Nothing but the Truth-in-L

According to CNN.com, Walter Scott, 24, of New Zealand, sold his soul to Hell's Pizza for $3800.  See story here.  He tried to list it on TradeMe, but the item was taken town because it was deemed in bad taste.  What's interesting is that a 21 year old US student tried to sell his soul on Ebay but the auction was taken town because the company ruled that something tangible needed to be exchanged for a viable sale.  But are there problems with selling one's soul?  I don't recall any religion saying one has to own one's soul in order to enter the pearly gates, only that one's soul be pure, good, etc.  Does it really matter who owns it?  I mean, if it's my soul, it's still me. 
     But let's look at the logic of it for a second and let's assume that I am identical to my soul (a la Descartes).  The following principle seems plausible: If x = y then x can't own y.  I can own lots of things, but if I own something then it follows that the thing I own is separate from the thing doing the owning.  Right?  If so then I don't own my soul.  But if I don't own it then I can't sell it?  Therefore if Scott sold his soul then he is not identical to his soul and if Scott is identical to his soul then the sale of his soul was illegitimate (where by an 'illegitimate sale' I understand at least a sale of something one does not own).  Therefore Descartes is wrong to identify me with my soul if souls can be sold.  Souls can be sold (W. Scott did it).  Therefore Descartes is wrong.  Thoughts?

[Too simplistic a view of Descartes?  Maybe.  But let's have some fun with it.]

1st annual Interdisciplinary Approach to Philosophical Issues Conference (2008)

Hosted by the University of South Alabama

This year's theme will be "At the Crossroads of Philosophy and Psychology"

Sponsored by University of South Alabama Philosophy Department

September 19-20 2008

Keynote speaker: Joshua Knobe, University of North Carolina

Submissions are due no later than August 1. Early submissions are encouraged.

Call for Papers

 

Alabama Philosophical Society Annual Meeting

September 26-27, 2008

 

Hilton Beachfront Garden Inn

23092 Perdido Beach Boulevard

Orange Beach, Alabama
 

Rooms will be held at the Hilton Beachfront Garden Inn (251-974-1600) until August 31^st. 

Papers in any area of philosophy are welcome. Submissions should not exceed 3,000 words and should include a 100 word abstract and be prepared for blind review. All submissions must be e-mailed by August 7^th or postmarked by August 4^th. Electronic submissions preferred.

Send papers in MS-Word, RTF, or PDF format as e-mail attachments to alabamaphilsoc@gmail.com.

Alternatively, mail three copies of your paper and abstract to: Dr. Ted Poston, Dept. of Philosophy, 124 HUMB, University of South Alabama, Mobile AL, 36688.

Please watch http://www.geocities.com/ALPHILSOC for updates. 

For inquiries, contact Ted Poston at poston[AT]jaguar1.usouthal.edu.

-----

The Alabama Philosophical Society

Undergraduate Student Essay Competition 

$75 Prize

 

Essay Prize: $75 will be awarded to the best undergraduate student paper. Papers in any area of philosophy are welcome. Student should be prepared to present the paper at the APS Meeting, September 26-27, 2008.

To Enter: Papers should be marked "Undergraduate Essay Competition" and should be no longer than 3,000 words, with the author's name and address on a separate title page. Send entries in MS-Word, RTF, or PDF format to alabamaphilsoc@gmail.com. 

Alternatively, mail three copies of your paper and abstract to: Dr. Ted Poston, Dept. of Philosophy, 124 HUMB, University of South Alabama, Mobile AL, 36688.  Email inquiries may be sent to alabamaphilsoc@gmail.com.

Conference information: The conference is being held at the Hilton Beachfront Garden Inn, 23092 Perdido Beach Boulevard, Orange Beach, Alabama. Rooms will be held at the hotel (251-974-1600) until August 31^st, 2007. 

Watch for updates on our website, http://www.geocities.com/ALPHILSOC

This past weekend in Chicago 32 people were shot and 6 killed (See the CNN story here).  Police Superintendent Weis cited an excess of guns and gangs as a possible explanation.  And while there is a link between violence and guns and gangs, the local police overlooked a simpler explanation: THE APA CENTRAL WAS IN TOWN! 

Philosophers notoriously question authority, perhaps even the authority of a gang to enforce its turf.  We also love protesting things--especially war.  But don't let our disdain for the war in Iraq fool you, we object to all kinds of things.  Some of us even deny that streets exist.  Others may even relegate colors to secand-class ontological citizenship, thus placing no importance on what colors it is appropriate to wear when.  So, which is more likely, that an eliminativist questioned the very existence of some street demarcating one gang's turf from another gang's thus provoking retaliation or that some gang got involved in the usual inter-gangland dispute resulting in an unusual spike in violence for no reason?  I think it's obvious.

I'm going to file this away in my mind under the title "Interesting Corroborations" and pull it out whenever philosophers get labelled peace-lovers.  By the way, I'm a peace lover.  All my colors are neutral and I like no street of Chicago any better than any other.  That is, unless your turf is one such street, in which case I like it the best. 

Back to the ole' blog, at last.  I'm headed to the APA Central tomorrow!  I plan on adding a few posts about whatever interesting talks I see.  Items I have highlighted include (but are not limited to) the Society for the Metaphysics of Science's Session (GIII-10) on Thursday from 7:30 to 10:30pm (roughly on functionalism); The Hume Society's meeting (GII-9) on Thursday from 5:15 to 7:15pm; the Symposium on Sententialism and Higher Order Attitude Attribution (III-D) on Friday from 9-10am; Author Meets Critic session w Robert Stainton from 9-noon on Saturday; a colloguium on Decision Theory (IV-F) involving T. Horgan (U. Arizona) on Saturday from 9-10am; my colleague Ted Poston's paper "Know How to be Gettiered" (IV-G) on Saturday from 11-noon; and the Epistemology II session from 3:30-5:30pm where I'll be chairing the paper by Jay Newhard (V-F).  So I hope you stay with me.

University of South Alabama's Feminists for Progress held a bake sale this week. Let me say that I vocally support the organization's cause and applaud the effort to raise money. In terms of social issues, few are more important than feminism. But it is a little ironic that they held a bake sale. Thoughts?

is here. 

Last Friday I had the fortune of returning to my alma mater, Mississippi State University, to deliver a talk on how my study of philosophy (and religion) affects my life and scholarship.  There were four other alumni returning to give similar talks.  Yolanda Estes, current professor at MSU and Univ. of Kentucky Ph.D., gave the final talk of the day.  While not on the technical side, these talks were designed to be accessible to the public and to provide an honest look at how professional philosophers understand scholarship and how it affects their lives.  I bring this up because I want briefly to summarize the point of my talk because I think it is so important. 

The gist of my talk is a point about the scholar.  I maintain that the scholar (minimally) understands both sides of a certain duality.  The duality is that between refutation, on the one hand, and following an argument where it leads, on the other.  Although my point is more generally applicable, it applies especially well to philosophy.

Think back to the first Phi-100 course you took.  Chances are you read several works on many different topics.  The typical impression that results from such a class is the impression that there is no right answer.  Take a look at Plato's theory of whatever.  Aristotle refutes (a version of) if with his "third-man" argument.  But Aristotle gets modified by so-and-so.  That person in turn gets modified by...  The process goes on and on.  Students may get out of this, even against their prof's own wishes, the moral that all positions have holes in them and, thus, if all positions have holes then all positions are equal.  What else do they get out of it?  They learn several tools for refutation.  They learn objections to every position they encounter.  Oh, so you're a dualist?  I have a problem for you.  Oh, you're a physicalist, good luck explaining qualia. 

Needless to say, this attitude is dangerous (remember the sophists?) and not an accurate impression of the discipline.  But, and here is where I pushed the duality I noted above, the scholar does not just know all of the standard and non-standard "refutations" of all of the positions, she also has indulged in the positions.  She has put on her physicalist-hat, or her dualist-hat, and seen what mileage the positions have.  She has pushed these positions to the limit and seen what they can do, what they can explain.  If, at the end of this process, she decides to give up on a position then that act is more significant than giving up on a position because you just learned it has a problem with causality, to take dualism for example.  A scholar's rejection, as we all already know, counts for more than someone else's. 

What is the proper balance?  Of course one should not stand firm come what may.  We can list the great philosophers who have given up on or modified their positions when it was called for.  But we shouldn't be too quick either.  We all know that general relativity won't be the final theory (so I've been told by experts).  But we don't give up on it without a suitable replacement.  We don't do it in physics, we don't do it in government, and we shouldn't do it in philosophy.  The scholar is the one in a unique position to make that choice and be warranted in that choice. 

In conclusion, yes, some positions can be refuted simply.  Most cannot.  However, most, nay, all, have some problem or other.  But, not all positions are equal, and this cannot be realized unless one really gets into a position and sees what it can do.  It is the scholar who is in the best position to do both. 

[Anyway, that is a precis of the talk I gave.  Any comments are welcome, of course.  I can see something like this ending up as the introduction to an intro book, or something similar, sometime down the line.]

is here.

 Question:  How did I miss #55?  In any case, #55 is here.

CALL FOR PAPERS: Graduate Student Conference*