The Mechanist

P.S.,
This title doesn't mean anything--I figured that was better than something pretentious.

The Five Positions on Theism (For Non-Philosophers)

1a)* Negative Atheism: The position in which one’s atheistic claim does not assert that god does not exist, only that the position holder does not believe god exists. A negative atheist does not believe in the existence of god(s), nor does (s)he believe in the nonexistence of god(s). 

2) Positive Atheism: The position in which one does not believe in god and asserts that god does not exist. A positive atheist does not believe in the existence of god(s), but (s)he does believe in the nonexistence of god(s).

3) Agnostic Atheism: In which one maintains the epistemological position that it is impossible to know or even be reasonably sure of god’s existence or nonexistence, but maintains the practical position of not believing in any god, e.g. not going to church, awaiting heaven, praying, worshiping, etc.

4) Agnostic Theism: In which one maintains the epistemological position that it is either impossible to know, or that it is simply unknown, whether or not god exists, but practices within a faith of some kind and acts as if there is a god.**

5) Theism: The position in which one maintains that there is a god.

*As a concept, negative atheism entails one of two versions of itself. The first is the one detailed above; the second describes individuals with no concept of god to accept or reject, such as humans who haven’t been introduced—from without nor from within—to the concept, or animals. Because this second kind of negative atheism disappears in a person as soon as the question of belief has been put to them, given that now they know they can choose one or the other, this version of negative atheism isn’t a position one can hold, but, rather, a state of ignorance. Thus, anyone claiming to be a negative atheist can only be speaking about the first kind, or else is mistaken, and this is the only version of negative atheism that deserves a proper place on the list of positions one can take towards god.

**One can draw a distinction between two different forms of agnosticism, commonly known as soft agnosticism and hard agnosticism. The former asserts that we do not have certainty in a particular area—in this case, the existence of god—while the latter asserts that we cannot have certainty in a particular area. In the case of agnostic theism, this is a significant distinction, but I have limited it to a footnote rather than create a 6th position, if only for the sake of simplicity. It seems to me that the three positions of atheism, agnosticism, and theism are all anyone really needs during the course of any casual, non-philosophical discussions, and the kind of introductions and small-talk one might want to make at fancy-dress parties. I include, in addition, the distinction between agnostic atheism and agnostic theism because of the disparate lifestyles these positions entail, which anyone discussing the subject at a fancy-dress party would be inclined to know; as well as the distinction between positive and negative atheism, because of how staggeringly important the distinction is to the sort of argument which is bound the break out at these parties.*** If I’m being perfectly honest, it’s included mostly to make things harder for theists who are inclined to argue that, because we can’tprove their god doesn’t exist, we can’t not believe in one.

In the case of agnostic atheism, however, the “soft” side of the distinction is identical to position 1a) in all but a few fairly trivial aspects. Both positions choose to not believe in existence of god(s) because of a lack of convincing evidence or arguments for having this belief, and choose not to believe in the nonexistence of god(s) for the same reason. If there is a difference, it is probably in the attitudes implied by choosing to label oneself an atheist, rather than an agnostic or vice versa, and by choosing to phrase the definition as “I don’t know” over “I remain unconvinced” or vice versa.

***Apologies to Douglas Adams.

Armchair Philosophy, or The Role of Philosophers

If one wants to know the answer to the question What is love?: ask a neurologist or a psychologist.

If one wants to know what love feels like: ask a poet or a novelist.

If one wants to know whom to ask “what is love?” or “what does love feel like?”: ask a philosopher. 

  • A:
  • B:
  • C:
  • B:
  • A:

Striving for Perfection

  • Priyanka: I wish I was as good a writer as you
  • Priyanka: its probably the thing i envy most about you
  • Logan Scott: if you think about it
  • Logan Scott: i do this A LOT
  • Logan Scott: stands to reason that i'd get better at it
  • Priyanka: probably
  • Priyanka: but you would have to read a lot
  • Priyanka: to have developed an expansive vocabulary
  • Logan Scott: vocabulary helps
  • Logan Scott: grammar is also really helpful
  • Logan Scott: if you want to improve your writing i can totally make some suggestions
  • Logan Scott: things that i've used to make myself better
  • Logan Scott: it's something i've been concentrating on a lot for the past year
  • Logan Scott: i just spit all over myself whistling
  • Logan Scott: i feel like a lanndon
  • Priyanka: hahahaha
  • One of the qualities I admire (and envy) most in people is the desire and will to be better. I don't know whether I'm really good at things, but I TRY to be good at them; I don't know whether I'm trying hard enough, but I TRY to try; etc. I expect, if I am to truly admire a person, he or she must have this quality. It seems to be so important to me. I think this quality in a person is what would let me love--romantically or not--her or him.

A Psychologist

  • Logan Scott: i'm trying to figure out how to phrase this
  • Logan Scott: there are a few obvious ways
  • Logan Scott: but i think they're all coming out of habit and repetition
  • Logan Scott: just generic ways of introducing a topic
  • Logan Scott: but i don't care for that
  • Logan Scott: like
  • Logan Scott: one way would be
  • Logan Scott: why do people feel the need to humour each other all the time
  • Logan Scott: but i basically know why
  • Logan Scott: so it's not a genuine question
  • Logan Scott: because the other option
  • Logan Scott: is mean
  • Logan Scott: and makes people feel bad
  • Logan Scott: i might say
  • Logan Scott: i wish people didn't feel the need to feign interest in each others doings
  • Logan Scott: but i don't even know if that's true
  • Logan Scott: because, i don't know
  • Logan Scott: maybe it's a good thing that we're trying to be nice to each other
  • Logan Scott: maybe it's indirectly good, in that it encourages niceness
  • Logan Scott: maybe it's just directly good
  • Logan Scott: in that it is nice
  • Logan Scott: maybe i could say
  • Logan Scott: i don't relate to this
  • Logan Scott: i don't have that instinct
  • Logan Scott: well
  • Logan Scott: no
  • Logan Scott: that's not true
  • Logan Scott: i don't know
  • Logan Scott: point is
  • Logan Scott: i send you that one sided conversation thing
  • Logan Scott: chances are you have no interest
  • Logan Scott: if you tell me you do, that's fine, i'm not resting this idea on the fact that you did indeed do so
  • Logan Scott: so if it turns out to be false that you did have no interest
  • Logan Scott: then i have to throw out my point
  • Logan Scott: it applies regardless of the actual matter of fact in this case
  • Logan Scott: either way
  • Logan Scott: let's say you were uninterested
  • Logan Scott: but you said something like
  • Logan Scott: mhm
  • Logan Scott: this time it was indeedy
  • Logan Scott: why not just say
  • Logan Scott: yeah, i don't give a shit about that
  • Logan Scott: today i was talking to a friend of mine
  • Logan Scott: talking about something in one of his classes
  • Logan Scott: and i said some stuff
  • Logan Scott: then stopped
  • Logan Scott: but something occurred to me
  • Logan Scott: and i wanted to ask him something
  • Logan Scott: but then he asks me something about my class
  • Logan Scott: and i immedaitely said
  • Logan Scott: fuck that--so, in your marketing class Logan Scott: and i went on to ask my question
  • Logan Scott: now, i know he didn't really care about the answer to his question
  • Logan Scott: if i knew he cared i would have answered it
  • Logan Scott: but he was just making conversation
  • Logan Scott: so there was no great loss there
  • Logan Scott: and it worked out fine
  • Logan Scott: we moved on to what i wanted to talk about
  • Logan Scott: and it was probably more intersting for both of us
  • Logan Scott: there was no need to fake it and make polite conversation
  • Logan Scott: just say "fuck that"
  • Logan Scott: is that the right way to go?
  • Logan Scott: now that i say all that
  • Logan Scott: it seems like i am probably the wrong one
  • Logan Scott: and everyone else has got shit down
  • Logan Scott: wait
  • Logan Scott: i think it is true that i don;'t have that instinct
  • Logan Scott: i definitely do it sometimes
  • Logan Scott: i have the instinct in as much as when i'm in a position where i have to talk to someone
  • Logan Scott: and it's not someone i'm very close with
  • Logan Scott: so i have to force conversation
  • Logan Scott: or if the conversation is kind of stilted and gangly
  • Logan Scott: then i'll try to bring out all of the conversational bag of tricks
  • Logan Scott: all the general niceties and politenesses of discourse
  • Logan Scott: but when i'm not thinking about it there's no instinct
  • Alex Casilio: this should go on your tumblr
  • Logan Scott: NOPE
  • Logan Scott: FUCK YOU, DINGLEBERRY
  • Alex Casilio: aww
  • Logan Scott: wait
  • Logan Scott: you read none of that, right?
  • Alex Casilio: part of it
  • Alex Casilio: got bored
  • Alex Casilio: noticed you rambled one sidedly again
  • Alex Casilio: commented, etc
  • Logan Scott: wow
  • Logan Scott: unbelievable irony
  • Logan Scott: i was going to say
  • Logan Scott: i don't get you, man
  • Logan Scott: but i get it
  • Logan Scott: i get me
  • Logan Scott: and by way of that
  • Logan Scott: everyone else's difference from me
  • Alex Casilio: indeed
  • Nobody else, and I mean nobody--at least not anyone I know--is as interested in each other as I am. I read EVERYTHING. If I go away and receive messages in my absence, I read them. Occasionally I will see that messages have come through, decide to read them, but then forget about it. If, then, I eventually remember it, I will then re-intend to read them. It's not out of goodheartedness that I do this. It's not that I'm even desperate for conversation. I'm desperate to know what's going on in other people's heads. I seem to be a psychologist. Otherwise there's some other reason I'm interested in everything people say.
  • Addendum: It could be any one of a hundred things. This is the problem with psychology. It could be my perfectionism, my completionism, my obsessiveness, my over-thinking, or my psychologisting.

Nerds

1 - Sci-fi stuff, fantasy, rpgs, videogames, etc, general entertainment categories associated with type-2 nerds

2 - A person who is interested in type-1 entertainment categories. I hold there is a distinction between type-1 and type-2 on the grounds that we often refer to things like BSG and Firefly as nerdy programs, even though they are not persons. This means type-1 is not a kind of nerd insofar as we are talking about a personality type or social category of humans. It is, however, important in bringing the others to light, and, therefore, worth including in this list.

3 - Obsessive, intelligent, socially awkward - mostly defined by the obsessive quality (this definition varies from person to person. Some people choose to omit one of these qualities and add others, or place greater importance on certain qualities. These varied definitions all fall under the umbrella of type-3 because they are united by a philosophical, essentialist method of defining what makes a nerd, and it is likely that all of them in some way reference obsessiveness, as otherwise their definition could be rightly argued as flawed, or falling into one of the other categories here. The source of this definition in particular is this nerd venn diagram)

4 - A specific breed of asshole, angry at you when you call him Dr. Watchmen, knows all the continuity errors made in the unaired pilot of Sherlock

5 - Field-specific nerdiness, e.g. music nerd, comedy nerd, baseball nerd - a person who has a great deal of knowledge in and passion for a field

Old vs. New (language usage)

The complaints about contemporary language usage I’m used to hearing are the civilian complains made about the slang of the youth and academic complaints about the decline of thought. No example needs to be given of the former, but a good reference for the latter will be the general opining of Steve Gennaro and the message being didacted at you in Feed. Some of these complaints are better than others. Probably, the best case that can be made for them is the one Orwell makes in his essay on language. With poor language we have poor expression of thought, and equally poor thought backing it up. Language is critical to, if not all of, what makes up our rational processes, so without that we have very little in the way of good thinking. On the other hand, with critical thinking comes critical language use, and vice versa, for both require and necessitate the other. So, the poorer the state of our language the poorer the state of our thought. And, since language is for expressing thought, our language is poor when it poorly expresses our thoughts. When people say things like “that’s so random”, “awkward”, “hipster”, or other such meaningless, generic spackle words which are used to avoid thinking hard to find the words that describe our actual feelings or beliefs in that moment—this is what is meant by poorly expressing thought.

Today I heard two examples of careless language usage, albeit much less severe examples than “that’s so random!” The second one came from a caller on a podcast, who said “you are not being sufficiently materialistic enough.” Again, a pretty mild instance, but that said, this is poor language usage in that he was not thinking carefully about the words, while two cliches (“sufficiently ____”, “____ enough”) shoved each other for space in his mouth. The first was in Downton Abbey. Very similar. “I also know women too.”

I don’t think people are right when they say language is going down the drain. I don’t think things are getting worse. I realize Downton Abbey is fictional and modern, and that the caller flubbed, and so are no good evidence of this fact, but also don’t see any good evidence that things have gotten worse. Downton Abbey, like most fiction, portrays characters as much better speakers and thinkers than they realistically would be, as it should. This happens because the writers are writing specific emotions and, as good language users, write the dialogue to express that specificity. The danger in this with period pieces is that it gives the impression that we used to speak so well. Downton Abbey, in this and many other ways, is a paragon of nostalgia. Like with the classic Greek dramas, we are given the impression of a more sophisticated time with more sophisticated people. We imagine that people of this time, and of Victorian London or ancient Greece all spoke better than any of could hope to now. But the same was true of Victorian’s thoughts of the ancient Greeks. My evidence for this isn’t great, but I’m willing to bet that people spoke just as shittily back then. Just because our careless idioms are somewhat squalider now than they used to be, doesn’t mean that they weren’t careless then. It also doesn’t mean there wasn’t just as much of squalidness back then (From Hell is a great example of some squalid Victorian English). There is no innate difference between a careless phrase thrown around in beautiful, upper-class Edwardian accents and “this shit is mega”, what makes them bad is that they are careless.

Dialogue - Three Approaches

When someone asks “why should women be allowed to have sex before marriage?” the answer shouldn’t be “because women are people too; they’re the same as men.” It should be “BECAUSE EVERYONE CAN DO WHATEVER THE FUCK THEY WANT! FUCK OFF!”

- “Gay people shouldn’t be allowed to marry.”

- “Yes they should, they’re the same as everyone else.”

- “NO THEY’RE NOT. BUT THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT. WHO GIVES A SHIT?”

                                                                                 ~

- “Gay sex is immoral.”

- “No it’s not. People are born gay or straight, so it’s not a moral act.”

- “YOU DON’T KNOW THAT. WHERE’S YOUR SCIENCE? WHO CARES IF THEY CHOSE IT, WERE BORN THAT WAY, OR WERE BRED INTO IT? LET THEM FUCK HOWEVER THEY WANT”