Author: Huenemann

I just finished reading Philip Kitcher’s Living With Darwin, and let me say that if you are going to read just one book on the God vs. science controversies, skip over Dawkins and Hitchens and read this one. The first four chapters explain, patiently and persuasively, what is wrong with intelligent design “theories” and why they don’t really provide a substantive alternative to Darwinism. The true gem, though, is chapter 5, where Kitcher very sympathetically explores what motivates some of us to try to hold onto religion despite the apparent success of Darwinism, and despite all the historical evidence which suggests (I would say “proves”)that the Bible really doesn’t convey more than a fascinating and powerful ancient mythology. The deep question: is there anything religion can provide, once providence and purpose are banished from the universe? His answer is a thoughtful and nuanced “yes,” though perhaps not one that will satisfy most religious folks.

(That’s all from me for a few days. I’ll be back to blogging after 8/18.)

Before I get started, let me confess that I am a ‘Pod-person. I have two of them, in fact. And I listen to them everyday, except in the now-routine occurence of losing them for a few days at a time.

In fact I think that the ending of cultural literacy began with player pianos. Before they existed, if you wanted to hear music, you had to either learn how to play an instrument or wait for a concert to come along. This put a great value in music, since it was either difficult or rare. And so people had fewer tunes buzzing around in their heads, and each one they knew pretty thoroughly and savored.

But with player pianos, and then radio, records, CDs, etc., music got cheaper and cheaper and much more easily available. Now, in fact, it is hard to go anywhere without some sort of music playing — “backgound music,” which is a phrase to resent.

With this automation comes a loss of cultural literacy, I think. Sure, any of these devices can be used to augment one’s own cultural literacy — I try to tell myself that’s what I’m doing — but usually that’s not the purpose. It’s just to create a soundtrack to whatever else we’re doing.

What do you think?

In various discussions on this page, the claim that “the self is relational” has come up. What do you suppose this means? Usually, when there is a relation, there are things being related (“relata”). So what are the relata that go into the composition of the self?

I guess a tough materialist could say, “Ultimately, the relata are atoms (or quarks, or whatever). Those are the ultimate building blocks, and sometimes their complex organizations result in there being a conscious self.” But I think this probably misses what people want to say when they say the self is relational.

Could it be that the self is a relation of other selves, which are relations of other selves, …, ad infinitum? I don’t know. Leibniz for one thought the buck has to stop somewhere; there must be true individuals, which he called “monads.” But these he thought were selves (or at least some of them were).

Maybe selves are relations among social institutions, cultures, histories,…? But are any of these things supposed to be more real than individual selves? I would think they are produced by the relations and interactions among selves, rather than vice-versa.