“The intersection of philosophy and public life” and the Enlightenment

“The intersection of philosophy and public life” and the Enlightenment

Good thinking and dialogue are more important than ever. In this episode, host Dr. Laurance Splitter begins by reflecting on topics previously discussed, including: social and cultural polarization; the challenge of having dialogue when those involved not only disagree, but show no respect or empathy for their opponents; the positive value of uncertainty; immigration, housing, youth crime, and education; and the underlying theme of regarding ourselves as each “one among others”, which avoids the extremes of individualism and collectivism. Laurance also revisits his view of philosophy as contributing to such topics in terms of both content and process, which can be traced back to antiquity. Laurance advocates for reasonableness which has both cognitive and affective dimensions (“being appropriately moved by reasons”), and which offers a way forward when facing such challenges as balancing our reasoning “riders” and our emotive/intuitive “elephants”, and becoming trapped in the “echo chambers” of social media, which reinforce herd-like or tribal thinking, rather than producing thoughtful dialogue. Laurance reminds listeners of the normative ideal of a community of inquiry, which has a practical role to play, both in formal education and other social environments. He also ponders the tricky issue of responding, respectfully, to those who express views which are morally repugnant or logically incoherent. Laurance endorses a recent essay called “Flickering Enlightenment”, whose author questions some of the historical repercussions of Enlightenment thinking which include the ongoing disputes between political extremes, while underscoring the importance of thinking which is both critical and intellectually humble. He also cites the views of philosopher Hannah Arendt who wrote about the dangers of totalitarian domination when ordinary citizens ignore the difference between truth and fiction, and refuse to think for themselves. Finally, Laurance reflects on the connection between thinking and talking (more precisely, good thinking and dialogue), and reiterates that talking (and listening) produce thinking as much as they communicate it.  Connect with Dr. Laurance Splitter: LinkedIn [https://www.linkedin.com/in/laurance-splitter-69225b28/?originalSubdomain=au]

A Dialogue about “Dialogue”

Are there different types of dialogues with different aims and structures? In this episode, Dr. Laurance Splitter finally engages in a real dialogue with another person, in this case, Professor Maughn Rollins Gregory, Director of the Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children in the USA, and an outstanding scholar and teacher in both education and philosophy. Maughn has written extensively about the nature of dialogue itself and this is the subject of their conversation. In previous episodes, Laurance expressed some puzzlement over the question of whether there are different forms of dialogue with different aims and structures. He and Maughn share a common background in the theory and practice of the community of inquiry, where the inquiry – and the ensuing dialogue – are driven by a commitment to solving a problem or answering a question which is puzzling or intriguing. In this kind of process, our reasoning “riders” tend to lead the way over our more intuitive or emotive “elephants” (using a metaphor previously attributed to Jonathan Haidt), although it will still be driven by such emotions as curiosity, surprise, wonder, intellectual humility, etc. In previous episodes, Laurance has proposed a slogan for this kind of inquiry and dialogue: we aim for truth but are extremely wary of proclaiming that we have found it. Coming from the philosophical tradition of American Pragmatism, Maughn prefers to talk about aiming for what is most reasonable to believe, rather than for truth per se, but they are willing to live with this difference for the sake of the discussion. Laurance invites Maughn to address types of dialogue that are not part of, or aimed at, inquiry, particularly the dialogue required when different groups not only disagree on fundamental issues, but are being led by their rampaging “elephants” which prevent any real dialogue from even taking place, because each side is so committed to its own narrative that it does not even recognize the legitimacy of the other side. In short, they are not willing or able to treat one another as persons. Citing scholars including Emily Robertson, Douglas Walton, Cleo Cherry Holmes, Miles Holton and Stephen Festmeier, Maughn provides some examples of different sorts of dialogue with their own aims and structures (aiming at affirming solidarity or strengthening relationships, or developing a mutual sense of personhood through group dynamic exercises where inquiry itself is not involved, etc.). Those engaged in such dialogues are often learning how to negotiate together; there is no “truth” to be discovered or constructed, rather the aim is working out what we can all live with. Maughn and Laurance agree that regardless of which type of dialogue is involved, neither those directly engaged or those looking on from outside should try to pre-empt the outcomes of the dialogue. Like inquiry, dialogue has a life of its own and we should follow it where it leads.  Connect with Dr. Laurance Splitter: LinkedIn [https://www.linkedin.com/in/laurance-splitter-69225b28/?originalSubdomain=au]

Identity (Cont’d)

Tying up some loose ends…. In this episode, host Dr. Laurance Splitter provides further clarification of the concept of quantitative, or strict, identity. Objects and people can and do change – we call this “qualitative change” – but such change makes sense only on the assumption that the objects in question remain “the same objects”, i.e. literally identical. We see this idea in such intuitive examples as “That individual was slim and healthy 20 years ago, but is now overweight and unwell”. This point applies both to people (or human beings) and objects. In simple logical terms, quantitative identity is involved whenever we pick out or refer to something or someone, while qualitative identity (or similarity) is about properties or characteristics that the objects picked out have in common. Logically and grammatically, words or phrases that perform the latter function are called “predicates”. However, even the simple act of picking something out has a conceptual component, because we assume that the object picked out is of a certain kind. So, While specifying and defining such kinds is not always a trivial matter, we need to do this, otherwise we would have no basis on which to assert that the object in question continues to exist (albeit through qualitative change) or ceases to exist. The oak tree survives being lopped, or losing its leaves, but not being chopped down and turned into firewood. The same holds when the object is a person or human being, although there is a long-standing dispute about which of these classifications, if either, matches the kind of individual that we each are. This dispute bears on another fundamental question about our own identities: are our existence and identity a purely physical matter, or do they have a psychological component (such as consciousness, in John Locke’s terms)? Noting that words standing for kinds are, themselves, predicates, Laurance explains that like all predicates, we normally take for granted that more than one object or person will belong to a given kind, which he summarizes by claiming that when we refer to something – i.e. one particular individual – we are assuming that that individual is one among others, i.e. one among others of the same kind. When the kind in question includes such individuals as you and me, we can add that regarding ourselves and one another as persons involves being aware of ourselves as one among others. Arguably, no other object has this level of awareness. While this sophisticated attribute is one that distinguishes us from non persons (language might be another), it also confirms our status as moral beings who can be held responsible and accountable for their actions. This point is in line with the long-standing historical claim that morality and personhood go together (although we are left with questions about the moral status of a human fetus or someone with severe dementia, on the one hand, and higher mammals, aliens and, needless to say, AI, on the other). Laurance then points out that regarding ourselves as one among others – i.e. any others – offers a relational perspective on who we are, that avoids the extremes of individualism and collectivism, as previously described. Freed from the hopeless task of trying to find those specific qualities that define persons uniquely by grouping them with others, each of us is who we are for as long as we exist. And we can, at least to an extent, view the qualitative changes that we undergo – whether by choice or otherwise – with a sense of equanimity, because none of them defines us. Laurance then offers a suggestion about how we might interpret the concept of social identity, once we accept that our own individual identities are not given in social – i.e. qualitative – terms. He also expresses some residual doubt that the deeper questions about our own status as persons have been completely answered. Does my understanding of my own subjective awareness allow me to perceive or experience myself actually engaged in the process of picking something out? Might I still demand to “see” this self which is consciously making decisions and choices based on such psychological factors as my beliefs, my desires, and my intentions? Finally, Laurance looks at the challenges confronting those whose “tribal” convictions prevent them from acknowledging that those with whom they disagree on fundamental issues are, indeed, persons and deserve to be treated as such.  Connect with Dr. Laurance Splitter: LinkedIn [https://www.linkedin.com/in/laurance-splitter-69225b28/?originalSubdomain=au]

Identity

A concept both familiar and puzzling. In this episode, host Dr. Laurance Splitter begins with some examples which reveal that the ideaof identity has been, and is still, used to mean different things. Heraclitus asserted that no man can step into the same river twice, because it is not the same river and he is not the same man; a parent insists that their child can’t wear the same shirt again because it is dirty; and a party-goer laments that someone else is wearing exactly the same jacket that she just purchased forthe occasion. Laurance provides a brief historical account of the concept of identity, particularly since Enlightenment times, pointing out that when applied to persons and not just objects, identityover time – where we assert that A and B are the same – can have either a quantitative or aqualitative sense: the former when we mean that A and B are literally one and the same individual, and the latter when we mean either that A and B share certain characteristics or qualities – including identifying with the same group or collective (nation, religion, culture…), or that A and B can never be the same because at least some of A’s qualities have changed by thetime “it” becomes B. Qualitative interpretations of sameness are common in the social sciences,which (confusingly) combine individual and social identity. And the rejection of any kind of stableidentity has been expressed within Postmodernism and Buddhism. In closing the episode, Laurance indicates that in the next episode he will defend a quantitativesense of identity when it comes to individual objects and persons, one which steers a pathbetween the extremes of crude individualism and tribal collectivism. He leaves listeners hangingwith a familiar example of the school photo (“Can you find me in the photo of my 3 rd grade class?”), and the hint of a logical distinction between words that pick out, or refer to, things(including people), and words that characterize, group, or describe those things picked out. Quantitative or strict identity focuses on the former, while qualitative identity (or similarity) getsinto trouble by focusing on the latter. He finishes with a promise to reveal how getting clearabout identity in general, and personal identity in particular, will pave the way toward resolvingsome of the social, political and moral problems confronting us today. Connect with Dr. Laurance Splitter: LinkedIn [https://www.linkedin.com/in/laurance-splitter-69225b28/?originalSubdomain=au]

Immigration

Why is the topic of immigration so socially divisive?  In this episode, host Dr. Laurance Splitter begins with several disclaimers, which include avoiding the explicitly political dimensions of immigration (which, inevitably, focus on extreme positions), and also making reference to specific religious or cultural groups. Listeners are invited to make these connections for themselves. Laurance makes a distinction between factual issues regarding immigration – where immigrants to Australia have come from, the reasons people have sought to migrate, and the criteria or standards which are applied in determining who should, or should not, be permitted to immigrate – and issues which are best described as ethical and emotional (although this distinction is far from clear). Among those seeking to migrate are those classified as refugees or asylum seekers, which suggests another distinction: that between practical or utilitarian considerations (the impact on housing or employment, etc.) – i.e. how immigration affects our own country and its existing citizens – and considerations based on compassion and care for those seeking refuge and safety because of the dangerous, even life-threatening conditions in their home countries. After asking the question “What is the ideal population size for our country?” – and realizing how difficult it is to answer – Laurance moves to consider the contentious issue of Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers who have sought refuge in precarious circumstances (often on overcrowded boats managed by people smugglers). He admits to feeling a sense of shame on this topic, particularly because the major political parties have been unanimous in ruling that such individuals will never be allowed to settle permanently in Australia. Laurance then considers the question that is central in the minds of many Australians (likewise in many other countries): “Who are those seeking to migrate and, specifically, are they sufficiently ‘like us’?” Key examples are the members of certain religious and cultural groups, and people arriving from countries which have a history of violence. Laurance raises questions about multiculturalism and diversity, and asks what the oft-used term “Australian values” actually stands for, other than those values which are associated with universal human decency and ethics. He then returns to a recurring theme and asks whether our primary concern should be the values and practices of different cultural groups, or those of specific individuals. The episode concludes with a question: “Is there a moral imperative to help relieve the lives of distant strangers whose lives are impoverished and endangered, when doing so is likely to produce greater strain on those at home who may already be struggling by their own standards.?” Dare we hope that such questions could be discussed with sensitivity and respect, without being sucked into familiar political stereotypes?  Connect with Dr. Laurance Splitter: LinkedIn [https://www.linkedin.com/in/laurance-splitter-69225b28/?originalSubdomain=au]