Body and Mind Essay

I received my result for my Body and Mind essay on Homunculi-Headed Robots and I received a Distinction. While usually I'd kick and scream over such a grade I'm not going to this time. The reason you may ask, I'm not that happy with it myself. You see, because I had a holiday and didn't get as much work (Uni work that is) done while I was away my essay suffered. So in this case a Distinction is fine. If anyone cares to read the essay you'll find it on my Uni Papers Site under the Philosophy heading or, only if you're lazy, click HERE.

P.S. I've also uploaded a Buddhism essay on Mahayana to my Uni Papers Site too. I haven't updated the Religion page yet but if anyone's keen to get a sneak preview you can download it by clicking HERE.

Exams

I just got my results for my mid-term test for PHI220: Body & Mind and, to my delight, I received 100%. The test was simple and consisted of five questions in multiple choice and short answer which I'll post below with my answers.

Q.1.

Epiphenomenalism is the thesis that:

A) Mental properties are causally inert
B) We don't have privileged access to our own mental states
C) Mental states are neither material nor immaterial
D) It is a category mistake to think that 'the mind' refers to a substance
E) All mental states are phenomenal states

Q.2.

J.J.C. Smart advances the identity theory, according to which sensations are brain processes, as:

A) an a priori claim whose truth can be established by an analysis of mental concepts
B) a claim that we can see must be true even if we have no idea how it can be true
C) a claim that must be true because its denial-dualism-is unintelligible
D) an empirical speculation that has little chance of being true
E) a plausible empirical claim

Q.3.

Explain why Putnam discusses the mental life of other animals-such as the octopus-in arguing against the claim that mental states are brain states.

Putnam argues that the brain-state theorist, to make good his claims, needs to specify a physical-chemical state so that any organism is in pain, necessarily and sufficiently, if it possess a brain of a suitable physical-chemical composition and its brain is actually in that physical-chemical state. This is not limited to just mammalian brains but any organism that has the potential to experience pain which, while sufficiently including mammals, also includes reptiles and molluscs (octopus), for example, as well. Putnam uses this example to illustrate the ambitiousness of the brain-state hypothesis claiming that the brain-state theorist does not just claim that pain is a brain state but that all psychological states are brain states. Putnam claims that if we can find a single psychological state that can be applied to both a mammal and an octopus, for example, and that the physical-chemical correlate is different between the two then brain-state theory collapses. Putnam thinks that this is 'overwhelmingly probable'.

Q.4.

Explain in a few sentences how the functionalist account of mental states differs from the behaviorist account of mental states.

Ned Block describes Functionalism as 'a new incarnation of behaviorism' because while there are many similarities between Functionalism and Behaviorism there is a difference in their ascription of mental states. For Behaviorism to be met a mental state consists of a disposition to act in certain ways relative to a certain set of input-output relationships, however Functionalism goes further. Functionalism also requires that internal (mental) processes will have a causal relationship with other internal (mental) processes and, at the same time, have a causal relationship with external input-output relationships. Functionalism therefore claims that mental states may be seen as causal 'objects' while Behaviorism only sees sensory inputs, or external causes (input-output relationships), as causally significant.

Q.5.

Block uses the example of the homunculi-headed robots to argue that functionalism is wrong because it:

A) is too liberal in its ascription of mental states
B) has no plausible account of mental causation
C) reduces to behaviorism
D) cannot give a plausible account of privileged access
E) is consistent with dualism

MQPhil Group Philosophy Blog

I really enjoy reading the many and fantastic group philosophy blogs on the net and now there is another one that you should all check out. MQPhil is a group philosophy blog by undergraduates from Macquarie University Australia. Looks like there will be some interesting entries soon.

<--LINK-->

National Inter-Faith Festival

The National Inter-Faith Festival was held this weekend. It was well represented by many different religious and faith groups and had some great music. Tenzin Chogyal from Tibet is always great and there was also this great Iranian group performing with five or so Dafs; just amazing.

The first day, Saturday, began with an Arati in which I provided the tabla accompaniment. The Arati was performed for Gaura-Nitai, Lord Chaitanya and Lord Nityananda, and was filmed by representatives of all the national media. After the Arati we performed Bhajans for about another hour. I say we as I (sorry) have forgotten the woman's name who was singing and playing the harmonium. Anyhow the bhajans were well received except by a particular Catholic priest who prayed for us the whole time. It seems he was a bit freaked out by the Buddhists too.

On the second day, Sunday, we also performed a fire yajna (sacrafice) for shanti (peace). The second day also saw a few forums too. I attended a couple of the forums and I would have to say that, at the least, I was a little disappointed. I expected the forums to be of a higher standard and I was hoping to learn something new. I was particularly upset with how the representatives of Islam were treated in the forums. While a common question for the Christian representative, for example, would focus on love most of the questions fielded to the Islamic representative were phrased in a way that the representative would need to be defensive. For example most people only asked questions of the Islamic representative relating to the treatment of women. This was sad to see particularly at a National Inter-Faith Festival.

I would have to say that the festival needed better advertising and also better facilities so every religious/faith group could have the opportunity to engage publicly with their philosophy. It would seem that even at the National Inter-Faith Festival there is a hierarchy of religions. Such a pity seen as on the Sunday for half the day more than half the marques weren't even being used. These could have been used, as on the Saturday, by the different groups in ways they saw fit. Also, if you took your kids along then you would have discovered that there was nothing to keep them occupied. There are only so many religious forums and musical performances that children are willing to sit through.

My main criticism though is the disregard the organisers showed towards the practices of the different religious and faith groups. The example I'll give is of the Arati and fire yajna that we performed. By we I am referring to ISKCON here. We were told that were we to participate we needed to perform a ceremony. This may seem fine however a ceremony is not a necessary condition of religion and Arati and Yajna are not the main focus of ISKCON. The organisers should not assume that every religion or faith has ceremonies that are able to be publicly displayed, especially in only 20 minutes, and they should be willing to accept the practices of the religious and faith groups that they invite. Don't ask people to perform ceremonies and other actions just for public display when they are not part of the mainstream, often practiced 'methods of worship' of the particular religion or faith. Religion does not deserve to be essentialised in this way, or any other way for that matter, and especially not at a National Inter-Faith Festival. I heard one of the organisers complaining that the community at the festival were essentialising Islam but the way the festival was organised essentialised the religious and faith groups as it was.

The food was great but of course I'd say that. Krishna prasadam is always the most popular food at any festival. I'm not sure if the rabbit stew at the Gypsy stall had much success though.

Overall though I had a good time at the festival, even if my expectations weren't met, and I am looking forward to participating again next year.

My Uni Papers

Many of you leave this site for my Uni papers site, over 20 of you per day actually. Well be sure to check it out again as I've upgraded the site today. It is much more user friendly now. I'm yet to add the Google analytics code for it yet so I won't know how many of you are going there for a while and do be aware that the new search function is only working on the home page at the moment. I hope to have this fixed over the next couple of weeks. If any of you find any more bugs be sure to give me a yell.

Philosophy, Morality & Society - Major essay - Pt. 2

Another semester down, phew. For whatever reason, well actually many reasons, I was just overwhelmed this semester. It's not that the work was too hard or anything similar I think that it has more to do with the fact that I've not had more than a single weekend off for over a year. My plan to remedy this: an international holiday. That's right, I'm off to India in a few weeks. I thought that unless I just make a booking I'll never give myself a break so that's what I did.

I got my final essay in today. I had quite a bit of trouble reducing that argument to so few words. There is just so much more information I wanted to include but I had to leave it out. If anyone wants to read my essay you can find it HERE or browse through some of my others by clicking |uni papers| above.

This semester I'm studying three subjects: An Introduction to Buddhism - Body & Mind - Business & Professional Ethics. I'm looking forward to all three but I am perhaps more eager to get back into the religious studies subject and the Body & Mind subject looks quite good too. Having said that I'll probably end up enjoying Business & Professional Ethics more :)

Now to get back to the Buddhism lectures.

Philosophy, Morality & Society - Major essay

I'm having one hell of a time writing this last essay for Philosophy, Morality & Society and it is not just the crappy word count. Well, the word count is pretty limiting; with only 1500 words I'm not sure how anyone can do justice to any question! My essay question is to describe how Professor Peter Singer argues that the interests of animals should be given equal consideration with the interests of Human beings and to outline whether I think that there is a moral divide between human and non-human animals. I think that there isn't any morally significant difference but how am I supposed to answer this question in only 1500 words!

Secondly, I received a telephone call from Centerlink, Australia's state welfare agency, the other day and I was advised that I am being cut off my meager pension. The reason, basically, is because of a loophole. I'm on disability pension (DSP) and, it seems, that to be eligible for DSP the candidate doesn't only need a debilitating medical condition but that condition needs to be being currently treated and stabalised.

Now this seems adequate on the surface but in my case I seem to slip through the cracks. Let me explain. I have a debilitating back condition. I usually describe it as a broken back but no vertebrae are in fact damaged. I have a perforated disk. The fluid in this disk has since drained out and I've been left with a mass of scar tissue surrounding the disk. The problem with this is that the disk itself has no nerves, and for good reason. If the disk had nerves every time you moved you would aggravate those nerves as each vertebrae slid around. Scar tissue has nerves so every time I move my spine I get quite severe pain. Surgery is out as the disks above and below are showing signs of weakness and were surgery to be performed the pressure on these disks would increase exponentially and hence increase the risk of them deteriorating further.

Now, on the surface, this would seem like a pretty good case for DSP but this is where the loophole comes into question. The criteria states that the condition needs to be stabalised and being currently treated. I've had masses of treatment and the outcome was, basically, that there is nothing that can be done other than some physio to slightly increase my mobility. Since then I have received no treatment, because none is available, and my condition isn't stabalised, it's in fact getting worse, because of there being no treatment available.

So because there is no treatment available for this condition I am not entitled to DSP. Now this seems absolutely absurd to me. My only option is to seek out the same, expensive, treatment that I've already had so I can reapply for DSP. It seems absolutely absurd that people with treatable conditions are eligible for DSP but people with medical conditions of which there is no available treatment are not entitled to DSP. In my opinion I think that this should be reversed if anything. What a way to clog up our health system; have possibly thousands of people with un-treatable medical conditions receive treatment that will do nothing just so they can get the pension that they need because they have limited-to-no access to work.

So this is my dilemma this week. I have this essay to complete but I'm also battling state bureaucracy and back to receiving daily treatment that I not only don't need but have to take time out of studying to travel to.

Bloody Centerlink. Your admin really need to go and read some Rawls.

Second Philosophy Essay

I received the comments back for my second essay this semester and I would have to say that I'm in complete agreement with them. Usually I'd disagree and pick the markers comments apart but this time I'm fine with them. I knew I wasn't perfect...this time.

You see, I'm having trouble answering the essay questions with such a tiny word limit - 1500 words. The question for this last essay was 'What are the central claims of moral relativism? Is moral relativism a plausible meta-ethical theory? Answer with reference to both objections to the theory and defences of it'. To me, at least, I had no idea how to answer this question, coherently and justly, in only 1500 words; and this seemed to be the only criticism of my essay, in essence.

I have two sets of comments for this essay, the first set from the guy who marked it and the second from my tutor. Both were almost identical. My arguments were clear, my exmples were unique and interesting, and the essay shows 'shows abundant research, passion, and understanding'.

The negative criticisms were uniform too and basically said that I was too ambitious and tried to cover too much ground with too few words; and I totally agree - I am ambitious!

Now, at least, I know where I need to focus for the next essay.

University of the Sunshine Coast

Today I was at the University of the Sunshine Coast talking to my friend at the Student Union 'cause they (the Uni) have been advertising for at least four years that in their Bachelor of Social Science (community work) degree the student has the option of taking an international placement. Jodie went to see the coordinator to organise this international placement and it turns out that it is not actually available. While it was once an option it is no longer; no one has been able to do an international placement for at least four years. The University still advertises that it is an option however, hence getting the Student Union on their case.

It seems a little strange that since the University has known for four years (at least) that NO student is able to do an international placement that they still advertise it as an option. It would seem that their advertising guys, or girls, are not afraid of euphemistic lies.

The University of the Sunshine Coast has great academics and, now with wireless networking, pretty good facilities too. I say pretty good because the car parking is the worst on the coast. It is such a shame that their second, or third, rate administration is letting them down. If you're going to advertise yourself as a University with such high standard academics then get some better administration staff to go along with it. Administration is pretty vital to be accepted as your weakest link.

Prize!

Today I found out I won a prize; it's a CD but I'm not sure by who. I wrote a short opinion piece for a magazine on sport as a religion and, it seems, the editors liked it. Here's hoping that I like the CD.

Reasons for Absence

As some of you have noted, I've been absent for a while and I thought I'd just give a short little reason.

Well, first of all I had a few more family, and non-family, members drop in over the Christmas / new-year week and that took a little of my time but the main reason is that my computer died. That's right, died. Well, it didn't die in the sense that one of it's organs failed but it certainly had temporary organ failure and when I managed to wake it back up it was suffering from amnesia. I usually have Fedora running alongside XP but I'd installed the final beta of Windows Vista x64 over the top and as any of you who have tried the beta of vista x64 it's pretty damn impotent.

Well, to make a short story shorter I had a power surge that messed with my registry settings so bad that recovery console couldn't even find the install! I've spent the last......while..... re-installing XP with all the service packs etc. and all my programs again. The worst problem I had was that I didn't update all my bookmarks and email addresses; well I did but they were on the same drive as my XP install.

I've now gotten rid of that pathetic Vista x64 beta and put the latest Fedora release back on.

So those of you who I usually email etc. please contact me so I can get in touch with you again.

Pronoun Absurdity

I have problems with comma placement. Most of the time it's due to not proof reading my work, other times it's due to my lack of grammatical training. What I have noticed this week, however, is how many people have problems with pronouns. This week I had a piece of assessment due for a philosophy subject I'm studying and I had the opportunity to view some other students work. I have read 14 pieces of assessment so far. While on the most part these essays were of a good quality there was a general problem, that being the use of pronouns.

I think this problem is due to the response to a particular students question relating to the use of the personal pronoun I. You see, my tutor advised against using this (another grammatical quirk I've noticed recently is the use of said or former as pronouns to refer to a previous subject, not strictly 'wrong', I know, but still not necessary especially when the reader will need to read previous sections of text to gather the meaning again) pronoun so the essay would remain neutral. While there's little wrong in many circumstances with avoiding personal pronouns in academic writing the directive of the tutor seems to have shocked many students into absurd pronoun usage.

You see there is a general rule governing the usage of pronouns and this rule states (Do you like my use of states? This is not grammatically correct either. rule is an inanimate object. I should perhaps have said - this rule of which is stated, but I'm not that idiomatic), a pronoun requires a true antecedent. Nearly every essay I read used it without an antecedent, which in itself may not be wrong but it is subjectively governed. For example, if I say "Epicurus offered to theorise but it was not accepted" then it is not governed by a true antecedent. I would need to say "Epicurus offered his theory but it was not accepted". Maybe I'm being to idiomatic here but ambiguity is the worst enemy of academic writing.

Another common mistake that I've noticed focuses on the use of he. There is also nothing wrong with using the word he but this pronoun, whether he, him, his, refers to the subject of the sentence. Notice I've used the word sentence here as this is important. You cannot use the pronoun he etc. in a sentence if the subject is yet to be identified in the sentence or if there is more than one applicable subject. I cannot say "Epicurus is a classist. He is, therefore, evil" because the he is not adequately governed. It makes sense audibly but not when read. I could write "Epicurus is a classist and he is, therefore, evil". I should probably even write "Epicurus is a classist so he is evil". I cannot, also, say "Locke describes Epicurus as a hedonist so he is, therefore, evil". The he in this sentence doe's in fact govern Epicurus but it is ambiguous. I may have been attempting to slander Locke. English is, as far as my knowledge extends, the only language that is ambiguous with he type pronouns. Latin has two he type pronouns with only one being subjective and my other language, Hindi, has three or perhaps more he type pronouns.

Antecedents to pronouns are necessary and do keep them in mind. There may be cases where you can place the antecedent after (I know it sounds absurd placing an antecedent after a pronoun) the pronoun but these are extremely limited. Look at this statement, "If the baby does not thrive on raw milk, boil it". It is here plain to see for all.

I won't go on and mention all the pronoun errors. I've likely made many myself. I know I've placed many commas in incorrect locations in previous works so I'm not the best person to comment on grammar. I just received an essay back today and while I did receive a HD I have found seven misplaced commas. One of these misplaced commas changes the meaning of the sentence drastically but my tutor either didn't notice or agreed with the alternate meaning. I won't comment on my essay that I've just submitted because my tutor may read this and....well you get the picture.

Open Philosophy Forum

I've just enrolled in a philosophy course over summer as it is a prerequisite for some other philosophy subjects I'm doing next year. What's interesting is that there are quite a few students who've previously completed other philosophy subjects and the online discussion was, therefore, getting a bit too much for the first year students. Oh yeah, did I mention I study externally? Well, to address this problem the course co-ordinator has set up a forum so we can debate the course content, and anything else philosophy related, as much as we desire as this is a voluntary forum. Best thing though, it's open to all. Come on over and have a look and join up and post a message. The forum is called Open Philosophy and you can find it HERE

Exams Over With

I am so relieved to get home today. I had five hours of exams today and four hours of train travel to get to the study centre and back! Great to have them over with. My first exam was for PTR110 Structure, Thought and Reality and was so much simpler than I was expecting. Two questions, Q1 was a short answer of around five hundred words on Foucault's Power and Knowledge relationship and Q2 was an essay of around 2000 words on what consequences will flow on from thinking of globalisation and the War on Terror as socially produced concepts. Two hours for this exam and finished it in 1.5. Easy. Next exam was for PAC10 An Introduction to Asia and was in three sections. Even easier! this exam was for three hours and I had quite a bit of time left over. I must admit though that after hand writing more than 6000 words in one day I'm a little tired.

I had some good news from Griffith as well. some of you may know that I've had a little trouble with them of late but today I received my marks back from my new tutor and I received a HD. I couldn't be more pleased.

Those of you from PHI110 I have to appologise for not posting much today, the exams killed all my time and energy.

The Qualia Dilemma

I'm feeling a little less creative for this weeks Philosophy Blog War having been writing too many essays of late. This week I'm going to post a 'dilemma' and see if anyone can help me out with it. Remember to VOTE FOR ME.

Imagine a series of women, all called Mary, who have been afflicted from birth with a weird physiological condition—if they see colours they will die. (Maybe it is a curse.) They are given goggles that convert all colours into black-and-white images. They are given televisions and bedrooms and offices and laboratories in which everything is black-and-white, so they can take off their goggles (provided they wear black-and-white cover-alls).

Some of these women become fascinated by colour vision, precisely because they have not experienced it yet. They hope that their physiological condition will eventually be cured, and then they will see colours for themselves; but in the meantime they decide to study everything that has been written about colours. They collect and read virtually everything that has been written, not only about the science of wavelengths of light, but also about how retinas and brains respond to different patterns of stimulation from different wavelengths of light, about what poets and art critics say about colours, and so on.

Collectively, the Marys come to know everything relevant, anything that anyone could possibly tell anyone, about colours, and about what people say about colours, and about what goes on in people's brains when they think about colours, and when they experience colour vision. If one of the Marys has a ‘blind spot’, some relevant physical fact that she is somehow unable to know because it is about herself, then one of the other Marys can generally be counted on to have the knowledge, of that first Mary, which that first Mary lacks. The Marys also have helpful friends. For any scientific discovery that can be put into words (even if it is something that could only have been discovered by people with colour vision), this discovery is recorded in language, is found out by friends of the Marys, and then is communicated to them—in black and white.

Then one day, one of the Marys develops a cure for their condition. She gives herself the antidote, takes off the goggles, leaves her rooms, and sees red for the first time. Her brain undergoes various changes in response to the new stimulation, and she says, ‘Wow, so that's what it is like to see red! That is what people with colour vision have been experiencing. That is what we Marys have been missing out on.’ She tells the other Marys that the experience is great.

The other Marys have been watching their black-and-white video monitors, which have shown them exactly what went on in the first Mary's brain when she first saw red. Then the second Mary takes off her goggles and sees red, and all the remaining Marys watch their black and white screens again, to see what happens in the brain of Mary II. More or less the same thing happens in her brain as in Mary I's brain, and she too exclaims: ‘Gosh, so that's what it's like to see red!’

When we get to the nineteenth Mary, she knows almost exactly what is going to happen in her brain when she sees red for the first time. She takes off the goggles, and what happens in her brain is just what she predicted would happen. Her brain goes into a series of states almost exactly as she knew it would. The few unpredictable physical differences are definitely not ones that would cause her to say ‘Wow!’ or ‘Gosh!’

Virtually everything physical that happens, after Mary XIX takes off the goggles, is something that she already knew would happen when she took off the goggles. She gains no significant new knowledge about what physical properties are instantiated in the physical world. Yet she too, like the others before her, says, ‘Wow, so that's what it's like to see red!’—just as she expected she would. (Bigelow & Pargetter 2006, pp. 356-357).

Now these are my questions.

1. Does Mary gain 'new' knowledge?
2. What is 'new'?
3. What is the knowledge?
   
4. Since Mary already knew of all the material properties She was going to experience is the knowledge immaterial?
5. If the knowledge is 'new' and and not physical what is it?
6. Finally, how would a materialist or a non-dualist reconcile their views in light of such Qualia?
   

Of course you can just post your own thoughts into the matter as well

And

Remember to VOTE FOR ME!



References

Bigelow, J & Pargetter, R 2006, 'Re-acquaintance With Qualia', in The Australasian Journal of Philosophy, Vol 84, No 3, pp. 353-378).

Hi All

Hi all.
I won't be submitting an entry for the Philosophy Blog War this week; too much Uni work to do. To keep you all interested though have a look at THIS article about an abattoir in India.....disgusting!
Also, in America this week the Frito-Lay company unveiled a new range of crisps...vege crisps. Now I thought this wasn't such a bad idea however Frito-Lay CEO Al Carey voiced his.....um....concern. He stated 'God help us all, would you look at these flavors, weren't Sun Chips healthy enough for you, you goddamn hippie bastards?' If that wasn't enough he described his company's product to his share holders as 'some shit that's made from beets'. and furthered that with 'I hope you're all happy now that you have your precious beet chips with the recommended daily serving of fruit, or vegetables, or whatever the hell a 'beet' is'. I'm sure his share holders would have left having new found confidence in their company's new product. Here's a picture of what their delivery van will probably look like for the new product.

We're Not Happy John!

You see, Australia is one of the countries that supports the Iraq war and I'm not ashamed to say that this is one of the reasons why I opted for dual citizenship when I became an Aussie. Our Prime Minister, John Howard, has long declared that we will leave Iraq when our 'job is done'.

Apparently, we went to Iraq to dispose of Saddam 'cause the blighter was creating a stockpile of nuclear and biological weapons to use against us. I know, isn't that a great word, us, just who is that exactly? I love Little John's alterity.

This morning, after the opposition Labor party hounded the little guy for over a week, John Howard has come out of his closet, or should we say 'walk in robe'? It'd have to be pretty large to keep all of those euphemisms and blatant lies in there! Anyhow, it would appear our job description has changed. Little John has said Australia will leave Iraq when democracy has been established. Was this our original objective? It would seem likely as there were no chemical or nuclear weapons found in Iraq.

Our Little John, it seems, has become a neo-colonialist who's aim is to take over other Nation States that the original colonialists failed in creating. Most people argue these days that Iraq was a strategic move to control oil. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, I just don't know.

What I am now certain of is that John Howard has become, always was, an ideologue. He seems convinced of the ideology of the Nation State and maintaining the Nation State, even when the Nation States in question were created by colonialists and not the citizens (a very democratic procedure indeed!).

Little John is definitely an ideologue when it comes to neo-liberal democracy. His 'coming out of the walk in robe' statement this morning shows him for all that he is. Little John wants to establish democracy in Iraq, undemocratically, for the sole purpose of getting what he, and the other neo-colonialists George Bush, Tony Blair etc. want.

Little John, stop harassing us University students for being ideologues when we mention Marx or apply the theory of orientalism to contemporary society. You are an ideologue yourself and what's worse is that your ideological actions are destroying the lives of thousands and your influence, however unfounded, is influencing millions of people who know no better.

Wake up little John! We all know your political career is drawing to an end so out with it. Come out of the closet John and let Australia know who you really are! I promise we wont treat you like Fraser.

Do Trees Have Rights?

I've finally gotten around to posting my first philosophy blog war entry. I hope you all enjoy and I'm sincerely looking forward to your comments. To vote for my post click here

Do trees have rights? Do other in-animate ‘life’ forms have rights? These questions are too often over looked by predominantly ‘western’[1] post Socratic philosophers and scientists often unjustifiably and without any reason other than heritage. Ethics and Moral ‘codes’ are fashioned around a human-centric view of the cosmos and extend only so far as to include other conscious creatures that have a relative similarity with us. Arbor (1986, p336) illustrates the key foundation of ‘western’ ethics as:

[o]nly the conscious states and interests of sentient being[s] can be valuable in themselves. Other things are valuable only in so far as they bring about desired conscious states or promote these interests.

This statement assumes that one can do whatever one desires to anything that is not classified as a ‘sentient’ being as long as it causes no direct or indirect harm to the interests of other sentient beings. Is this an ethical position to hold? Can I go out and mutilate any non-sentient being I desire? Well, it depends on who I am and how I identify myself with my world.

In Japan there is a long tradition of an art known as Bonsai. Arbor (1986, p336) uses this as an example to argue that mutilating a tree is ethically wrong. He presents a conditional proposition that gave rise to Bonsai; if trees are deformed by natural forces then trees can be deformed by un-natural forces. Arbor then presents an analogous argument stating that if trees are deformed by natural forces and it’s okay to extend that to deforming trees by un-natural forces then it follows that if humans are deformed by natural forces (birth defects, genetic illnesses etc.) then it should likewise be okay to deform humans by un-natural forces. This would be opposed by most and this opposition would rightly sit with the above mentioned definition of ethics. Does this make it right though? There is an air of a bourgeoisie, colonial, or even chauvinistic character in this definition. Let us look at another example.

There is much dispute over whether it is ethically correct to expose certain animals, such as apes, to laboratory tests for the benefit of humans. The most fundamental ethical claim put forward by those conducting these tests is that the creatures, while certainly being sentient, have no conception, or at least a very limited conception, of their future well being. They live in the here and now and that causing suffering to them is not upsetting the definition given above because their interests are not being inhibited. Remember, the claim is that they have a limited conception or none at all of their future so they therefore have no self interest. Can we extend this claim then to other sentient beings such as humans? When a human child is born it cannot identify itself with this world nor have an interest in its future. It can be argued, however, that the child will develop these characteristics with age. Sometimes, however, humans are born with, or develop, mental disorders where they cannot identify with their surroundings or with themselves and they have no conception of their interests or their future. Can, in this instance, humans be subjected to the sort of treatment that laboratory animals endure? Most people will argue that no matter what, humans cannot be tortured or undergo laboratory tests such as grafting an ear of another species on her back. Some will even state that euthanasia is ethically wrong in such a case. What is the basis for such an argument? Treating these humans in this way would certainly fit with the definition of ethics given above but most still object. This is obviously a case of 'humanism', stating that being human is the characteristic that provides us our ethical liberties and not something that makes us human.

How does this example of comparing lab animals with humans of similar mental capacities, whether right or wrong, relate to whether trees have rights you may ask? Well, the fact that trees seem to be outside the scope of ‘western’ ethics is an ideological distinction. The fact that the ethics we have in ‘western’ society derives from a post Socratic weltanschauung, by definition, cannot be thought of as universally relevant. Because some may think, according to their ideological heritage, that trees have no rights does not mean that all people think that trees have no rights. In traditional Indigenous Australian philosophy even rocks and other inanimate objects have rights; traditional Indigenous Australians act ‘ethically’ towards such objects. What makes someone human, makes them alive, makes them ethically valuable, is the same as what makes a tree a tree or a rock a rock; some inanimate objects and places are even considered more important than humans. I can just imagine a ‘western’ scientist saying we can torture humans but we mustn’t even look at that rock. What seems absurd to us may be undeniably true to others.

Do trees have rights? I think so. But my reason for this position is that my ideological position is different from the generic ‘western’ model presented above. It is the dominant ‘western’ scientific ideology that reduces ethical nature, the nature of life, to sentience, to consciousness. I believe that there is a uniting force, an anima if you will, that is common in all life; in humans, in animals, and in trees. The ethical rights I give myself and to other humans I extend to all that shares what I share. If you declare that the definition of ethics given above is what you believe then that is fine, however, please remember the heritage of that position and the validity of other ethical view points as well. After all, ‘western’ thought, including science, can be argued to be just another social construction.

References

Arbor, JL 1986, ‘Animal Chauvinism, Plant-Regarding Ethics and the Torture of Trees’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 335-339.

---

[1] I’m not overly happy with the term ‘western’, I may have used ‘northern’ or something similar to describe the ideological system adhered to by the group in question, however, ‘western’ remains the most widely understood term in classifying this ideological system.

Islam Question

Explain why the Qur’an is so central to the life of the Muslim.

Islam extends itself throughout the world; it does not discriminate. It exists within the richest of the rich and the poorest of the poor nations, it exists simultaneously where ultra-liberal ideologies reside and amongst super-conservative dictatorships. Islam is present in all corners of the globe.

The uniting force within Islam, no matter whether one identifies as Sunni or Shia, or liberal or Sufi, is undoubtedly the Qur’an. Muslims believe that the Qur’an is the final revelation from God, known as Allah[1], to Muhammad thus superseding the Torah of Moses and the Gospels of Jesus (Crotty 2005, p.145). The word Qur’an means ‘recitation’ and the Qur’an as a book consists of 114 chapters, known as suras. Muslims assert that Muhammad is the Prophet of Allah and that the Qur’an is the preserved version of Allah’s directions to Muhammad through his ambassadors (Welch 1997, pp.164, 177).

The life of every Muslim contains five intrinsic rituals, the Pillars of Islam. The first ritual, shahada, is a public display of faith asserting that Allah is the only God and that Muhammad is God’s messenger. Both of these statements occur in the Qur’an (Welch 1997, p180). The second ritual, salat, is the earliest of all the Islamic rituals. It is a prayer given everyday, originally by Muhammad alone, but extended to the entire Islamic community in the Medinan sections of the Qur’an upon the creation of a new religious community (Welch 1997, pp.181-187). The third ritual, zakat, was fundamental in the development of an Islamic welfare system. It is a system of alms giving quite similar to a tax. The Qur’an states (2. 219/217) that the amount to be paid is your surplus (Welch 1997, pp.191-192).

The fourth ritual, fasting during the month of Ramadan is described by Welch (1997, p.192) as having its roots in a war victory in Ramadan to the Muslims. Fasting during this month is mentioned in numerous places in the Qur’an, most notably Sura 2. 185/181 and Sura 2. 187/183 (Welch 1997, p.192). The fifth ritual is a pilgrimage to the Hajj and corresponds with other rituals exercised along the journey. These rituals in full, apart from the first which is in segments, are found in the Qur’an.

These five Pillars of Islam illustrate the centrality of the Qur’an to the life of the Muslim. The Qur’an is a mirror of things past, historical events and sacred times associated with Islam such as the Muslim’s victory in Ramadan; a guide on how to conduct ones life in the present in accordance with the will of Allah; and presents insight into the future, giving certainty to the daily practices of Muslims. The Qur’an codifies the identity of the Muslim, it describes all that a Muslim is or should desire to be. The Qur’an defines and unites the Islamic community, not through a process of alterity but through quite the opposite. It is not apologetic. A passage highlighted by Crotty (2005, p.158) from the Universal Islamic Declaration, 1976 highlights this well:

Islam is a complete code of life suitable for all people and all times, and Allah’s mandate is eternal and universal and applies to every sphere of human conduct and life, without any distinction between the temporal and the spiritual.

With the influence of western ideologies and European colonial rule over many Islamic ‘nations’ in modern times many diverse and at times seemingly contradicting responses have occurred. Islamic nations have been established, many along western democratic guidelines while others advocate traditional and some times fundamental Islamic policies (Welch 1997, p.208). Some Islamic groups have dealt with this change by placing an emphasis, like Ibn-‘Adb-al-Wahhab[2], on removing any external influence upon Islam and focusing on the Fundamental principles of the Qur’an. Others, such as Muhammad ‘Abduh[3], maintained that rationalism and science were congenial with Islam and the Qur’an (Welch 1997, pp.208-213).

Islam has played witness to enormous change within the world having enormous outside pressures placed upon it at many points of history. While Islam itself has indeed modified itself to suit the beliefs, culture, and ideologies of those who follow its teachings; a Muslim, whether Sunni or Shia, or liberal or Sufi, still places the most fundamental importance of their identity and certainly their faith upon the Qur’an.

Bibliography

Crotty, R 2005, ‘Islam’, in Religion Studies: The Long Search Study Guide, University of South Australia, pp. 141-160.

Welch, AT 1997, ‘Islam’, in Hinnells, JR (ed.) 1997, The New Penguin Handbook of Living Religions, Penguin, Camberwell, pp. 162-235.

---

[1] From al’ilah – ‘The God’. This became ‘Allah’ (Crotty 2005, p.141).

[2] Ibn-‘Adb-al-Wahhab was an Islamic reformer from Arabia (Welch 1997, p.210).

[3] Welch (1997, p.212) describes Muhammad ‘Abduh as a leading Egyptian modernist thinker. He died in 1905.

History for those who asked

This is my last History tutorial paper on Euripides’ Bacchae for all those who asked to see it. I hope it helps.

In what ways are Pentheus and Dionysus different?
In what ways are they similar?

As outlined in the beginning of Euripides’ Bacchae[1] (pp.805-806) Pentheus and Dionysus have common heritage on their mother’s side to Cadmus, their Grandfather and previous ruler of Thebes (Segal p.178). This is where overt similarities cease[2]; Pentheus and Dionysus couldn’t be presented as more diametrically opposed. Not only do these two cousins assert their Kratos[3] from different parental heritage[4] but Euripides seems to have used the two characters to assert bipolar opposites in Greek thought; In the case of Pentheus, an immature concept and application of rationalism and a deficiency of Apollonian values ultimately leading to Hubris[5], and in Dionysus an illustration of all that Greek society labels as other (Harris & Platzner, p.749).

Why does Pentheus see Dionysus as a threat to civilisation?

The relationship between Pentheus and Dionysus reflects binary oppositions of masculine/feminine, rational/emotional, and civilised/uncivilised natures. Pentheus views this contrast between himself and Dionysus as hazardous to not only his own character but the Greek world he represents[6]. No doubt Pentheus sees himself as the protector of Greek heritage trying with all his very limited ability to preserve the Greek culture from this ‘other’ non-Greek influence personified through Dionysus and his followers. Pentheus outlines his disapproval of Dionysus and his threat to civilisation with an attack, from a very conservative perspective, in his opening passage in the Bacchae[7] (Euripides, pp.806-809).

To whom is Dionysus dangerous?

From a prima facie perspective, it would seem that the Bacchae presents a classic dichotomy of good versus evil but on further introspection deeper social themes develop (Johnston, p.3). The Greek Paradigm, represented by Pentheus, is deeply ethnocentric and through extreme exclusionism defines the ‘other’[8]; all those outside the Greek Ethos, represented by Dionysus. It is therefore not those who are in direct material opposition to Dionysus himself that are at threat but those who through their ethnocentric principles refuse to accept the limitations of their own world view and the value of the alternative that Dionysus is presenting[9].

Does Euripides’ tragedy provoke criticism of Dionysus?

Dionysus, as the head of the bacchants, is an easy target for criticism as he seemingly represents a religious movement vastly polarised from an orderly city existence. The Bacchants are driven to not only depose of the city but to establish themselves on moral principles seen as filth in the eyes of Pentheus (Euripides, p.806). This view asserts that Dionysus represents the menace of religion[10] (Johnston, p.4). The obstacle here is that Euripides alternative, namely Pentheus and the Greek world he represents, offers no better solution; it can be effectively argued that Pentheus is as much a danger to society as Dionysus[11].

The Bacchants was first performed in 406 B.C. Briefly discuss the theatrical and historical context in which the play was first performed. In what ways might Euripides be using the myth in this context to reflect upon his view of Athenian and or Greek society?

The Bacchae is one of Euripides’ final plays and was composed while the Peloponnesian war was drawing to a close[12] (Harris & Platzner, p.748; The Peloponnesian War). By this time Euripides had disenfranchised himself from Greece[13] (Johnston, p.6). The Bacchae can easily represent Euripides views on the society he was living in[14] as numerous features of the play, such as dissatisfaction with the political leadership and the inability of traditional methods of military control to ensure political stability existed throughout the Greek world particularly during the period of the Peloponnesian war that the Bacchae was composed in[15] (Hornblower, pp.166-170).

References

Euripides, (n.d.), ‘Bacchae’, in Harris, S & Platzner, G 2004, Classical Mythology: Images and Insights, 4th edn, McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 800-853.

Harris, S & Platzner, G 2004, Classical Mythology: Images and Insights, 4th edn, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Hornblower, S 1983, The Greek World: 479-323 BC, Methuen, London.

Johnston, I 2001, An Introductory Note to Euripides' Bacchae, viewed 23 July 2006, , Malaspina University-College, British Columbia.

Roberg, J 2003, Heritage Studies: An Odyssey in Learning, Carthage College, Kenosha.

Segal, C 1997, Dionysiac Poetics and Euripides’ Bacchae, 2nd edn, Princeton University Press, Princeton.

The Peloponnesian War, 1998, viewed 23 July 2006, .

---

[1] The Bacchae, circa 406 B.C, is one of 19 surviving plays composed by Euripides. It is named after the Bacchants, the women devotees of Dionysus. Euripides is famous for his psychological illustrations of distraught characters suffering because they fail to recognise their true identity (Harris & Platzner, pp.748-489; Roberg, p.11).

[2] Throughout the play Pentheus is struggling to deny any similarities that he may have with Dionysus, this will eventually be his downfall as Dionysus recognises that Pentheus is more alike to him than he would like to think. Dionysus antagonises these repressed similarities that Pentheus holds.

[3] Kratos is used in this context and by Segal (p.178) to mean royal power.

[4] Pentheus is the ruler of Thebes through the (inferior feminine?) heritage of his mother Agave whereas Dionysus asserts his Kratos not only through his mother Semele, sister of Agave, but more importantly through his father Zeus, King of the Gods (Segal, p.178).

[5] Hubris is presented by Harris & Platzner (p.749) to mean excessive pride.

[6] Thebes, of which Pentheus is the ruler, is the birthplace of Greek civilisation (Johnston, p.2).

[7] Right from the very beginning of the Bacchae, in a major departure from the traditional Greek hero story, it is blatantly obvious that Pentheus has some personal psychological motivation in his opposition to Dionysus. His emotive reaction to the arrival of Dionysus, such as excessive military force and his apparent obsession with Dionysus’ looks, appear as an illustration of his psychological inadequacies (Johnston, p.2).

[8] On numerous occasions Pentheus ridicules Dionysus and what he represents as inferior and foreign. Pentheus terms the Dionysian cult a travesty (Euripides, p. 806) and filth! (Euripides, p.807), and many times mentions or infers that the culture Dionysus is bringing is foreign (Euripides, pp.806-809, 813 etc.).

[9] This is not to say that the alternative presented by Dionysus is any more meritorious, in fact Euripides constantly illustrates its destructive nature. The argument is that because of ethnocentric ideologies the possibility that anomalies may exist within native Greek thought or that other cultures may have something valuable to offer is ignored, disaster befalls.

[10] At least fanatical superstitious religion lacking in the principles of rationalism.

[11] Of course this entire argument can only be seen as a single aspect of Euripides play as if the fundamental aim of the Bacchae was to convince the audience of the dangers of superstitious religious practice a more appealing alternative would have been presented (Johnston, p.5).

[12] The war began on 4 April 431 B.C. and it ended on 25 April 404 B.C. (The Peloponnesian War).

[13] He was actually now living in Macedonia (Harris & Platzner, p.738).

[14] If the play is to be interpreted from a historical context.

[15] Numerous other parallel features exist with enough correspondent features to effectively assert the conclusion that Euripides based his play on his observations of the Peloponnesian war. Dissatisfaction with political leadership and direction was becoming widespread, along with the sometimes rapid retreat of Greek Democratic systems of government therefore Greek government was becoming less influential overseas. This produced a climate whereby Greek citizens began to open up to and even actively search for other political systems and personal saviours. Eventually the Greek City States began to fail in their attempts to stop their citizens experimenting with foreign ideas of leadership and eventually crumbled (Hornblower pp.166-170). If we take, as mentioned earlier, Pentheus to represent Greek ideology and Dionysus to represent foreign or non-Greek ideology then this historical interpretation competently explains many, if not most, of the attributes of the Bacchae.