The Debate Museum
By Daniel Rigney
I propose that we design and build a Museum of Debates commemorating controversies that have long since exhausted their usefulness. I propose, for starters, that we devote one gallery to Theism vs. Atheism, another to Capitalism vs. Socialism, and a third to Free Will vs. Determinism.
Note that each of these musty oppositions is usually posed as a stark contrast between extremes, as though reality were not incomprehensibly complex, and as though intermediate or hybrid philosophical positions were not possible.
First to the question of Theism vs. Atheism. Doesn’t the outcome of this old chestnut depend largely, if not entirely, on what we mean by words like “God”? If “God” is a big invisible old man in the sky who cares about and intervenes in the outcomes of high school football games, I’m an atheist. If, on the other hand, “God” is that eternal mystery which is the source of all things -- as vastly beyond our puny comprehension as calculus is beyond the understanding of ants -- and that may bear little or no resemblance to a human personality, then I’m happy to call myself a theist.
In any case, I doubt that ultimate reality cares much one way or another what I think about it; and the theism-atheism debate itself seems a tiresome waste of energy if people bring to the discussion entirely different understandings of words like “God."
Having resolved this issue, we move on to Capitalism vs. Socialism. With the possible exception of North Korea, I can think of no country in the world that is entirely either capitalist or socialist. Every economy in the world is a mixed economy, blending the two approaches with elements of cultural tradition in varying ways and proportions.
There are many kinds of capitalism, many kinds of socialism, and many possible combinations and hybrids of the two. Intelligent and well-informed people of good will may disagree about just what kind of mixed economy to create. But the false opposition of capitalism-vs.-socialism should have been laid to rest a long time ago. Still this 19th-century debate stalks the land like a zombie.
Finally, consider the false opposition between Free Will and Determinism. I’ve already said my piece on this subject in a previous post: Free Will vs. Constrained Will. I won’t belabor my points here, except to say that the clichéd idea that we make choices entirely free of the constraints of nature and the choices of others is almost too bizarre for a thinking person to contemplate. Yet many among us continue to repeat the "free will" cliche like culturally-programmed robots.
As for myself, I’m determined to choose an intermediate position between free choice and strict determinism.
We may need several additional galleries in our museum of musty controversies. I, for one, would like to see a room devoted entirely to the tedious Nature vs. Nurture debate. Asking whether genetics or social/cultural factors determine human behavior is a little like asking whether latitude or longitude determines the position of an object on the surface of a globe. Is anyone else as tired of this moldy old question as I am?
I’m sure I’m overlooking other galleries that we'll need if we are to preserve our historical memories of the simple-minded dichotomies of discourses past. What additional rooms would you propose for inclusion in the Museum of Debates? Your thoughts and generous donations are warmly invited.
By Daniel Rigney
I propose that we design and build a Museum of Debates commemorating controversies that have long since exhausted their usefulness. I propose, for starters, that we devote one gallery to Theism vs. Atheism, another to Capitalism vs. Socialism, and a third to Free Will vs. Determinism.
Note that each of these musty oppositions is usually posed as a stark contrast between extremes, as though reality were not incomprehensibly complex, and as though intermediate or hybrid philosophical positions were not possible.
First to the question of Theism vs. Atheism. Doesn’t the outcome of this old chestnut depend largely, if not entirely, on what we mean by words like “God”? If “God” is a big invisible old man in the sky who cares about and intervenes in the outcomes of high school football games, I’m an atheist. If, on the other hand, “God” is that eternal mystery which is the source of all things -- as vastly beyond our puny comprehension as calculus is beyond the understanding of ants -- and that may bear little or no resemblance to a human personality, then I’m happy to call myself a theist.
In any case, I doubt that ultimate reality cares much one way or another what I think about it; and the theism-atheism debate itself seems a tiresome waste of energy if people bring to the discussion entirely different understandings of words like “God."
Having resolved this issue, we move on to Capitalism vs. Socialism. With the possible exception of North Korea, I can think of no country in the world that is entirely either capitalist or socialist. Every economy in the world is a mixed economy, blending the two approaches with elements of cultural tradition in varying ways and proportions.
There are many kinds of capitalism, many kinds of socialism, and many possible combinations and hybrids of the two. Intelligent and well-informed people of good will may disagree about just what kind of mixed economy to create. But the false opposition of capitalism-vs.-socialism should have been laid to rest a long time ago. Still this 19th-century debate stalks the land like a zombie.
Finally, consider the false opposition between Free Will and Determinism. I’ve already said my piece on this subject in a previous post: Free Will vs. Constrained Will. I won’t belabor my points here, except to say that the clichéd idea that we make choices entirely free of the constraints of nature and the choices of others is almost too bizarre for a thinking person to contemplate. Yet many among us continue to repeat the "free will" cliche like culturally-programmed robots.
As for myself, I’m determined to choose an intermediate position between free choice and strict determinism.
We may need several additional galleries in our museum of musty controversies. I, for one, would like to see a room devoted entirely to the tedious Nature vs. Nurture debate. Asking whether genetics or social/cultural factors determine human behavior is a little like asking whether latitude or longitude determines the position of an object on the surface of a globe. Is anyone else as tired of this moldy old question as I am?
I’m sure I’m overlooking other galleries that we'll need if we are to preserve our historical memories of the simple-minded dichotomies of discourses past. What additional rooms would you propose for inclusion in the Museum of Debates? Your thoughts and generous donations are warmly invited.
No comments:
Post a Comment