Mission (Mis)Statement

Once upon a time, I thought I wanted to study philosophy. After trying for a while, I decided that I wasn't cut out to be a scholar. So tedious and specialized. Not that I think studying philosophy is a waste of time. Not at all. Thank GOD for Bertrand Russell! (get it?)

Nevertheless, after a few upper division courses, I realized I didn't have the concentration required to spend hour after hour dissecting the intricacies of Wittgenstein. Still, my interest in 'the big picture' remained. As I begin this blog site, I realize that it is quite possible few if any people will read what I plan to say. I don't kid myself that the world is waiting with open arms for my precious wisdom. Still, rightly or wrongly, I feel I have something to say. This blog is a way to get it off my gray, hairy chest.

Influences

I was raised Catholic. I can remember sitting in the pew during mass trying to make sense out of the sermons and what I was being taught every Saturday morning at Catechism (what a waste of every golden Saturday of my youth THAT was).

I give myself credit for re-inventing, as a child, some of the questions that have dogged religious philosophers since the Middle Ages and before. For example, I was taught that God knows everything and is all powerful. Then it follows that he is responsible for everything bad that ever happened. Why did he create Satan, knowing how THAT would turn out?

I was babysitting one night, probably in my late teens, when I noticed a copy of 'Games People Play' by Eric Berne on the coffee table and began to read it. The book was not any all-encompassing explanation of the Universe but it gave me some insight and made me realize there must be other books out there that might help me in my 'quest for wisdom.'

I was somewhat of a late bloomer, I must admit. But eventually, during my first two years at Sierra College, I took classes in history, psychology, sociology and philosophy. The biggest eye opener for me was philosophy, actually just a history of philosophy class (modern). Quite the mind-opener, that was.

In the space of less than a semester I went from doubtful Catholic to Atheist. In fact, I became skeptical of virtually everything, which was an overreaction that put me in a bit of a personal crisis. But I began to haunt my local library, the philosophy section in particular.

The philosopher/writer that influenced me most in that period of my life was Bertrand Russell. His essay 'Why I Am Not A Christian' provided me the supporting basis for abandoning my Catholicism and my belief in God. This was not the only book I read and utilized to form my ideas about religion, but it was an excellent start.

I read everything I could get my hands on of Russell's, excepting his mathematical books, which I lack the ability to understand and am ashamed to admit hold no interest to me. I don't deny their importance, just that I am not equipped to deal with them. At the same time I was reading books about psychology, anthropology, sociology along with plenty of fiction and anything I thought might bring me a better understanding of myself, my fellow humans and the universe that surrounded me.

I read Skinner and Watson and for a while I was a rather dogmatic behaviorist. Although I knew at some level that Behaviorism wasn't the full answer, I didn't have a good alternative that I could comprehend. Much like Russell's mathematical books, psychological concepts that dealt with physiology presented me with a roadblock. It was a pretty classic case of avoiding something that was hard to understand, almost to the point of denying its importance. I eventually got past this roadblock, though not by actually studying subject. I have my shortcomings and limits to my mental energy and patience. Just as I was not cut out to be a philosophy professor, I was not cut out to be a psychiatrist either. But in a roundabout way I have come to embrace the importance of the physiological in understanding what makes humans (and other animals) tick.

Probably somewhere in my early to mid 20s I became interested in non-human primate behavior. Reading about Washoe the chimp and the controversy about whether or not she actually used sign language intrigued me. I read a number of books by Jane Goodall, and essentially anything to do with animal behavior. I read about gorillas, orangutans, wolves and baboons, among others. The book that influenced me more than any others was probably Desmond Morris' 'The Human Zoo.' For some reason I started with this book rather than it's predecessor, 'The Naked Ape.' In any case, so many things that had nagged me, often subconsciously, were given a believable (by me at least) explanations. I read

In the political arena, I'll credit Noam Chomsky with 'enlightening' me more than anyone else. I should give some credit to my college United States History textbook, which showed me, at least to some extent, how misleading and one-sided my 'education' had been to that point. Another book that really influenced me was Howard Zinn's 'A People's History of the United States.' I read countless other books I couldn't possibly list here, but the aforementioned are some that affected me strongly.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention numerous college professors and even high school teachers. I thank those who openly questioned authority and encouraged independent thought. I should also thank all the friends and acquaintances who spent hours discussing and arguing with me over the years. Sometimes I benefited from new ideas and facts. Sometimes the benefit was in refining my own ideas against their objections. Sometimes it was simply in seeing how other minds worked.

Do You Believe In Reality?

I'll go first. Yes, I DO believe in 'reality.' Can I tell you exactly what it is? Not really... But I don't let that stop me from talking about it.

I sometimes get into 'discussions' where someone will say something like 'Everything is subjective.' In a sense that's right. In another sense, that statement is absurd. It is correct in the sense that we humans perceive 'reality' through our imperfect senses. My eyes are not your eyes. My nose is not your nose. So whatever I see, smell or sense is subjective. My brain is not your brain (be thankful) and my thoughts are not your thoughts. My thoughts are subjective.

In another sense, I would argue that to say that reality is totally subjective is self-contradictory. If there is no shared, common, 'objective' reality, it makes no sense trying to discuss it with another person. Even to make the statement 'reality is subjective' requires that you believe that there is a 'reality' and a 'truth' about reality itself that can be agreed upon. For that matter, can any conversation be anything but nonsense if you deny the possibility of that common ground we call 'reality?' So yes, I believe in reality. Proof? Sorry, can't be done.

A good Sophist would find lots of ways to argue with me here, I am sure. But I try not to waste my energy arguing with Sophists. The ultimate sophistic refuge is Solipsism, the assertion that the only thing real in the Universe is oneself. It is an easy enough position to defend, and an idiotic belief to hold. Let me leave you with an anecdote. Somebody wrote to Bertrand Russell something to the effect of 'I am a Solipsist. I can't understand why more people don't share my position.'

Beautiful

Talking to Irrational People

I have a reputation in barroom circles (and others) of being rather argumentative and opinionated. I can't deny it. I used to argue with my father and we both enjoyed it, though my poor mother found it quite distressing. We both enjoyed the intellectual exercise. Even then, however, I felt that there were times when I had made a perfectly reasonable point that ol' Dad wouldn't concede. And to be honest, there were times I knew that my own case wasn't solid, and I would be defending my position just because it was mine. Still, I was young and learning, and I hope I am less inclined now to simply defend my position rather than admit I may be mistaken.

Regarding the aforementioned barroom discussions, they tend to be unsatisfying. What do I expect in a bar? Okay, not much. But though ignorant jackasses abound, not EVERYONE in every bar is an ignorant jackass. There are times when I am having a discussion with, say, a successful attorney. A person might reasonably expect him to be logical and able to listen. That person would be mistaken.

My 'lawyer acquaintance' is not so much unable as unwilling. Just to give a small example, we were superficially discussing health care in the USA. Rather than talking about what system might be best for all citizens, he returned over and over to his contention that Doctors were underpaid, and that his own brother, apparently a genius in his eyes, had chosen some other profession because doctors just weren't paid enough. (average salary for a family doctor in his home town is about $122k a year. His father was a doctor, and the family wealthy by most standards) The lawyer repeated over and over how when HE was sick, he wanted the best and brightest to treat him. My suggestion that perhaps a the best qualifications to be a doctor might not be a combination of greed and a high SAT score fell on deaf ears. He repeated his point over and over until I finally threw in the towel. And therein lies the heart of the matter I want to discuss. (With no interruptions... that's why I love this blogging stuff). Why is it so difficult (or impossible) to discuss certain subjects rationally with otherwise rational and intelligent people?

I will get right to the point. It comes down to something present in all humans, and something very pronounced in those who are hardest to discuss anything with. I don't have just one word to describe it, unfortunately. To call it simply 'ego' doesn't totally cover it. It's not just egotism and pride that make humans cling to what they already believe and reject what they don't. Ego and pride are a big part of it, but not quite the whole story. In his wonderful book, "How Real is Real?" www.amazon.com/How-Real-Paul-Watzlawick/dp/0394722566 Paul Watzlawick explains how the point of thinking is to avoid further thinking. I can't possibly do it justice here, but he makes a good case that people aren't really looking for 'truth' with a capital T, rather that they are looking for something (an idea, for example) that allows them to stop thinking. Some people can't stop thinking even when they try, but I don't want to get too sidetracked here.

Human beings all have a 'world view' of some sort, a belief system, call it what you will (Weltanschauung, perhaps). The fact that it is a 'system' means that to tamper with a part of it can be dangerous to the whole system. Galileo was jailed for saying that the Earth orbited the Sun and not vice-versa.

I have come to the conclusion that the idea of 'man, the rational animal' is pretty ludicrous. Sure, we are more rational than a sea slug or a Cocker Spaniel. Big deal. To get back to where this all began, my barroom attempts to make a point about almost anything that conflicts with any part of my 'lawyer acquaintance's' 'Weltanschauung' run into all kinds of opposition, little if any of which was based on fact or logical argumentation.

(Check the link below for a nice post about 'faulty argument patterns.' It's better written than THIS MESS)
vagabondscholar.blogspot.com/2006/10/faulty-argument-patterns-and-informal.html

My 'lawyer acquaintance' and countless others do the same sorts of things that are the current standard of 'discussion' in media and government all over the world. Sadly, although there are still people who seek truth with a capital T to the best of their abilities, they don't constitute a majority or even a sizable minority in the media, government or general population. Certainly they are rare in my local bar.

I have come to the conclusion, sadly, that rational and fact based discussion is just not going to happen on the scale needed to fix the big problems or even smaller ones that face our respective countries and the planet earth as a whole. I may get into this subject in a little more detail in the future, but my brain is tired: Too much thinking.

CIA Fun Facts

In the middle of research on another topic completely, I found some facts that caught my eye. Being a generous sort, I will share them with you here.

Median Age: Costa Rica: 27.5 years USA: 36.7 years

Birth Rate: Costa Rica: 17.43 births/1,000 population (2009 est.) USA 13.82

Death Rate: Costa Rica: 4.34 deaths/1,000 population (July 2009 est.) USA: 8.38

Net (Birth Rate - Death Rate) Costa Rica: 13.09 | USA 8.38

Infant mortality rate: Costa Rica: 8.77 deaths/1,000 live births USA: 6.26

Life expectancy at birth: Costa Rica: 77.58 years USA: 78.11 years

Literacy: age 15 and over can read and write - Costa Rica: 94.9% USA: 99%

School life expectancy (primary to tertiary education): Costa Rica: total: 12 years - USA: total: 16 years

GDP - per capita (PPP): Costa Rica: $11,600 (2008 est.) USA: $47,500 (2008 est.)

Inflation Rate: Costa Rica: 13.4% (2008 est.) USA: 3.8% (2008 est.)

Population below poverty line: Costa Rica: 16% (2006 est.) USA: 12% (2004 est.)

GDP - composition by sector:
Costa Rica: agriculture: 14% industry: 22% services: 64% (2006 est.)
USA: agriculture: 1.2% industry: 19.2% services: 79.6% (2008 est.)

Had enough facts and figures? I have. So, now it's time for... ANALYSIS AND OPINION!

There is more than 9 years difference between the median age in Costa Rica compared to the United States. If you look at the birth and death rates, you see the same thing. Although life expectancy is nearly the same in both countries, the birth rate is higher and the death rate is lower in Costa Rica. The death rate statistic isn't hard to understand. The older portion of the populations are more likely to die than the younger portions. If the halfway point of population age in the USA is 10 years farther along than the halfway point of the Costa Rican population, and the life expectancy is about the same, the halfway point is about 9 years closer to the old grim reaper.

Literacy in Costa Rica is the highest in Latin America, and does not trail the United States by much. On the other hand, the School life expectancy statistic shows a difference of 4 years between Costa Rica and the USA. I have to confess, I looked up the definition and still don't understand exactly what it signifies. Surely it doesn't mean that the average child can expect 16 years of education in the USA? In any case, that number is 4 years lower in Costa Rica. I wish I understood it, but I don't.

GDP per Capita is an interesting statistic. Presumably this takes a country's GDP and divides it by total population. The only trouble here is what GDP really means. I confess to being in the dark on this. But I can guess that a big GDP is better than a small one, all things being equal. Divided up equally, which of course it is (yeah right), this is $47+ thousand per person in the USA. Now, the median family income in the USA for 2008 was just about that, strangely enough. In Costa Rica, the GDP per person is around $11 thousand. If the same sort of ratio applies, and I have no idea if it does, median Costa Rica family income would be around $11,000 USD. Try as I might, I have been unable to find statistics for median family income in Costa Rica. If you can find it, please PLEASE let me know.

Inflation rate is one of the statistics that differs greatly between the two countries. In a nut shell, it's a lot higher in Costa Rica. This is basically why the Colon is usually losing ground to the US Dollar. That's my take on it, at least.

Population below poverty line is another interesting stat. It would seem that there isn't that much difference between the two countries. Of course, the real question is how you define poverty. Where IS that poverty line? Who draws it, and why do they draw it where they draw it? Good questions that I can not answer.

One last factoid then we'll call it a day/night. In terms of percentage of GDP (whatever that really is), agriculture in Costa Rica comprises 14% of GDP compared to only 2% in the USA. Industry in Costa Rica is 22% of GDP to 18% in the USA, and services 64% as compared to a whopping 79.6% in the USA. For those who complain about service in Costa Rica, is it any wonder it's not as good as the USA, where 80% of GDP is service sector??? I'm going to go lie down and think about it.