A.C. Grayling, in his book What is Good? discusses the influence of Kant's Pietist upbringing on his moral philosophy.
"Commentators and biographers alike are apt to make much of Kant's Pietist upbringing as a source of his stern morality of duty. The Pietists were numerous and highly influential in eighteenth-century Königsberg, where Kant was born and lived all his life. His parents were strictly observing members of the movement, so he attended a committedly Pietist school, the Collegium Fredericianum, and then the city's university, a centre of Pietist theology. Pietists believed in Original Sin and its concomitant, the human tendency to evil; but this had a further concomitant in the form of a doctrine of salvation through spiritual rebirth, good works, and the unremitting pursuit of moral perfection. Kant deeply disliked the obligatory pieties of Pietism, and by extension religion in general, but he carried from his experience of it the idea of inner dutifulness and discipline." -- A.C. Grayling, What is Good?, p. 154
Nevertheless, Grayling goes on to explain that the most important influence on Kant's moral philosophy was not Pietism, but the Enlightenment. Kant was an avid proponent of the Enlightenment; he wrote the seminal work What is Enlightenment? and actively tried to promote its values. He believed that in order for progress to be made, it was necessary to have freedom, specifically, "freedom from external constraints on debate and the diffusion of knowledge, and freedom internally from the timidity and uncertainty which inhibits independent thought"[1]. He further believed that religion, along with some political systems, in imposing censorship or conformity, hindered progress, and demanded that religious belief stand up to scrutiny by reason. Accordingly, he sought out a non-religious system of ethics that was based on reason, the result of which is Kantian duty ethics. [2]
[1] A. C. Grayling, What is Good?: The Search for the Best Way to Live (London: Phoenix, 2003) 155.
[2] Grayling 155.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Love is a Fallacy
I'd like to share something that we read in class way back in Secondary 3 Philosophy. It's a hilarious short story called Love is a Fallacy by Max Shulman, which discusses various logical fallacies. Look out for the twist at the end.
You'll need to read the start of the story to understand parts of the ending, but if you'd like to skip straight to the part where they start discussing fallacies, you could start reading at the paragraph beginning with "I had my first date with Polly the following evening" slightly less than halfway down the page.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Philosophy Bites
Philosophy Bites is a site offering podcasts with top philosophers on bite-sized topics. Philosophers interviewed include Peter Singer, Stephen Law, Simon Blackburn, A.C. Grayling and Alain de Botton. With over forty interviews and counting, it includes interviews on topics ranging from Plato's cave to moral relativism to the subjectivity of wine tasting, and is definitely worth checking out.
Some titles to entice you:
Related to the KI Syllabus
A.C. Grayling on Descartes' Cogito
Brad Hooker on Consequentialism
Barry Stroud on Scepticism
Other Interesting Podcasts
Stephen Law on The Problem of Evil
A. C. Grayling on Atheism
Mary Warnock on Sartre's Existentialism
Alain de Botton on Philosophy Within and Outside the Academy
If you use iTunes, you may also subscribe to Philosophy Bites through iTunes' podcast directory.
Some titles to entice you:
Related to the KI Syllabus
A.C. Grayling on Descartes' Cogito
Brad Hooker on Consequentialism
Barry Stroud on Scepticism
Other Interesting Podcasts
Stephen Law on The Problem of Evil
A. C. Grayling on Atheism
Mary Warnock on Sartre's Existentialism
Alain de Botton on Philosophy Within and Outside the Academy
If you use iTunes, you may also subscribe to Philosophy Bites through iTunes' podcast directory.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Spacing in Spaces
The dust has almost settled (i hope!) on the brouhaha over a certain primary school that set up a halal zone in its school canteen. This certain school also sent a letter to parents stating that children would not be allowed to bring non-halal food onto the premises since the school canteen had been certified halal. On top of that, the school enlisted the help of its security guard and discipline master to check students' lunch boxes to ensure that pupils complied with the ruling.
From the many news reports and comments made with regard to this unfortunate incident, one idea seems to feature quite prominently - the idea of space. As individuals residing in a common space, issues of navigation and of finding our own space are inevitable. How do we as a society and as a community, create spaces where individuals are free to express our own beliefs? How do we as individuals, carve out such spaces for ourselves without impinging on those of others? As much as we are social beings, we are also individuals who desire our individual space; furthermore, our membership to various groups also complicates the spatial dynamics between people and people; and between people and their spaces.
From the many news reports and comments made with regard to this unfortunate incident, one idea seems to feature quite prominently - the idea of space. As individuals residing in a common space, issues of navigation and of finding our own space are inevitable. How do we as a society and as a community, create spaces where individuals are free to express our own beliefs? How do we as individuals, carve out such spaces for ourselves without impinging on those of others? As much as we are social beings, we are also individuals who desire our individual space; furthermore, our membership to various groups also complicates the spatial dynamics between people and people; and between people and their spaces.
Not too long ago, I came across an article on BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7204635.stm) which highlighted what I thought to be a somewhat similar issue. The article recounted how a digital book, a CD-Rom digital version of the traditional story of the three little pigs, called Three Little Cowboy Builders, was turned down by a government agency's awards panel as the subject matter could offend Muslims and builders. Specifically, the judges warned that "the use of pigs raises cultural issues". This to me, seems to highlight the difficulty of creating a common space where everyone can be truly comfortable. Is this an impossible dream?
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
The Measure of A Man
Indonesia's former President Suharto passed away yesterday.
There have been many things said about him, by political leaders, as well as by netizens.
What stood out for me in all of this was that the weighing of what he achieved was expressed largely in economic terms versus human rights. It seems that when we judge a man, if he can deliver the goods economically, then we can overlook his record on human rights.
I wonder if the same would apply to an ordinary man. If, for example, we had a man who provided for every material desire of his wife and children, but denied them the freedom to speak on family matters, would we consider him a good husband and father? This would be similar to the question of whether a political leader who did well by his country economically but had a bad human rights record would be considered a good leader.
Of course, economic prosperity and human rights are not mutually exclusive. However, the provision of both may be a greater challenge than providing each one individually combined. It might well take a much better leader than Suharto to provide both at the same time, and it is certainly something that Singapore citizens can look out for when choosing our next generation of political leaders.
There have been many things said about him, by political leaders, as well as by netizens.
What stood out for me in all of this was that the weighing of what he achieved was expressed largely in economic terms versus human rights. It seems that when we judge a man, if he can deliver the goods economically, then we can overlook his record on human rights.
I wonder if the same would apply to an ordinary man. If, for example, we had a man who provided for every material desire of his wife and children, but denied them the freedom to speak on family matters, would we consider him a good husband and father? This would be similar to the question of whether a political leader who did well by his country economically but had a bad human rights record would be considered a good leader.
Of course, economic prosperity and human rights are not mutually exclusive. However, the provision of both may be a greater challenge than providing each one individually combined. It might well take a much better leader than Suharto to provide both at the same time, and it is certainly something that Singapore citizens can look out for when choosing our next generation of political leaders.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Evil Food
How did some food come to be labelled ‘evil’? And what exactly does ‘evilness’ mean when used to classify food?
On one level, it can be argued that food is not termed ‘evil’ in the same way that an action such as genocide could be termed ‘evil’. Yet, increasingly, there is a tendency in the media, in popular magazines as well as more erstwhile publications, to demonise some foods.
Genetically modified food, for example, is shunned by consumers who take a moral stance against technological methods used to modify crops, fowl or animals to make them more palatable or pleasing to the consumer. Opponents of this category of ‘evil’ food align themselves with the producers of organic food and lay a whole array of modern illnesses at the door of food producers who have ‘messed with nature’.
Some foods are felicitously termed ‘evil’ and these include the traditional suspects such as chocolate, coffee and cake. The ‘evilness’ of these foods is presumably due more to the effects of consuming them rather than the means of producing them. Though scientific research has come forward boldly to confirm the incomparable sense of well-being and general goodwill to all that is created by eating a bar of chocolate, many magazines (especially those written by skinny women) continue to harangue readers about the ‘evilness’ of these foods.
Some traditional Hindus shun those who eat beef as ‘evil’ cow-eaters, due to their belief that the cow was a sacred animal, revered because of its role in Hindu mythology. This led to the much publicised torching of the first McDonald’s opened in India and the subsequent adjustments that the fast food giant had to make to its menu to concede to the cultural sensitivities of the country.
What else makes food 'evil'? And are there 'good' foods? Any thoughts?
On one level, it can be argued that food is not termed ‘evil’ in the same way that an action such as genocide could be termed ‘evil’. Yet, increasingly, there is a tendency in the media, in popular magazines as well as more erstwhile publications, to demonise some foods.
Genetically modified food, for example, is shunned by consumers who take a moral stance against technological methods used to modify crops, fowl or animals to make them more palatable or pleasing to the consumer. Opponents of this category of ‘evil’ food align themselves with the producers of organic food and lay a whole array of modern illnesses at the door of food producers who have ‘messed with nature’.
Some foods are felicitously termed ‘evil’ and these include the traditional suspects such as chocolate, coffee and cake. The ‘evilness’ of these foods is presumably due more to the effects of consuming them rather than the means of producing them. Though scientific research has come forward boldly to confirm the incomparable sense of well-being and general goodwill to all that is created by eating a bar of chocolate, many magazines (especially those written by skinny women) continue to harangue readers about the ‘evilness’ of these foods.
Some traditional Hindus shun those who eat beef as ‘evil’ cow-eaters, due to their belief that the cow was a sacred animal, revered because of its role in Hindu mythology. This led to the much publicised torching of the first McDonald’s opened in India and the subsequent adjustments that the fast food giant had to make to its menu to concede to the cultural sensitivities of the country.
What else makes food 'evil'? And are there 'good' foods? Any thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)