Time

Time can adequately be defined as the perception of the duration of events. As such, time is entirely limited to the human perception thereof. A sloth, a hummingbird, and a tortoise all likely perceive the passing of time differently than humans do. A hummingbird must surely perceive time to pass much more slowly than a human, as it must flap its wings 40-80 times per second in order to maintain flight. A human on the other hand, can scarcely count past five over the course of a second. Because all organisms seem to perceive time to pass differently, then time as an objective entity must therefore not exist.

Why Study The Humanities?

If you are currently pursuing (or have pursued at some point) a degree in the humanities, you have surely heard the moans and groans that come from people when you tell them your area of study. Physics and math acolytes claim that their majors are more practical and in greater demand than a history or an English degree—and rightfully so. However as a discipline, the humanities are by no means less admirable. The large aggregate of topics that are generally labelled as humanities encompass those studies which analyse human culture, relations, and ideas. As opposed to the physical sciences, the humanities demand an analytic, rather than empirical mindset. Everything from languages, to history, philosophy, literature, and geography are prime examples of majors within the humanities discipline, while more quantitative pursuits such as political science and economics generally belong within the realm of sociology. The study of history admittedly lacks practical application in terms of employability, but those who choose to pursue a degree in the field are just as noble as those individuals who study business, physics, or math.

As a constituent member of the human race, one has a responsibility, perhaps even an obligation, to educate themselves about those people, societies, centuries, empires, and technologies to which they owe their mere existence. Being a citizen of a particular country entails an intrinsic duty to understand the history and heritage of that country’s past. As a Canadian, there is nothing more cringe-worthy than meeting someone who cannot identify all of our nation’s constituent provinces and territories, or worse—is even ignorant of its capital city. Likewise, if you are a mechanic or an operator of some type of machinery, it is a fundamental requirement of your job to understand the function of the tool you are using; not only how it works, but how and when it was produced. An auto mechanic who does not know the make and model of a particular car, or cannot display a basic understanding of the history of his profession is not a very good mechanic.

The sheer virtue of being human entails a duty to understand the basic principle of human history and the human condition. One of the most appropriate quotes to justify this position comes from the Spanish philosopher George Santayana:

“Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.”

A quick glimpse to the recent follies and atrocities of human history would reveal that they were committed in ignorance of past events. The recent financial meltdown of 2008, brought about by the Subprime Mortgage crisis of 2007, was made possible only by much of the same negligence that produced the 1929 market crash. If the Federal Reserve and the banks had heeded a more stringent regard to the causes of the Great Depression, perhaps the economy would not currently be in such a deplorable state. Of course this is but one example. It wouldn’t be difficult to identify any other number of global misfortunes that are the direct or indirect result of historical ignorance. A fundamental grasp on the theories in history and philosophy are necessary to avoid the mistakes that were made in the past. In this respect, one may argue that the humanities are of a much greater practical use than any kind of science or mathematics.

This is not to undermine however, the value of empirical disciplines like math, physics, or chemistry. The knowledge provided by the scientific method is acquired through controlled experiments in a laboratory setting. Therefore, scientific facts are in regard to the nature of things as they are, while the facts of the humanities or sociology deal with things as they have been, or how they might be. The speculative mindset necessary to study philosophy or literature can greatly benefit the technical ability required to make scientific and mathematical observations as well.  In order to acquire a broader and more rational view of existence, one must have an understanding of both the physical sciences and the humanities. In the afterword of Jared Diamond’s Pulitzer Prize winning book Guns, Germs, and Steel, he argues the advantages of historical studies over scientific studies. “Laboratory experimentation can obviously play little or no role in many of the historical sciences. One cannot interpret galaxy formation, start and stop hurricanes and ice ages, experimentally exterminate grizzly bears in a few natural parks, or rerun the course of dinosaur evolution. Instead, one must gain knowledge in these historical sciences by other means, such as observation, comparison, and so-called natural experiments.” Diamond argues that to be sufficiently versed in the study of reality, one must be equally knowledgeable about things as they are and how they might be in the future according to how they have been in the past. 

It is only by ignorance of history that one could endorse something as absurd as fascism or communism. It is only by an ignorance of philosophy that one could believe the claim in the existence of mystical ghosts and deities of which there is no proof. It is only a profane ignorance of the human condition that produces a Stalin, a Pol Pot, a Hitler, or a Caligula. Studying the humanities provides insight into the way humans act and relate to one another. Such insight is essential when one is confronted with extreme ignorance, racism, mysticism, prejudice, bigotry, or any of the other intellectual malignancies that infest our culture today. Consider the preceding the next time some insolent twat claims that his engineering degree is more prestigious than your degree in the humanities.

Evil Philosophy

Ever since the inception of human inquiry, there has been no short supply of radicals and lunatics attempting to pass off their whim-begotten absurdities as truth and profound insight. There are relatively few philosophers however, who could have been considered not just insane, but genuinely wicked. Among them, I would include both the political philosopher Karl Marx and Immanuel Kant. While Marx’s atrocious political philosophy has already been addressed in a previous post, his evil cannot be overstated. Any historical instance in which Marx’s political philosophy was put into practice resulted in catastrophe and woe. Because all individuals share a natural tendency towards self-interest, communism, as envisioned by Marx is a physical and epistemological impossibility.

However poisonous Marx’s philosophy, it pales in comparison to the heinous vomit spewed forth by the likes of Immanuel Kant. Arguably, Kant was the most despicable figure in all of human history; his philosophy was shot through with a twisted, spiteful hatred and his heart was an aggregate of rotten flesh upon which maggots gnawed and in which evil festered. A consideration of the way Kant lived would stand testament to his hatred of mankind and of life in general. He never left the town in which he was born (modern-day Kalingrad, Russia), and lived a dreadfully complacent lifestyle—following the same rigid schedule every day until he finally died in an advanced state of dementia at the age of 79. Having never truly experienced anything to warrant the slightest of interest, his writings betray the convoluted thoughts of a mind corroded by solitude and a bitter intensity of spite for his fellow man.

In his book Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant defined his quintessential  theory called The Categorical Imperative. The theory conjectures that an action is only considered moral if it could be set as a universal law for all humanity to follow. According to Kant, the consequences of an action are irrelevant; it is only the actor’s intention that determines an act’s ethical validity, not its outcome. Because all human beings act in respect to independent moral maxims (that which an individual holds as his own moral values), he believed that it is immoral to use another human being as a means to our own ends. To anyone with a modicum of intellect, the glaring lunacy of the categorical imperative should be self-evident.

Just in case it is not, consider the following thought-experiment. You are teleported back in time to 1970’s Illinois and the infamous serial killer John Wayne Gacy is standing right in front of you. You have a gun in your hand. Given a priori knowledge of the depraved crimes he will commit, it would seem like a justifiable act to kill Gacy and thus prevent his future murders from taking place. However, if you were to apply Kant’s Categorical Imperative, killing Gacy, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Justin Bieber, or any other psychopathic monster would be wrong only because the act of murder could not be safely set as a universal law for all human beings to follow. Because killing John Wayne Gacy would be using him as a means to an end, Kant would have rather let him pursue his killing spree. The sheer lunacy of this logic should be obvious.

An adherence to the categorical imperative as a way of life would lead to the corrosion of individuality. Kant’s philosophy envisions a world in which all men are enslaved to one another—nobody would ever rise above a state of blind, castrated complacency in fear of using another human as a means rather than an end. Immanuel Kant’s philosophy epitomizes human stagnation in a moral sense, while Marx’s epitomized it in an economic sense. Both were vile and despicable and would best be disregarded altogether from the realm of legitimate philosophical discourse. 

Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011)

What else can really be said?

On December 15, 2011, at the Age of 62, Hitchens lost his battle with oesophageal cancer. His contribution to academia and philosophy cannot be expressed enough. He was an inspiration to me as well as to many others; his writings will forever be immortalized as monuments to a great mind for as long as mankind is willing to think. The world has lost a truly valuable human being who will neither be equalled nor replaced. Thank you Mr. Hitchens, you will be missed.

Rest in Peace

The Ethics of Music Piracy

With the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), there has arisen much debate concerning the ethical implications of downloading music for free. Contrary to what record labels and some conceited artists would claim, filesharing sites like Mediafire and ThePirateBay are not in fact unethical. This is because there exists no finite amount of music files. It would be illogical for any company to expect customers to pay for an item of which there is an infinite supply.

Consider if I were to break into the Roadrunner distribution warehouse and steal a crate of a thousand Nickelback CDs (not that I would want to). This would indeed be stealing, and thus immoral. Because I am taking the CDs, I am in effect eliminating potential profit that would have been made by selling them. However, if I were to download a Nickelback album, (again, not that I would ever want to) I am not stealing any potential profit from Roadrunner because there are an indefinite number of digital Nickelback albums floating about in cyberspace and cannot be profited upon. The cost of producing an online file is zero dollars so downloading an album does not incur any financial loss to Roadrunner Records. Record labels are not satisfying any demand by selling overpriced plastic discs to those individuals who only seek to acquire the digital files therein. Likewise, websites like iTunes must believe their costumers to be imbeciles in order to pay money for something that is readily available for free. It is unfortunate that the US government is trying to shut down or castrate sites like Mediafire.com and ThePirateBay. These sites are not immoral because they are satisfying an economic demand more efficiently than iTunes or your record store do. 

It no longer makes sense to expect consumers to spend money on something of which there is an infinite supply. Just like a business would be unsuccessful in its attempt to get consumers to pay money in order to breathe oxygen, it would be just as unsuccessful in selling movie or music files. With the age of the internet, music has ceased to be considered a finite commodity like Televisions or Computers. Thus, The SOPA does nothing but attempt to enforce archaic and imbecilic ideologies. The fact that record labels are losing money is a result of their own flawed business model.