Povert

Ok — I saw it, I loved it.

I’ll have to watch it again, but on one level it seems to be about a long-standing rift in philosophy — Anglo-American (analytic) philosophy and Continental (European; excluding the UK) philosophy. These are two very different takes on reality, and the split goes back as far as Kant. Hegel and Nietzsche are even more distinguishable from the analytic philosophers. In the 20th century, the two biggest names in Continental philosophy that occur to me are Sartre and Derrida.

Lily Tomlin and Dustin Hoffman embody the more American, analytic philosophy, whereas Isabelle Huppert obviously embodies Continental philosophy. I mean, hell, the character is even from Europe.

I can see why some people would hate this movie. I mean, this sort of philosophy either goes down well or it doesn’t, and presenting it so explicitly and in dramatic form is a challenge. But I think they did an excellent job.

I seriously laughed hard at some parts. I had to pause it a few times to compose myself. The scene at the dinner table in particular killed me.

I can see why Chris hated it, but I think he misinterpreted the movie’s intent. So, I’ll address his points. Nothing personal, Money. Here’s the relevant commentary:

… Huckabees was awful, almost painfully bad. I always thought presenting philosophical ideas through literature or entertainment was a great way to present those ideas so everyone can understand and probably help the writer understand then as he has to present them in a way he isn’t use to. I H Huckabees failed at this using philosophy buzz words and practically preaching to the audience. It wanted to be a college course starting with Dustin Hoffman explaining the universe with a blanket and ending with no resolution or understanding. I came to the conclusion the the theme of the movie is that philosophy makes you miserable because whenever any of the characters hire the existenial detectives they make them miserable.

First, I really didn’t pick up on the buzzwords thing. I’ll watch it again. And I didn’t find it to be too preachy. In fact, I’m not sure how it is being preachy, unless it’s telling the audience that the unexamined life is not worth living. In that case, it’s just echoing Socrates. Who was killed for being preachy, agreed. So I suppose it could be seen as preachy, but that’s what philosophy is. So relative to normal philosophy, it wasn’t particularly preachy. Have I used that word enough? Preachy. My point is that with the exception of, say, logic and maybe epistemology and metaphysics (though I’m not so sure about those two…), philosophy concerns itself first and foremost with how one ought to live.

As far as the college course… Eh, didn’t get that either. They were actually very sparse on the history of these ideas. In fact, I was unnerved by the stubbornness with which the characters clung to their beliefs, which is no way to teach philosophy. Of course, I think that was the point.

Finally, the most important point and mistake in Chris’s comments is the last point. Both Albert and Tom were miserable before they hired the existential detectives. In the end, they had reached a sort of understanding of reality and they were considerably less miserable. Moreover, they taught their teachers the error of their own beliefs.

But, as I said, I understand why Chris didn’t like it. It’s certainly not for everyone. In fact, I’m sure plenty of philosophy types hate it. I’m sure they think it’s pretty watered down, etc. But I loved it.

Like I said, I laughed pretty hard.

I’m starting to think that the biggest barrier to productive conversation is that people have a tendency to just assert crap. You know how on shows like Jerry Springer, people repeat the same sentence over and over?

I don’t know why people bother. Repeating the same thing doesn’t somehow justify it. It may work as propoganda, I guess. Good for shouting people down. But it makes you look dumb.

I’ve known people like this. I’ve known them better than I’d like to admit. It’s irritating to have someone seriously repeat the same damn sentence over and over. If you believe X, don’t just say X! X! X! Say x (lowercase, please don’t shout), because y and z. It’s simple. It’s friendly.

That’s not to say that problems can always be solved with rational, reasonable discussion. But it’s a lot more enjoyable that way.

For years now, I’ve been totally confused by Descartes’ “Cogito Ergo Sum” — “I think therefore I am.”

It seems perfectly reasonable, and it is. It certainly follows that something which thinks does in fact exist. But that’s the problem. I’m going to break this down a little, and maybe put it into some pseudo-symbolic logic (Help me out, Jason).

Let’s start with separating it into premise and conclusion:

• I think
• therefore; I am

So far, nothing looks any different. But “am” is a form of the verb “to be”.

What’s going on here? When I say “I am.” What I mean is, “I exist.” This was Descartes primal argument – that the one thing he could surely not be deceived about was his own existence. It’s a logical necessity.

But when I make any claims about my own actions, I am making an assumption. When I say, “I drive” I’m saying that there is a sort of vehicle which I know how to operate and do in fact operate. But I’m also claiming my own existence. To put it in what is extremely sloppy mixed notation (it’s been years): ∃(x) x⊃y. Help me out here logic nerds.¹ The point is that if x is “I” and y is “to drive”, then a more accurate way of saying “I drive” is, “There exists an x such that x drives”.

The fallacy “Begging the Question” consists of assuming the conclusion (or a form of the conclusion) in your premise. A commonly cited example is, “God spoke to Moses, therefore God exists.” You’re already assuming the existence of God when you say “God spoke to Moses.” In fact, saying “God spoke.” assumes God’s existence, doesn’t it? How about, “God thinks, therefore God exists”? See the problem here?

So any problem that starts with an existential quantifier (∃(x)) and ends with, “x exists” is begging the question.²

Am I saying that Descartes was wrong? Nope, I’m not arguing that his base assumption, “I exist”, is wrong. I am arguing that the argument establishing his existence is fallacious. “I exist” is an assertion, an axiom.

I’ve been puzzled by this for years. Jason talked to the head of the philosophy department at NMSU about it. Apparently Dr. Tim Cleveland was able to argue that I was wrong. Jason was apparently snorting glue, though, and does not remember the explanation.

Anyone who can show me that I am wrong, and that “I think” does not already assume “I exist” gets a well-deserved candy bar.

Peter Singer‘s gonna be on the Al Franken show tomorrow! He’s a philosopher and a professor at Princeton.