Oil fire, Orange County, 1909
From David Brooks’ column this morning: High-Five Nation.
On V-J Day, Frank Sinatra appeared [on the show “Command Performance,” broadcast on the radio], along with Marlene Dietrich, Jimmy Durante, Dinah Shore, Bette Davis, Lionel Barrymore, Cary Grant and many others. But the most striking feature of the show was its tone of self-effacement and humility. The allies had, on that very day, completed one of the noblest military victories in the history of humanity. And yet there was no chest-beating. Nobody was erecting triumphal arches.On the bright side, here's a fine discussion of UFOs (that's full of scientific humility):
“All anybody can do is thank God it’s over,” Bing Crosby, the show’s host, said. “Today our deep down feeling is one of humility,” he added.
…
Today, immodesty is as ubiquitous as advertising, and for the same reasons. To scoop up just a few examples of self-indulgent expression from the past few days, there is Joe Wilson using the House floor as his own private “Crossfire”; there is Kanye West grabbing the microphone from Taylor Swift at the MTV Video Music Awards to give us his opinion that the wrong person won; there is Michael Jordan’s egomaniacal and self-indulgent Hall of Fame speech. Baseball and football games are now so routinely interrupted by self-celebration, you don’t even notice it anymore.
This isn’t the death of civilization. It’s just the culture in which we live. And from this vantage point, a display of mass modesty, like the kind represented on the V-J Day “Command Performance,” comes as something of a refreshing shock, a glimpse into another world. It’s funny how the nation’s mood was at its most humble when its actual achievements were at their most extraordinary.
Logicians talk about the "appeal to ignorance" fallacy. It works like this:
Nobody's disproved the existence of Bigfoot. That's evidence that Bigfoot exists!
OR
Nobody's proved the existence of Bigfoot. That's evidence that Bigfoot does not exist!Wrong on both counts.
20 comments:
Just finished the Brooks essay and was about to send it your way -
What made you think I'd like this essay? (Unaware of how I seem to people.) -R
“We won this war because our men are brave and because of many things — because of Russia, England and China and the passage of time and the gift of nature’s material. We did not win it because destiny created us better than all other peoples. I hope that in victory we are more grateful than we are proud.” - Ernie Pyle
That's poetic - I love it. It makes me feel grateful just reading it.
ES
I, too, was surprised that something so wonderful could be uttered (or written) by someone in that time and place. -R
Humility. Funny you should mention that.
Something that I read tonight that is perhaps apropos here:
'We have seen that there exist pathologies in religion that are extremely dangerous and that make it necessary to see the divine light of reason as a "controlling organ." Religion must continually allow itself to be purified and structured by reason; and this was the view of the Church Fathers, too. However, we have also seen in the course of our reflections that there are also pathologies of reason, although mankind in general is not as conscious of this fact today. There is a hubris of reason that is no less dangerous. Indeed, bearing in mind its potential effects, it poses an even greater threat--it suffices here to think of the atomic bomb or of man as a "product." This is why reason, too, must be warned to keep within its proper limits, and it must learn a willingness to listen to the great religious traditions of mankind. If it cuts itself completely adrift and rejects this willingness to learn, this relatedness, reason becomes destructive...Accordingly, I would speak of a necessary relatedness between reason and faith and between reason and religion, which are called to purify and help one another. They need each other, and they must acknowledge this mutual need.'
-Joseph Ratzinger, in Habermas and Ratzinger, _The Dialectics of Secularization_ (77-78)
Oh, boy; here we go again. The atomic bomb is not a product of reason, but of men who had (and perhaps lacked) certain VALUES and did not find the pursuing of such a weapon to be morally problematic.
Reason is not the culprit. We've had lengthy discussions of this before--not that it isn't worth revisiting.
By the way, reason (or reasonableness) has a built-in humility, for the wise: when we think how often we've been mistaken before, using our reason tells us to be humble about what we might be mistaken about now. For instance, the scientific establishment used to think that human infants couldn't feel pain, or at least wouldn't remember it, so that surgery on babies was done without anesthetics--and without qualms. Many eminent minds thought once that animals such as dogs pinned to vivisection tables didn't feel pain.
So it behooves us to be agnostic, cautious, and humble about what else we may not know--e.g., which animals might feel pain even though they are quite differently built than us. A good use of our reasoning abilities dictates such humility.
So I don't see any hubris of reason, myself, for the well-trained and morally conscientious.
MAH
Ratzinger offers the view that reason (the use of reason) is vulnerable to “hubris.” Well, reason, like anything, can be misused. I have no quarrel with that idea.
My problem is with Ratzinger’s account of what must be present to prevent this “hubris” or misuse. According to Ratzinger, it is something transmitted to people by “the great religious traditions of mankind.”
But why must the needed wisdom (or humility or….) derive from beliefs in a God or supernatural being? On Aristotle’s conception of morality, the needed wisdom derived, not from a supernatural being, but from purposes embedded in the natural world. On Kant’s conception of morality, the needed wisdom derived, not from the “divine light,” but from reason. In my own life, moral notions are important, and they would inhibit development of doomsday weapons and such. But my moral wisdom, such as it is, requires no divine being.
Ratzinger “begs a question.” That is, his critique of reason assumes that only religion can temper the pursuit of knowledge and technology. He must argue for that notion, not simply assume it as true. Prima facie, the world comprises numerous wise and moral people who would direct and monitor knowledge and technology without appealing to the pronouncements or spooky intimations of “the Lord” and his alleged surrogates.
All of the world’s great and looming problems are tied to the large size of the human population. What stands in the way of the obvious solution—namely, discouraging the unfettered propogation of humanity? --Ratzinger’s alleged religious wisdom, for one.
How fortunate we are the so many the world honor the wisdom of Ratzinger’s God! --RB
It seems to me that the view I expressed above is well complemented by MAH's perspective (above). In any case, having reread the latter, I think it is wise and right. --RB
RE "All of the world’s great and looming problems are tied to the large size of the human population."
I respectfully disagree. We could reduce the entire human population down to two brothers, and Cain might still murder Abel.
Sure, but no matter how messed up these two are, they're not gonna cause global warming, are they? --R
It would be easy to reduce the population of the earth swiftly to a number under, say, a few million. (Do the math. It's all about replacement numbers.) Imagine a world with small populations. Rivalry, resentment, etc., would be greatly reduced. Resources would be plentiful. Beautiful things could be left alone, unmolested. What sort of person would not see the advantages of such a world?
Only the religious can be that blind.
Oh, I don't know about that - there may be some non-religious who ARE that blind, and I personally know a few religious people who would agree with you about population issues.
ES
Thanks, RB at 9:23. Some of our points overlap, but perhaps are just expressed differently. (That is, reason can be misused--but perhaps won't be by the careful, humble, and morally conscientious.)
Nice point about religion NOT being the only (or even a good) corrective to hubris with respect to technology, scientific advancement, etc.
It's amazing to me how many people still don't see that wisdom, virtue, conscientiousness, and excellent behavior can (and so often does) exist in the complete absence of religious belief.
One more sign of our reeeeally ignorant and badly-educated population, I guess.
Cheers,
MAH
Well, let's review.
1. RB at 2:17 says "no matter how messed up these two are, they're not gonna cause global warming" as a sort of premise for "All of the world’s great and looming problems are tied to the large size of the human population."
RB seems to miss that the Cain and Abel point is a counter-example to his "all" claim. He sites one of the world's problems that is caused by the "large size of human population," and infers that "all" of the world's problems have similar causes. Looks like an unjustified generalization to me.
(Watch out for those attempts to justify "all" statements, Chunkster. It's sometimes harder than it looks.)
2.Anon at 2:21 just "begs the question" against the two brothers point, in the logical sense of Begging the Question, so well explained recently here by RB. Or maybe Anon at 2:21 just misses the point altogether.
3. MAH at 3:40, with "...One more sign of our reeeeally ignorant and badly-educated population, I guess" goes ad hominem-abusive. Of course, that's pretty typical around these parts, in DtB land.
Hasty Genealization, Begging the Question, and ad hominem arguments, all with the pretense of defending "reason." Nice job, everyone.
Sort of like Amateur Hour in the Culture of Death.
The troll still lurks!
I just want to point out that Roy made his population point about the world's "great and looming problems," not all of the world's problems. So you just got that one dead-wrong, grumpy. One murder is not one of the word's "great and looming problems," though it's a real bummer, of course.
And not every comment that is negative about others is an ad hominem. An ad hominem uses a personal attack to avoid or ignore an argument. My comment is clearly an appended commentary that refers to many a blog discussion, and makes a generalization that is so well-supported (and is not a *universal* claim, of course) that it's pretty much common knowledge among social critics.
You really are not the logical whiz you wish to be, 4:53.
I will try hard not to feed the trolls any more, though, Chunk.
MAH
Well, MAH, I can't resist either. 4:53 sounds like that incorrigible troll who used to show up here and pound away at a point despite endless utter refutation. Maybe she's a birther too.
MAH, you are right on target. I tied "All of the world’s great and looming problems" to population size. I chose my words fairly carefully. I did not say "all problems." Whatever evil Cain or Abel hatch, it is not liable to be "great and looming."
As for 2:21 "begging the question," in all honesty, I simply have no idea what 4:53 is talking about. And, naturally, I quite agree that "not every comment that is negative about others is an ad hominem."
I took you to be saying that it is quite plain that the world contains numerous virtuous and wise non-theists--a truth impossible to miss if one reads literature and knows history--and the fact that many do not recognize this (cf. Dennis Prager's endless query: if there is no God, why be moral?) is evidence of widespread ignorance.
No ad hominem there.
You watch. This troll is not finished.
You're right about 2:21, RB; this is in no sense begging the question. The poster makes a claim and backs it up with strong evidence, very concisely but convincingly. No fallacy even pretending to lurk around there.
I'm sorry that I didn't notice that earlier!
MAH
If population is the reason for all of the world's great and looming problems, well, shoot, why don't we just do like Braniac in Superman comics where he shrunk down a`whole Krypton city so it would fit in a little bottle he kept on the shelf in his laboratory?
Throw in a few chicken MacNuggets and a package of frozen vegetables once a week and nobody's hungry. Toss in a couple of Krugeraands, and everyone would be rich, too!
Some people would have to live outside the bottle, of course, (and I always imagine myself as an outside-the-bottle guy). Is that like the glass being half-empty or half-full? Ummmm, never mind.
But it sure would be groovy outside the bottle. When the refrigerator is empty and all the dishes are dirty, I could just move next door. And when my car ran out of gas, I'd just drive my neighbor's!
Sure beats the plague. Or WW III. Get the Goo on this one, and quick. We'll put him in the same bottle with Cain and Abel.
Post a Comment