virtual philosopher

Angie Hobbs given post to increase public understanding of philosophy

Angie Hobbs, whom I've interviewed a couple of times for the Philosophy Bites podcast (on Plato on Erotic Love, and Plato on War) has just been promoted to a new post at Warwick University with a brief to promote the public understanding of philosophy. She will clearly be an excellent advocate, particularly on the importance and continuing relevance of ancient philosophy. She has been superb on Philosophy Bites and on In Our Time.

Perhaps other universities will create such a role too...(I'd love to have that brief!).

Angie Hobbs has just begun tweeting as @drangiehobbs

Obama's Cosmopolitan Existentialism

Cosmopolitanism, the philosophy which foregrounds common humanity while recognizing difference, seems to be the philosophical underpinning of President Obama's approach to international relations. Carlin Romano's fascinating article 'Obama, Philosopher in Chief' (c/o the brilliant Arts and Letters Daily) analyses his speeches linking them to Kwame Anthony Appiah's thinking on the topic (you can listen to Appiah on Cosmopolitanism on the Philosophy Bites podcast) - though Romano economically describes Appiah as 'Ghanian-American' (more on Appiah's genealogy here).

Romano claims that Obama is 'countering' Machiavelli with his advocacy of a consensual politics over coercion, and recognition of rights over party politics. Cynics might note that the expression of such views is completely consistent with Machiavelli's approach (since Machiavelli is all for appearing to take the moral high ground). But surely, as Romano points out, we have entered a new age when an American President sounds like an existentialist:

"Our history has always been the sum total of the choices made and the actions taken by each individual man and woman."

Can we now hope that the US people will be encouraged to apply reason to the area of religion too? While some way ahead of the UK in politics, the US seems to be lagging behind in metaphysics.

Geert Wilders and Free Speech

Dutch MP Geert Wilders' film Fitna which includes very disturbing scenes of violence (including 9/11,the aftermath of Madrid and London bombings, beheading and execution), incitement to violence and hate speech carried out by Muslim extremists in the name of their religion, juxtaposed with verses from the Koran and an 'anti-Islamisation' message is on YouTube in two parts here. Wilders implicitly generalises from what some extremists have done in the name of their religion to the idea that Islam in every aspect is an evil. There is no sense that there could be a moderate Muslim. This is not a balanced documentary treatment. Islam is presented as a ticking bomb within the Netherlands (and presumably elsewhere). There is no serious suggestion of how this alleged threat to Western democracy can be addressed.  This is why this film is so controversial and why the British Government has prevented him from entering the UK despite his being a democratically elected politician from an EEC country. There are also links immediately after this movie to response videos of various kinds including by Muslims.

On the free speech issue here, the easy availability of the video on the Internet means that his rather crude message is not, as yet, censored in the UK. To that extent his freedom to communicate his ideas does not seem to have been radically curbed. In fact the UK Government's refusal to let him enter the country means that many more people will now watch this video in order to try to understand the ban. So indirectly they are increasing the number of people who watch Wilders' movie - which is presumably the opposite of what they intend. Whether the UK Government can now consistently apply the principle on which his ban on entry was made - that his presence is likely to incite violence -  remains to be seen.

More on Free Speech at www.vsi-free-speech.com

Read Oliver Kamm on why he thinks we should support Wilders (written prior to this ban)

The Pope's Immoral Message for Christmas

The Pope has used his pre-Christmas speech to suggest that homosexuality and other kinds of gender-blurring could result in the self-destruction of humanity. Read about this bizarre homophobic view here. In most jobs  this sort of pronouncement would result in instant dismissal...What planet is he on?

Contemporary Aphorism Competition

The School of Life has a competition for the best contemporary aphorism running (closing date 31st Dec) judged by Alain de Botton, Sophie Howarth and James Geary...

Here's my entry:

'Money walks'

Machiavelli is Always Relevant

Machiavelli's book The Prince seems relevant to almost every political age. A recent article in The New Yorker brings out some of the insights into the present reading Machiavelli today can offer.

Quentin Skinner's podcast on The Prince on Philosophy Bites sets the book in its original context.

Art or Lives? How do we weigh Titians against Other Goods?

Should the State pay £100 million (which is a bargain by current market standards) to stop two great Titians being sold overseas? We've had the benefit of these paintings being on public display since 1945 in the Bridgewater Collection in the National Gallery of Scotland (and they are remarkable paintings - I've seen them), but that could be about to be withdrawn if the money can't be found.

Watch a short video about the paintings (1 min 33 seconds)

Psychologically the withdrawal of art that is already on public display feels much worse than missing an opportunity to expand a collection. The paintings' removal will be a great loss for many. Yet £100 million is a large enough sum to save or at least substantially improve many lives if it were invested in health care or in good social housing, or to stimulate contemporary artists if it were used to found an arts centre. Great paintings have become so expensive to acquire that this question is coming up every few years: when resources are scarce, could we justify State expenditure at this sort of level on paintings? The truth is, though, that the Government is unlikely to come up with this amount of money for these paintings.

Mark Rothko used to ask the question: if a house is on fire and you could only save a Rembrandt painting or a child, which would you do? He thought the answer was obvious: you should save the child. He's surely right about this.

It would be great if philanthropists could step in to solve our problems here and buy the paintings for the nation. But if they don't, the price tag is so high that, much as I love the paintings and believe that our museums are central to our cultural life, I don't believe it could be justified as a State expense when our social services still lack funds.

Perhaps someone should change the law so that hereditary peers can only keep their titles if they give at least one great painting to the nation every generation.

Genetic Enhancement in Sport and the Rest of Life

Watching Eusain Bolt win the 100 and 200 metres by so much in the Beijing Olympics was amazing. But what if he had had the benefit of performance-enhancing genetic manipulation on top of his exceptional natural potential and training? Why restrict what athletes can do to enhance their performance, as long as it is safe? And what about other aspects of life? If we could increase our IQs by taking drugs, would it be wrong to do so?

Questions about the ethics of genetic enhancement get to the heart of what we take a human being to be. It would be nice to think that we all line up equal, but the truth is that both genetic and environmental factors (many of which are outside our control) massively affect whether or not our lives  go well (as well as how fast we could ever run - which may in some cases amount to the same thing). Most of us see the idea of curing disease using intervention as unproblematic: if we can do it we should. But when it comes to enhancing our genetic endowment in any way, some people get edgy. Is this an irrational fear brought on by science fiction parables? Or are there genuine grounds for concern?

The Case for Enhancement
Julian Savulescu gives an admirably clear outline of the issues in a podcast of a lecture he gave in Sydney in 2007. He argues that where we can make people's lives go better, we should and that there may be great social benefits as well as individual ones from making use of the new biological and pharmaceutical possibilities that scientists have opened up for us. In discussion, he also argues that it might make sense to tolerate various drugs and processes in sport provided that they aren't dangerous, and then concentrate resources on dope testing for the dangerous ones.

Listen to Julian Savulescu on the Ethics of Genetic Enhancement

Read an interview with Julian Savulescu in The Guardian (2005)

The Case Against Enhancement
For a passionate defence of the idea that enhancement is not a good idea, listen to my podcast interview with Michael Sandel based on his book The Case Against Perfection (read my review of this book). Whilst he agrees that curing deficiencies and disease is good, he opposes enhancement. His argument turns on a notion of 'giftedness' and the consequences for humanity of boosting individual achievement by technical means. Ultimately this sounds like a religious argument, though Sandel hopes that his reasoning will appeal to the non-religious  too.

Listen to my interview with Michael Sandel on Genetic Enhancement in Sport

Philosophy Bites gets a mention in The Guardian today

The Philosophy Bites podcast is listed as one of the top sites in an article on Internet radio in today's Guardian.

Peer Review in Philosophy

I've always found the notion of peer review of philosophy journal articles a bit suspect. I also find it ludicrous that the phrase 'peer reviewed' is taken by some people to be a mark of quality assurance. A good editor is surely better than an incompetent anonymous peer in this respect.

One basic flaw in the peer review process is the selection of people to do the peer reviewing: are they competent, biased, awake, rivalrous, too busy with their own work to read to the end? The trouble is, we can't get reliable information on this sort of thing as they are almost always anonymous and unaccountable. Do we trust that editors always get great reviewers? It seems unlikely that they will be able to get many eminent thinkers to devote their time to sifting through the huge slush pile of articles generated by RAE pressure in the UK. Judging by the huge quantity of tedious and poorly written drivel that gets through the process of peer review and into print in philosophy journals, something isn 't working here.

Obviously if the reviews contain good arguments and criticisms these can be judged more or less independently of their source. But such reviews are not particularly common. Praise and acceptance from a mediocrity who doesn't completely grasp the topic is very likely as meaningless as condemnation and rejection by the same individual. But praise or rejection from someone who is a major player in the field - that might mean something. It might also sharpen up the process if named people could be held to account for their views.

Better still, why don't we bypass journals altogether and just publish all our views on the Internet as we choose. Let our peers review these after the event (if they feel like it)  and in the open (or before, by private arrangement, if we are shy about making fools of ourselves). That might re-invigorate the subject and the ways in which we express ourselves.

A programme that just went out on BBC Radio 4,'Peer Review in the Dock' and which you can listen to again here for the next 7 days, revealed how much more dangerous faith in the peer review process is in areas such as medicine. It also refers to evidence that peer review is not a reliable mark of quality...far from it.

See also some useful links in Tim Crane's comments below.