Oct 1: Polarity
|
|
|
To do for next class - 1) Read chapter 12; 2) Give a specific example of how/where Taylor could have benefited from his own advice. Or show why some seeming example of this isn't one. |
To do for next class - 1) Read chapter 13; 2) How does a 'sense of time' relate to 'pure becoming'? That is, how are they different or the same, what problems/characteristics do they share? What do you think of Taylor's praise of greatness? 3) Your first paper! |
Introduction
What is polarity or polarization? (Assuming two exclusive categories and attempting to fit all considerations into either one or the other). Can you think of some instances when this is most obvious? Most clearly of all, logic is deeply invested in the office sets of true and false. Much of science, law, and medicine share similar commitments to polarity (examples? Did the president have sexual relations with Lewinski?). In the history of philosophy, Socrates was perhaps the greatest exploiter of polarity. In each of the dialogs written by Plato, Socrates effectively employed his method much to the dismay of his victims. As Taylor notes, this kind of thinking is not limited to philosophy. Perhaps, it is more common in the West however which he does not note. Much eastern philosophy finds wisdom in considering paradoxes in which something is both right and wrong, black and white, or up and down.
The logical law excluded middle (LEM), which Taylor has employed previously (especially in his discussion of fatalism), is an explicit endorsement of polarity. Simply, it states: everything either has a given quality or has been negative of that quality (e.g., every number is either odd or even). In fact, the LEM is often considered one of the laws of thought (along with identity and the law of non-contradiction). We can state it in more modern terms as: every class is such that its union with its own complement is the universal class. The question is, will this law help or hinder our decisions? If it helps us, does it always help us? Can you think of instances when the LEM is invalid, that is, leads to a false dichotomy? Can you see any deep reasons why the LEM might fail? (What it our division of the world is contingent?)
Vagueness
What Taylor refers to as the exceptionability of polarizations is more commonly discussed under the heading of vagueness. Taylor's first example is that of rain in Chicago. If a single rain drop falls in my yard, dated rain in Chicago? Did it rain in my yard? In my entire yard? Part of it? How do we answer this question? Who cares? Well, philosophers will always care about what counts as the right answer. However, in such cases it is not clear that there is a need right answer (that is, yes or no answer). Of course, we can always, like in the case of the person being in Wisconsin, stipulate what counts as "in Wisconsin" and what does not. But, as Taylor notes we should not consider this sharpening of the concept as being more than mere invention for practical purposes. It does not sharpen or tidy reality.
Note that vagueness is more than just a lack of knowledge. There is also epistemological vagueness, but it is somewhat misleading to consider this true vagueness since an increase in knowledge and clarify the situation. Vagueness, as we use the term, is metaphysical. Perhaps the most common example is that of baldness. If someone has one hair on their head are they bald? This kind of paradoxes called a sorites. They can be expressed as: a man with no hairs is bald, adding one hair to a bald man results in a bald man, therefore all man are bald. Vagueness should not be confused with ambiguity. In ambiguity, a sentence can be simultaneously affirmed and denied depending on which claims allowed by the ambiguity are considered valid. In vagueness, as most philosophers have it, there is some continuum along which tiny changes seem to make no difference - but eventually do. Philosophers have attempted to solve this problem through the introduction of various logics. Of course, any many valued finite logic will not do the trick. So, something like fuzzy logic, that is an infinite valued logic, is often adopted. (Value between 0 and 1; negative is one minus sentence; conjunction is least true; disjunction is most true; vague equals.5). Others have used modal logic to the same ends. Yet a third kind of logic is that of supervaluation. In this case, the vague predicate is arbitrarily made precise (thus a number of hairs is specified as bald). If a sentence is true under all valuations then it is super true and conversely for super false. Unlike fuzzy logic, conjunction and disjunction of opposites remain non-vague.
"Popular metaphysics"
Taylor characterizes popular metaphysics as being a mistaken search for an either/or truth. What is the borderline between life-and-death? He notes, once again, that metaphysical wisdom sometimes begins by realizing there is no answer to such questions. In fact he says, then I would think he should heed his own advice better than he does, "of course, answers to such questions can always be invented, and indeed they always are. But as with all inventions, they differ according to the predilections, needs, and prejudices of their inventors. In the realm of metaphysics the competing inventors of answers then fall to wrangling over which answer is the "true" one, quite failing to realize that no to one has discovered any true that all. The answers are in fact nothing but rival fabrications." In which cases you think Taylor falls prey to this problem? What does he invent? What are his competitors? How can you support the contention that he is inventing to satisfy his needs?
What is Taylor suggest we doing cases where we can not convincingly answer a question yes or no? In other words, what do we rely on to judge be "vagueness" our answers? (Pragmatics) is it most accurate to say that somebody is "strictly speaking" partly dead and alive? What other kind of solutions, in light of the vagueness discussion, can you think of? Consider the following quote: "borderline can be invented, of course, but they cannot be found, for they are not there." Is this metaphysically interesting? Why?
Coming into being
A thousand years ago you do not exist. However, you exist now. By the law of excluded middle you either exist or you do not. So when the you come into existence? Here we must consider the metaphysical consequences of processes. Understanding "coming into being" is difficult in the context of physical processes. Imagine how hard it is if we think of "being" as personhood. Is it true that calling a zygote a person is always an expression of choice or preference? And that it is not a declaration of fact? Why can't we declare the moment of conception as an absolute beginning? (Because it is a process, because it is not clear how we can identify events, because it is more mysterious does not make it more important). Note that Taylor cheats when he asks what kind of observation can make it would let us know when God infuses a soul since that is a epistemological problem -- not that there aren't other problems with this claim. What you think of Taylor's final explanation of the abortion debate? P. 123. Of course, nobody has any problem realizing that we invent such things as adulthood (or a drinking age of 21, since it is different in many countries) such things are obviously conventions.
Polarity and the history of philosophy
One of the best examples of polarity in the history of philosophy is that of Zeno. He employed a familiar story of the rabbit and the turtle (although the rabbit was Achilles in his story). He argued that neither could win the race since an order to get to the finish line at the yet halfway to the finish line in order yet halfway to the finish line at the yet halfway to halfway to the finish line, etc. therefore, because there were an infinite number of half ways, no one would ever arrive at the finish line. The polarizations between infinite and discrete is more subtle here than in the examples Taylor provides. In particular, the argument that everything is infinite in size relies on a similar polarity (if something has parts each part has a size each part of that part has a size etc. etc. etc. so everything must be really big). Taylor uses Parmenides as a central example, but he has one important premise which Taylor does not discuss. That is, he assumes nothing can come to be what it is not, this is why I find Zeno's example more interesting. Unfortunately this problem of dichotomy has not gone away with time. Taylor himself notes "how much of the issue of fatalism, for example, rests upon the supposition that every declaritive assertion must be either true or false?" And I would add, what about the issue of free will? (An object is or is not random or purposeful).
Parmenides interesting problem is not uncommon one of assuming that something either exists or does not. If we use the either/or dichotomy for existing things (e.g., me, the Eiffel Tower), we seem to be denying the importance of processes. The processes and themselves are a problem however as it is difficult to tell when they begin when they end. Think about the first two full paragraphs, on the top of p. 126 (Taylor is using the law of excluded middle here to show that polarity is not true).
Personal identity
What is the problem of personal identity? (Am I the same person of the infant in those photos?) That is, am I the same or different? When considered at a physical level, it is likely that there are no atoms in my body at this moment which were in my body when I was born. The road from infancy to old age rebuilds you, literally. So, in one sense am I the same as the infant in that picture? This is where metaphysicians, needing to retain some kind of identity, introduced the concept of a person, a soul, or a mind. Where is polarity played a role in this theory? (A person is either identical to their former self or not; and it is generally seemed that it is axiomatic that we are the same as we were). Why do you think philosophers were so interested in characterizing and affirming personal identity over time? One big motivation is that of assigning responsibility. But if we think about how we assign responsibility, time plays an important role. We would consider it unreasonable to punish a fifty year old for breaking the vase when they were 5. So perhaps the philosophers were misleading themselves. Taylor feels he has all the problem by introducing be notion of "growing out of" something, but I'm not so sure he has. What sorts of difficulties might be involved in that concept? How can we determine what grew out of what? There's a lot of process metaphysics left to be done.
What do you think of Taylor's rope analogy? People are ropes. Where does it succeed, where does it fail?
Perhaps the absurdity of the Brown/Robinson thought experiment helps to show Taylor's point. Which one is Brown? Taylor admits that we simply cannot say, however we must be able to characterize the when we cannot say and when we can. This brings us back to the problem of vagueness, in this context, the vagueness of "growing out of". As with his introduction of the concept of agency, it is not clear that "growing out of" solves more problems that it creates. Perhaps Taylor is aware of this but he does not give that impression. Maybe once a gain we should settle for wisdom and not easy answers.
To do for next class
1) Read chapter 13; 2) How does a 'sense of time' relate to 'pure becoming'? That is, how are they different or the same, what problems/characteristics do they share? What do you think of Taylor's praise of greatness? 3) Your first paper!