.
Submitted 2/26/05 to Ask a Philosopher Re:New 18/23
.
.
I have given considerable thought to this question and have composed an answer on a separate page on my website to facillitate all of the re-writing required to try to get it right. This is a direct link to that page:
If you decide to use it, you can copy it to your website, or link to it, whichever you think is appropriate. I would prefer you copy it so that it cannot be altered to accomodate criticisms or objections. That would insure that I deal with them openly and honestly.
Thanks for your consideration.
Signed: Anthony G. Rubino
.
.
From: G.Klempner@sheffield.ac.uk
(Geoffrey Klempner)
Date: Mon, Feb 28, 2005
To: TRISECTOR@webtv.net (Anthony G. Rubino)
Subject: Re: Ask a Philosopher: moderated answer
Dear Tony,
As editor of Ask a Philosopher, the only changes I normally make are to spelling and grammar. I do not alter answers to accommodate criticisms or objections.
If you want to submit your answer, submit it. If you would like to be considered for the Ask a Philosopher panel, please send me your brief CV and academic record.
All the best,
Geoffrey
.
.
.
Submitted 02/28/05
Dear Geoffrey,
Apparently I got off on the wrong foot. I did not mean to imply that you would alter my answer. I submitted my answer via a webpage that is only accessible to me for editing. I stated my preference that its content be copied to your site rather than being made available via a link to it, so that there could be no question about my altering it 'after the fact'.
I submitted my answer as a webpage because I work with webtv. Composing an e-mail of any length with interruptions is subject to being lost several times. I was hoping you could use the link as part of the e-mail. For me to include my answer as an e-mail will require that I handwrite it and make several tries to re-type it into a complete e-mail.
I would participate as a panelist for Ask a Philosopher if you find my work suitable. I don't know what a "CV" is, and my acadenic record is less than dazzling from an academic perspective. I have a BA in Philosophy from Brooklyn College, SGS (Evening Session). I changed my major after I had developed and written my own philosophy. The only way I was able to get through my courses was to avoid reading the assigned philosophers so that I only had one layer of misconceptions to deal with; those of the professors. They could tolerate criticisms of a position, but they could not tolerate suggestions that they mis-understood or mis-interpreted a philosopher's position.
My attitude towards philosophy matches your Mission Statement, and I am hoping to establish a relationship that will enable me to contribute in a positive way.
Sincerely,
Anthony G. Rubino
.
.
.
From: G.Klempner@sheffield.ac.uk(Geoffrey Klempner)
Date: Wed, Mar 2, 2005, 9:15am (EST+5)
To: TRISECTOR@webtv.net (Anthony G. Rubino)
Subject: Re: Ask a Philosopher: moderated answer
Dear Tony,
I have cut and pasted your answer below. It is very easy. You go to your browser's Edit menu -> Select All -> Copy, then Paste into your email program.
I don't have time to do this, because a new answers page can be any length from 30,000 words upwards. So I rely on panel members sending their answers as separate text email messages. The email Inbox then serves as a template for the new Ask a Philosopher page.
Now to your answer.
I find the tone of this dogmatic, rather than philosophical. Although you allow two alternatives (for theists and atheists) of 'God' and 'Nature', you don't address the serious philosophical objections, but merely give arguments of your own which are, frankly, rather weak. Not to mention the fact that the ethical theories based on 'nature' (sociobiology and the like) are vastly different from traditional, theistic based ethics.
My advice is tackle something smaller, which will involve doing a bit of your own research rather than just stating views which you have already worked out. Ask a Philosopher is not a soap box. It is a forum for philosophical exploration.
All the best,
Geoffrey
.
E-mail .
Submitted 03/06/05
.
Dear Geoffrey,
Thank you for your patience and help. Webtv does not provide an "Edit menu", but I did learn how to 'cut and paste' whole pages at least. Though I can submit 'contributions' in the format you require, I am not sure that they will be welcome. Your comments on my submission lead me to believe that you are rejecting it, and that I might be in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
I realize that you are a very busy man with ambitious projects that provide excellent, and much needed, resources for the philosophic community. The 'Ask a Philosopher' resource is oriented toward students and teachers of philosophy in a unique way. However, it understandably does not anticipate original and independent ideas which makes it difficult to deal with such thought when the emphasis is on research and traditional views. Students tend to learn about philosophy before they try to think for themselves. Teachers tend to present philosophic problems in terms of other philosopher's views, rather than their own, to present a 'balanced' view. Your comments on my submission seem to bear that out.
I presented an honest answer to a question I interpreted as an honest one as disinct from, say, a rhetorical one. I answered that question within the context implied by the question and within the context of 'Ask a Philosopher', which I am. I would not have attempted an answer in the context of 'Ask a Philosophy Professor', which I am not.
You criticize my submission on its presentation only, without indicating any substantive comment on any particular premise or relationship I presented. You don't like its tone. You say it's dogmatic. But: Truth, presented as truth, is dogmatic. Fact, presented as fact, is dogmatic. Every premise can be considered dogmatic by a skeptic. What level of obsequiousness would provide the 'proper' tone to avoid the risk of being censured?
It is my understanding that every original idea runs that risk, a risk a philosopher must take, but one that philosophy professors tend to avoid. Philosophy students don't usually have a problem unless they ask, or answer, a question that implies a deeper understanding than that of their professors or peers. At that point they are pressured to decide whether or not to become a philosopher, and endure the inevitible slings and arrows that will ensue.
You also point out that I 'don't address the serious philosophic objections'. I was answering a question, not presenting a major thesis. Presentation of such anticipated objections are frequently 'strawman' arguments. They are also unnecessary in an interactive environment, such as the internet, where 'real' objections can be raised.
You recognize that I presented my own ideas, yet fault them as non-traditional and even suggest that I do research. What I presented is the result of 50 years, or so, of serious independent thought. None of my original ideas were discovered through research. Most of them are non-traditional because they try to remove generally accepted misconceptions. What I presented is only a small part of a comprehensive, cohesive, and consistent philosophy that I believe is robust enough to deal with any objections that may be raised.
Through most of my education, many of my teachers considered me to be a very good example of a bad one. Some of them ridiculed my ideas for the benefit of the other students. Sometimes it was they who were embarassed. A few even admitted publicly that I could be right; fewer still that it was they who were mistaken. Sometimes a good idea looks bad only because it is expressed badly. How can we look past a bad expression of an idea to see the good idea that lies behind it?
Perhaps, an 'Ask a Fool' resource would encourage 'free thinkers' like me to test their own ideas, and try to defend them. If some fools do rush in, perhaps the wise might also feel challenged enough to tread on unfamiliar ground with their own original ideas.
Sincerely,
Anthony G. Rubino
.
.
.
From: G.Klempner@sheffield.ac.uk (Geoffrey Klempner)
Date: Tue, Mar 8, 2005, 11:14am (EST+5)
To: TRISECTOR@webtv.net (Anthony G. Rubino)
Subject: Re: Ask a Philosopher: moderated answer
Dear Tony,
I wrote to you because I think that you are capable of making valuable contributions to 'Ask a Philosopher'.
My advice would be - to begin with - to select questions which you do NOT have strong views about,and which require a bit of research to give a good answer. That way, you will expand your philosophical knowledge at the same time.
My objection was not simply to the 'tone' of your original answer but rather that you failed to address the question of the possibility of objective ethical knowledge, and also that you failed to distinguish between two very different views, the theist view according to which the authority of ethical commands derives from the deity, and the evolutionary psychology view, according to which we ought to behave in the way (it is claimed) that evolution has programmed us to behave - i.e. with concern for the needs of others.
I see a lot of views expressed which are not original to me, even though the individual who expressed the view genuinely thought it out for him- or herself. It is always good to try to be original. Just be aware that the more you learn, the more you will realize just how hard this is.
All the best,
Geoffrey
.
.
Submitted 03/10/05
.
Dear Geoffrey,
You wrote:
> I wrote to you because I think that you are > capable of making valuable contributions to > 'Ask a Philosopher'.
I thought so too, but you found what I consider a valuable contribution, unacceptable. Apparently we have different views on what constitutes a valuable contribution. I was disappointed, but not surprised. I therefore continued my quest for a venue that could be more productive than my own website and found: http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php? The difference between that project and Wikipedia with regard to editorial policy is analogous to the difference between my approach to philosophy and yours.
The only thing more difficult to do than to teach a teacher, is to teach a philosopher; but, as a philosopher, I would be remiss if I didn't try. I also have an obligation to defend the veracity of my stated positions. If you could not accept the possibility I suggested that your busy schedule requires a 'quick scan' of material to determine its suitablilty, I seriously doubt that you will be open to the suggestion that you did not understand what you read, and in fact, misconstrue it.
> My advice would be - to begin with - to > select questions which you do NOT have > strong views about,and which require a > bit of research to give a good answer. > That way, you will expand your > philosophical knowledge at the same time.
This advice is somewhat patronizing, but more importantly, it is vacuous. The strength of one's views is generally proportional to their importance despite the fact that trivial matters can be blown out of proportion when they are associated with 'self-image', 'battles of will', or, 'matters of principle'. To 'NOT have strong views' suggests that one should have weak, 'wishy washy' views, or that one should weaken any strong views through 'research' and equivocation to present a 'balanced' denuded view.
> My objection was not simply to the 'tone' > of your original answer but rather that > you failed to address the question of > the possibility of objective ethical > knowledge, and also that you failed to > distinguish between two very different > views, the theist view according to which > the authority of ethical commands derives > from the deity, and the evolutionary > psychology view, according to which we > ought to behave in the way (it is claimed) > that evolution has programmed us to behave > - i.e. with concern for the needs of > others.
Your objection(s) may not have been SIMPLY to the 'tone' of my original answer, but that's the only one you expressed. Now you fault it on the basis of what it did not say rather than on the basis of what it said. To begin with, 'the question of the possibility of objective ethical knowledge' is not the question that was asked, and therefore should not require a specific answer, yet, I did address it (and the other 'failures' you refer to above) in two ways. I specifically presented morality, as distinct from ethics, - as being derived from a deity-, and I also specifically presented its derivation from 'humanity' with or without acknowledgement of God (as Deity, a Higher Power, or Nature) through the medium of conscience, which takes into account the needs of others. (The Second Law: Love others as you love yourself.)
> I see a lot of views expressed which are > not original to me, even though the > individual who expressed the view genuinely > thought it out for him- or herself. It is > always good to try to be original. Just be > aware that the more you learn, the more you > will realize just how hard this is.
> All the best,
I have no doubt that you see a lot of views which are not original. So do I. I am also well aware how much harder it is to get an original idea recognized than it is to have original ideas in the first place, - regardless of how hard that might be. It is an occupational hazard of 'higher learning' to fall prey to the idea that original ideas are so unlikely their possibility need not be considered. That belief then can become an excuse for not doing the hard work required to think independently to find and propose original ideas.
It seems quite apparent that you do not consider what I proposed to be original or valuable. Though there are similarities to various parts of my position, I have not found anyone who has put those parts together in the same way that I have. For example: Conscience as a union of consciousness (our knowledge of ourselves and our environment in relation to each other) and our deep seated yearning to love and be loved as part of our nature. Perhaps your research capabilities can find some specific references or objections.
Sincerely,
Anthony G. Rubino
.
.
.
.
.