On Writing Philosophy Essays

Writing a philosophy paper?  Here are a few phrases you should probably avoid:

1) "Socrates* feels that X is true."  (We don't know much about his feelings, do we?  Focus on what he said rather than on what you think he felt, unless you're also prepared to explain your insight into his feelings, and the relevance of that insight and of those feelings.) (*Or any other philosopher who doesn't tell us how she is feeling.)

2) "There is no answer to this question." (Do you mean no correct answer?  Why do you think I asked it, by the way?  Let me suggest that, at a minimum, there is an answer given in the texts we read.  If you think it's wrong, I'd be delighted to hear why you think it's wrong, once you've told me clearly what it is.)

3) "I've decided to ignore what the books say and focus on my own opinions here." (Not that your opinions don't matter, but they're deucedly difficult to grade.)

They Know It When They See It

An inmate in the South Dakota State Penitentiary has been denied access to art-instruction books because they contain images of unclothed human bodies.  (Original story here and here.)  While not everything that could be called an art book is a good art book, shouldn't we be doing everything we can to help felons improve their lives?  And isn't art one of the best things they can do while in prison?  Let us grant the prison wardens their claim that pornography worsens prison conditions; does that mean that all nudity is obscenity? (Scroll down to the concurring position of Mr. Justice Stewart.)

St. Nicholas Society and "un-stealing"

I just read an article about German Catholics wanting a Santa Claus-free Christmas this year.  It reminds me of something I have often spoken to students about: creating a "St. Nicholas Society."  The idea comes from the legend of the young St. Nicholas,

who was the orphaned son of wealthy parents.  One day he overheard a father lamenting that he had to sell one of his three daughters into slavery in order for the rest of the family to survive.  That night Nicholas threw some coins into the family's window to ensure the liberty of the girl, and returned the next two nights to repeat the gift on behalf of the other two girls.  This is why the symbol of St. Nicholas is often three coins:

He wanted his gift to be done in secret, perhaps so that he knew he wasn't giving in order to receive gratitude and honor.  I have come to think of this as the reverse of stealing, a secret giving or an "un-stealing."  

Once, while I was teaching at Penn State, a student told me he was weighing an invitation to join a secret society.  Some aspects of the society were appealing - friendship, loyalty, and a shared purpose, for instance - but he did not feel wholly comfortable with the idea.  I suggested then (and have suggested to several others since) that they consider forming a secret society that was not inwardly-focused but outwardly-focused.  They could call it the "St. Nicholas Society."  Its purpose would be to do good in the world without seeking to receive anything in return.

Of course, I have no idea if any of them have formed a St. Nicholas Society.  If they have, they have been successful at keeping it secret, at least from me!  And you have no idea if I've formed one, or if I just like to talk about it to others.

New Bio-Itzá Website!

Check it out.

The Asociación Bio Itzá does great, inexpensive Spanish-language immersion programs for individuals or groups in Petén, Guatemala.  It's a short trip from the Flores airport to their school and homestays in San José:

and it's also a short trip to Tikal:

They also have a school for teaching indigenous Mayan languages like Itzá, Quiché, and Kekchí. 

There are some slightly cheaper language schools in Guatemala, but this one makes your money go a long way, since they use the income to preserve and protect one of the largest unbroken stretches of rainforest North of the Amazon, and to preserve indigenous culture, protect archaeological sites, and promote sustainable agriculture.  In addition to learning Spanish, you can learn about medicinal plants; local cooking, music, and culture; rainforest ecology; Mayan archaeology (they have a licensed archaeologist on their staff); and a lot more.  Students interested in rural medicine can ask about arranging to work in the local medical clinic.  Worth every penny.

(Thanks to Luke Lynass and the other Augustana College students who worked to get this new website up and running.)

On Enemies

Just heard a very thought-provoking talk by Augustana Professor Janet Blank-Libra on the story of Jonah.  As she was talking, it occurred to me that in the story, God makes this disturbing analogy in Jonah 4.10-11:

Vine:Jonah::Nineveh:God

It's not the only possible interpretation of the verse, I admit, but it looks like at least one way to read it is that the people I think of as enemies might be as delightful to God as a shady spot in the hot desert was to Jonah.

Sam Harris Needs A Mirror

Sam Harris recently tweeted this column by Nicholas Kristof, adding this tag: "Found: the most sanctimonious person on earth." 

Respect for laws and Respect for the Law

I don't tend to talk about politics - at least not about specific candidates - on my blog or in my classroom.  One of my main reasons for this (I have several) is that as a teacher of philosophy, I am more interested in the ideas than in the people running for office. 

The case of Kristi Noem - a Republican running for Congress in South Dakota - is one of those cases where it's difficult to separate the person from the ideas.  I don't mean that she is inseparable from her politics.  I am instead referring to her driving record. 

Many people in my state feel that Noem's record has been subjected to enough scrutiny, and that it is just an example of her opponent, Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin, playing dirty politics.  The latter may be true (I don't pretend to know), but I don't think the former is true.  I don't mean that we need to have a longer investigation of Noem's driving record.  But I do wonder whether Republicans should be endorsing Noem at all. 

It's not that Noem got caught speeding once.  It's not even that she has been caught speeding 20 times.  It's that her record of breaking the law is so long that it speaks of a strong disrespect for Law in general.  None of us is perfect, but this record suggests that she's a habitual speeder.  One recent ticket had her clocked at 96 mph (the state speed limit is 75 on highways.)  Her actions say pretty loudly that she doesn't much care for the law.  Not a good attribute for someone whose job it would be, if elected, to write the law.

Do we really want to endorse candidates who view the law as something to be obeyed by others but not by themselves?  Isn't that precisely the opposite of the character we want in our legislators?  (Or have I just been reading too much Plato?)

Addendum:  A friend of mine points out that while the link above states it, I do not mention that Noem also has six times failed to appear in court; and she has twice had arrest warrants issued against her.  I'm not just asking Republicans if they want this to be their public face; I'm asking all of us if we want this to be the profile our legislators.  A state in which the legislators do not honor the law is a state in serious trouble.  

Is Prayer "Effective"?

I recently read a short essay that described prayer as something that should best be studied by the physical sciences.  This claim has been made for quite a long time, and I think there may be some truth to it.

I wonder, though, if the people who make this kind of claim are trying to understand prayer as a kind of incantation.  That is, it seems like they are saying that the best way to examine prayer is to study its effectiveness, by which they mean that some people should ask God for something and then we will measure the frequency with which those prayers are "answered."

Now, I'm no expert on prayer.  And I know that any discussion of prayer is going to get sticky.  But I think this kind of effectiveness study is misguided.  I don't think we should think of prayer as words we say in order to make God do things that God would not otherwise do.  If it were, that would make prayer into a kind of magic, or it would turn God into a kind of technology, or both.

When I read the prayers in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, or when I listen to or read others' prayers, I see something else: the people who pray seem to have the expectation that God will do what God will do, not what they want God to do.  In a way, this makes sense: if God is personal, then God is not to be dominated or pushed around any more than we are.  It seems like most of the prayers I've read sound like requests and arguments and complaints and even like words spoken in love.  Even when (as in the Book of Job) people chastise God for seeming not to act, or when they rebuke or forgive God for not having acted, there seems to be a sense that God is a person, not a tool. 

I think that if we were to look to some of the great works of prayer - the works of the mystics in any tradition, for instance - or even if we were to ask ordinary people why they pray, we would find that their concern is not with whether prayer makes miracles happen but with the way in which prayer manifests and nurtures their relationship with the divine.  I don't really know how to judge that sort of claim, and I often just listen to it in wonder.  But I'm pretty sure that if we were to attempt to measure the "effectiveness" of that prayer, we would wind up ignoring or doing violence to the claim that what matters most in prayer is the conversation and the relationship.