Sorry Angela Carter, I just couldn't convince myself that I enjoyed your novel. I just didn't.
I'm not sure I know why. It's packed full of analysable literary stuff, and is nice and straight-forward to read. All good right? Seemingly not.
Was it just too feminine for my tastes? I'm in no way anti-feminism. The Magic Toyshop is largely a feminist book with a female protagonist, but am I really so prejudice that this should put me off? I liked The Hunger Games, and that had a female protagonist. Although, that was less about gender-roles, and more about a strong, independent female character. Furthermore, the character Finn in The Magic Toyshop goes through more character development than Melanie and is very likeable. Why couldn't I get interested?
Perhaps I'll never know.
Again, sorry Angela Carter. I'm sure you're a good righter and all that, but I just couldn't get you.
I didn't like the semi-Freudian psycho-analytic feminists either. Sigh.
31 January 2013
Philosophy: My Spectrum/Continuum Theory
An uncontroversial theory of mine that many agree with but I thought was worth spelling out clearly.
Academics often use the phrase continuum. I use it interchangeably with spectrum.
Much of the world is made up of spectra. Most categories are arbitrary human distinction where there are scales of change with no definitive categories between similar things
The obvious example is colour. This is a scientific example that shows that there is no point at which you go from blue to yellow. You have to go through green. Before that you have to go through turquoise etc.
The same is true of more than you might think
Academics often use the phrase continuum. I use it interchangeably with spectrum.
Much of the world is made up of spectra. Most categories are arbitrary human distinction where there are scales of change with no definitive categories between similar things
The obvious example is colour. This is a scientific example that shows that there is no point at which you go from blue to yellow. You have to go through green. Before that you have to go through turquoise etc.
The same is true of more than you might think
For example:
- The development from a foetus to a person. There is no definitive moment where a foetus becomes a person: it is a gradual process. Perhaps the true spectrum here is non-person to person with foetus, child, comatose person and normal adult etc all a points on this scale, with many factors contributing
- The difference between philosophy and science.
Phil. - Ethics - Aesthetics - Free will - Conscience - 0 - Neurosci. - Cosmology - Quantum phy. - Science
- The difference between a religion and a cult.
- The difference between heroism and cowardice
Phil. - Ethics - Aesthetics - Free will - Conscience - 0 - Neurosci. - Cosmology - Quantum phy. - Science
- The difference between a religion and a cult.
- The difference between heroism and cowardice
- The difference between healthy and sick.
If you apply this to morality, which I believe we must, there are some serious repercussions.
Since morality derives from the maximisation of human flourishing, moral and immoral actions are just different points on a spectrum of morality (the scale being net well-being). There isn't a clear split between good deeds and sin. The religious stance that divides sin and good deeds with harsh lines with no crossover is non-maintainable.
Unless, they say that sins are deeds which have negative well-being and moral action are deeds on the positive end of the spectrum. However, this is not how the religious mind works. Because evil is specified by what God says (coveting your neighbour's goods is put on the same level as murder, along with keeping the Sabbath), then there is split that is not consequential. The religious stance is a Venn diagram with no cross-over area. However, in my world-view, these sins all have different degrees of wickedness, occupying different points on the scale.
There is therefore a point at which the categories can be separated (0 on the scale) but not everything in each category is therefore the same. There are degrees of morality.
You could say the same of the healthy/sick distinction. The scale is net healthiness, with negative and positive aspects being weighed up. A person can be healthy in many ways, but they shift onto the negative end of the spectrum because of a disease that has symptoms bad enough to make net healthiness negative. But not everyone that is unhealthy has the same amount of unhealthiness.
The point is, think of spectra wherever they apply and there may be consequences necessary to think about. It is necessary to consider what decides where things go on the scale. For example, when trying to work out what is a religion and what is a cult, first we must decide what goes on the scale. Here they may be lots of factors and the model becomes complex (size of the group, practises, methods of recruitment, absurdity of belief etc). It is then important to notice that actually no group can be asserted as either cult or religion. They are just at different points on a scale with cult at one end and religion at the other.
You will never find something that goes right on the end of a scale so that it is entirely one thing and not the other. Everything is useful and harmful. Every discipline in philosophy or science has aspects of both. If these things are subject to a scale, they cannot be all the way at one end.
If you apply this to morality, which I believe we must, there are some serious repercussions.
Since morality derives from the maximisation of human flourishing, moral and immoral actions are just different points on a spectrum of morality (the scale being net well-being). There isn't a clear split between good deeds and sin. The religious stance that divides sin and good deeds with harsh lines with no crossover is non-maintainable.
Unless, they say that sins are deeds which have negative well-being and moral action are deeds on the positive end of the spectrum. However, this is not how the religious mind works. Because evil is specified by what God says (coveting your neighbour's goods is put on the same level as murder, along with keeping the Sabbath), then there is split that is not consequential. The religious stance is a Venn diagram with no cross-over area. However, in my world-view, these sins all have different degrees of wickedness, occupying different points on the scale.
There is therefore a point at which the categories can be separated (0 on the scale) but not everything in each category is therefore the same. There are degrees of morality.
You could say the same of the healthy/sick distinction. The scale is net healthiness, with negative and positive aspects being weighed up. A person can be healthy in many ways, but they shift onto the negative end of the spectrum because of a disease that has symptoms bad enough to make net healthiness negative. But not everyone that is unhealthy has the same amount of unhealthiness.
The point is, think of spectra wherever they apply and there may be consequences necessary to think about. It is necessary to consider what decides where things go on the scale. For example, when trying to work out what is a religion and what is a cult, first we must decide what goes on the scale. Here they may be lots of factors and the model becomes complex (size of the group, practises, methods of recruitment, absurdity of belief etc). It is then important to notice that actually no group can be asserted as either cult or religion. They are just at different points on a scale with cult at one end and religion at the other.
You will never find something that goes right on the end of a scale so that it is entirely one thing and not the other. Everything is useful and harmful. Every discipline in philosophy or science has aspects of both. If these things are subject to a scale, they cannot be all the way at one end.
Freedom - quick thought
In studying my module Ideas of Freedom, this thought occurred to me in regards to the nature of freedom
Freedom is not just being able to do what you want: it is about having options available to you.
Even if the one option open to you is what you desire, that is not freedom. That is akin to a benevolent dictatorship
It is important that we are free to behave irrationally, immorally and even against our own will, even though we never would follow those paths.
E.g.
You want chocolate ice cream
You are force fed chocolate ice cream
= not free
You want chocolate ice cream
There is a choice between chocolate and vanilla
You eat the chocolate
= free
Note:
To read:
'Freedom' Tim Grey - 2 chap. online
Addition:
We are now studying Free Will, and it seems that everything we do has a cause. However, this seems fine to me, as long as the cause comes from ourselves. Perhaps determinism is true, but the type of freedom we need for our lives to have meaning is not incompatible with this. The importance of options is even more important, because we are freer to pursue whatever desires we please.
Freedom is not just being able to do what you want: it is about having options available to you.
Even if the one option open to you is what you desire, that is not freedom. That is akin to a benevolent dictatorship
It is important that we are free to behave irrationally, immorally and even against our own will, even though we never would follow those paths.
E.g.
You want chocolate ice cream
You are force fed chocolate ice cream
= not free
You want chocolate ice cream
There is a choice between chocolate and vanilla
You eat the chocolate
= free
Note:
To read:
'Freedom' Tim Grey - 2 chap. online
Addition:
We are now studying Free Will, and it seems that everything we do has a cause. However, this seems fine to me, as long as the cause comes from ourselves. Perhaps determinism is true, but the type of freedom we need for our lives to have meaning is not incompatible with this. The importance of options is even more important, because we are freer to pursue whatever desires we please.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)