Brief Research Note: HPL

One of the papers I am currently working on features H.P. Lovecraft. Yesterday, while watching a presentation by Richard Dawkins and Laurence Krauss on youtube I came across an interesting thought. Dawkins had pointed out (as he done in the past) that the human brain is evolved to cope with certain time frames which are far smaller than the geological scale across which evolution happens and the universe was formed. Reflecting on several comments that HPL makes in his letters and fiction writing which display acute awareness of geological time scales, I wondered if it was not this aspects of his thinking which caused him to be dismiss religious and supernatural explanations in favour of science and unbelief. It is a matter of his philosophical thinking that I will likely follow up on in a specific paper of its own.

Here is one of my favourite quotes from HPL:

"It is only the inferior thinker who hastens to explain the singular and the complex by the primitive short cut of supernaturalism."

Yes, I study television. Get over it.

As Jonathan Gray points out, "Given the powers that some ascribe to television ("television caused Columbine," "television won Bush the election," "television brightened her day," "television fried his brain," etc.), it would be morally and intellectually irresponsible of us not to spend considerable time, effort, and energy examining the intricacies of television."

I shall call this field of examination, TVology. It is kind of like theology, only the thing it examines exists outside of the minds of its practitioners ... and is all-powerful, all-knowing, ever-present, and all-loving.

* Gray, Jonathan. Television Entertainment. London: Routledge, 2008 pp.2-3

'ad hominem' is a logical fallacy, not a piece of decorative verbiage for everyday use

Several times I have encountered in non-academic discussions the faulty deployment of the philosophical term ad hominem. Usually it comes from people who have picked up the term from a piece of popular philosophy or science writing (like something by Richard Dawkins). Although an individual's own usage may be second hand and come from someone else's mistaken views. In any event, it seems ad hominem has become part of the fad to adorn ones speech and forum/blog posting with such language.

Having looked at the basic glossary meaning some think the term is synonymous with a phrase like 'personal attack'. This is wrong. Ad hominem is Latin for "against the man" and is used to denote a certain logical fallacy where one party attacks the other's character or aspects of their personal identity (work etc) rather than the arguments and evidence they have provided. This is an attempt to argue against the premises of an opponent's stance without countering the justifications that have been given for it. In effect, one party seeks to de-rail the debate and to win without countering any evidence or argument contrary to their own claims.

For the term to be applicable there needs to be something of a formal debate in which the aspects of those involved (personal background, position etc) are irrelevant to proceedings. Such a situation does not exist in everyday or informal situations. Only if the circumstances are met can an individual's statements be considered ad hominem; in most cases they are simply comments about an individual that may vary from legitimate points (if someone has a vested interest in the outcome of a decision, or has proven to be unreliably informed or ignorant on matters of relevance to the discussion) to personal attacks (arguing against someone's personality rather than their factual or evidentiary claims; i.e. "You are a dickhead so your arguments are invalid").

In sum, only use a philosophical term (or any other academic/specialist phrase for that matter) if you actually know when it is correct otherwise you may fall short of your attempt to look smart and appear quite the fool instead.

Brief definitions

Theists: people pretending to understand reality and the universe

Atheists: people trying to understand reality and the universe

Crawling down Anselm's Ontological Rabbithole

A long time favourite thrown up by the theists is Anselm's Ontological argument. Anselm lived between 1033 and 1109 so as usual, were dealing with the logic of a theologian who lived in century far different from our own. What's the point of making that observation? Well, the sort of argument and evidence he deploys is situated in a context where it probably made a lot more sense. Despite this they are drawn wholesale into a new cultural milieu with the expectation that they still hold a profound measure of validity.

Basic summary:

1- we can conceive of a greatest possible being (defined as omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect)
2- existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind
3- the greatest possible being must then exist otherwise it wouldn't be the greatest possible being
4- therefore, God exists

While Anselm admitted that we cannot know everything about God, he believed we can know enough to know that He is the greatest possible being and once we recognise this it would impossible to deny that being exists. Sounds rather like his position was, "until you believe in the God I believe in, you will continue to deny His existence." Presumably Anselm's belief in God prompted his formulation of the argument, and so it isn't the product of any actual attempt to prove God's existence per se; more accurately it could be described as a validation of existing convictions. Our old friend circular reasoning.

Returning to the claim that we can have sufficient knowledge of God to know He is the greatest possible being: this assertion ignores the possibility that what we know could lead to the opposite conclusion (i.e. God is flawed). Famously, a monk by the name of Gaunilo challenged Anselm in his own time by using the same structure to demonstrate the reality of non-existent things (his example was the 'perfect island'). While this deployment of Anselm's logic is supposedly mistaken as the object in question must be one with qualities that have an "intrinsic maximum".

But does the greatest possible being possess only attributes with an "intrinsic maximum"? For example, who defines the limits of 'moral perfection'? This is a good point to segue into the problem or evil which I'll visit in the next post, but for the moment it suffices to say that one man's omnipotence is another man's limitation:

To quote that profound modern day philosopher, Homer Simpson:

"Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?"

This is only part one of my continuing observation on the inherent flaws of the ontological argument. And even at this nascent stage the self-contradiction is eveident: if you already believe then this might look like convincing proof, but if you believe you don't need proof.

A being that exists may be better than one who doesn't; however, an argument that offers actual proof is infinetly greater than one that just claims to.