Number 91 : March 1998 |
With lots more cross-referencing.....
Theo Todman (90/4) : An academic Mentor might produce a clash of ideas on the style or standard of philosophy in this hallowed journal! Is 'Philosophy Now' judged or censored at all ?
Nina Burton (90/15) - Philosophy and Evolution : Are we really the first truly self-aware form of life ? Regardless of the problem of identifying the first 'real' human being, I think it's impossible to conclusively prove an absence of self-awareness in other animals. If we assume that other living things do think, then we should have more respect for the environment! Maybe tofu will go to heaven...(86/3.4)
Better to side-step the question by arguing that we cannot consciously realise any form of self-awareness other than our own. So we are the final step of the evolutionary ladder leading to human beings, but not the one leading to (eg.) dolphins or termites. We believe humans are more important because we are human (Rick Street, 89/31.6).
Vijai Parhar (90/24.2ff) : I don't agree with the idea that materialistic or dispassionate observations are more 'real' than our own perceptions. With this assumption, the beauty of a flower presumably wouldn't exist if there were only bees to look at it!
What is your definition of 'physical reality' ? Is it better and more appropriate to exclusively view flowers as insects' nectar stations ? Would it be better to relate to other humans as simply 'moving objects made from clay', ignoring things like emotion because they are obviously 'only' subjective constructs ?
Looking back at the subject/object argument (Michael Nisbet, C87/6.4-7.3) it seems practically impossible to define what reality really is without being involved in it in some way.
Rick Street (90/29) - Is War Justified ? : I wasn't stating that I do think all wars are exclusively the fault of politicians! - but you do seem to agree with the idea of them having overall responsibility (31.1 lines 3-4)
"..if Nazism was totally ridiculous, the German people would never have fallen for it"
Or cf. Dave Botting (90/5.1 lines 10-11) : "..The vast majority of people are led by the nose"
Or, taking an appropriate verse from the Bible - the beginning of chapter 3 of the letter of James, in the NT, says
'Teachers will be judged more strictly than others'
Implying that teachers/leaders, even if 'led by the people', still have to take more responsibility! It used to be the case that the king would fight with his army - even if King Harold lost both his life and the country by doing so! - why isn't this the case nowadays ? Possibly because those in charge of the war are no longer so sure of what they are fighting for ? Maybe it was easier to fight in the past because it was easier to separate 'us' and 'them'. (Cf. Rick Street, 89/35.2 and the following section 'Addendum on War and Empire').
Mike Rossell
Mike : Thanks. On your first point (only) ... a Mentor is not a censor but has the right to advise only. Philosophy Now is a peer-reviewed journal, so articles may, and no doubt are, rejected as in all publications (except, to date, in the peoples’ republic of Commensal !).
There’s a fine distinction between peer-review and censorship. Most periodicals are short of space (one day this may even apply to Commensal !), so they have to ensure that the best material is included. Sometimes this is at the arbitrary decision of the Editor. In scientific & other academic periodicals, an article is reviewed by persons of like competence. There’s lots of controversy about whether the names of the reviewers (or even the names of the authors) ought to be revealed after / during the review process. There’s also controversy as to whether peer-review suppresses innovative ideas.
Interestingly, there’s an OU Summer School for Adults course [25/7 - 1/8] entitled Questioning the Internet (there I go again !) which asks the question "how does the information we obtain from the internet compare with information available from other sources? How much can we trust the results of our searches". This highlights the issue of the trustworthiness of information. Maybe it’s more of an issue in science, where not everyone can build a particle accelerator in their back garden to check the results. In philosophy, the cards are more clearly all on the table. Much academic philosophy seems to be of the "who said what when and why" variety, which is heavily factual and open to misleading statements & obfuscation. Not much fun either, I’d add. But, it’s at least factual & the facts ought to be checked out by recognised authorities of like standing to the authors (peers). Or, so the argument goes. This isn’t so much censorship as good housekeeping. No doubt there has to be some of the "load of crap - must try harder" sort of rejection as well. Why should readers’ patience be tried by dull, badly thought out or derivative effluvia ? We’re bombarded with reading material & someone needs to sieve out what is worthless.
Theo