When I was 30:

The days and nights grew long as the drive to a destination much desired continues for many months. The growth of knowledge and experience in my field was steady and sure. The breadth of wisdom at my fingertips while Plato, Kant, and Wittgenstein dance in a jig in my head. The joys of dialogue my daily bread, the fresh cynical faces of the young my protagonists. The challenge and complexity of life ever increasing, so to the length and loss of love, ebbing and flowing before me. The dark highway spoke a warning that escapes me, but remains at the periphery of mind for years to come.

The patter and cries of new life enter my life once again, ill prepared and overjoyed by the insta love for the innocent one fills my being. The preponderance of a hopeful future permeate with the smiles and laughter of the little faces of my progeny.

ABSTRACT: When is Evil?: Secular Theories of Evil

When is Evil?: Secular Theories of Evil

by

Jeffrey D. Sharpless, Jr.

Master of Arts in Philosophy

San Diego State University, 2010 (c)

                 

The term evil in a moral sense in Western culture is an intellectual non sequitur, an archaic term, a term best left to antiquity and religion. The traditional problem of evil is concerned with the Judeo-Christian attempts to reconcile the Omni-God and evil (human suffering). Yet, the traditional problem sheds little light on how we can understand evil. Since Plato, Western moral thought views evil as another term for immorality, but this is insufficient for a concept of evil. What is needed is a secular postmetaphysical approach. The discussion of evil often begins with the question What is evil? This framing of the question is metaphysical and suggests that we can determine whether evil exists or does not; however, this approach is itself part of the problem. According to analytic philosopher Nelson Goodman, asking for What is, is the wrong question. A possible way to look at evil is not What is evil? but When is evil? as a way to explore the ideas, experiences, and events that breach our comprehension. The goal is to have a greater understanding of what the term evil does for the discourse by examining possible secular concepts of evil. To look at When is evil? is an open-ended inquiry into philosophically significant concepts that constitute evil. By examining secular postmetaphysical thinkers, I argue that Morton’s distinctions between the weak and strong readings of evil must be collapsed into only a strong reading – evil is when there is atrocity. I believe we come up with a better understanding of evil by approaching the concept using when is evil that is not linked to the traditional ideas of religion and theodicies. I conclude that evil is when there is atrocity or the worst possible opprobrium one can commit. It is neither by accident, nor simple moral failure that constitutes evil, but something that is beyond bad or immoral, it is the breaking point of comprehension where we simultaneously learn the limitlessness of action and become blindly ignorant to the responsibility we have to others.

Jeff Sharpless review of the book "Stoicism" published in "Dialogue" May 20010

By Jeff D. Sharpless
           The traditional caricature that portray Stoic philosophers as stone faced, unemotional, and indifferent thinkers “does not tell the whole story” according to John Sellars’ recent book, Stoicism. Some fifteen hundred years since Stoicism fell into antiquity, it is fair to say its influence is very much part of the western mind to this day. The book is presented as an introduction for students and general audiences alike in an accessible way and has some reasonable depth that will challenge novice readers. Sellers acknowledges the limits of this introduction, but presents a well organized overview of the history and what Epictetus called topoi or areas of study.
         It begins with a brief history of Stoic philosophy, beginning with Zeno in 330B.C.E. and ending with Simplicius in 529C.E. Although many Stoic texts were lost to history, as noted by the author, we have lengthy works from Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius and are able to glean important information and understanding from critics of Stoicism like the well-known skeptic Sextus Empiricus. I found the authors observation that the nature of Stoicism is itself partly responsible for its own decline interesting. According to Sellars, the Stoics where inspired by Socrates’ focus on applying wisdom to living over theorizing which may have lent to less writing and more living the philosophy. He states, “For Epictetus, it is not the voluminous author Chrysippus who stands as his philosophical role model; rather it is Socrates, who expresses his philosophy in deed rather than words” (28). The Stoic ideal is of the sage who has the correct understanding of nature and lives in accordance with their nature.
          From there we launch into the Stoic system: the three topos of Stoicism - logic, physics, and ethics. To the more ethics oriented readers, like myself, the feeling of dread looms over chapters titled logic or physics; expecting dry logical syllogisms and mathematical theorems that are barely intelligible. Fortunately, this is not the case; the author discusses Stoic logic and physics by providing basic but interesting summaries, and explains the important points and arguments. In addition, we learn the Stoic philosophy of language, ontology, cosmology, theology, epistemology, and psychology. We learn of “assertables” and “sayables,” but what was most interesting in these chapters is the Stoics view of interconnectedness of nature and its inhabitants, what Sellars calls “cosmobiology” and today is discussed as the Gaia hypothesis, nature is conscious. Stoic logic and physics are part of a complex system and Sellars clearly presents the arguments, problems, and debates.
The final part of the Stoics topos is the ethical. From the logic and physics it follows that the core of human behavior is self-preservation, but a preservation of not merely our biology. Our rational-self that is most important because it is in the rational we find virtue. The Stoic’s breakdown impressions, feelings, and emotions and argue we give “assent” to certain impressions and deny others; there are things that are “up to us” and “not up to us.” The most interesting is the inward looking Stoics distinction between virtue and happiness. The commonly held view is to be happy is to get what you want, but the Stoics disagree and argue that to be happy requires virtue, which they understand as a healthy soul or disposition – “something choice-worthy for its own sake” (124). Sellars gives an interesting and solid discussion about Stoic ethics and their political cosmopolitanism.
          The final section gives a brief look at the influence of Stoicism in Western philosophy. Important thinkers like Spinoza (perhaps the closest to Stoics), Kant, Nietzsche, Marx, Russell, Foucault, and Deleuze, to name a few, discusses Stoicism. For some, Stoics are a beacon while for others they are misguided or just wrong. Stoic philosophy has come in and out of fashion over the centuries perhaps due to its enigmatic nature, for it is persuasive, paradoxical, and problematic all at the same time. Sellars book brings this to light in an excellent, informative introduction to this fascinating philosophical system. For those interested in continuing their study of Stoicism or more specific topoi, the author provides an excellent guide to readings including top scholars. I would say if readers are interested in Stoicism and want a solid, thoughtful introduction than this is the book to read.

CNN's 30 Seconds of Exploitation

I watched CNN's 30 second pitch today May 6th 2010. A lovely middle-aged woman, single parent, and accomplished graphic artist who has applied to 500 jobs in 3 years. This was CNN "helping" her "sell" herself to potential employers. As I watched the segment, I found myself feeling the acute disgust of indignity as a human being begs for a job, beg for the ability to sustain herself. As I watched the display my revulsion grew as it was clear that the exploitative nature of this is merely the symptom of a culture that fails to recognize how degraded and life-negating this society continues to become. Now, I too get to enjoy the splendor of selling myself so, CNN pick me so I can put on my best shirt and best fake smile and beg for a job! Sometimes starvation sounds like a good idea.

FRONTLINE: college, inc.: join the discussion | PBS Tuesday, May 04, 2010 8:02 PM

Is this American Pragmatism at it finest or what? The banality of for-profit education is interesting, yet, we must pause because there is something important here about what education is presupposed to entail. Academia (which got it name from the guys house that some of the Greeks used to study at) in it most elitist definition is about exploring ideas in a formal setting and getting a degree. In its most practical education is vocational training the next generation workforce. I am a philosopher, just finishing my Masters degree with a mountain of debt, no job in sight, and I could not happier (but I am clearly mad). Education for-profit only seems to work for the profiteers and not the teachers or students. Can I teach a class for-profit, yes, but for those that have taught there is only profit for the students since the amount of preparation far exceeds the what we are paid (by a sizable amount). Education can be a nebulous idea, just as mental health can be (also non-profit), but when you put a business model in the place of nonprofit education - student/client centered models, it diminishes the practice of learning and commodifies students. The idea of education as a good-in-itself makes little sense in America, but education merely as a way to a job is an equally untenable extreme. The promise of education for the individual is to be a better thinker and hopefully human being, which translates to a society that can manage itself intelligently and morally. To view education through the transactional model, crudely reduces students and educators to units, as well as, the pursuit of knowledge even if it restaurant and hotel management. It is a matter of how we conceive of the value and practice of education. Perhaps, for-profit education will cause universities and colleges to rethink their so-called non-profit model (since they are very much following business models - look at college football) and to invest in the practices of quality education for students.

College Inc. | FRONTLINE | PBS Video

College Inc. | FRONTLINE | PBS Video

Question from Bill Moyer...

Is financial regulation too complex an issue for the general public to mobilize around? Why or why not?
Financial regulation is only complex because institution that are supposed to regulate cannot keep up with a financial system that seems to defy reasonable limits. The “public” are indifferent it seems until those systems that govern their lives affects theirs. Do we ask for responsibility and accountability in our institution that are supposed to serve the it citizens? Do we the public demand justice as fairness? The public ignores that fact that they are at the mercy of those who have no such concern for following rules, but for maneuvering themselves to maximize their profits at the expense of the masses. But it is the masses that fail to ask for justice since they too seek the same advantages. Thus, as with health care, people would rather be at the mercy of insurance companies than their government. These institutions fight it out while millions are without health care or lost their homes or without the means to feed their families. If the public does not care about regulation their representatives, will not. In addition, it is clear that the levels of corruption are high and the ability to police companies it at a low. The imbalance and thoughtlessness abound, the banality of the public and the avarice of capitalism are undaunted even at the precipice of the fall.