Truthiness and the abyss

Sad to hear of the death of Terry Jones, the Python who said of Brian "he's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy!" Two down, announced John Cleese (who pulls no punches when eulogizing his pals), four to go.

Can't help noticing that my own pals and I have lately been sharing notice of others' mortality - our old prof John Post, the singer-songwriter we used to hear a lot back in grad school David Olney [nyt]. Wonder whose mortality we're really noticing?

I suspected it was a form of denial when my old roomie recommended a Netflix show called Derry Girls, described there as concerned with the "universal challenge of being a teenager." That's not one of my concerns,  I told him, at this stage of life when our former teenagers are almost all growed up. But he says that’s not what’s compelling about it, so I said I’d give it a look - even though his favorite viewing when we lived together on Belmont in grad school was Ernest Angley (“recreate the eardrum… it’s a mineracle!”) and the 3 Stooges. "Hey," he responded, "that's entertainment!" In fairness we also watched a lot of Andy Griffith, which really is.
==
In CoPhi today, after a glance at the headlines and history, we explore our respective definitions of philosophy-I like James's "unusually stubborn attempt to think clearly." We solicit favorite philosophers (my current top 5: James, John Dewey, John Stuart Mill, David Hume, and Bertrand Russell), and try to summarize our personal philosophy of life. No one will be pithier than Sally Brown: "No!"

And, those who read Educated over the summer or attended convocation last August can tell us what they thought of it. It's one of those books that lingers in the imagination, reminding a professional educator just how radically transforming an education can be for anyone, especially those who've been raised in extremis (by fundamentalist anti-intellectualist endtime apocalpyse-nowists) like Tara Westover.

And, we'll discuss William James's Pragmatism lecture 1, the School of Life's What's Philosophy for?, and the opening of Kurt Andersen's Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire, a 500-Year History.

(Recommended: LISTEN: What is Philosophy? and Who's Your Favourite Philosopher? (PB Philosophy Bites). Also recommended, if you need help articulating your personal philosophy: Look on the This I Believe website for essays you like, and post links to them; and this; TIB II)

In his first Pragmatism lecture, delivered to a "splendid audience" of about 500 in November, 1906, James said the most practical and important thing about each of us is that we have a philosophy (know it or not), a "view of the universe," and that it affects us more than anything else. But it's disarmingly simple, not deep and profound. It's just "our more or less dumb sense of what life honestly and deeply means, only partly got from books." But that part matters. Read the assignments, kids.

We'll note James's disdain for the superficiality of Leibniz's theodicy, and the fatuousness of believing that all is always for the best. If this  really is the best of possible worlds, we're going to have to rethink the value of possibility.

We'll consider the notion that philosophy is all about learning to live and die well. ("What is Philosophy For?")

And then it's on to "the reality-based community" that's been so besieged, of late. Karl Rove got Kurt Andersen's attention with that "remarkable phrase," leading him to write Fantasyland. Stephen Colbert's "truthiness" was also a catalyst.

Why does Andersen think Americans are so fantasy-prone? It's our birthright, we've been taught, to believe any damn thing we want. But it really all goes back to the Reformation and Martin Luther's debunking of expert theological authority.

But first, the word is truthiness. LISTEN Aug. '19

I wonder what to make, in the dim light of "truthiness," of Nigel Warburton's assertion that "the point of writing philosophy is to be a catalyst to other people’s thought, not to set down the truth for all time. There are many different ways of doing this, some of them literary." I agree that catalyzing thought and talk are vital to the ongoing pan-temporal conversation that is philosophy. And, I agree that the truth is elusive and that those who think they've laid exclusive claim to it are dogmatists we should resist. But we're still seeking truth, right? We're not just trying to say provocative things that may or may not help others in their respective searches, important as that work is.

But perhaps this is Richard Rorty's point: keep the conversation going. Asserting truth "for all time" does tend to be a conversation-stopper.
==
Speaking (as I was back in the opening paragraphs of this post) of the abyss...

In Atheism & Philosophy (A&P) today we take up Julian Baggini's Very Short Intro. May also mention Neil deGrasse Tyson's god-talk, hawking his new book; and Julia Sweeney peering through the No God glasses.

We may also follow up our discussion Tuesday of William James on the will to believe as applied to what Martin Hagglund and others call secular faith. Baggini insists that atheism is not a form of faith, but a rational response to a dearth of evidence. If "committing to any belief or action that is not strictly proven to be right requires faith, then we are really robbing the idea of faith of its distinctive character." (31) Okay, but what about James's climber?

Suppose, for instance, that you are climbing a mountain, and have worked yourself into a position from which the only escape is by a terrible leap. Have faith that you can successfully make it, and your feet are nerved to its accomplishment. But mistrust yourself, and think of all the sweet things you have heard the scientists say of maybes, and you will hesitate so long that, at last, all unstrung and trembling, and launching yourself in a moment of despair, you roll in the abyss. (WB)

And when we notice the precarious state of American democracy these days, aren't we all out on a cliff over an abyss, in search of fortitude and the strength and motivation to carry on? Courage, Adam Schiff!