THE DEATH OF THE AUSTRALIAN PHILOSOPHER JIM BAKER

'There are only facts, i.e., occurrences in space and time.'

- John Anderson, 'Empiricism,' Australasian Journal of Psychology
and Philosophy, December 1927, p 14.

On March 3, 2017, which just happened to be my 62nd birthday, an Australian philosopher and university lecturer of some renown passed away at the age of 94. Sadly, his death appears to have gone completely unnoticed in the mainstream media, apart from a death notice placed in The Sydney Morning Herald by his family. Of course, that was to be expected because the mass media caters for the tastes and interests of the hoi polloi, so the media takes the view that talking about philosophy and academics is a complete waste of time except perhaps when some eccentric university lecturer says or do something grossly politically incorrect or otherwise sensationalistic.

The man of whom I speak is Jim Baker, pictured. Allan James Baker was his full name. He was born on July 22, 1922 and he studied philosophy under the Scottish-born Australian philosopher John Anderson who was arguably Australia’s most original thinker and whose philosophy has had a very important influence in my own life.

Jim obtained a Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree with double firsts in Philosophy and History from the University of Sydney and, awarded the Wentworth Travelling Fellowship, which is designed to assist graduates of Arts and Social Sciences at the University of Sydney to undertake research work in Europe, Jim went on to obtain the intellectually demanding two-year taught graduate degree Bachelor of Philosophy (BPhil) in Philosophy degree at the University of Oxford. 

In the 1950s he lectured in philosophy, and was a colleague of Professor Anderson’s, at the University of Sydney. He also taught at Macquarie University in metropolitan Sydney as well as in Scotland, New Zealand and the United States of America. For many years he was a prominent member of the University of Sydney’s Libertarian Society (the 'Sydney Libertarians') and the Sydney Push. In fact, Jim was a founding Libertarian. The Libertarians were the philosophic core of what became known as the Sydney Push. While a student at the University of Sydney, he had been an active member of two famous Andersonian societies of the era, namely, the Sydney University Freethought Society and the Sydney University Literary Society.

Jim is perhaps most famous – and rightly so – for having written two scholarly books on the realist philosophy of John Anderson, namely, Anderson’s Social Philosophy (Angus & Robertson, 1979) and Australian Realism: The Systematic Philosophy of John Anderson (Cambridge University Press, 1986). In his lifetime John Anderson never actually fully systematized his philosophy in book form. At the time of his death he was working on the index for a collection of his philosophical essays, the posthumously published Studies in Empirical Philosophy (Angus and Robertson, 1962). It was Jim Baker who subsequently systematized Anderson’s philosophy and he deserves enormous credit for that achievement. 

Jim acknowledged that there were 'difficulties' with certain aspects of Anderson's philosophy and he openly admitted to having 'criticisms here and there' with Anderson's presentation of realism. I do, too. I now think there are some fundamental weaknesses with Anderson's philosophy that prevent it from being fully coherent and internally consistent as a systematic realism (eg a certain undisclosed idealism, problems with Anderson's treatment of negative propositions, the essential unspeakability of the categories, etc). However, that is not important for present purposes. Jim always ackowledged the greatness of Anderson, and the depth of his thinking, without ever treating him as if he were a God ('the Master') and his teaching some sort of sacred doctrine. In short, Jim was very much his own man and not a sycophantic follower of his former teacher.

In his two books on Anderson’s philosophy, especially Australian Realism, Jim sought to demonstrate that the Australian (or Sydney) realism of Professor Anderson is a systematic and coherent philosophical position. Jim also penned the article on Anderson in the Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed E Craig (Routledge, 1999), vol 1. He was also the author of Social Pluralism: A Realistic Analysis (A J Baker/Fast Books, 1997) as well as many articles on philosophy and social theory appearing in journals such as the Australasian Journal of Philosophy, Mind, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, Philosophical Magazine, Dialogue, Australian Journal of Politics and History, Australian Quarterly, Arna, Heraclitus (being his own private circulation journal and newsletter) and Broadsheet.

I met Jim several times at the Sydney Realist Group where he would occasionally speak, as have I once or twice. Jim also penned articles for the group’s journal The Sydney Realist, as have I. I remember once asking Jim if he would autograph my copy of his book Australian Realism. He looked at the book for some time, then looked at me rather oddly, before finally saying, ‘Where do you want me to sign it?’ (I think he must have been accustomed to more difficult problems.) I said, ‘Anywhere.’ He thought for a moment, and then signed the book at the very top of the inside front cover. So much for literalism and realism. No, Jim was a giant of a man and a deep thinker and he deserved to be much better remembered than he was when he left us a week ago. His funeral was held at Sydney’s Northern Suburbs Crematorium on March 9, 2017.

Opposite the title-page of Jim’s book Australian Realism there stand two epigraphs. Both are from the pre-Socratic Greek philosopher Heraclitus or, more precisely, from the Scottish classicist John Burnet’s translation of Heraclitus’s Fragments in his book Early Greek Philosophy. The first of the epigraphs is this:

‘The world, which is the same for all, no one of gods or men has made; but it was ever, is now, and ever shall be an ever-living Fire, with measures kindling and measures going out.’ 

John Anderson loved and often quoted those words. Jim Baker must have liked them, too. So do I.

Thank you, Jim.


Note. Since writing this post, a well-written obituary for Jim Baker, penned by the Australian businessman and former trade union official Dr Michael Easson AM, who is also a member of the Sydney Realists, has appeared in The Sydney Morning Herald. IEJ. March 25, 2017.

RELATED POSTS

JOHN ANDERSON, PHILOSOPHER AND CONTROVERSIALIST EXTRAORDINAIRE

MINDFULNESS, PROFESSOR JOHN ANDERSON AND THE FACTICITY OF THINGS

JOHN ANDERSON AND THE BUDDHA

MINDFULNESS ACCORDING TO HERACLITUS

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHERS AND MINDFULNESS [PART 1]

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHERS AND MINDFULNESS [PART 2]

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHERS AND MINDFULNESS [PART 3]

EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHERS AND MINDFULNESS [PART 4]

THE EXISTENTIAL ANGST OF OUR BEING BOTH OBSERVER AND OBSERVED

The Scottish-born Australia philosopher John Anderson [pictured left], whose Australian realism (aka Sydney realism) has greatly impacted on my overall philosophy and thinking, taught that a single logic applies to all things and how they are related, and that there are three---yes, three---‘entities’ to any relation such as seeing, having, knowing, etc, namely, the -er, the -ed, and the -ing. Let me explain. First, there is the person who sees, has or knows. Secondly, there is the thing seen, had or known. Thirdly, and most importantly, there is the act of seeing, having or knowing. 

Now, here is the really important part ... nothing, absolutely nothing, is constituted either wholly or partly by, or is dependent upon, nor can it be defined or explained by reference to, the relation(s) it has to other things. For that reason the Biblical statement ‘God is love’ [cf 1 Jn 4:8] is logically untenable as a definition of God. Thus, Anderson firmly repudiated the so-called ‘doctrine of intrinsic relations’ (or fallacy of constitutive relations), which treats relations as if they were terms, and which says that everything is intrinsically related to everything else or, at the very least, is constituted by its relations to everything else.

So, when it comes to the practice of mindfulness, we see that it is a relation involving the following three entities:

* first, the person who is mindfully aware of what is occurring from moment to moment,

* second, the thing or things of which the person is mindfully aware from one moment to the next, each such thing being an occurrence in space and time, and

* third, the act, or rather process, of being mindfully aware from one moment to the next, which includes the ever-so-important acts of mindfully remembering what is present, mindfully remembering from moment to moment to stay present in the action of the present moment from moment to moment, and mindfully remembering in the present moment what has already happened.

Three separate and distinct things---each one of which is a fact---and none of which is constituted by its relations to any of the others nor dependent on any of the others. Such is the nature of reality, according to John Anderson, and such is the nature of the practice of mindfulness which is simply the practice of being fully present in the present moment from one moment to the next.

Well, that much at least is fine---not that I expect all people to agree with that way of looking at reality---but I have come to see that, when it comes to cognitive processes, the situation is even more complicated than what I have set out above. You see, there is the person who observes, as well as the other two entities referred to above, but there is invariably something else as well, namely, the presence of a purported entity sometimes referred to as the ‘observing self’ that is regularly at work in our mind. Not only do we observe but we are aware of a ‘self’ in us that is busily … yes, observing. But there’s more. We are self-conscious beings, and not only is there this ‘observing self’ in our mind---along with many other mind-invented selves---there is also an ‘observed self,’ in that the observing self (a subject) is able to ‘split,’ so to speak, and become an ‘observed self’ (an object). So, we have the ‘I’ subject and the ‘I’ object. The latter is arguably a self-knowing ‘I’ subject, but there is considerable disputation among philosophers and psychologists about that matter. As I see it, the whole thing is a matter of consciousness---a constant stream of consciousness or thought (bhavanga-sota, in Buddhism). All these ‘selves’ are generated by the process of thinking itself. They are nothing but thoughts that ‘harden,’ so to speak,’ into selves of various kinds. No one of these selves is more real or permanent than any others. In fact, none of them is the real ‘I.’

Of course, as I’ve pointed out on so many occasions, this ‘observing self,’ along with all other such selves (eg ‘transcendental self,’ ‘immanent self,’ ‘analytical self,’ ‘judging self,’ etc), has no separate, discrete, or independent existence apart from the person each one of us is. In that sense the ‘observing self’ is false and illusory. The problem is that most of us are acutely aware of its presence and ongoing activities in our mind.

The French existentialist philosopher, novelist, and playwright Jean-Paul Sartre [pictured right] wrote about another interesting phenomenon, and it is this. The very presence, and even the potential presence, of other people tends to result in our seeing ourselves (that is, the actual persons that we are) as mere objects in other people’s consciousness. This is not the same thing as the ‘observed self’ referred to above---that is, where a person is aware of himself or herself thought of as an object. No, this is said to be a phenomenon in the world. In other words, we see ourselves as observer---further complicated and amplified by that pesky invention of a thing called the ‘observing self’---and as someone actually observed by others, and not merely as an object external to ourselves, the latter being an object which, as Sartre pointed out, exists as ‘in-itself.’ Sartre sees the latter---the object ‘in-itself, that is---as existing in both an independent and non-relational way. I prefer the Andersonian view of situationality, namely, that all things exist in situations, that is, in relationship with other things. Independent, yes. Non-relational, no.

Anyway, when it comes to our seeing ourselves as someone who is actually observed by others, some say that what we are talking about is another damn self which, like all other selves, is created in and by our mind or consciousness---some sort of ‘self-conscious observed self’ once (or is it twice?) removed. I think the phenomenon is just another manifestation of our seemingly inherent and intractable self-consciousness and, in particular, the self-knowingness of the self coupled with the mind’s ability to generate and project countless numbers of self-aware selves including ‘selves upon selves,’ so to speak, ad infinitum. Anyway, whatever it be, it is something that, in Sartre’s ontology, exists as ‘for-itself’ as it is always in relation to something else. Personally, I don’t find that distinction or classification helpful. As I see it, the self that observes is in truth the exact same self that is observed. Ditto all other selves. 

The nature of self is to be conscious of itself. All consciousness in a sense is self-consciousness, for it is the nature of consciousness to 'see' itself. Life is consciousness in a very fundamental sense (cf the findings of quantum physics), although I reject Sartre's assertion that things-in-themselves exist only as objectivized by consciousness. Life, as I see it, consists of living things living out their livingness (actually, self-livingness) from one moment to the next, so it necessarily follows that life---that is, consciousness or be-ing-ness---is a state or rather process of self-knowingness, that is, a more-or-less constant stream of thought and consciousness, the latter consisting of observations about and reflections upon the self (or selves, to be more exact) as well as awareness of other people and the world around us, but even the latter is ‘editorialized,’ so to speak, in terms of what it external events supposedly mean for us. Everything gets filtered through, and distorted by, our collection of internally generated selves, or at least through the most dominant of them.

Now, the phenomenon of our seeing ourselves (that is, the actual persons that we are) as mere objects in other people’s consciousness is known in existentialist circles as ‘the Look.’ It is an ontological problem of no mean importance, and it tends to result in the formation of a number of interesting psychological phenomena such as an almost schizoid self-consciousness, acute or generalized anxiety, and, yes, a certain existential angst (especially when you start to ponder upon this whole damn thing). In his famous existentialist play No Exit (Huis Clos) Sartre has one of the three deceased characters in Hell, the lesbian Inèz, taunt Garcin, one of the others, declaring that she is nothing but the look that sees him---‘a mere breath on the air, a gaze observing you, a formless thought that thinks you.’

So, in Sartre’s ontology, which I don’t totally accept, each one of us is nothing but the look or gaze that sees the other.’ But, whatever we are, we are terribly self-conscious of being both the observer and the observed. Oh, the existential angst of it all! Can the observed self escape the eye of its own observer? Is there no escape, no exit, from all this? Death, perhaps? Well, not even death, according to Sartre. Read Huis Clos. There's an even greater existential problem---the inherent instability and essentially illusory nature of the self, together with the elusiveness of the human personality itself, over time. If you doubt the truth of that, read or watch the absurdist play Krapp's Last Tape by Samuel Beckett. As the failed writer Krapp listens to a 30-year-old tape recording of his own voice, a self at one moment in time is confronted with the self (or at least one of the selves) of 30 years earlier. The two selves are totally different and completely unknown, even unintelligible, to each other, so to speak. It all seems so depressing, so futile, and so hopeless. Indeed, in a very real and profound sense, it is.

The good news, as I see it, is that it is indeed impossible for there to be, at the psychological level, observation without the annoying, interfering presence and consciousness (including self-consciousness) of both the observing self and the observed self, not to mention that ‘self-conscious observed self’ phenomenon discussed above The Indian spiritual philosopher and anti-guru J. Krishnamurti [pictured below right] wrote:

When you look at a flower, when you just see it, at that moment is there an entity who sees? Or is there only seeing? Seeing the flower makes you say [i.e. think], ‘How nice it is! I want it.’ So the ‘I’ comes into being through desire, fear, ambition [all thought], which follow in the wake of seeing. It is these that create the ‘I’ and the ‘I’ is non-existent without them.

Now, Krishnamurti did indeed expressly acknowledge on several occasions that there certainly is an entity, in a physical sense, who observes---namely, the person who observes. However, what Krishnamurti strongly disputed was the idea that there was, at the psychological level, a separate, independent, permanent, stand-alone entity called the ‘observing [or witnessing, or perceiving] self’ … or any of the other ‘selves’ for that matter. Yes, we do indeed tend to operate as if there was such an entity, and to a very large extent our misbelief in the separate and independent existence of such an entity only helps to bring it into psychological being and keep it alive. Worse, as Sartre pointed out, we also tend to perpetually see ourselves as an actual object in other people’s consciousness.

True meditation, said Krishnamurti, is:

… the understanding of the whole activity of thought which brings into being the ‘me’, the self, the ego, as a fact. Then thought tries to understand the image which it has created, as though that self were something permanent. This self again divides itself into the higher and the lower and this division in turn brings conflict, misery and confusion. The knowing of the self is one thing and the understanding of how the self comes into being, is another. One presupposes the existence of the self as a permanent entity.

Krishnamurti went on to say that ‘if you consider the self a permanent entity, you are studying a self which is non-existent, for it is merely a bundle of memories, words and experiences.’ True meditation---Krishnamurti didn’t use the word ‘mindfulness’ but that it what he was talking about---is ‘to see the movement of every thought, to understand it, to be aware of it, is to come to that silence which is meditation, in which the “observer” never is.’

Artist and copyright owners unknown.

All rights reserved. (Original source: The New Yorker?)

In truth, there is at the ontological level only you (that is, the person who you are), the person or other object observed, and a state of observation in your mind. Ideally, when you are mindfully ‘at one’ with the person or object observed, the observer and the observed become one, so to speak, and there then is at the psychological level nothing but pure observation and choiceless awareness of ‘what is.’ In true meditation, or mindfulness, the so-called ‘observing self,’ along with all other selves including the so-called ‘transcendental self,’ ‘analytical self,’ ‘judging self,’ and ‘observed self,’ disappears from consciousness. So, as Krishnamurti says, when you truly look---that is, just look and not judge, compare, analyze, interpret, name, etc---at a flower, you just see the flower, and at that moment---please note those words, ‘at that moment’--- there is no psychological entity that sees. Nor, for that matter, is there then any sense or consciousness of our seeing ourselves (that is, the actual persons that we are) as objects in other people’s consciousness.

Now, if we can but extent this choiceless and seamless seeing from one moment in time to the next, and then on to the next, and so on, there will then be nothing but observation. We will come to see things as they really are---in many cases, for the very first time. In time, we will become so engrossed in what we are doing that we will cease seeing ourselves (that is, the actual persons that we are) as objects in our own minds as well as objects in other people’s consciousness.

Gone will be the so-called ‘observing self,’ the ‘observed self,’ and the so-called ‘self-conscious observed self.’

RELATED POSTS

WHY NOT EXPERIENCE REALITY WITHOUT THINKING? NOW, THAT’S A GOOD IDEA!

 

MINDFULNESS, PROFESSOR JOHN ANDERSON AND THE FACTICITY OF THINGS

THINKING THINGS THROUGH---LOGICALLY

This post is dedicated
to those former stellar students of mine

who could---and still can---think things through … logically

‘The horror! The horror!’ (Forgive me, Joseph Conrad.)

Yes, the bloody horror of it all!

In my almost 20 years of teaching law at a university in Sydney, Australia---I had more than 9,000 students in that period (and, lest there be any confusion, I truly enjoyed teaching for the most part)---I became increasingly concerned that far too many students were afflicted with a ‘disease’ which they had caught in their secondary education, or perhaps even earlier. Generation Xers were afflicted with the illness, but Generation Yers even more so. At the risk of sounding self-congratulatory and self-conceited, baby boomers---of whom I am one---appeared to be largely immune to this disease. Perhaps we were inoculated against it along with our triple antigen. I don’t know.

No, I do know. The disease was transmitted in and by the education system---by faddish teachers who couldn’t teach (many of whom were failed students themselves in their day)---as well as culturally and politically … in other words, by people who had a socio-political (and largely leftist) ‘agenda’ of sorts. It’s a terrible sickness---and often terminal. Not even heavy, regular doses of Aristotelian logic assist once the disease has taken hold in the patient’s mind and body.

The disease, which has no name that is universally accepted, manifests itself in a style of thinking, speaking and writing that is characterised by, among other things, an extreme subjectivism and relativism---as well as an inability to engage in critical thinking.

I am so grateful to my parents for giving me the opportunities for a creative childhood. I am also most grateful to my teachers who gave me a good, classical, liberal arts education of the old-fashioned, non-faddish kind, for its emphasis on the humaniities and the arts---in which I excelled---gave me the disciplines of logical reasoning, argument and, above all, independent thought as well as the ability to engage in critical thinking.

Now, I want to set things straight, assuming anyone will listen. I am a philosophical realist---an Andersonian one to be exact. I know this much---and I will defend all of this as being true to my dying day:

FACT 1. Whatever exists---facts---is real. Yes, reality is---what is. That's almost axiomatic.

FACT 2. Truth is a factually correct description or statement of what is, and logic---that is, traditional propositional logic---is about real things in the real world, and how those things are related. (Good, logical thinking means relating---that is, putting together or distinguishing---different pieces of information about facts or alleged facts.)

FACT 3. Whatever exists are complex occurrences or situations in complex relationship to other situations.

FACT 4. Further, whatever exists is a situation located in context (that is, a thing is, under certain conditions, a situation), with the latter affecting that situation.

FACT 5. All such situations exist in the one space-time, and belong to the one order of being.

FACT 6. All things exist in situations which are complex, each such situation involving numerous differences and relations, being ‘a multum in parvo plurally related’ (to use the words of William James [pictured above left]), for each situation consists of ‘things’ (‘terms’) having both connections (‘relations’) and distinctions with other ‘things’ as well as internal differentiation.

FACT 7. There are literally countless, indeed, an infinite number of infinitely complex and interacting pluralities exhausting the whole of reality, and subsisting in one space-time, such that there is nothing but such facts, but not as ‘one vast instantaneous co-implicated completeness’ (to again quote William James).

FACT 8. Everything---yes, everything---is continuously changing and infinitely complex, causation being essentially non-linear interaction at all points in a ‘causal field’, that is, a complex relation where an event (‘situation’) acts upon a ‘field’ or context to produce a certain ‘effect’ (that is, a change in the field); in addition, all situations are caused and in turn bring about other situations.

FACT 9. Nothing---absolutely nothing---is constituted by or is dependent upon, nor can it be defined or explained by reference to, the relations it has to other things; things (‘terms’) and the relations between them are distinct. For example, the knower, the known, as well as the act of knowing, are separate, distinct and independent.

FACT 10. Facts are propositional in structure---that is, there is a logical, direct and coterminous relationship between any proposition that something is the case and the way things actually are.

FACT 11. We can and do have direct knowledge of actual (‘objective’) things---or, more correctly, situations (i.e. ‘facts’)---with each such situation being both complex and on the same level of reality as any other situation that occurs (there being only one level of reality).

FACT 12. It is only in propositions that we know---and can know---things at all, for it is the case that any situation is propositionally structured (i.e., something is predicated of some subject term).

FACT 13. Anything that can be true (or ‘real’) is ‘propositional’ in that something is stated to be the case. Further, every proposition is contingently (that is, not necessarily) true or false---‘logically there can be no alternative to ‘being’ and ‘not being’’ (to quote John Anderson [pictured above right, and below left]). That’s right. You see, no proposition is transparently true, because a statement that something is the case can be justified only by a statement that something else is not the case.

In short, there is a single way, mode or order of being---that of occurrence---namely, that which is conveyed when we say that a proposition is true. This one way of being---the so-called ‘propositional nature of reality’---consists of ordinary things, that is, ‘occurrences in space and time’ (also known as ‘states of affairs’ and ‘situations’). This one way of being (the ‘conditions of existence’) is that of the ‘situation,’ or fact---that is, something being the case in one space-time.

Are there philosophical objections to the above? Yes, of course. There are many different views, but I will tell you this. To date, I have not read any objection to any of the essential tenets of realism that has caused me to doubt the objective truth of the propositions I’ve set out above (albeit in a very summary, even crude, form)---and that is not because I am stubborn and close-minded. At the risk of sounding immodest, I say this---anyone who knows me well knows that is not the case.

Now, it necessarily follows from the above that every question---that is, every assertion that takes something to be the case in reality---is a straightforward (but not necessarily simple in the sense of easy-to-resolve) issue of truth or falsity, there being no different degrees or kinds of truth. 

Far too many students---and law students at that---would say to me, ‘There is no such thing as absolute truth,’ to which I would say, ‘Really, You have just shown there is, that there is at least one supposed absolute truth---the one you just espoused.’ You see, if there is no such thing as absolute truth, you cannot make a statement such as, ‘There is no such thing as absolute truth.’ Really.

I am not an absolutist, but because I refuse to be swayed by fads I am old-fashioned enough to affirm that there is such a thing as objective truth, namely, what is. I reject subjectivism and relativism. Not only do they result in epistemological anarchy---of which there is a helluva lot today---these systems of 'thought' are also otherwise contrary to the very logic of things. Truth is not relative to persons. Truth is what is. Ignorance and mistaken beliefs do nothing to make truth relative. When any proposition is taken to its logical conclusion, a question of fact---truth or falsity---is always reached. One always can get back to the objective distinction between something being the case and not being the case. For example, if I say, quite subjectively, 'The sky is for me blue', you may think quite differently. However, once I ask, 'Is the sky blue for you?', an objective issue is immediately raised. The question is whether it is true that the sky is blue for you, not whether it is true for you that the sky is blue for you.

Subjectivism and relativism assert that they sky may be blue for Wally, but may be green for Susan---and both can be right. My response to that? If a person believes or thinks the sky is, say, blue, then it is implicit in what they’re saying---and presumably in their belief or thinking---that there is something called the sky, and that there is also something called blue (or green, or whatever), and thus that there is something called the sky which may or may not be blue (or green, or whatever). Get the picture? In all cases---yes, all cases---we always get back to the objective distinction between something being the case and not being the case.

Sydney---and a BLUE sky. Yes, really!

I used the word ‘belief,’ because people---especially subjectivists and relativists---love to say, ‘Well, I believe the sky is blue, but it is open to you or anyone else to believe that it is green or red or whatever colour you believe.’ Yes, in the words of W S Gilbert, this disease means this--- ‘And I am right, and you are right, and all is right as right can be!’ We are all right, none of us is wrong, we are all equally precious, and we are all winners. Winners in what, I ask? A contest to determine who is the most stupid? ‘Oh, Ellis-Jones, you mustn’t say that. They’re all equally precious---and equally right. Look what you've done---you have made a student cry!’ Damn it, I will say it! In any event, what the hell has ‘belief’ got to do with any of this? I can still hear the voice of my old philosophy lecturer: ‘The sky is blue. The sky does not become any bluer because you believe it to be blue. Further, the proposition---the sky is blue---does not become any truer because you believe it to be true.’

One more thing. Here’s another problem with subjectivism and relativism. If things are as one believes or thinks them to be, then that implies---yes, implies---that each person, or (in the case of cultural relativism), each culture, is infallible in their judgments and opinions---that is, cannot err---and that also means that there can never be any real difference. Thus, if I think the sky is blue, and you think the sky is red, there is no disagreement or real contradiction. It is simply a case that ‘The sky is for me blue,’ and ‘The Sky is not for you blue.’ Those two propositions are not in contradiction to each other. Isn’t that wonderful? After all, we don’t want conflict or disagreement, do we? Rubbish, I say! Bring it on! I'm ready!

You may think I am a little dogmatic about all this, but am I? Who is the one who asserts infallibility---that people cannot err in their judgments and opinions? Not the objectivist or the realist, but the subjectivist and the relativist, of which there are too damn many these days. If only they would---think things through … logically!

To quote the immortal W S Gilbert again …

        I've got a little list---I've got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
         And who never would be missed---who never would be missed!

I kid you not. I never do. Never!

P.S. I still teach---but these days my students are medical practitioners, psychiatrists, and other mental health workers for the most part. Very few of them are afflicted with the disease referred to above. They tend to think things through. Interesting, that. IEJ.

RELATED POSTS

JOHN ANDERSON AND THE BUDDHA

JOHN ANDERSON, PHILOSOPHER AND CONTROVERSIALIST EXTRAORDINAIRE

MINDFULNESS, PROFESSOR JOHN ANDERSON AND THE FACTICITY OF THINGS

MINDFULNESS AND THE TOTALITY OF THINGS

FORGET ABOUT HAVING A ‘TRANSCENDENTAL’ EXPERIENCE!