tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35477414.comments2023-06-17T02:25:08.805-07:00the net self.laura.ghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13638164730513113228noreply@blogger.comBlogger135125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35477414.post-54876272173468990362012-07-17T00:09:58.464-07:002012-07-17T00:09:58.464-07:00This post resonates with me after having had lunch...This post resonates with me after having had lunch at Native Foods this weekend & discussing the absurdity of honey being the result of exploitative insect labor.<br /><br />"the tendency to offer ethical or holistic-health type reasons for what are so often, at bottom, just diets, adopted primarily for the purpose of weight-loss and to assuage various body-related anxieties."<br />You capture the sentiment quite well, along with the generalization that these people who have the luxury to afford such dietary restrictions have run out of things to be offended about.Andrei Gorchakovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00548693821247144127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35477414.post-38562192941817511072012-07-02T11:29:11.790-07:002012-07-02T11:29:11.790-07:00I, too, find myself enjoying accommodating friends...I, too, find myself enjoying accommodating friends' dietary restrictions. But sometimes ethics - or more specifically, others' purported ethical commitments - get in the way. For those of my friends whose dietary restrictions are imposed for moral reasons, I find myself probing them about the depth of their commitments. If I'm going to craft a meal specifically to accommodate your ethical commitments, I want some guarantee that those commitments aren't fleeting. But maybe I'm just being selfish.Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09903920439715257745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35477414.post-49639003448764502722012-01-09T20:27:56.680-08:002012-01-09T20:27:56.680-08:00this reminds me of some thoughts i've been int...this reminds me of some thoughts i've been intrigued by for the last couple years about role-based ethics - that ethics, in general, is really a matter of role-specific guidelines for action. this was something i came to realize in considering the ethical codes that apply to certain professional roles (lawyer, mediator, doctor), but i suspect that part of the problem with ethics is not appreciating that there aren't role-independent guidelines. it also raises the question of whether this is also true for morality (insofar as it differs from ethics).Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13252583693919755922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35477414.post-71061038373767048372011-09-05T11:58:12.162-07:002011-09-05T11:58:12.162-07:00This comment has been hidden from the blog.laura.ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13638164730513113228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35477414.post-87042371376517380982010-11-08T19:48:00.335-08:002010-11-08T19:48:00.335-08:00This comment has been hidden from the blog.Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09903920439715257745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35477414.post-78417139380459502502010-10-18T17:37:57.288-07:002010-10-18T17:37:57.288-07:00hey laura,
recently remembered your blog and found...hey laura,<br />recently remembered your blog and found this really exciting entry. it's actually tied closely to the essays i've been grading on the language and mind exams on the intentional stance. the question asks why it is both easy and risky relative to other perspectives to describe the intentional stance. i find all of this talk rather funny and slippery but i've been thinking about it a lot lately: how some paths we take and many we don't take seem particularly salient to us, even though there are so many possibilities for action that lay outside what seems remotely relevant to our choices in the moment, and just generally how amazing it is that we understand each other and our engagements with this world at all, or seem to, given just how many possibilities are available to us.<br />hope you're enjoying yourself, in philosophy class and elsewhere. let's catch up soon.<br />larisalsvirskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18349428626881792419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35477414.post-46147642517073703712010-10-14T20:12:01.867-07:002010-10-14T20:12:01.867-07:00Really great blog entry. Loved reading it!
Maith...Really great blog entry. Loved reading it! <br /><br />Maith an bhean a Lára :)Hakim Madjidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01150866901023097034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35477414.post-74297530048552379952010-07-09T21:47:24.579-07:002010-07-09T21:47:24.579-07:00Beautiful. Well-done.Beautiful. Well-done.Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09903920439715257745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35477414.post-13994938644201628132010-05-24T19:55:08.803-07:002010-05-24T19:55:08.803-07:00God, someday – hopefully soon – someone will set u...God, someday – hopefully soon – someone will set up a dialogue between you and Merlin and I will pay so much money to see it.<br /><br />There's so much here, and even more that I only skimmed, to fit into a comment, but thanks and I'm feeling very good about your blog these days.Steve McFarlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02305907006718180081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35477414.post-77034278711162983732010-05-22T19:55:13.293-07:002010-05-22T19:55:13.293-07:00Am I the only person that would've answered &#...Am I the only person that would've answered 'yes' to that proposition? It just seems obvious to me that we should answer 'yes' to that question. A little further afield, though - isn't hanging on to some robust sense of one's 'personhood' or 'identity' what breeds pretension and narrow-mindedness? <br /><br />I guess I've started thinking about personal identity in a very pragmatic, consequentialist sort of way. It just seems like the people I encounter (in life, in the news, in movies, etc.) who are really tied to some conception or other of themselves are sort of less good people, morally, for that. In that Susan Wolf-moral saint kind of way, i.e., they're not the sort of friend I would like to have. I know this sounds sort of like a cheap shot, but it's just an observation. In fact, for me, thinking about the absurdity of the very question that animates the personal identity debate is often quite humbling. So, from my ethical perch, I think I'd prefer the person who, at one sophomoric Caulfieldian moment in her life (or not), contemplated the personal identity question and side-stepped positing an answer precisely because she thought that was the better cognitive route.Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09903920439715257745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35477414.post-76533161356462466062010-05-21T20:15:48.645-07:002010-05-21T20:15:48.645-07:00I read this today on the train, LG. Make of it wha...I read this today on the train, LG. Make of it what you will in relation to the net self:<br />http://www.wired.com/politics/security/magazine/16-02/ff_stasiLiz Angowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03034219731387196427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35477414.post-77045557388802349232010-05-04T09:27:47.512-07:002010-05-04T09:27:47.512-07:00i haven't read it, no. it's now officiall...i haven't read it, no. it's now officially on my summer reading list though. your recommendations get a special place on my queue, MAS.laura.ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13638164730513113228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35477414.post-78736237707385158012010-05-03T08:35:54.365-07:002010-05-03T08:35:54.365-07:00hi laura! I really like how you put this. I have c...hi laura! I really like how you put this. I have certainly undergone something similar in my pre-grad-school / post-grad-school experience. I didn't think I'd come back to New York after I went to Indiana, and I had to contend, when I knew I did want to come back, with the fact that the life I left was no longer there, and that I would have to create something entirely new for myself. A kind of death—yes—this feels like the perfect word for such an inevitably final departure. I can't wait to hear about your new life, and hope you record the transition. California is such a bundle of ideas, especially LA. I presume you've read Mike Davis's City of Quartz. . . if not, I highly recommend. . .Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01527937833220763016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35477414.post-4009345571998283372010-04-22T11:28:07.281-07:002010-04-22T11:28:07.281-07:00I just began reading Jeanette Winterson's Ligh...I just began reading Jeanette Winterson's Lighthousekeeping, which so far is all about this very idea. You might enjoy it.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12708803936169883818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35477414.post-25666717869840200702010-04-15T10:16:23.087-07:002010-04-15T10:16:23.087-07:001. 45 minutes, including breaks to get coffee, but...1. 45 minutes, including breaks to get coffee, but not including breaks to pee.<br /><br />2. well, you know, i haven't actually read over the lewis a long time, and i'm certain that what i'm saying is imprecise enough that some objections could be raised, but this was my own rough impression of lewis' view when i read it for the first time. it was the key, for me, to understanding lewis-- that we don't start with the actual world and build a conception of possible worlds from them, but that we start with the entire space of possibility, which exists a priori if it exists at all, and locate ourselves within it. (SIDE NOTE: i've been reading a book called the philosophical baby, which is fucking awesome, and explains how babies learn to think in terms of possible worlds as they learn to think causally, and the tight/weird/necessary relation between those things when it comes to learning. when i get a second to think it through, i suspect i will have something to say about what i take the significance of all this new data to be for the lewisian view of learning.)<br /><br />as for understanding what we're talking about when we talk about the space of logical possibility, yr probably asking the wrong person. that was my big question throughout that lewis sem we took-- what the crap am i suppose to be picturing? i mean, i have an idea, but i'm not sure that it's any clearer than the one you've already got.<br /><br />sara: yes! see my side note-- i've been thinking like it's my full-time job lately about the relationship between learning/understanding about causes and learning/understanding counterfactually (about possible worlds).laura.ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13638164730513113228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35477414.post-79973965716302225862010-04-14T17:14:50.012-07:002010-04-14T17:14:50.012-07:00it's amazing to me how similar these thoughts ...it's amazing to me how similar these thoughts are to the sorts of things I have to think about in economic research to be sure what I'm getting are causal and unbiased estimates.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11761761413345585534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35477414.post-10750513999007688132010-04-14T17:05:45.011-07:002010-04-14T17:05:45.011-07:00First, what was your time limit?
Second, is that ...First, what was your time limit?<br /><br />Second, is that really how David Lewis conceives of learning, or is that how you conceive of David Lewis conceiving about learning? I still am not sure what you're talking about when you're talking about logical space. And I've felt that way for years now (not just you, but other people too). <br /><br />Third, with my exams coming up, and thus procrastination kicking in to overdrive, expect more comments from me on your blog. Always ignore the third one.Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09903920439715257745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35477414.post-55124883658801628632010-04-13T18:53:22.646-07:002010-04-13T18:53:22.646-07:00This makes me happy. I agree with your inclinatio...This makes me happy. I agree with your inclination as well. As you once intimated to me outside of Shaw's in Porter Square, it seems like we're well on the way to a world in which it would be unethical to "grow" your own children (as you put it) when you could adopt. As I sprint into my "late" 20s, and everyone around seems to be getting married and "growing" their own babies, it's hard not to reflect on my own desires about the topic. I know that I don't want to get married, and I know that I do not want to pass on my genetic material. But I'm totally open to the idea of adoption, and indeed, I think that it might be imperative that I do.Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09903920439715257745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35477414.post-78604931537261103282009-11-10T15:17:38.898-08:002009-11-10T15:17:38.898-08:00I await the follow-up with baited breath.
Also, ...I await the follow-up with baited breath.<br /><br /><br />Also, we just finished the proximate cause/scope of liability section in my Torts class. My professor said, "Look, it's a justice/fairness question." I am inclined to agree.Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09903920439715257745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35477414.post-34529570354088867952009-11-01T14:13:20.411-08:002009-11-01T14:13:20.411-08:00also, the one thing i don't like about 're...also, the one thing i don't like about 'restorative' is that i'm imaging these attitudes as something which, while it is in this case used to restore a reputation, could be taken up as an approach to engaging with and understanding each other in real time, from the get go.laura.ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13638164730513113228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35477414.post-75122387119813389202009-10-30T18:22:57.943-07:002009-10-30T18:22:57.943-07:00ok, but then what is 'explained' other tha...ok, but then what is 'explained' other than a weak or course sense of 'understood'? or do we just define the words so that 'understand' has to do with phenomenology and 'explained' has to do with some other kinds of facts? do all non-phenomenological facts count? i'm confused about the distinction between the two words.laura.ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13638164730513113228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35477414.post-75180201821284820742009-10-29T17:05:24.911-07:002009-10-29T17:05:24.911-07:00let me take a stab at this, drawing on how darwall...let me take a stab at this, drawing on how darwall deals with this. he cites strawson for the basic point that the reactive attitudes themselves presume a different kind of engagement with a person than a merely maximizing approach. darwall illustrates this by noting that desirability wouldn't be enough as a standard. maybe i fail to act in a way that would be desirable, but that alone might not justify blaming them or holding them responsible.<br /><br />what i take darwall to want to say is that these attitudes are part of second-person engagement, and as such presuppose taking the person as a valid source of claims on you. someone who could respond when you make (moral) demands, and could also make such demands of you. this is broader than just RAs, but they're a part of it. so one way of reading a reaction like dennett's to mandel is that treating someone as a person, thinking that their actions must be understood (phenomenologically) rather than just explained (objectively) is itself a form of this second-person engagement. probably dennett's not signing on to darwall's project, but i do take the book to be trying to get at something like this point: all these personal engagement practices are of a piece together.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13252583693919755922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35477414.post-26786970857217340562009-10-29T12:40:01.021-07:002009-10-29T12:40:01.021-07:00dennett thinks that the mantel's stance is cle...dennett thinks that the mantel's stance is clearly a kind of RA. i couldnt figure out why he thought that exactly, except that she's concerned to understand the person in question as a person, concerned to know "how it felt". but i think that as a novelist you may approach that project more in the spirit of an engineer trying to understand the story of how a bridge came to fall, only the relevant facts are facts about a different kind of thing.laura.ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13638164730513113228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35477414.post-79052394577034783472009-10-29T09:12:39.078-07:002009-10-29T09:12:39.078-07:00Fun fact: Dworkin doesn't think there's me...Fun fact: Dworkin doesn't think there's metaethics! That is, he think that we'd have to justify even Mackie-style skepticism to one another in terms which appealed to value concepts. And since he thinks the discourse is basically what the normative consists in, that belies any claims to deny it.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13252583693919755922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35477414.post-10642708955632134892009-10-28T22:59:08.272-07:002009-10-28T22:59:08.272-07:00this is true! but on my latter point,
http://www.h...this is true! but on my latter point,<br />http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/DARSEC.html<br />darwall argues in a quasi-kantian vein that all morality is second-personal in nature - demands that i can make of you, but that requires that you can also make similar demands of me. he specifically invokes strawson's RAs. not much (from what i've seen) on other sorts of attitudes, but it is a somewhat different take on the kind of engagement with others morality consists in.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13252583693919755922noreply@blogger.com