This is a report of the philosophy café session on 17 February 2010. The question for the evening is: “Is patience a waste of time?”
What is patience? An online dictionary defines it as: “suffering delay, pain, irritation etc quietly and without complaint”. What is waste? The definition is: “fail to use [blank: which we fill with the word “time”] fully or in the correct or most useful way.”
Consider gardening. We cannot do anything but wait for the plants to grow. Not true, we have to add fertilizer, water the plants etc. Consider construction. Things must move according to a determined timeline, waiting for events to move according to this timeline cannot be considered “waste”.
So it is not waste if there is a result. If there is no delay, patience is not called for.
What about patience as a virtue? Even if there is no result, character building can occur. This makes patience not a waste of time.
Hence:
If (either result or character building), then not-(waste of time); and
If not-(either result or character building), then (waste of time)
Patience is considered a virtue because we do not know the future eg. a farmer waiting for his plants to grow. Anything can happen.
We suggest a metaphor. We lean a ladder against a tree (apple, pear etc) to pluck its fruits. If we lean it against the correct tree, and get the fruits, it is not a waste of time. If we lean it against the wrong tree, and do not get the fruits, it is a waste of time. But what if we carry the ladder into an orchard, and do not know which is the right tree, leaving us no choice but to try many trees, is that a waste of time? Well, in the same way as Edison discovered many ways in which electricity cannot generate light, we gain knowledge by climbing up many wrong trees. Since our patience in climbing many wrong trees allows us to gain knowledge, it is not a waste of time.
Gaining knowledge is not character building. It is a result.
What about doomsday cults waiting for the end of the world? The end of the world is an event not likely to happen anytime in the near future. Is their patience then a waste of time? Well, we do not know that the end of the world is an event not likely to happen anytime in the near future.
Waiting in ignorance is a waste of time. No, because the future is always unknown, so it is not a waste of time. Thus, because the future is always unknown, it is not the case that:
If not-(either result or character building), then (waste of time).
We had earlier established that:
If (either result or character building), then not-(waste of time)
We now establish that:
If not-(either result or character building), then not-(waste of time)
But, it must be either:
(either result or character building) or not-(either result or character building)
Thus, patience is never a waste of time.
We can say the future is never known only when we look ahead in time. However, when we engage hindsight, we are able to say that “there is no result, or there is a bad result, or no character development occurred”, and hence that “patience was a waste of time”.
What if we had pessimistic foresight? This yields only an anticipated waste of time, rather than an actual waste of time.
We refer back to the definition of patience. It involves complaint. If we have a pessimistic foresight, and we complain about it, we do not have patience. The question dissolves. If we have pessimistic foresight and we do not complain about it, we are patient, but we are still dealing with anticipated waste of time rather than actual waste of time.
The word “patience” is used only in foresight. Judgement is exercised only in hindsight. In foresight, patience is never a waste of time. Hence, patience is not a waste of time.
What about procrastination? So far, we have been discussing patience in terms of passively waiting for some event to occur. Procrastination is also a kind of patience, waiting to perform some action.
We note the pejorative flavour of the word “procrastination”, which will bias the discussion. We decide to ignore this pejorative flavour, and focus only on the literal meaning of the word: “to delay action”.
Is procrastination (as a form of patience) a waste of time?
If procrastination leads to a result, then it is not a waste of time. But this is known only in hindsight. When we procrastinate, we are necessarily looking ahead, but because the future is always unknown, such patience is never a waste of time.
In conclusion, however we look at it, patience is never a waste of time.
It has been an extremely productive discussion.
Philosophy cafe sessions are held on every third Wednesday of the month at Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road, from 8-10pm. All enquiring minds are welcome, there is no other prerequisite. It's free parking and free admission, with personal expense for food and drink. The next philosophy cafe session will be held on 17 March 2010. Hope to see you there.
Thursday, 18 February 2010
Saturday, 13 February 2010
Is having a child important in a marriage?
This is a report of the second question attempted at philosophy cafe's first commercial outing -- on 12 February 2010 -- as an event organised by a dating agency (www.champagnejsg.com).
Only if one is prepared to be responsible for a child should one have a child.
Whether or not this is true, the claim does not address the question, which is about the importance of a child in a marriage.
Marriage is defined as heterosexual marriage, for the simple reason that this is the only kind of marriage that can produce children.
What does the word "important" mean? It means "to produce children". No, that would mean that a childless couple in their 80s are then by definition not married. That cannot be right. This understanding of the word "important" does not work.
What is marriage? It's a question discussed in the philosophy cafe session of 18 November 2009. It so happens I have the notes from that evening with me. We take the conclusion from that evening's discussion. Marriage is a man-made construct with no intrinsic value. This means that marriage has no value in and of itself. This does not mean that marriage has no value at all. It remains possible for individuals or couples to impose value upon it. Having a child can be one such imposed value.
Perhaps the preposition in the question is important. Is there a difference between asking "Is having a child important in a marriage" and "Is having a child important to a marriage"?
Phrased with an "in", the question relates to the species, as "does the species find it important?" Whereas, phrased with a "to", the question relates to a specific couple, as "does this, or any, couple (but not species) find it important?"
We run out of time. Discussion of this question ends here.
END
Only if one is prepared to be responsible for a child should one have a child.
Whether or not this is true, the claim does not address the question, which is about the importance of a child in a marriage.
Marriage is defined as heterosexual marriage, for the simple reason that this is the only kind of marriage that can produce children.
What does the word "important" mean? It means "to produce children". No, that would mean that a childless couple in their 80s are then by definition not married. That cannot be right. This understanding of the word "important" does not work.
What is marriage? It's a question discussed in the philosophy cafe session of 18 November 2009. It so happens I have the notes from that evening with me. We take the conclusion from that evening's discussion. Marriage is a man-made construct with no intrinsic value. This means that marriage has no value in and of itself. This does not mean that marriage has no value at all. It remains possible for individuals or couples to impose value upon it. Having a child can be one such imposed value.
Perhaps the preposition in the question is important. Is there a difference between asking "Is having a child important in a marriage" and "Is having a child important to a marriage"?
Phrased with an "in", the question relates to the species, as "does the species find it important?" Whereas, phrased with a "to", the question relates to a specific couple, as "does this, or any, couple (but not species) find it important?"
We run out of time. Discussion of this question ends here.
END
Can we change to be different?
Philosophy cafe has its first commercial outing on 12 February 2010, on the eve of the eve of Chinese New Year. It is used as an event in the calendar of a local dating agency (www.champagnejsg.com).
The question for the evening is, as usual, suggested and chosen by the participants in a popular vote. It is: "Can we change to be different?"
"Different" is defined as "not alike in character or quality". This definition is obtained from an online dictionary. Definition via dictionary is, in philosophy, known as "lexical definition". [This is an effective but little used method of definition in philosophy, with many philosophers preferring to write entire books on "The meaning of difference" etc.]
What is the "we" in the question? It refers to some basic nature, some essence. This is to be distinguished from an attribute eg. someone wearing a red or grey shirt.
Someone offers this argument: "I do not observe that my basic nature has changed, nor do I observe that my nephews' basic nature has changed. Therefore, basic nature does not change. We cannot change to be different." We point out that just a few individuals do not constitute a representative sample. We cannot generalise from this.
We need to exclude the natural maturity process from the word "change". This is because if we do not do this, then the question becomes entirely trivial: We all of us undergo the natural maturing process as part of growing up. We cannot not change.
An analogy from physics applies. An object continues in motion unless acted upon by an external force. This is from Newton's laws of motion. In the same way, we continue on our natural trajectory unless some big experience (external force) causes a change in us. For example, a patient hears a diagnosis of cancer, and a bleak prognosis for his expected remaining lifespan. This big experience can cause a change in the patient to the point of being different.
But there are instances also of criminals who enter and leave prison many times with no change in their criminal tendencies. This recidivism shows that so-called big experiences may not cause change.
The question is: "Can we change to be different?", not "Must we change to be different?" The fact of hardcore criminals does not detract from the fact that big experiences can change people to be different.
A different slant on the question: Can people change by choice to be different?, as opposed to some big experience forcing a change upon them?
We return to the cancer patient and the bleak prognosis. The bleak prognosis cannot be said to inevitably cause a change to a more depressed attitude towards life. It is possible that such news may provoke the patient into consciously choosing to grab life by the horns instead. Or, more mundanely, one can choose to stop smoking, lose weight etc.
To sum up: The answer to the evening's question is: Yes, we can change to be different. We can think of two ways in which this occurs. One, we continue on our natural trajectory unless some big experience causes us to change to be different. Two, we consciously choose the manner of our difference, and then work towards that.
We have answered the question for the evening.
The event still has some time to run. We decide to embark on our second choice question for the evening: Is having a child important in a marriage? [See other post]
END
The question for the evening is, as usual, suggested and chosen by the participants in a popular vote. It is: "Can we change to be different?"
"Different" is defined as "not alike in character or quality". This definition is obtained from an online dictionary. Definition via dictionary is, in philosophy, known as "lexical definition". [This is an effective but little used method of definition in philosophy, with many philosophers preferring to write entire books on "The meaning of difference" etc.]
What is the "we" in the question? It refers to some basic nature, some essence. This is to be distinguished from an attribute eg. someone wearing a red or grey shirt.
Someone offers this argument: "I do not observe that my basic nature has changed, nor do I observe that my nephews' basic nature has changed. Therefore, basic nature does not change. We cannot change to be different." We point out that just a few individuals do not constitute a representative sample. We cannot generalise from this.
We need to exclude the natural maturity process from the word "change". This is because if we do not do this, then the question becomes entirely trivial: We all of us undergo the natural maturing process as part of growing up. We cannot not change.
An analogy from physics applies. An object continues in motion unless acted upon by an external force. This is from Newton's laws of motion. In the same way, we continue on our natural trajectory unless some big experience (external force) causes a change in us. For example, a patient hears a diagnosis of cancer, and a bleak prognosis for his expected remaining lifespan. This big experience can cause a change in the patient to the point of being different.
But there are instances also of criminals who enter and leave prison many times with no change in their criminal tendencies. This recidivism shows that so-called big experiences may not cause change.
The question is: "Can we change to be different?", not "Must we change to be different?" The fact of hardcore criminals does not detract from the fact that big experiences can change people to be different.
A different slant on the question: Can people change by choice to be different?, as opposed to some big experience forcing a change upon them?
We return to the cancer patient and the bleak prognosis. The bleak prognosis cannot be said to inevitably cause a change to a more depressed attitude towards life. It is possible that such news may provoke the patient into consciously choosing to grab life by the horns instead. Or, more mundanely, one can choose to stop smoking, lose weight etc.
To sum up: The answer to the evening's question is: Yes, we can change to be different. We can think of two ways in which this occurs. One, we continue on our natural trajectory unless some big experience causes us to change to be different. Two, we consciously choose the manner of our difference, and then work towards that.
We have answered the question for the evening.
The event still has some time to run. We decide to embark on our second choice question for the evening: Is having a child important in a marriage? [See other post]
END
Wednesday, 27 January 2010
What makes a question philosophical?
A regular visitor to my philosophy cafe asked me this question after a session, saying knowing this will help him formulate questions to offer at future philosophy cafe sessions. Coincidentally, I had also thought about this very question during my Introduction to Philosophy course last year. Here is the answer I came up with.
A question is philosophical if it satisfies three conditions:
1. The question has not yet been answered by science.
2. There is more than one possible answer.
3. The question cannot be answered by conducting an experiment.
However, it does not follow from this that every philosophical question will be philosophically addressed. A very common practice is to immediately jump to an answer, and to tightly hold on to it against all objections. To philosophically address a question, one must:
1. Assume that the question can be answered.
2. Examine only the argument offered to support any proposed answer.
3. Separate the argument from the arguer.
I hope this will help all future participants of my philosophy cafe -- as well as everyone attempting clear thought.
END
A question is philosophical if it satisfies three conditions:
1. The question has not yet been answered by science.
2. There is more than one possible answer.
3. The question cannot be answered by conducting an experiment.
However, it does not follow from this that every philosophical question will be philosophically addressed. A very common practice is to immediately jump to an answer, and to tightly hold on to it against all objections. To philosophically address a question, one must:
1. Assume that the question can be answered.
2. Examine only the argument offered to support any proposed answer.
3. Separate the argument from the arguer.
I hope this will help all future participants of my philosophy cafe -- as well as everyone attempting clear thought.
END
Friday, 22 January 2010
Do beer ladies need a career path?
This is a report of my philosophy café session on 20 January 2010.
The question of the evening, selected as usual by a popular vote, is: “Do beer ladies need a career path?”
We begin by recognizing that the phrase “beer lady” does not refer to a specific person or job, but rather is a representative of a type of job, namely one whose shelf life is in concept limited by certain generally well known parameters. Another example of this type of job is “child star”. In both cases, the parameter is age.
Next, we define “career path” as “a set of jobs in a logical progression within the same industry or profession”.
Finally, we define “need”. A person needs a job when he or she would, if deprived of that job, languish in a state of despair.
Consider an entrepreneur. This job has a short shelf life, even though the entrepreneur cannot be fired from the job. If the business fails, the entrepreneur is no more. If the business succeeds, the entrepreneur becomes a manager. In either case, the entrepreneur has reached the end of his or her shelf life. There is no possible career path. Hence, the question must refer to an employee.
Employment occurs in an organization with a hierarchy, which makes career paths possible.
What about a lateral movement? Does it count as movement along a career path? Generally it does not, since there is no progression. However, if the lateral movements are part of a management plan for the given employee, then it is a career path.
An organizational hierarchy is needed to provide a rank, which is what enables an employee to do his or her job.
An employee needs a career path to provide motivation.
Beer ladies are not part of a hierarchy, hence they have no motivation. Not so.
First, in certain establishments, even beer ladies can be part of a hierarchy. They can become senior beer ladies, or even managers of beer ladies. We have in mind especially F&B establishments.
Second, it is possible to have motivation without a hierarchy. Increased cash revenue is also a strong motivator. Hence, a hierarchy is not needed; a career path is not needed.
So, where do beer ladies go when they hit their job parameters? They can take advantage of unplanned opportunities. There is no set path for them to follow; instead they travel a flexible path that responds to the moment in time.
Beer ladies do not need a career path; a series of jobs will serve them just as well.
Our question is answered.
Philosophy café sessions are held every third Wednesday of each month at Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road, 8-10pm. All persons with enquiring minds are welcome. It’s free admission, but personal expenses for food and drink. Oh, also free parking. Our next philosophy café session will be on 17 February 2010.
The question of the evening, selected as usual by a popular vote, is: “Do beer ladies need a career path?”
We begin by recognizing that the phrase “beer lady” does not refer to a specific person or job, but rather is a representative of a type of job, namely one whose shelf life is in concept limited by certain generally well known parameters. Another example of this type of job is “child star”. In both cases, the parameter is age.
Next, we define “career path” as “a set of jobs in a logical progression within the same industry or profession”.
Finally, we define “need”. A person needs a job when he or she would, if deprived of that job, languish in a state of despair.
Consider an entrepreneur. This job has a short shelf life, even though the entrepreneur cannot be fired from the job. If the business fails, the entrepreneur is no more. If the business succeeds, the entrepreneur becomes a manager. In either case, the entrepreneur has reached the end of his or her shelf life. There is no possible career path. Hence, the question must refer to an employee.
Employment occurs in an organization with a hierarchy, which makes career paths possible.
What about a lateral movement? Does it count as movement along a career path? Generally it does not, since there is no progression. However, if the lateral movements are part of a management plan for the given employee, then it is a career path.
An organizational hierarchy is needed to provide a rank, which is what enables an employee to do his or her job.
An employee needs a career path to provide motivation.
Beer ladies are not part of a hierarchy, hence they have no motivation. Not so.
First, in certain establishments, even beer ladies can be part of a hierarchy. They can become senior beer ladies, or even managers of beer ladies. We have in mind especially F&B establishments.
Second, it is possible to have motivation without a hierarchy. Increased cash revenue is also a strong motivator. Hence, a hierarchy is not needed; a career path is not needed.
So, where do beer ladies go when they hit their job parameters? They can take advantage of unplanned opportunities. There is no set path for them to follow; instead they travel a flexible path that responds to the moment in time.
Beer ladies do not need a career path; a series of jobs will serve them just as well.
Our question is answered.
Philosophy café sessions are held every third Wednesday of each month at Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road, 8-10pm. All persons with enquiring minds are welcome. It’s free admission, but personal expenses for food and drink. Oh, also free parking. Our next philosophy café session will be on 17 February 2010.
Friday, 18 December 2009
What does it mean to be cheating in a relationship?
This is a report of the philosophy café session on 16 December 2009. The topic for the evening is: What does it mean to be cheating in a relationship?
Is “cheating” only physical? We cannot separate the physical from the non-physical. The thought of cheating is already cheating. Let’s be specific, thoughts of what? Thoughts of dinner, dating, sex – are these all physical?
Our first try at defining “cheating”: It is the undermining of the exclusiveness of a romantic relationship.
Is a relationship confined to two persons? No, it can be more than two.
Exclusiveness is a state of mind, the thought of being exclusive, of belonging to the group (may be two, or more). Belonging means not having any intimate physical relationship outside the group. Intimate physical relationship means touch, including sex and holding hands; but not flirting (because no touch involved).
Cheating is the undermining of the tactile exclusiveness of a romantic relationship.
What if a couple uses a third person to have a child?
One husband is allowed to have extramarital sex provided he uses condoms, pays for the sex, and is home by 7am the next day. This arrangement is with the wife’s agreement – even though she is unhappy about it.
Is agreement important in cheating? If there is agreement, then the relationship is not undermined. Therefore, there is no cheating.
Cheating is the undermining of the tactile exclusiveness of a romantic relationship without agreement from the group.
Some Hong Kong millionaires maintain several mistresses, with their wives’ agreement. It is economic circumstances that force the wives to agree. It is not a freely granted agreement.
Cheating is the undermining of the tactile exclusiveness of a romantic relationship without freely granted agreement from the group.
Is knowledge of the act important? If the other persons in the group know about it, then it is not cheating. It is cheating only if the other persons in the group do not know about the alleged cheating act.
Cheating is the undermining of the tactile exclusiveness of a romantic relationship without freely granted agreement from the group, and without the other persons in the group knowing about it.
What about intention to start another relationship? Yes, if there is such an intention, then it is cheating; if there is not such an intention, then it is not cheating.
Cheating is the undermining of the tactile exclusiveness of a romantic relationship without freely granted agreement from the group, without the other persons in the group knowing about it, and with the intention to start another relationship.
What about people who engage in wife swapping? There is freely granted agreement, there is knowledge, and there is no intention to start a new relationship. Is such wife swapping arrangements cases of cheating? On the present definition, it is not cheating.
What about colleagues who like, even “love”, each other, but who never touch each other? Is this cheating? On our present definition, it is not cheating.
What if a member of the group gets raped? Has she (or he) cheated? We run through the criteria. There is touch, it is with someone outside the group, there is no freely granted agreement, the group do not know about it, and there is no intention to start another relationship. By the current definition, the rape victim is guilty of cheating.
We are aghast at this result. The definition needs to be further improved, specifically the criterion of touch (captured in the criterion of exclusivity).
It is not cheating if the touch is forced upon the person being touched.
Cheating is the undermining of the unforced tactile exclusiveness of a romantic relationship without freely granted agreement from the group, without the other persons in the group knowing about it, and with the intention to start another relationship.
What about internet liaisons? There is no touch involved. It is not cheating.
But it is cheating! We have to change the “touch” criterion. Exclusivity should be defined as “behaviours or thoughts that fulfill romantic or sexual desires”. This will make internet liaisons instances of cheating.
This definition will also make cheating include the reading of romantic novels, having crushes on someone, becoming fanatical over movie characters in films like Twilight, and even autoeroticism.
This result is absurd! This amendment must be rejected.
It is 10pm. Discussion stops here.
Philosophy cafe sessions are held on every third Wednesday of the month at Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road, from 8-10pm. I define philosophy as "the rational and rigorous pursuit of truth". Participants choose the topic by a popular vote. There is no prerequisite, educational or otherwise -- except for that of a curious mind. It's free admission, with personal expenses for food and drink. All are welcome. Our next philosophy cafe session is on 20 January 2010. I hope to see you there.
Is “cheating” only physical? We cannot separate the physical from the non-physical. The thought of cheating is already cheating. Let’s be specific, thoughts of what? Thoughts of dinner, dating, sex – are these all physical?
Our first try at defining “cheating”: It is the undermining of the exclusiveness of a romantic relationship.
Is a relationship confined to two persons? No, it can be more than two.
Exclusiveness is a state of mind, the thought of being exclusive, of belonging to the group (may be two, or more). Belonging means not having any intimate physical relationship outside the group. Intimate physical relationship means touch, including sex and holding hands; but not flirting (because no touch involved).
Cheating is the undermining of the tactile exclusiveness of a romantic relationship.
What if a couple uses a third person to have a child?
One husband is allowed to have extramarital sex provided he uses condoms, pays for the sex, and is home by 7am the next day. This arrangement is with the wife’s agreement – even though she is unhappy about it.
Is agreement important in cheating? If there is agreement, then the relationship is not undermined. Therefore, there is no cheating.
Cheating is the undermining of the tactile exclusiveness of a romantic relationship without agreement from the group.
Some Hong Kong millionaires maintain several mistresses, with their wives’ agreement. It is economic circumstances that force the wives to agree. It is not a freely granted agreement.
Cheating is the undermining of the tactile exclusiveness of a romantic relationship without freely granted agreement from the group.
Is knowledge of the act important? If the other persons in the group know about it, then it is not cheating. It is cheating only if the other persons in the group do not know about the alleged cheating act.
Cheating is the undermining of the tactile exclusiveness of a romantic relationship without freely granted agreement from the group, and without the other persons in the group knowing about it.
What about intention to start another relationship? Yes, if there is such an intention, then it is cheating; if there is not such an intention, then it is not cheating.
Cheating is the undermining of the tactile exclusiveness of a romantic relationship without freely granted agreement from the group, without the other persons in the group knowing about it, and with the intention to start another relationship.
What about people who engage in wife swapping? There is freely granted agreement, there is knowledge, and there is no intention to start a new relationship. Is such wife swapping arrangements cases of cheating? On the present definition, it is not cheating.
What about colleagues who like, even “love”, each other, but who never touch each other? Is this cheating? On our present definition, it is not cheating.
What if a member of the group gets raped? Has she (or he) cheated? We run through the criteria. There is touch, it is with someone outside the group, there is no freely granted agreement, the group do not know about it, and there is no intention to start another relationship. By the current definition, the rape victim is guilty of cheating.
We are aghast at this result. The definition needs to be further improved, specifically the criterion of touch (captured in the criterion of exclusivity).
It is not cheating if the touch is forced upon the person being touched.
Cheating is the undermining of the unforced tactile exclusiveness of a romantic relationship without freely granted agreement from the group, without the other persons in the group knowing about it, and with the intention to start another relationship.
What about internet liaisons? There is no touch involved. It is not cheating.
But it is cheating! We have to change the “touch” criterion. Exclusivity should be defined as “behaviours or thoughts that fulfill romantic or sexual desires”. This will make internet liaisons instances of cheating.
This definition will also make cheating include the reading of romantic novels, having crushes on someone, becoming fanatical over movie characters in films like Twilight, and even autoeroticism.
This result is absurd! This amendment must be rejected.
It is 10pm. Discussion stops here.
Philosophy cafe sessions are held on every third Wednesday of the month at Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road, from 8-10pm. I define philosophy as "the rational and rigorous pursuit of truth". Participants choose the topic by a popular vote. There is no prerequisite, educational or otherwise -- except for that of a curious mind. It's free admission, with personal expenses for food and drink. All are welcome. Our next philosophy cafe session is on 20 January 2010. I hope to see you there.
Tuesday, 1 December 2009
Should laws on Federal Reserve be changed?
US Federal Reserve Ben S Bernanke and others comment on proposed legislation covering the central bank. We analyse the comments.
Headline: Fed fix flawed: Bernanke
Source: Today, 30/11/9
Quote1
WASHINGTON: In a commentary in the Washington Post yesterday, he [chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben S Bernanke] sharply criticised a Senate provision that he said "would strip the Fed of all its bank regulatory powers" and a House provision to repeal a 30-year-old law "to protect monetary policy from short-term political influence". "A number of the legislative proposals being circulated would significantly reduce the capacity of the Federal Reserve to perform its core functions," he said. The measures "would seriously impair the prospects for economic and financial stability in the US". ...
Comment1
We here see the start of a teleological (appeal to consequences) argument.
Argument A
If (pass new laws), then the following consequences:
1. strip the Fed of all its bank regulatory powers
2. un-protect monetary policy from short-term political influence
3. significantly reduce the capacity of the Federal Reserve to perform its core functions
4. seriously impair the prospects for economic and financial stability in the US
The unsaid part of the argument is that these consequences are all undesirable, and hence the proposed laws should not be passed. The problem now is that even when these are said, the argument is still incomplete. A complete teleological argument must consider all consequences to all affected parties, and only then should a decision be made, based on the nett benefit or pain caused by the proposed action (in this case passing the new laws).
Quote2
The 55-year-old Fed chairman has presided over the most expansive use of Fed powers since the Great Depression. While he has averted a financial meltdown, lawmakers and voters have voiced concern about taxpayer-sponsored bailouts and proposed the most sweeping dismantling of Fed authority since the creation of the institution in 1913. ...
Comment2
It turns out that the proposed laws are precisely designed to dismantle Fed authority. This being the case, Consequences 1, 2, 3 identified by Bernanke in Quote1 above are precisely the intended consequences. All Bernanke has achieved with his comments is confirm that the proposed laws will achieve their aims. What he needed to do was show that these three consequences are undesirable, and this he has not done. However, Bernanke's alleged Consequence 4 (seriously impair the prospects for economic and financial stability in the US) is not affected.
Quote3
"Now more than ever, America needs a strong, non-political and independent central bank with the tools to promote financial stability and to help steer our economy to recovery without inflation," he [Bernanke] argued.
Comment3a
Now Bernanke strongly implies that the above Consequences 1, 2, 3 are undesirable. Since "America needs a strong, non-political and independent central bank", we clearly cannot:
1. strip the Fed of all its bank regulatory powers
2. un-protect monetary policy from short-term political influence
3. significantly reduce the capacity of the Federal Reserve to perform its core functions.
Comment3b
But this raises a philosophical question: If the central bank is to be "non-political", then to whom is it answerable? Surely a central bank must answer to the government, and a government must, by definition, be political.
Quote4
Senate Banking Committee [sic] Christopher Dodd and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee Barney Frank have, however, criticised the Fed for lax supervision and want to create a single bank regulator -- a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency.
Comment4
We have a new argument:
Argument B
Premiss1: If (Fed performs lax supervision), then (create new agency)
Premiss2: Fed performs lax supervision
Conclusion: Therefore, create new agency
This is a Modus Ponens (If P then Q, P, hence Q) argument. It is valid. All that remains is to prove the two premisses true. No proof to this effect is offered.
Quote5
As economist Allan Meltzer, a Fed historian and professor at Carnegie Mellon University, said in an interview: "Congress has a lot of public support for an attack on the Fed ... They bailed out everybody in sight."
Comment5
"Public support" boils down to popularity. This is not an issue that should be settled by popularity. Here there should be a consideration of right or wrong, effective or ineffective. Hence, the fallacy Argumentum ad Populum has been committed, and this argument should be rejected.
Quote6
However, Mr James Glassman, senior economist ad JPMorgan Chase noted that while "the political pressure on the Fed is out there", the Fed "has done a very remarkable job managing the financial crisis and the recovery of the financial markets is a testimony to that. Of all the things to 'fix', why would we tamper with the one that actually has worked well?" -- The New York Times, Bloomberg.
Comment6a
"The political pressure on the Fed is out there" again refers to popularity, and is correctly ignored.
Comment6b
Here is the next argument:
Argument C
Premiss1: If (Fed is done a good job), then (no need to change laws)
Premiss2: Fed has done a good job [from Conclusion2]
Conclusion1: Hence, no need to change laws.
Premiss3: If (financial markets recover), then (Fed has done a good job)
Premiss4: Financial markets recover
Conclusion2: Hence, Fed has done a good job [to Premise2]
Both arguments have the Modus Ponens form, and are therefore valid. The premisses seem intuitively to be true. The arguments are sound, and therefore succeed.
Case analysis
Argument A: Consequences 1, 2, 3 rebutted. Consequence 4 stands. But the argument is incomplete, and raises the philosophical question of to whom should a central bank be answerable. In limbo.
Argument B: The argument is valid, but premisses not shown to be true. In limbo.
Quote5 commits the Argumentum ad Populum. Rejected.
Argument C succeeds.
Verdict: No need to change Federal Reserve laws.
END
Headline: Fed fix flawed: Bernanke
Source: Today, 30/11/9
Quote1
WASHINGTON: In a commentary in the Washington Post yesterday, he [chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben S Bernanke] sharply criticised a Senate provision that he said "would strip the Fed of all its bank regulatory powers" and a House provision to repeal a 30-year-old law "to protect monetary policy from short-term political influence". "A number of the legislative proposals being circulated would significantly reduce the capacity of the Federal Reserve to perform its core functions," he said. The measures "would seriously impair the prospects for economic and financial stability in the US". ...
Comment1
We here see the start of a teleological (appeal to consequences) argument.
Argument A
If (pass new laws), then the following consequences:
1. strip the Fed of all its bank regulatory powers
2. un-protect monetary policy from short-term political influence
3. significantly reduce the capacity of the Federal Reserve to perform its core functions
4. seriously impair the prospects for economic and financial stability in the US
The unsaid part of the argument is that these consequences are all undesirable, and hence the proposed laws should not be passed. The problem now is that even when these are said, the argument is still incomplete. A complete teleological argument must consider all consequences to all affected parties, and only then should a decision be made, based on the nett benefit or pain caused by the proposed action (in this case passing the new laws).
Quote2
The 55-year-old Fed chairman has presided over the most expansive use of Fed powers since the Great Depression. While he has averted a financial meltdown, lawmakers and voters have voiced concern about taxpayer-sponsored bailouts and proposed the most sweeping dismantling of Fed authority since the creation of the institution in 1913. ...
Comment2
It turns out that the proposed laws are precisely designed to dismantle Fed authority. This being the case, Consequences 1, 2, 3 identified by Bernanke in Quote1 above are precisely the intended consequences. All Bernanke has achieved with his comments is confirm that the proposed laws will achieve their aims. What he needed to do was show that these three consequences are undesirable, and this he has not done. However, Bernanke's alleged Consequence 4 (seriously impair the prospects for economic and financial stability in the US) is not affected.
Quote3
"Now more than ever, America needs a strong, non-political and independent central bank with the tools to promote financial stability and to help steer our economy to recovery without inflation," he [Bernanke] argued.
Comment3a
Now Bernanke strongly implies that the above Consequences 1, 2, 3 are undesirable. Since "America needs a strong, non-political and independent central bank", we clearly cannot:
1. strip the Fed of all its bank regulatory powers
2. un-protect monetary policy from short-term political influence
3. significantly reduce the capacity of the Federal Reserve to perform its core functions.
Comment3b
But this raises a philosophical question: If the central bank is to be "non-political", then to whom is it answerable? Surely a central bank must answer to the government, and a government must, by definition, be political.
Quote4
Senate Banking Committee [sic] Christopher Dodd and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee Barney Frank have, however, criticised the Fed for lax supervision and want to create a single bank regulator -- a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency.
Comment4
We have a new argument:
Argument B
Premiss1: If (Fed performs lax supervision), then (create new agency)
Premiss2: Fed performs lax supervision
Conclusion: Therefore, create new agency
This is a Modus Ponens (If P then Q, P, hence Q) argument. It is valid. All that remains is to prove the two premisses true. No proof to this effect is offered.
Quote5
As economist Allan Meltzer, a Fed historian and professor at Carnegie Mellon University, said in an interview: "Congress has a lot of public support for an attack on the Fed ... They bailed out everybody in sight."
Comment5
"Public support" boils down to popularity. This is not an issue that should be settled by popularity. Here there should be a consideration of right or wrong, effective or ineffective. Hence, the fallacy Argumentum ad Populum has been committed, and this argument should be rejected.
Quote6
However, Mr James Glassman, senior economist ad JPMorgan Chase noted that while "the political pressure on the Fed is out there", the Fed "has done a very remarkable job managing the financial crisis and the recovery of the financial markets is a testimony to that. Of all the things to 'fix', why would we tamper with the one that actually has worked well?" -- The New York Times, Bloomberg.
Comment6a
"The political pressure on the Fed is out there" again refers to popularity, and is correctly ignored.
Comment6b
Here is the next argument:
Argument C
Premiss1: If (Fed is done a good job), then (no need to change laws)
Premiss2: Fed has done a good job [from Conclusion2]
Conclusion1: Hence, no need to change laws.
Premiss3: If (financial markets recover), then (Fed has done a good job)
Premiss4: Financial markets recover
Conclusion2: Hence, Fed has done a good job [to Premise2]
Both arguments have the Modus Ponens form, and are therefore valid. The premisses seem intuitively to be true. The arguments are sound, and therefore succeed.
Case analysis
Argument A: Consequences 1, 2, 3 rebutted. Consequence 4 stands. But the argument is incomplete, and raises the philosophical question of to whom should a central bank be answerable. In limbo.
Argument B: The argument is valid, but premisses not shown to be true. In limbo.
Quote5 commits the Argumentum ad Populum. Rejected.
Argument C succeeds.
Verdict: No need to change Federal Reserve laws.
END
Saturday, 21 November 2009
What is marriage?
This is a report of the philosophy cafe session on 18 November 2009.
Marriage is defined as "a union of two persons who have decided to live their lives together for various reasons". This definition is not challenged. The discussion immediately shifts to the reasons for marriage.
Humans invented marriage -- to regulate procreation, lineage and inheritance; and to pass on values. All these are to keep social order. Also, the incest taboo is to prevent genetic defects in children.
Marriage is selfish, possessive and competitive. There is an urge to declare to the world: "This is my spouse." Along the same lines, marriage is invented so that beta males can have a chance to mate. Were it not for marriage, all the women would go to the alpha males. No, it also benefits the beta females, who otherwise would lose all the men to the alpha females.
Gender imbalance also plays a part. Polygamy emerges in societies where there is great gender imbalance; whereas where the genders are in rough equivalence, monogamy prevails.
But variety is also important. An US experiment with bulls and cows found that when a bull and a cow were "married", after a time the bull lost interest in mating, and the cow stopped producing milk. When the bull and cow were "divorced", they soon resumed mating interest and milk production respectively. But this need not transfer to human beings.
Marriage is about being kings and queens -- albeit of just a family. It's about acquiring power, albeit only over spouse and children. This is as a sort of consolation prize after being unable to grasp real power as real kings, queens, and other types of rulers.
One can also get married to acquire a companion for life, to cohabit (at a time when this is socially disapproved if done outside marriage), to make parents happy, to grow up, to have someone see you grow up.
The definitive question to be answered is: what specifically does marriage produce, that otherwise cannot be produced?
In the old days, these were permission to have sex, and to produce children. But today, these are no longer exclusive to marriage. Sex between unmarried consenting adults is acceptable, as is single parenthood.
In closing, we conclude that marriage is a man-made construct, with no intrinsic value or function.
The next philosophy cafe session will be held on 16 December 2009. Place and time: Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road, 8-10pm. Admission is free, with personal expense for food and drink. All are welcome. No prior knowledge of philosophy is required. Just bring along curiosity and a rational mind (this is more difficult to achieve than you may imagine).
Marriage is defined as "a union of two persons who have decided to live their lives together for various reasons". This definition is not challenged. The discussion immediately shifts to the reasons for marriage.
Humans invented marriage -- to regulate procreation, lineage and inheritance; and to pass on values. All these are to keep social order. Also, the incest taboo is to prevent genetic defects in children.
Marriage is selfish, possessive and competitive. There is an urge to declare to the world: "This is my spouse." Along the same lines, marriage is invented so that beta males can have a chance to mate. Were it not for marriage, all the women would go to the alpha males. No, it also benefits the beta females, who otherwise would lose all the men to the alpha females.
Gender imbalance also plays a part. Polygamy emerges in societies where there is great gender imbalance; whereas where the genders are in rough equivalence, monogamy prevails.
But variety is also important. An US experiment with bulls and cows found that when a bull and a cow were "married", after a time the bull lost interest in mating, and the cow stopped producing milk. When the bull and cow were "divorced", they soon resumed mating interest and milk production respectively. But this need not transfer to human beings.
Marriage is about being kings and queens -- albeit of just a family. It's about acquiring power, albeit only over spouse and children. This is as a sort of consolation prize after being unable to grasp real power as real kings, queens, and other types of rulers.
One can also get married to acquire a companion for life, to cohabit (at a time when this is socially disapproved if done outside marriage), to make parents happy, to grow up, to have someone see you grow up.
The definitive question to be answered is: what specifically does marriage produce, that otherwise cannot be produced?
In the old days, these were permission to have sex, and to produce children. But today, these are no longer exclusive to marriage. Sex between unmarried consenting adults is acceptable, as is single parenthood.
In closing, we conclude that marriage is a man-made construct, with no intrinsic value or function.
The next philosophy cafe session will be held on 16 December 2009. Place and time: Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road, 8-10pm. Admission is free, with personal expense for food and drink. All are welcome. No prior knowledge of philosophy is required. Just bring along curiosity and a rational mind (this is more difficult to achieve than you may imagine).
Monday, 26 October 2009
Is it fair to pay bankers more than road sweepers?
This is a report of the philosophy cafe session on 21 October 2009.
Bankers get paid more than road sweepers because of scarcity, that is, supply and demand. But what about hardship (the road sweeper is in the sun all day)? What about education (the banker is better educated)? Both these factors feed into scarcity.
We amend the question: Is it fair to pay bankers so much more than road sweepers?
We again mention hardship. Bankers suffer mental hardship, which often includes sleep deprivation (working overnight on big deals). Road sweepers suffer physical hardship. As a comparison, which would one choose to be: A $28,000 road sweeper, or a $850 banker. Everyone chooses the road sweeper.
How do we establish a fair dollar difference?
It is established on the basis of hardship, industry structure, talent and skill. But all these again boil down to scarcity: how many will endure the hardship, how many vacancies does the industry have, how many have the required talents and skills.
There is also a social issue involved here: How should a person live? How should a person be treated? This brings us to the question of a minimum wage.
Many oppose the idea of a minimum wage because it makes things difficult for companies, and even governments. But there is the nagging idea that people, as persons, are entitled to a minimum level of comfort in life.
Suppose we establish a floor salary to meet this minimum comfort, and allow any salary increase from this floor to be decided by scarcity (ie. market forces)? How can such a floor salary be established?
By referendum. Poll the entire population, and take the modal answer as the floor salary.
This is harder than it sounds. Everyone will respond with some huge number. Where will the money come from to meet this minimum? Will industry still be efficient if it has to pay such salaries? How often should the referendum be refreshed? Who will be eligible to vote?
Yet it is not impossible. There are countries with minimum wage systems -- and high tax rates.
Discussion ends here.
Philosophy cafe sessions are held every third Wednesday of the month at Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road, from 8-10pm. All are welcome. Admission is free, with individual expenses for food & drink. The only prerequisites for participation are curiosity and an open & rational mind. Our next session will be on 18 November 2009. We hope to see you there.
Bankers get paid more than road sweepers because of scarcity, that is, supply and demand. But what about hardship (the road sweeper is in the sun all day)? What about education (the banker is better educated)? Both these factors feed into scarcity.
We amend the question: Is it fair to pay bankers so much more than road sweepers?
We again mention hardship. Bankers suffer mental hardship, which often includes sleep deprivation (working overnight on big deals). Road sweepers suffer physical hardship. As a comparison, which would one choose to be: A $28,000 road sweeper, or a $850 banker. Everyone chooses the road sweeper.
How do we establish a fair dollar difference?
It is established on the basis of hardship, industry structure, talent and skill. But all these again boil down to scarcity: how many will endure the hardship, how many vacancies does the industry have, how many have the required talents and skills.
There is also a social issue involved here: How should a person live? How should a person be treated? This brings us to the question of a minimum wage.
Many oppose the idea of a minimum wage because it makes things difficult for companies, and even governments. But there is the nagging idea that people, as persons, are entitled to a minimum level of comfort in life.
Suppose we establish a floor salary to meet this minimum comfort, and allow any salary increase from this floor to be decided by scarcity (ie. market forces)? How can such a floor salary be established?
By referendum. Poll the entire population, and take the modal answer as the floor salary.
This is harder than it sounds. Everyone will respond with some huge number. Where will the money come from to meet this minimum? Will industry still be efficient if it has to pay such salaries? How often should the referendum be refreshed? Who will be eligible to vote?
Yet it is not impossible. There are countries with minimum wage systems -- and high tax rates.
Discussion ends here.
Philosophy cafe sessions are held every third Wednesday of the month at Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road, from 8-10pm. All are welcome. Admission is free, with individual expenses for food & drink. The only prerequisites for participation are curiosity and an open & rational mind. Our next session will be on 18 November 2009. We hope to see you there.
Thursday, 17 September 2009
Am I meant to be here?
This is a report of the philosophy cafe session on 16 September 2009. The question of the night is "Am I meant to be here?"
What do we mean by the word "meant"? We take it to mean "do I have a choice". So the question becomes: Do I have a choice in being here? How can this question be addressed? The only way we can answer this question is if we know about the I before here. But we do not know this. So there is no way for us to address this question. All we can do is accept the fact that we are here.
And so, we reinterpret the question to be asking whether we are controlled or free.
Are we controlled by God, by emotion, by logic? We decide not to open any discussion on God. Emotion and logic are internal to us. We decide to focus on external controls.
We are subject to physical laws of nature, such as gravity and the need for nutrition. This is not disputed. There is no controversy here. What we want to discuss is freedom in our actions.
It is suggested that just as there are laws of physical nature, there are also laws of psychological nature. Our thoughts, attitudes, beliefs, decisions (and hence actions) too are subject to the law of cause and effect, just as physical events are subject to laws of cause and effect.
In which case, why then should we ever reward or punish anyone? Everything he or she thinks, says and does is determined. There is nothing that comes from him or her. Analogically, if a machine were built that could compute its own decisions and actions, we could consider that machine "free" too -- but it is still subject to cause and effect.
Well, we can reward or punish someone just because it is precisely he or she who thinks, says and acts that way. It's not about original contribution; it's just about identity.
In this case, should I feel happy? What is happy? Happy is a chemical reaction in the body. It can be triggered by, for example, consuming dark chocolate (and certain drugs). We reward ourselves by releasing these chemicals eg. serotonin, endorphin. This too is subject to cause and effect.
So, we cannot speak of whether we should or should not be happy, sad, angry, frustrated etc. We simply are happy, sad, angry, frustrated etc.
The discussion ends.
What do we mean by the word "meant"? We take it to mean "do I have a choice". So the question becomes: Do I have a choice in being here? How can this question be addressed? The only way we can answer this question is if we know about the I before here. But we do not know this. So there is no way for us to address this question. All we can do is accept the fact that we are here.
And so, we reinterpret the question to be asking whether we are controlled or free.
Are we controlled by God, by emotion, by logic? We decide not to open any discussion on God. Emotion and logic are internal to us. We decide to focus on external controls.
We are subject to physical laws of nature, such as gravity and the need for nutrition. This is not disputed. There is no controversy here. What we want to discuss is freedom in our actions.
It is suggested that just as there are laws of physical nature, there are also laws of psychological nature. Our thoughts, attitudes, beliefs, decisions (and hence actions) too are subject to the law of cause and effect, just as physical events are subject to laws of cause and effect.
In which case, why then should we ever reward or punish anyone? Everything he or she thinks, says and does is determined. There is nothing that comes from him or her. Analogically, if a machine were built that could compute its own decisions and actions, we could consider that machine "free" too -- but it is still subject to cause and effect.
Well, we can reward or punish someone just because it is precisely he or she who thinks, says and acts that way. It's not about original contribution; it's just about identity.
In this case, should I feel happy? What is happy? Happy is a chemical reaction in the body. It can be triggered by, for example, consuming dark chocolate (and certain drugs). We reward ourselves by releasing these chemicals eg. serotonin, endorphin. This too is subject to cause and effect.
So, we cannot speak of whether we should or should not be happy, sad, angry, frustrated etc. We simply are happy, sad, angry, frustrated etc.
The discussion ends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)