

Over at the blog Left2Right,  the philosopher David Velleman  has an interesting post about moral relativism.  Prompted by recent news coverage of moral relativism and then Cardinal Ratzinger’s denunciation of modernity’s supposed move toward  “the dictatorship of relativism,”  Velleman argues  that almost everyone who denounces relativism has it confused with some other doctrine.   Relativism, Velleman claims, is an extremely implausible doctrine and has precious few serious adherents.   Consequently,  he claims, “There is little point in campaigning against relativism, because almost no one supports it. Those who issue denunciations of "moral relativism" are usually pursuing some other agenda.”   Velleman does have a point – most people who attack relativism confuse it with something else.  Moreover,  I agree with him that there is little point in campaigning against relativism.  But not for the reasons he articulates.   Unlike Velleman,  I think moral relativism is plausible in the extreme and is, indeed, tied to the deepest challenges of human social life.   It isn’t worth campaigning against not because it has no advocates, but because to campaign against it is to deny certain very basic facts about the human situation.  This will take some explaining so bear with me.   By the way, in case you are interested,  check out our own episode on Truth and Relativism.  It was first broadcast last November.

posted by Ken Taylor

Today's  show is about the topic of propaganda.  Our guest will be Orville Schell,   Dean of the Berkeley School of Journalism.   The episode will focus on the nature of propaganda,  on what precisely is wrong with it, on the difference between the production and dissemination of propaganda in democratic and totalitarian societies and on what we can do to combat it. 

Some people  naively associate propaganda with totalitarian regimes.  Certainly, the Nazis, the Soviet and Chinese communists, and brutal dictators like Saddam Hussein  have made heavy and sometimes brilliantly effective use of propaganda.   But totalitarians may not need to be true masters of propaganda,  since they often merely bludgeon people into at least apparent belief and acquiescence.   It's in supposedly democratic societies with  capitalist economies,  where  political consent   and economic demand are  manufactured, to use Lippmann's apt phrase, that propaganda has been elevated to truly  high and insidious art form.   Indeed, it seems to me that largely through propagandistic manipulation of the means of public  communication and representation, the  concentrated,  self-serving powers that own so much of our politics and so much of our economy have succeeded  in thoroughly debasing our public discourse.

 

posted by Ken Taylor

Do genes make the person?  If you listen to popular press reports of new genetic discoveries coming out at fairly rapid pace, you certainly might think so.   Lung Cancer Gene!  Gay Gene!  Genius Gene!   Little wonder that many people believe -- or should I say fear? -- that  genes somehow directly and invariably determine who we are.  One has visions of  being  able to choose the IQ, personality, and physical attributes of one's offspring with the ease and reliability with which one chooses a meal at a good Chinese restaurant.   As Stephen Jay Gould once put it,  "If we are programmed to be what we are, then these traits are ineluctable.  We may, at best, channel them, but we cannot change them either by will, education, or culture."     But even a brief perusal of the scientific and/or philosophical literature about the role of genes in determining who we are  reveals that at least in this strong form, genetic determinism has little or no basis in either scientific fact or theory.   Genes clearly play an important causal role in the development of a phenotype.  And according to one standard, but by no means universally endorsed  conception of evolution, genes are the units on which natural selection operates.   But none of that entails rigid and direct  genetic determinism.    So what, really, is the big fuss?   

Posted by  Philosophy Talk

You might want to check out the twelfth edition of the recurring Philosophers' Carnival, a compilation of philosophical blog entries from around the blog sphere.    Included in this edition, is Ken Taylor's post on Freedom, Responsibility and Martian Anthropology.

You can learn more about the history and purpose of the Philosophers' Carnival here.

John Perry

This is a response to Ken’s fascinating blog on naturalism, Schopenhauer and value.  I’m amenable to his naturalism.  But I’m not sure I see the problem of value as a matter of getting something out of nothing.

By Ian Shoales

There is a website called OnHDTV.tv that claims it “provides show reviews and previews, HDTV-specific viewing recommendations, HDTV news and HDTV shopping tips, among other consumer information.” 

It’s what the world needs now, I guess.

One of the services OnHDTV offered this past month was, of course, a list - and where would the internet be without lists?   - the “ top 10 celebrities who look even better in High-Definition TV,” accompanied by a list of those who look worse.

by John Fischer

I do not want to distract us from the "heavy" (no pun intended) issues to which we have devoted our attention recently, but, what with the opening of baseball season and all, I thought I'd ask you to think about the following. Steroids (of the sorts used by some players and other athletes) apparently have serious health side-effects. For that reason it certainly seems reaonable to ban their use. But now suppose our wonderful pharmaceutical companies could develop side-effect free steroids--comparable medicines with (by stipulation) no bad health effects. Under such a scenario (admittedly implausible), would it still be reasonable to ban their use? Why exactly?

I believe that John and Ken had the distinguished Kant and baseball scholar Allen Wood on Philosophy Talk to discuss baseball, but unfortunately I haven't yet listened to that episode; I'll check out the archive at Philosophytalk.org.

Meanwhile, cheers, and Play Ball!

Pages

Get Philosophy Talk

Live

Sunday at 10am, PST, KALW, 91.7 FM, Local Public Radio, San Francisco

Streaming

Broadcast live on your iPhone or Android using the Public Radio Player

Podcast

Individual episodes, multipacks and The Complete Philosophy Talk on sale now through Iamplify.   Individual episodes available through Itunes and CD Baby.

Subscribe

Subscribe to our free weekly download service, and our monthly eNewsletter

John Perry and Ken Taylor

Talk to Us

Sidebar Menu

Past Blogs

  • May 01, 2013 : Good, Evil, and the Divine Plan
    Posted by JP This Sunday we're asking about Good, Evil, and the Divine Plan. The question is: if...
  • April 29, 2013 : The Demands of Morality
    This week we're asking about the Demands of Morality -- whether living morally adds or...
  • April 25, 2013 : Religion and the Art of Living
    Posted by JP   Religion offers us a comforting and inspiring vision of human existence.  ...
  • April 12, 2013 : Dance as a Way of Knowing
    Posted by LM The title of this week’s show might sound a little mysterious. How can dance, of all...
  • March 28, 2013 : Truth & Other Fictions
      We've titled this week's show "Truth – and Other Fictions."  Now that’s a provocative...

Would you like to be a caller on Philosophy Talk?

Please contact Ken & John by email at ideas@philosophytalk.org if you have an angle to add to any of the upcoming topics on Philosophy Talk, or if you have suggestions for future topics. You could be a guest caller on the air!

Support Philosophy Talk

DONATE TODAY

Philosophy Talk relies on the support of listeners like you to stay on the air and online. Any contribution, large or small, helps us produce intelligent, reflective radio that questions everything, including our most deeply-held beliefs about science, morality, culture, and the human condition. Make your tax-deductible contribution now through Stanford University's secure online donation page. Thank you for your support, and thank you for thinking!