Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

  After the coming weekend, it is October, and the U.S. Supreme Court is back in the courtroom.  I will use this occasion to congratulate the Court in sticking to its guns in the matter of one of the more notable decisions of last term, ALLEN v. MILLIGAN, while the legislature of the state of Alabama remains in defiance.   The courts below are attempting to hold the state to the terms of the quite clear SCOTUS decision in MILLIGAN, and the state has responded by appealing to SCOTUS again, asking it to change its mind. This is not a matter of stare decisis. It is a matter of res judicata. That matter has been determined. By a single sentence ruling, with no dissent, the high court this week refused to hear the matter, so this spring's order, and the enforcement actions of the lower courts, will take effect.  That said, I will merely mention today three cases to be heard by the court in its new term about which I have some curiosity. 1. Murray v. UBS Securities , and the rules for wh

This is a puzzle created by the mathematician Augustus De Morgan. He offered this as a "proof" that 2 = 1, which is (as he understood) absurd, and dependent on sophistical reasoning. Can you spot the flaw?   1. Let  x  = 1.  2. Clearly,then,   x 2  =  x.   3. So  x 2  - 1 =  x  - 1.  Now, divide both sides of THAT equation by x-1.  That 'should' turn it into the following 4. x + 1 = 1.  But since we started by saying that X equals 1, we have now concluded that 5. 2 = 1.  QED.  That plainly cannot be.  But where is the sophism?  The answer begins with remembering a critical point in number theory: don't divide anything by zero.  Ever.  Any chain of inference that involves the division of anything by zero at any point is invalid.   The first proposition above tells us that x = 1. Later we are instructed to divide both sides of a certain equation by x-1.  This is an indirect way of telling us to divide it by zero.   TILT.  Accordingly, we never get to steps four or

Colin McGinn, a contemporary philosopher of some importance, (google "new mysterians") often discusses the history of the discipline in his blog. I'm fascinated by his recent comment on "Wittgenstein's Ontology," which you can find by clicking here.  Wittgenstein’s Ontology - Colin McGinn    Let us start our consideration of it with a simple question: what is ontology? By standard definition, it is the study of being, discussing for example what types of thing constitute the furniture of the universe. Sample questions: Are numbers real?  Are only the numbers we call "real numbers" real or are "imaginary" numbers also real? This is distinct from questions about cosmology or the mind-body problem, which are puzzles ABOUT certain of the pieces of furniture in the universe. These inquiries all fit under the broader framework of metaphysics.  Anyway, McGinn's first point is that Wittgenstein sets out his own ontology clearly in the opening

  No, this is not breaking news, (despite my choice of illustration), but it IS fascinating.  And if you missed it (as I would suppose many of you did, as I certainly did) last month, you might be willing to pick up on the matter now. https://www.rcfp.org/briefs-comments/commonwealth-of-virginia-v-sawye/ The Governor of Virginia, Glenn Youngkin, has had the state take an appeal from a trial court order that ordered the disclosure of certain records relating to an emailed tip line.  What I've linked you to above is an amicus brief from the Reporters' Committee for Freedom of the Press. The underlying lawsuit was brought by American Oversight by the law firm Ballard Spahr.  It concerns the issue of how state FOIA's ought to be interpreted. "As broadly as the language will bear" would seem a reasonable answer to that question: would it not?  If you believe so, then you should want the trial court decision in this matter upheld.  A little background -- the "tip l

  I've decided that I'm against rhetorical questions. They are a lousy turn of phrase and they're almost always of use only to someone who is up to no good, who is seeking obfuscation rather than clarity.  Say what you mean say I!  And ask what you mean to ask. But don't ask what you mean to say. "What's the problem with kids today?" If someone "asks" that, and I try to answer it, "many of the politically conscious of them are understandably worried that..." I am often interrupted by, "But didn't you realize I was asking rhetorically?" "Well, I think the question warrants an answer...." "AH so you admit not knowing what a rhetorical question is!"  I admit to knowing who a jackass is when one presents himself. I can also recognize a wildly anti-pragmatic use of language. 

  The mayor of Springfield, Massachusetts has taken his first step toward re-election. On Tuesday, September 12, he came in first in the first-round election. Incumbent mayor Domenic Sarno has had the job since 2007. He faced four challengers in a non-partisan ballot. One of these challengers was, frankly, an obscure fellow who wants Springfield to host a "Rio-style Carnival." The other three were  the present and two former City Council presidents. And yes, "Domenic" is the proper though somewhat unusual spelling of his first name. Blogger's spellcheck wants me to write it "Dominic" and so has given me a red squiggle.  I will not surrender! Sarno did not manage to get 50% of the vote, though he came close (a bit more than 47%). The November run-off will pit him against former council president Justin Hurst (a bit less than 29%). The Carnival guy, David Ciampi, got only the votes of his relatives and close friends. Nobody is even trying to state it as

Wittgenstein said: "A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes." Here is an example.  At a press conference after an American football game, a reporter asked the coach, "What do you think won this game for you?" The coach, in a puckish mood, replied: "We got more points than the other team." The room laughed. If you understand that laughter, you may understand the abiding appeal of the analytic/synthetic distinction.  You may also have the beginnings of an understanding of its limits.  Compare and contrast "we got more points" with "we have a superior offensive line."  

  Identifying with Michael Corleone. As fans of The Godfather movies will remember, at a moment when Michael desperately wants to be a "legitimate businessman," and NOT a godfather like his Dad, he complains, "just when I thought I was out, they PULLLLL me back in."  I am out of a self-identification as an anarcho-capitalist, but the Securities and Exchange Commission seems to want to drag me back in with an over-reaching pack of new rules about the operations of private funds. The new rules seem outside of the SEC's statutory mandate, ill-advised as a matter of market structure, and in general nearly certain to do more harm than good.  It is in responding to such stuff and nonsense too often that I once slid into anarcho-cap. Now I will try to limit my back-sliding. 

Peter Navarro, a former economics advisor to former President Donald Trump, has figured in my humble blog before. Or at least I thought he had, but I cannot find him now.  I cannot find him in the precursor to this blog either.  A little further searching finds that I did say something about Navarro on the social media site then known as Twitter. You can find it here: Click.   I was sure I had said something about Navarro's theories about US-China relations, which are presumably what led Trump to hire him for an economist's post. But I can't find it now.  That's too bad, because IIRC, early in the Trump administration Navarro got caught in some blatant scholarly finangling in his (allegedly non-fiction) books on trade. He would  quote a supposed expert to nail down a point. The expert was a fellow named Ron Vara.  It turns out there was no Ron Vara.  I'm sure I wrote something about that, but I can't find it and it wasn't worth the effort that I've alrea

  T he US political class right now reminds me of the end of the Brezhnev period in the USSR. Br himself died. Then Andropov died. Then Chernenko died. The whole cadre had grown old together and they all died together. Only after a lot of death did a new generation -- Yeltsin and, alas, Putin, step forward. And yes, I'm old enough to remember this but I'm still a good deal younger than our analogs to Brezhnev et al. I'm not a doctor, but I've got a hobby blog, which is qualification enough for what follows -- Mitch McConnell has publicly twice now looked like a man in the midst of a petit mal seizure. This is not just "light headedness" brought on by inadequate hydration. Nor is it at all likely that the two times it ha happened on camera are the only two times it has ever happened. I wish nothing bad for anyone. I hope Senator McConnell will have a lot of happy years in retirement, surrounded by a loving family and friends. But he ought not to be in a posit

  I thought of using this for my next Christmas card, but decided against. So I'll just put it here.  And, no, Gilbert stole it from me.  I am the very model of a modern antlered caribou, (And “caribou” means just the same as “reindeer” we just thought you knew), I’ve studied elves adorable, I know the toys historical From stick-and-hoop to Buzz Lightyear in order categorical. [Pause] I’m very well acquainted too with matters astronomical, Homeward I seek Polaris for some guidance cartographical. About the starwatch websites too I’m teeming with a lot of news, With many cheerful facts about the numbering of webpage views. CHORUS: “He’s many cheerful facts about the numbering of webpage views.” And so on matters animal, on ruminants and how-de-doo I am the very model of a modern antlered caribou. ou.”

Susan Neiman seems to think that the real left is universalist, not tribalist.  What she sees as the "woke" left takes the view that humans are divided up into tribes, and that if a person in one tribe wants to assist with another tribe's troubles, that may be a good thing, BUT that person ought to consider him/herself an "ally," and allies ought to be respectful and even discreet. This is the view that annoys Neiman.  In an interview apparently as part of her book tour she said, "tribalism is a luxury they [oppressed people of all types] can't afford because all marginalized peoples or people who have been oppressed in the past need deep solidarity with other people." Why socialist Susan Neiman says 'woke-ism' is not leftist | CBC Radio Her views are akin to those of Brian Leiter, who has favorably mentioned her book in his blog.