Problems in Philosophy are epistemic not ontological!

There has always been an emphasis on the ontological differences of things in reality and an attempt at relieving these tensions by some ontological theory. For instance, Plato found that reality was ontologically Forms limited by the senses that only see shadows. Descartes found that reality was made ontologically of two distinct things. Materialists find that only matter exists ontologically and idealists only the mental. What if they are all wrong? Maybe it is an epistemic problem. I propose the model of an art gallery. We are pictures on the walls and we see things either too far away, as homogeneous, causally predictable events (as in materialism) or too close and see only smudges of paint with no pattern (the imagination, mind and idealism). Maybe we are missing a third way of seeing things. Just as Hope and Faith are the most common, what of Love. Maybe we have to be not too close, not too far. Maybe like Goldilocks, it has to be just right HOW we perceive reality. Maybe we shouldn't try to define reality ontologically, but reevaluate our epistemic limitations of reality and suggest a third way of seeing things. Perhaps this third way is what St. Paul spoke of as seeing in a mirror darkly (as in this life) but we would see things fully, in the next life.

Scientific Realism 3: Infancy

I can only guess what it is like to awaken to this world from that pre-human state of being where the mind is first developing its consciousness. On first seeing the sky, clouds, buildings, water, grass, the forest, and the countless other things we call the world, there must be a sudden shock, or pause that grips one. Undoubtedly, the conscious life of infancy is a mystery. Researcher can only guess at 'what it is like to be' a baby. But one thing is for certain, they seem to be in awe of EVERYTHING around them.

This awe, this ever pressing passion that seizes the mind and pulls it away from numbering things, distinguishing things, and takes it all in as a sort of shock of what IS may have something more to it than merely something one may call an undeveloped mind. Maybe, as we mature, and develop our ability to communicate, we actually lose sight of this awe. Perhaps there is something in the awe that is absent in the acquisition of language, of mathematics, of what we call logic reasoning skills. It could be the case that as Jesus stated, one must be as a child to enter into His kingdom, we must exchange awe for the words we use to understand all that is around us.

Consider how we develop language. According to St. Augustine, the process involves the child observing the parent and mimicking his or her movements as to get his or her attention. But why does the infant wish to get the attention of the parent? There is much debate on this, but the simple answer is to satisfy some desire, some craving, of the child. He or she may be hungry or thirsty and this is why they are crying in pain. They recognize that their body is in pain for something and they are expressing this pain of want. However, they also notice that the parent is providing for them relief from this want, this pain, through feeding them. Therefore, the infant further notices that he or she can mimic certain sounds the parents make, usually as a cue by the parent to successively approximate a specific word such as carrot or meat, so as to avoid the pain of want which gets worse as time goes on.

Soon, the child is able to acquire a wealth of mimicked behaviors and sounds which serve as a complex of preventing the pain of want. The infant growing into the maturity of childhood, is drawn into a world of language by communicating mimicked sounds and behaviors all related to want and its prevention. He or she learns that it is an 'I' and that this 'I' does things 'for' other things. Subject and predicate are born as to be more specific on what it wants to satisfy its cravings. But the language it develops ultimately grows more and more peripheral to the original motivation of satisfying a desire to where the desires are still there but the object to satisfy the desire is proliferated into many things.

All along, we the parents are under the impression the child is 'learning' through this process. But is this really learning? Or is it adapting? For what did the child 'know' before it had to start mimicking behaviors and focusing all its energies on this (on what brings the body pain and want) and not on those things which feel 'good' to the body? We cannot say what it is since we would be using language we had developed to satisfy the want of satisfaction or rather the negation of pain and want. Ultimately, this really puts into perspective the question of what we really do know. After all, our language could be said to be nothing more than a garden of words and terms grown out of our pain, not out of our joy and happiness. Indeed, the terms joy and happiness, presumably stem from some desire we had as children to avoid pain. It is nothing more than an inspired term from the shadow of joy and happiness.

Indeed, we number things, we count them, as to see some specificity in them. I see one tree, two trees, three and so forth. But their number is only in their being trees. And trees are only those things which have some use for the prevention of pain. Mathematics is painful, not only in practice but ontologically according to this. In short, we only know the shadow of things when we speak of them with the words we have learned in this Life. The awe and wonder the infant experiences which it cannot communicate (for we residents of this world of pain we live in are unfit to give them proper names to use for joy) we see as nonsense and unlearned babblings. But maybe we are the ones babbling, groaning until as the Bible says all of creation gives birth to the joy it has hidden behind the pain of its birth.

Scientific Realism 2

While Materialism is certainly an area of concern for those embracing alternatives, such as Idealism, it is not the only problem that faces those seeking a deeper understanding of reality in a philosophical manner. For I have come to realize that the very field of Philosophy, at least in the modern sense, has isolated itself from any semblance of dialectics; favoring mathematical expositions of logical arguments. This, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. However, when the discipline is flooded with theses that look more like a physicist's blackboard than an earmarked copy of Hegel's 'Phenomenology of Spirit' I think there is a problem. Recently, I was participating in a conversation on the topic of Idealism in a Facebook group centered on the topic of the same name. Some members would make posts in reference to this or that theory related to Idealism, some being more grounded than others.

But there was one post in particular that struck me; and quite frankly gave me a bit of a headache just glancing at it. The post was a complicated series of predicate, modal logic symbols all with technical references to specific arguments in current philosophical circles. These symbols all were related to an analytical abbreviation of recent perspectives on quantum mechanics and its relation to consciousness and mental states. The moderator of the group applauded the poster while I was still sitting there thinking, 'what the hell did I just read?' I began to consider whether I had any idea of what 'real' Philosophy was. Perhaps I had only been able to grasp popularizations or annotations of Philosophical themes. Maybe I hadn't really 'gotten it' as far as Philosophy is concerned. But as I began thinking over the whole thing more clearly, I didn't remember reading these sorts of symbolic representations in earlier works of Philosophy. And, indeed, they were only present in more recent academic philosophical publications. Not all of them, but a large part of current philosophical works embraced this mode of logical exposition and theorizing. One would not find it, however, in European Continental Philosophy, Philosophy of History, Meta-Philosophy and some journals dedicated to Metaphysics. But in spite of this, there is an impression that when one philosophizes, one does nothing but mathematics. And certainly there is a mathematical element to logic. Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens, Syllogisms and etc.

But, after reading a forward to a work by Hegel, I was reminded why I had come to love Philosophy. It was the dialectic that is missing in these modern expressions of the love of wisdom. J. N. Findley once said about Philosophy, and the idealism of Hegel, that "dialectic is a richer and more supple of thought-advance than mathematics." It is the etymologies of words, deductive propositions of ideas and literary tradition of Philosophy that really holds the true basis of wisdom, not simply the concise arithmetic nature of symbolic logic in reference to scientific theories.

Meta Culture and Race

Meta-Culture and Race

In light of the recent events in Ferguson, and in other communities around the country, I find it necessary to elaborate on an issue that seems to emerge and a great deal of confusion is associated with it; racism. Now, the issue of police abuse and brutality is not a race issue in and of itself. For after all there are countless incidents involving police shootings and white residents as well. And so, at base, these are two separate issues. However, in many communities around this nation, there is an outcry of racism. The question then becomes, are these complaints nothing more than ‘sour milk’ from people that have made poor choices in life and thus looking to blame others or is it something else or somewhere in between these two? Here, we will explore these issues and how they pertain to race, poverty and purportedly systemic abuses of power.

Statistical Criminal and Economic Analysis of People of Color in the US

If we are to address the topic of race and more specifically people of color and their association with poverty and crime, we must understand and explore the demographics and statistics concerning them.

Firstly, as far as statistics, African Americans rank highest than any other (White, Hispanic, etc.) in poverty; save Native Americans. For,

Nationwide, during 2007 and 2011, which encompasses the recession and the immediate aftermath, 43 million Americans — or slightly more than 14 percent — lived in poverty. But not every group was impacted equally. The poverty rate was 27 percent for American Indians, 26 percent for African Americans and 23 percent for Hispanics. Among whites and Asians, less than 12 percent were poor. The federal threshold for poverty is about $11,500 in annual income for an individual and about $23,000 for a family of four.1

The economic disparity we see between whites and people of color unfortunately has not diminished in recent years. The civil rights movement decades ago, it would seem (if it is deemed relevant at all) would certainly have had an impact on improving the economic stations of African Americans in our nation. But as the numbers bear out, they have not.

Secondly, crime rates of communities largely African American experience significantly higher crime than those of white communities. Consider this statistic, “the offending rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites, and the victim rate 6 times higher. Most murders were intraracial, with 84% of white homicide victims murdered by whites, and 93% of black victims murdered by blacks.”2 And so, intraracial murders certainly suggests that these are incidents of homocides within the communities of the perpetrators. We could, here, evaluate the panoply of criminal statistics from petty robberies to homocides, but it suffices to say that crime rates are higher in African American communities

Incarceration rates also reflect disparities in whites as opposed to African Americans. Consider this, “According to the BJS non-Hispanic blacks accounted for 39.4% of the prison and jail population in 2009, with whites 34.2%, and Hispanics 20.6%. The incarceration rate of black males was over 6 times higher than that of white males, with a rate of 4,749 per 100,000 US residents.”3

And so, this begs the question, why? Why does it seem that African Americans are more likely to commit crimes than whites, or even hispanics? This is not an easy question to answer. And while many on the right are quick to point out the crime statistics, they are hesitant to offer an answer to this question. For, after all, if one leaves it there, without any qualification or explanation, there is a tendency towards an unspoken racial bigotry.

Race and Culture

And so, are there literal differences biologically between African Americans and Whites, so much so, that this would explain the statistical disparities between the two groups, and others? Some may think so. For accepting blindly differences in say IQ scores by some studies can be take out of context. Consider the recent study conducted by the University of Delaware in reference to IQ disparities and race.

The IQ debate became worldwide in scope when it was shown that East Asians scored higher on IQ tests than did Whites, both within the United States and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro American culture (Lynn, 1977, 1978, 1982; P. E. Vernon, 1979, 1982). Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; that for Whites, about 100; and that for Blacks, about 85 in the United States and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa. Most of the early research was conducted in the United States, but some was also performed in Canada and the Caribbean (Eysenck, 1971, 1984; Jensen, 1969, 1973; Osborne & McGurk, 1982; Shuey, 1958, 1966; cf. Flynn, 1980; Kamin, 1974; Lewontin, Rose, & Kamin, 1984). In the United States, 15% to 20% of the Black IQ distribution exceeds the White median IQ, so many Blacks obtain scores above the White average. This same order of mean group differences is also found on “culture-fair” tests and on reaction time tasks. Hundreds of studies on millions of people have confirmed the three-way racial pattern (Jensen, 1998b; Lynn & Vanhanen, 2002; Rushton, 2000).4

Does this suggest that African Americans are not as intelligent as whites or asians and therefore less likely to make rational decisions; which would explain the higher criminal statistics? Actually not at all. For this study, as any study which examines IQ tests and race, ignore poverty rates in concert with IQ. Consider that “the single most important finding related to the debate over IQ and heredity is the dramatic rise in IQ scores over the past century. This so-called Flynn effect, which was discovered by psychologist James Flynn, undercuts claims that intelligence stems primarily from nature and not nurture.”5 Therefore, it is more likely to suggest that IQ has to do with cultural or economic disparities in society rather than biological ones.

Since IQ has more to do with situational rather than biological factors, could this also be true as to criminal statistics? If it is the case that IQ is situational and cultural, why not criminal and aggressive trends we see? In a recent interview with Psychology professor Andrew Ward, there seems to be a clear connection between communities of poverty, not merely the conditions of individual poverty. For, “from a psychological perspective, Ward said there was very little connection between poverty and crime. Rather, it is the environment of poverty that can lead people to commit crimes. “It’s not just being poor, but it’s being around lots of poor people,” Ward said. “The relationship between poverty and crime is in areas of concentrated poverty, like these inner city areas.” Ward said living in an area of concentrated poverty can be a catalyst for futility. “It can be a contributing factor of hopelessness and despair,” he said. “‘What do I have to lose? I might as well commit a crime.’ But really, anyone can go into despair.” Another factor is what Ward called the “escalation of violence.” “There is phenomenon among people who live in concentrated poverty,” Ward said. “I call it pre-emptive aggression. If you’re someone who lives in an area that’s kind of dangerous, you commit an act of crime so people know not to mess with you. You need to show you’re tough, but now I have to be tougher than you, so I need to go commit a worse crime.”6

In conclusion, it would seem that the answer to our earlier question is clear, ‘why is there more crime in African American communities?’ Because there is more poverty in them. And to suggest that African Americans are more prone to violence and criminal behavior because of race confuses the situation of poverty most find themselves in and the statistics. For, generations of hopelessness and poverty are just expressed in the facts of poverty in African American communities.

A Brief History of Racism and a Possible Future Solution to it

It isn’t enough to state a problem. For leaving it there without looking toward a solution is not only negligent but lazy. And the best way to understand the cause of the problem, which would help navigate towards a solution, is by looking back at history.

Historically, North Africa was a large part of Western culture going back to Phoenician settlements, Hellenistic culture and the Roman Empire. More specifically, Greek city states (as well as Roman imperialism) had a distinct character that is absent in modern times. For although each state, or Roman province, was made up of varying peoples from different regions and thus 'racial’ backgrounds, they had a common cultural character to them that united them. We could call this a meta-culture that, like the sky, everyone stood under. Likewise, the Roman Empire, which resembled the Hellenistic one prior to it save its central control of imperial policies, embraced its diversity while maintaining a cultural unity that defined everyone within the Empire as a ‘Roman.’

However, after the fall of the Roman Empire, and with the advent of the Dark Ages, provinces returned to local control and significantly reduced mobility within a larger imperial community. The ‘sky’ of meta-culture had dissolved and all that was left was regional isolationism. And while figures such as Charlemagne attempted to re-establish the metropolitan character of Rome, all this resulted in was the establishment of centers of learning and academia; rediscovering works of Latin that had been lost for almost a century. Therefore, the fuedal elites were privvy to education and the masses reduced to serfdom and local toil of the land.

In light of this Dark Age that evolved into a Medieval established feudalism, suspicion of ‘foreigners’ was equated with threats to local established order. What had been a tradition of slavery for conquered enemies in Greece and Rome would become one of enslavement of those in regions underdeveloped and foreign to the ‘enlightened’ cultures of the Enlightenment and beyond. Therefore, diaspora of Africans and others from far away lands as conquered by states that had emerged from the ashes of Rome would ignore the cosmopolitan ‘meta- cultural sky’ of the greater society of Man and enslave an entire continent of people. As a result, an entire culture would be disenfranchised for the sake of ensuring a class of agricultural landlords in places like the Caribbean, Deep South and other places around the globe.

The solution therefore is quite simple, a return to the metropolitanism of Greece and Rome. For, although even in our nation, we have universal principles that unite us in principle, we do not have a culture that unites us as a people; like that of the ancients. We need to promote a meta-culture that transcends white, black, hispanic, etc. Obviously the implementation of such a cultural change is not one that is simple, but at least we understand what needs to be done.

1. Morello, Carol. Poverty Rates Higher for Blacks and Hispanics than Whites and Asians. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/poverty-rates-higher-for-blacks-and-hispanics-than-whites-and-asians/2013/02/20/401e6a6e-7b78-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_story.html.

2. Cooper, Alexia (2012). Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980-2008. p. 3. ISBN 1249573246.

3. Kouzmin, Alexander (2012). State Crimes Against Democracy: Political Forensics in Public Affairs. p. 138. ISBN 1137286989.

4. Rushton, Phillipe J. and Jensen, Arthur J. Thirty Years of Research on Race: Differences in Cognitive Ability http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

5. Horgan, John. Should Research on Race and IQ be Banned? Scientific American. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2013/05/16/should-research-on-race-and-iq-be-banned/

6. Markeley, Ben. Poverty on Trial: Does Poverty Cause Crime? http://blogs.jccc.edu/campusledger/2012/05/08/poverty-on-trial-does-poverty-cause-crime/

Scientific Realism part 1

I have debated and discussed this topic with many people and the issue always comes up of the burden of proof. For more often than not, many that claim to be materialists, and atheists in virtue of naturalism and materialism (although they never claim to be materialists-just atheists), suggest that if one believes in metaphysics, the afterlife, God and the like proclaim that the burden of proof lies with the metaphysician. This is due to what they say are superfluous claims that are not found in observation. In short, this sort of atheist suggests that their view of reality is an observed view, while the contrary one is based on fantasy and imagination. But is physicalism observed? I mean, does one 'observe' hydrogen? Does one 'observe' photosynthesis? Does one 'observe' gravitational orbits? The answer may surprise you. For the materialist atheist, the answer is yes. But he or she fails to realize that scientific descriptions are NOT observations. Observations are precisely those phenomena in our consciousness. Observations are 'things' we are aware of and nothing more. The moment we start to describe them as to understand them, we assign to them some grand vision of reality that helps us make sense of the whole of it and the things we experience. The sky overhead, the grass and soil below, the stars in motion, the swirling microscopic particles all succumb to our definitions of them which fit into a genera philosophie. In the strictest sense, observation is phenomenology. Terms we use to describe what we experience reduce it's raw nature to a palpable schematic. And so, the 'burden of proof' is no less in the hands of the metaphysician as the physician. When we say a person is a human being and a human being is a mammal and a mammal is a biological organism we are appealing to a taxonomy with a rather complex layered set of beliefs about the world. The metaphysician does not deny that people are mammals. But when the materialist states as such, he or she is not using the same taxonomic set of assumptions the metaphysician is. For the materialist assumes the mind emerges from biology while the metaphysician does not. But to stand on the 'burden of proof' in favor of the former is to suggest that biology is observed while souls are not; when neither are observed. One does not observe biology, one describes what one observes AS biological. And so does the one describe conscious states AS of the soul. So, let the atheist assume he or she has the higher rational ground to stand on. For in reality, we are all stuck in the cave forced to see shadows of things and describe them the best we can.

Ferguson

As to what happened in Ferguson, should we be surprised? This has been brewing for years, like a kettle of coffee spilling over. But what is to come? And even more, what is the cause of it all? These are tricky questions to answer, and personally I do not think anyone has an answer to them fully. However, if I were to guess, I would say that it perhaps has something to do with the way our culture has developed. We have seen the middle class shrink significantly. We have made no attempts at stabilizing our economy as to ensure economic equality, at least on a reasonable level. The race issue in our country has more to do with poverty than with anything in my view. Until we address these issues, we are doomed as a nation.

I am beginning to think that what we call Science is an uncritical, non-philosophized examination of experience. For modern Philosophy is nothing more than the Science of reality. Traditional Philosophy would tell us not 'what' something is, but 'how' we come to know anything at all, what we know, how we know it, whether we can know this or that and why we can and cannot know certain things. Not until these questions are answered can we proceed to a science about anything. But we have proceeded. We were far to antsy to get things done, we forgot why we were doing them in the first place and what we were doing it with. Science uses a fabric that it does not understand, but takes for granted it is of a certain sort and quality. Too many assumptions. That is all!