275: The ghost in the meat machine

Sofar we have focused on how our brain is wired to generate our mind and our supersense, our ability to believe in the supernatural. Today we'll have a closer look at the mind itself.

In the first place we instinctively try to figure out what’s on each other’s minds. What is going on in the other, so that we can come up with the right response in a debate or a negotiation or in a counseling session.

We are mind-readers, but of course not perfect ones. Nevertheless, it is easier to understand others as beings motivated by minds rather than the unsavory alternative: mindless beings, sophisticated robots, or well-dressed zombies.

To be able to read the mind of others we focus primarily on the face of the other and secondly on the movements of the other. We have learnt that movements have a goal and that there is an intention behind.

The brain is wired to concentrate on faces. Like we are able to see faces in the clouds or in creepy dark shadows…. The fusiform gyrus of the brain (an area just behind your ears) is active whenever you look at faces.

When this part of the brain gets damaged you will have difficulty in recognizing faces. It even can be that serious, that you don't recognize your own face in the mirror.

From the beginning of our existence faces and movement are a sign of the other mind, of a person with intentions and beliefs. And our basic strategy is to read the mind of the other.

Evolutionary our ability of mind-reading is an important tool in the group, to be able to anticipate what the other will do next. We naturally assume that others are motivated by their mind. This is what Dan Dennett calls adopting “the intentional stance.”

Thus we attribute beliefs and desires to agents, as well as some intelligence and the funny thing is that these agents do not have to be only human.

A smart manufacturer of vacuum cleaners put a face on its HVR 200-22 model and a name: "Henry". The result is that people start to talk about Henry as the dedicated servant whenever complains.

And there goes our supersense again. The intentional stance is just a comfortable way of talking about and interacting with the natural and artificial world.

Just remember Piaget, and how he discovered the animism that is in every child. Like the intentional stance this way of thinking emerges at a very young age and creates an easy route to supernatural thinking.

For those who have forgotten, "supernatural thinking" means believing in ideas that defy any law of nature. Like the idea of talking to your vacuum cleaner or your dog and then believing that is has a mind that understands.

The basic conclusion is that these observations of cognitive development psychology reinforce the conviction that our brain is wired to believe in dualism: the belief that we have a body and a mind and that they are two interrelated things.

It was not Descartes(1596 - 1650) who introduced dualism. It was the way he used and interpreted his mind not knowing that his brain was his mind, that introduced substance dualism: body is material, mind is….????

Ever heard an elder person say "Hold on… this old carcass isn't that fast anymore?" or something the like? The implied meaning is clear: tho the mind is still young and willing, the body is old and no longer what it used to be.

"We treat the mind and the body as separate because that is what we experience. I am controlling my body, but I am more than just my body. We sense that we exist independently of our bodies." says Bruce Hood.

To conclude for today we could say that our brain generates a dualistic experience of ourselves. What this really means we'll discuss in the next lecture.


The Discussion

[13:21] herman Bergson: Thank you... :-)
[13:21] Adriana Jinn: thanks to you
[13:22] herman Bergson: If you have any question or remark..feel free
[13:22] itsme Frederix: cogito ergo sum QED
[13:22] Florencio Flores: *¨¨*:•.•:*¨*«´¯`•.¸¸• ☆☆☆ * S * U * P * E * R * N * A * T * U * R * A * L * ´¯`•.¸¸• *¨¨*:•
[13:22] Florencio Flores: Supernatural!!!
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: it is still interesting finding out about the relationship of mind and body
[13:22] itsme Frederix: sum ergo cogito?
[13:22] herman Bergson: Yes Itsme...in fact that is the real thing
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: guess so itsme
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes
[13:23] herman Bergson: If our thesis is, that the brian is the mind then our friend Descartes was obviously mistaken
[13:23] itsme Frederix: smart thing that brain, smart move of evolution to I guess
[13:24] herman Bergson: in fact Itsme this is supernatural thinking...
[13:24] itsme Frederix: nothing wrong with that after all these lectures
[13:24] herman Bergson: To attribute smartness to evolution...
[13:24] herman Bergson: Evolution isnt smart at all ^_^
[13:24] Florencio Flores: YES I BELIEVE ON THAT THE DOGS ALL ANIMALS UNDERSTAND THINKIN
[13:24] itsme Frederix: sure,
[13:24] AristotleVon Doobie: evolution just is
[13:25] herman Bergson: Yes Aristotle
[13:25] itsme Frederix: so we just are
[13:25] itsme Frederix: happens to be
[13:25] herman Bergson: You could say that yes Itsme
[13:25] AristotleVon Doobie: indeed, the children of evolution
[13:25] herman Bergson: and if a dog would understand thinking why doesnt it read the newspaper then?
[13:26] itsme Frederix: vehicles of evolution (supernatural, elitair?)
[13:26] herman Bergson: No Itsme...
[13:26] Florencio Flores: THEY PREFFER TO READ OUR MOVEMENTS LIKE YOU SAID
[13:26] itsme Frederix: if you think right you wouldn't read a newspaper Herman
[13:26] herman Bergson: the issue here is, that supernatural thinking is in fact not good...
[13:26] Florencio Flores: AND LEARN THEM
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: itsme
[13:27] AristotleVon Doobie: it is not good
[13:27] itsme Frederix: I think we must say, supernatural thinking is neither good or bad, but its good to be aware what kind of thinking you use in circumstances
[13:27] Florencio Flores: well i think this herman
[13:28] herman Bergson: Ok Itsme...supernarural thinking definitely has a function
[13:28] itsme Frederix: Gemma, newspapers are alays interpretation you better made yourself
[13:28] AristotleVon Doobie: the question could be , is it productive or destructive
[13:28] herman Bergson: yes Aristotle...
[13:29] herman Bergson: And the general opinion is that supernatural thinking, especially if it is religious zeal is very destructive
[13:29] Bejiita Imako: a dog understands things but not as well as we do, ex you can say to a trained dog ex sit and it will do that, however you might have to bribe it some with candy in process too
[13:29] Bejiita Imako: hehe
[13:29] Adriana Jinn: i think so herman
[13:29] Bejiita Imako: or even learn them do advanced tricks
[13:29] itsme Frederix: evolution has both sides productive and destructive,
[13:29] AristotleVon Doobie: is the dreamer in a state of supersense, before they invents
[13:29] herman Bergson: Yes Bekita,but that is all based on training only
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: aa yes
[13:30] itsme Frederix: herman, can you quantify "general opinion" fact please not hyperlinks into the nothing
[13:30] itsme Frederix: qualify would even be better
[13:31] herman Bergson: well...general opinion in the world of science
[13:31] itsme Frederix: platitude
[13:31] herman Bergson: ok..
[13:31] herman Bergson: let is be my opinion then
[13:31] itsme Frederix: supersense, science as supersense
[13:31] herman Bergson: and maybe there are others that share that opnion
[13:31] itsme Frederix: autority?
[13:32] herman Bergson: no historical facts...
[13:32] itsme Frederix: history is interpretation, facts ... which ones
[13:32] Florencio Flores: here where i live dogs talks with their
[13:32] Florencio Flores: ladridos
[13:32] Florencio Flores: Bark
[13:32] herman Bergson: The monotheistic religions, judaism, christianity and Islam have there good sides but are highly desctrucive too
[13:33] Adriana Jinn: as you can interprete them yes
[13:33] itsme Frederix: so atomic energy has it good side, is very destructive too
[13:33] herman Bergson: this kind of supersense leads to a feeling of superiority...
[13:33] herman Bergson: no...Itsme...
[13:33] itsme Frederix: aha, its the way you use (or misuse) supernatural
[13:33] herman Bergson: The human being who uses atomic energy can be both...not the atomic energy itself
[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:34] itsme Frederix: right you are herman, I slipped away also
[13:34] AristotleVon Doobie: the evil of it resides in the mind
[13:34] herman Bergson: As I said...supernatural beliefs mean beliefs in things that defy any natural law...
[13:34] herman Bergson: no abuse there
[13:35] herman Bergson: the belief in gods, afterlife, ghosts, invisible forces etc.
[13:35] itsme Frederix: oke, but natural law (causality) might be a supernatural interpretation
[13:35] herman Bergson: If I may rephrase your statement Itsme
[13:36] itsme Frederix: I'm honored
[13:36] : Florencio Flores smacks Bejiita Imako's ass!!!
[13:36] herman Bergson: The natural law might be defying the natural law's way of interpratation of reality...
[13:36] herman Bergson: that makes little sense
[13:37] itsme Frederix: well "sense", does it have to make sense (I'm serouos) blind evolution
[13:37] AristotleVon Doobie: how's this for supersense, regarding dualism, I feel the mind is actually separate from the brain, making us a trilogy of mind/brain/body
[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: very complicated thought!!!
[13:37] itsme Frederix: am I stil on the topic, other might have better things to state ???
[13:37] Florencio Flores: there's no evolution
[13:37] Florencio Flores: simply not
[13:37] Florencio Flores: people don't cares of it
[13:37] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL
[13:38] Bejiita Imako: hehe
[13:38] herman Bergson: yes Aristotle...in my next lecture I'll address that issue in detail
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: oh good
[13:38] herman Bergson: Well Itsme, I dont really get what your point is :-)
[13:39] herman Bergson: Hi Rodney ^_^
[13:39] itsme Frederix: ? do I ?
[13:39] Rodney Handrick: Hi Herman
[13:39] AristotleVon Doobie: Rod Man!
[13:39] Rodney Handrick: Hi Ari
[13:39] Bejiita Imako: hi Rodney
[13:39] Rodney Handrick: Hi Bejita
[13:39] Alarice Beaumont: Hi Rodney
[13:40] Rodney Handrick: Hi Alarice
[13:40] herman Bergson: Maybe things get clearer after the next lecture ^_^
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: i doubt it
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥
[13:40] itsme Frederix: oke, reading back - I guess we must not over estimate science and make that 1-1 to reality (whatever reality is)
[13:40] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:40] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL they will be as clear as mud
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: it only gets more complicated as e go
[13:40] Bejiita Imako: hehe
[13:40] Adriana Jinn: HIHI
[13:40] herman Bergson: Ok....
[13:41] herman Bergson: But if our main "mission" as social animals is survival then science offers an opportunity and supernatural thinking doesnt
[13:41] AristotleVon Doobie: yes!!!
[13:41] AristotleVon Doobie: amen
[13:42] herman Bergson: It even could endanger our survival..
[13:42] itsme Frederix: If I may interprete Herman
[13:42] AristotleVon Doobie: I believe it has
[13:43] herman Bergson: go ahead Itsme
[13:43] itsme Frederix: IF our mission is survive THEN science offers ... May I remind you that without science men lived 100.000 years, and we are now learning that we can destroy men withing a 100 years
[13:44] itsme Frederix: sono "historical" fact YET
[13:44] herman Bergson: interesting point Itsme, yes
[13:44] AristotleVon Doobie: I suspect we have not lived one iota without science
[13:44] Rodney Handrick: I agree Itsme
[13:44] itsme Frederix: (again of the topic I guess)
[13:44] herman Bergson: But I think you are mistaken...
[13:44] herman Bergson: The cave men had science too....
[13:45] herman Bergson: they didnt call it that...
[13:45] herman Bergson: they just carved stones, made weapons, they might have called it just knowledge
[13:45] AristotleVon Doobie: indeed they did, and some great scientist in contribution
[13:45] herman Bergson: so science/knowledge has been there since the beginning of mankind
[13:45] itsme Frederix: that is technics
[13:45] Florencio Flores: agree herman
[13:45] Alarice Beaumont: think you are right Herman
[13:46] Florencio Flores: human just fabricate weapons
[13:46] herman Bergson: no Itme...that is human knowledge..
[13:46] herman Bergson: they also learned about the healing power of certain plants...that is medicine
[13:46] Alaya Kumaki: i think tha t supernatural thinking was a science that was misinterpreted or lost
[13:46] itsme Frederix: He we are talking about best oppertunity to survive, and you come up with weapons?
[13:46] herman Bergson: They learnt about the movement of the stars...that was astronomy
[13:46] herman Bergson: and so on...
[13:46] AristotleVon Doobie: the very first person to rationalize was a scientist
[13:47] herman Bergson: We have real knowledge and we have supernatural knowledge..
[13:47] herman Bergson: and the real knowledge contributed to our survival..
[13:47] herman Bergson: what we are trying to understand here is ..how to deal with supernatural knowledge...
[13:48] herman Bergson: Why do we believe in the Unbelievable
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:48] itsme Frederix: We have scientific/rational knowledge and supernatural/intuitive knowledge, about what we name reality
[13:48] AristotleVon Doobie: I don't
[13:48] Florencio Flores: herman
[13:48] Alarice Beaumont: getting complicated
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥
[13:48] herman Bergson: On that point we disagree Itsme
[13:48] itsme Frederix: there is no such thing a "real knowledge"
[13:48] Florencio Flores: do you believe in the future zen?
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: that we seem to agreee on
[13:48] itsme Frederix: or everything is "real knowledge"
[13:49] herman Bergson: My definition of knowledge is that its truth value can be tested...by experiment
[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: historical facts appear to be real knowledge
[13:49] herman Bergson: the existence of angels or ghost can not be tested...just believed in
[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: yes and scientific facts
[13:49] Qwark Allen: the real knowledge of today, it`s not the same as in the future
[13:49] AristotleVon Doobie: unless they are altered for political reasons
[13:50] itsme Frederix: a fact is not the same thing as knowledge, a fact you can know and imbed in knowledge (that my opinion)
[13:50] itsme Frederix: ?why can we not test for angels Herman?
[13:50] AristotleVon Doobie: actual experience is the closet to truth you will get
[13:51] herman Bergson: well...this gets complicated..for here we come to ideas of for instance Wittgenstein....
[13:51] herman Bergson: The world is all states of affair...
[13:51] herman Bergson: The concept of "fact" is very difficullt
[13:51] itsme Frederix: complication is not an excuse, we are trained by you so ...
[13:51] herman Bergson: or to say it otherwise...where does the fact begin and where dus it end :-)
[13:51] Adriana Jinn: ohhhhh
[13:52] AristotleVon Doobie: in the end, we alone are the judge of fact or fiction
[13:52] herman Bergson: Yes Itsme, but we loose focus, for this is an epistemologial problem
[13:52] Qwark Allen: begin in real knowledge and end in the supernatural one
[13:53] itsme Frederix: oke focus ... body/brain => mind
[13:53] herman Bergson: Well...I would suggest to wait and see what the next lecture will bring you
[13:53] Florencio Flores: brb
[13:53] Qwark Allen: not always istme
[13:53] herman Bergson: This was really a great discussion..especially thanx to Itsme..!
[13:53] itsme Frederix: quarks are different I know
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: hehe
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: thanks
[13:54] herman Bergson: So,...may I thank you for this good debate...
[13:54] Qwark Allen: your lack of knowledge there it`s not natural
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: hope to see you on Thursday
[13:54] Qwark Allen: eheheh
[13:54] AristotleVon Doobie: the next class is a must then......thank you, Professor
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: interesting ㋡
[13:54] itsme Frederix: I felt like the roman guy in Asterix&Obelix, setting up every one
[13:54] herman Bergson: Class dismissed.... ^_^
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: Herman
[13:54] herman Bergson: you are welcome Gemma
[13:54] Adriana Jinn: sorry have to go thank you professor and all
[13:54] itsme Frederix: Herman you gave the fuel. THX
[13:54] Alarice Beaumont: wow... thanks Professor
[13:55] Qwark Allen: HooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooo !!!!!!
[13:55] AristotleVon Doobie: bye Adriana
[13:55] Bejiita Imako: YAY! (yay!)
[13:55] Alarice Beaumont: have a great evening Qwark :-)
[13:55] Jeb Larkham: thanks Herman byeee
[13:55] herman Bergson: Thank you Itsme..
[13:55] Adriana Jinn: bye aristo
[13:55] itsme Frederix: your welcome Herman ;)
[13:55] bergfrau Apfelbaum: thanks! was so interesting!!!
[13:55] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:55] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ty herman!
[13:55] Alaya Kumaki: thank yu herman, it is interesting, somthing to pond uppon, again,
[13:55] herman Bergson: smiles at Bergie
[13:56] itsme Frederix: Bye Bye
[13:56] Rodney Handrick: thanks Herman
[13:56] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ׺°”˜I'M BACK`”°º×
[13:56] bergfrau Apfelbaum: :-) smiles
[13:56] herman Bergson: Ok Alaya...go for it ^_^
[13:56] Alaya Kumaki: byby
[13:56] AristotleVon Doobie: wb bergie
[13:56] Bejiita Imako: cxu
[13:56] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL
[13:56] Bejiita Imako: bye
[13:57] Alarice Beaumont: nite everyone :-) see you thursday
[13:57] herman Bergson: Bye all
[13:57] AristotleVon Doobie: very interesting Herman
[13:57] AristotleVon Doobie: thanks agin
[13:57] AristotleVon Doobie: see you Thursday
[13:57] herman Bergson: Ok Aristotle...always good to sasee you here!
[13:57] AristotleVon Doobie: :) later

237: Aristoteles

When you want do describe an ax you can talk about its shape, its color, the materials it is made of, but the description is incomplete, if you don't add the mentioning of the function of the object: to chop wood.

According to Aristotle, everything has a purpose or final end. If we want to understand what something is, it must be understood in terms of that end, which we can discover through careful study.

Everything has a "telos", a final end, a goal, a purpose says Aristotle. From this idea comes the word teleological. You can look at nature in a teleological way, which means that you assume that everything in nature has a goal, a final end.

Thus we also can ask what is the final end, the "telos" of a human being. What is it that human beings are meant by nature to become?

Aristotle's answer to this question is: we are meant to become happy. This is very nice, but not very conclusive. Aristotle says that living happily requires living a life of virtue.

Someone who is not living a life that is virtuous, or morally good, is also not living a happy life, no matter what they might think.

Much more than any herd animal the human being is a political animal. And because everything in nature has a purpose, according to Aristotle, the fact that the human being alone has speech has a purpose too.

To quote Aristotle himself: Speech serves to reveal the advantageous and the harmful and hence also the just and unjust.

For it is peculiar to man as compared to the other animals that he alone has a perception of good and bad and just and unjust and other things of this sort; and partnership in these things is what makes a household and a city. -- end quote

The partnership between men who deliberate about just and unjust shapes the city. This is essential in Aristotle's view. Ethics and politics are closely linked in his opinion.

He holds the view that the ethical and virtuous life is only available to someone who participates in politics, while moral education is the main purpose of the political community.

And thus Aristotle says: "The end [or goal] of politics is the best of ends; and the main concern of politics is to engender a certain character in the citizens and to make them good and disposed to perform noble actions.”

Politics as an educational function. From the politicians we have to learn the virtues. I wonder who would dare to say that these days.

I think a lot of us have not such a high esteem of politicians. Politics is often depicted as aiming at ignoble, selfish ends, such as wealth and power, rather than the “best end”,

and many people regard the idea that politics is or should be primarily concerned with creating a particular moral character in citizens as a dangerous intrusion on individual freedom, in large part because we do not agree about what the “best end” is.

What we often see as the important task of a government is to keep us safe from other people, for instance through provision of police or army. This provides us with the liberty to pursue our own ends in freedom.

The teleological ontology of Aristotle has been supported through the ages, but somewhere in history we have dropped his views, when you recognize my description of how we look at politics (and politicians) these days.

Sometime in history the political philosophers dropped the idea that the emergence of a (city-)state was the result of a natural teleological process.

You only have to wait and attend the coming lectures to discover when and why this happened, or maybe you already know.



The Discussion

[13:27] herman Bergson: This is just a tiny bit of Aristottle's ideas...
[13:27] herman Bergson: But enough for today ^_^
[13:28] herman Bergson: Your remark was to the point oola....
[13:28] oola Neruda: at first... what you were saying, almost seemed like religion
[13:28] herman Bergson: The highest person in esteem in the city state according to Aristotle is the Lawgiver
[13:28] herman Bergson: yes you might say so...
[13:29] herman Bergson: IN fact Aristotle had a high esteem of the human being..as being able to attain virue
[13:29] Repose Lionheart: The Greek city state must have been an interesting social and ethical laboratory
[13:29] Repose Lionheart: I agree with Aristotle
[13:29] herman Bergson: I think so too Repose
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: our lives are lived on a moral axis
[13:30] herman Bergson: Aristotle had also many ideas about how it should be organized
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: hmmm
[13:30] herman Bergson: A mix of olichary and democracy
[13:30] Alaya Kumaki: yes, oola if we consider the root of the word religions,== to link,= religiare.. to link people together,is a natural process , for the goods of name. at first
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: oh
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: yeah
[13:30] Alaya Kumaki: of many
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: that's waht we have in every republic now
[13:31] herman Bergson: indeed Alaya
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: especially the USA
[13:31] Abraxas Nagy: interesting oola
[13:31] herman Bergson: well Repose..there is one difference...
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: ?
[13:31] herman Bergson: Aristotle believed that the organization of the state was the result of a natural process
[13:32] Alaya Kumaki: and a mixture of autarchy also, maybe
[13:32] Repose Lionheart: oh, yes
[13:32] herman Bergson: He was deeply concerned fro instance about civil war...
[13:32] herman Bergson: the relation between the poor and rich
[13:32] Repose Lionheart: oh
[13:33] herman Bergson: a fear for factions...
[13:33] Repose Lionheart: yes, all things that have trouble the democracy i live in
[13:33] herman Bergson: What is typical in Greek thinking, especially in Aristotle, in my opinion , is the search for equilibrium, harmony, balance
[13:34] herman Bergson: Virtue is the middle between two extremes
[13:34] Sartre Placebo: equilibrium,harmony,balance but only for citizens right ?
[13:34] herman Bergson: like olichargy is the ruling by the rich and democracy the ruling by the masses
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:34] herman Bergson: Aristotle suggest a mix
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: practical, i suppose ㋡
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: the rich are always with us
[13:35] herman Bergson: But historically more interesting is that we have lost Aristotle's ontology
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: oh, yes
[13:35] herman Bergson: we have lost the teleological thinking
[13:36] herman Bergson: Thus the state is no longer the result of a natural process
[13:36] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:37] herman Bergson: Does anyone knowwhen we lost our innocence??? ^_^
[13:37] Alaya Kumaki: the state is nearly as what everything was tough to look at , a merchandise as well. we can shop our governements nearly
[13:38] herman Bergson: yes Alaya
[13:38] Alaya Kumaki: maybe before it was more of a culture , human cultural developements.
[13:38] herman Bergson: When did we loose the Aristotelian beliefs?
[13:38] oola Neruda: i agree Alaya
[13:39] Alaya Kumaki: when the capital become the main point
[13:39] oola Neruda: the selling of the president ... that was written about the kennedy=nixon rate...by teddy white
[13:39] oola Neruda: race
[13:39] herman Bergson: A bit earlier Alaya
[13:39] Alaya Kumaki: really oola, how interesting
[13:39] Abraxas Nagy: mm I'd say
[13:39] Repose Lionheart: Maybe we lost our innocence in the Enlightenment
[13:39] herman Bergson: Right Repose!
[13:39] Repose Lionheart: ㋡
[13:39] Alaya Kumaki: aw,, when was that?
[13:40] Repose Lionheart: 17th century
[13:40] Alaya Kumaki: i see
[13:40] Repose Lionheart: i think
[13:40] herman Bergson: The very moment we started to think that the state was just a social contract (between animals)
[13:40] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:40] Repose Lionheart: a balancing of contending forces
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: no harmony
[13:41] Abraxas Nagy: but isnt everything like that?
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: not
[13:41] Alaya Kumaki: between animal, eww that is the lowering of values , human value
[13:41] herman Bergson: Hobbes, who we certainly will discuss was the witch-master by claiming that we are wolves for each other
[13:41] herman Bergson: No Alaya, because we are saved by our reason
[13:41] Alaya Kumaki: im not saying animals has no value, there.. .. either
[13:42] herman Bergson: No, but as Aristotle already remarked...contrary to animals we posses the ability of speech..which means reason
[13:43] herman Bergson: So ..what we will do is follow the Aristotelian ideas through the ages for a start
[13:43] Alaya Kumaki: oh, and did the wolf theory, was also brought in the Enlightments period?
[13:43] oola Neruda: is it naieve to speak about virtue as if there was no.. evil?
[13:44] Sartre Placebo: homo homini lupus :P
[13:44] herman Bergson: yes Alaya...at the beginning of the Age of Science so to speak
[13:45] Alaya Kumaki: gosh i always wonder where did the idea that human became predator for one another, , but i think that wolf are doing even better,, according their ethics
[13:45] herman Bergson: yes..in fact was Hobbes wrong with comparing us with wolves...they are very social animals
[13:47] herman Bergson: For the next lecture we will introduce the Civitas Dei of Saint Augustine
[13:47] Repose Lionheart: oh, great ㋡
[13:47] Abraxas Nagy: oops
[13:47] Sartre Placebo: die stadt gottes
[13:47] herman Bergson: The moment that christianity takes over
[13:47] Sartre Placebo: ?
[13:47] herman Bergson: Correct Sartre
[13:47] Alaya Kumaki: ^^
[13:48] herman Bergson: If you have no further questions I would like to thank you for your participation
[13:48] Sartre Placebo: thx, herman
[13:48] Abraxas Nagy: thank YOU professor
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor ㋡
[13:48] Qwark Allen: ******* Herman *******
[13:48] Qwark Allen: ty
[13:48] Alaya Kumaki: thank yu to yu herman,^^
[13:48] Abraxas Nagy: see you all next time :D

4b Anna Maria van Verschuur, a second lecture

This morning I read in my newpaper that our government is working on a catalog of civil and social values. The argumantation was, that citizens know their rights very well, but seem to overlook and forget what their duties are. It may surprise you, but about 357 BC (!) Aristotle wrote his Ehtica Nicomachea and in that work he did exactly the same thing as my (Dutch) government proposes to do: describe the virtues of the good citizen. So, what's new here? This is what nowadays is knows as virtue ethics. This in contrast to the approach which emphasizes duties or rules (deontology) or that which emphasizes the consequences of actions (consequentialism). Virtue ethics' founding fathers are Plato and, more particularly Aristotle and it persisted as the dominant approach in Western moral philosophy until at least the Enlightenment. Almost 2000 year! It is characterized by three concepts: these are arête (excellence or virtue) phronesis (practical or moral wisdom) and eudaimonia (usually translated as happiness or flourishing.) A quote from Aristotle to clarify the concept of virtue: "Virtue, then, is a state of character concerned with choice, lying in a mean, i.e. the mean relative to us, this being determined by a rational principle, and by that principle by which the man of practical wisdom would determine it." (Ethica Nicomachea, II,6). http://ethics.sandiego.edu/theories/aristotle/ To complete the picture another quote from Aristotle, which makes me glow with pride, but the other half of my audience furious, I am afraid. "Again, one quality or action is nobler than another if it is that of a naturally finer being: thus a man's will be nobler than a woman's." (Rhetorica, 1) Do I need to say more? This was the world of Anna Maria Van Verschuur. For two thousand years women were literaly regarded as inferior human beings. The whole social system of Europe was based on that idea and it was an export product to other parts of this earth as well. Anna Maria Van Verschuur, thence, had to behave like a virtuous woman, which is synonym with devout christian woman. Of course were the male virtues different from the female virtues. At the top of the male list of virtues you find the virtue of being educated to be able to perform public duties, for instance in the government or educational institutes. This virtue wasn't even at the bottom of the female list. For her we have a lot of other virtues: Forgiveness, Understanding, Loyalty, Humility, Compassion, Admiration, Moderation, Respect, but they dont need virtues like Courage, Wisdom, Sense of Accomplishment, Personal pride, Being educated. How did Anna Maria Van Verschuur get around this huge mountain of prejudices. Let's listen to Johan van Beverwijck, a Dutch physician, who wrote the preface to Anna's Disertatio. "Of old the scholars have a difference of opinion about what characterizes a virtuous woman. The authoritative historian Thucydides had the greatest appreciation for the woman, who isn't subject of debat in the streets, whether it is to her advantage or disadvantage. He probably holds the opinion that also the reputation of a good women, just like she herself, should stay in the house and should not become known in public - as if like Tacitus says, there is equal danger in a good and in a bad reputation. But according to the sharp-witted philosopher Plutarchus the opinion of Gorgias deserves our preference, who holds the opinion that not the looks, but the reputation of a woman should be known to many." Thucydides, Tacitus, Plutarchus, Gorgias (and implicitely Plato and Socrates): in only a few lines so many names are dropped. And that was charactristic for that period in history and the development of knowledge, that was why the ideas of Aristotle could have enjoyed such a long life. The development of philosophy had been mainly based on exegesis of the old philosophers, churchfathers and the bible. That is why so many even brilliant scholars of those days are completely forgotten and a man as Descartes is not. His approach gave rise to a whole new way of philosophizing, offered innovative ideas. He also was one of the few men who treated women as intellectually equal partners in philosophical discourse, Elisabeth of Palts, Constance Huygens, Chritina of Sweden and also Anna Maria Van Verschuur. The exchange of scientific letters was a common practice in those days and so Descartes corresponded with Anne Maria untill he noticed that theology was for her the highest form of science. There he lost his interest. In the next lecture we'll discuss in detail how Verschuur formulated her feminist position and succeeded in getting het Distertatio widely known in Europe. And we'll pay attention to the peculiar fact that this feminism didnt succeed, even was forgotten completely and why the feminist movement in the 19th century not even refers to the brilliant women of the 17th century. The Discussion [13:20] herman Bergson: Tuesday the final lecture on Anna MAria Van Verschuur [13:20] hope63 Shepherd: thursdsay.. [13:20] herman Bergson: And Hope, your thought crossed my mind too...but I know it wasnt our Aristotle :-) [13:20] Cailleach Shan: Tuesday? [13:21] herman Bergson: sorry Thursday indeed [13:21] hope63 Shepherd: sure ari couldn't have said that herman? [13:21] AristotleVon Doobie: indeed, I hold a different view [13:21] herman Bergson smiles [13:21] hope63 Shepherd: let's hear it.. [13:22] herman Bergson: What amazed me most is the long and profound influence of Aristotles ideas [13:22] herman Bergson: In fact he played a very negative role regarding human equality [13:22] hope63 Shepherd: didn't augustinus have something to do with that as far as she was concerned? [13:22] AristotleVon Doobie: in so many ways women are superior to men [13:22] Paula Dix: can this be related to Alexander? [13:22] herman Bergson: Augustine prefered the unmarreid woman indeed [13:23] herman Bergson: being more virtuous than the married one [13:23] Alarice Beaumont: he did? [13:23] Alarice Beaumont: ah [13:23] hope63 Shepherd: and aristoteles i think to remeber.. [13:23] Cailleach Shan: mmm.... he was a Mummy's boy though [13:23] Paula Dix: unmarried and not sexual active, i guess [13:24] herman Bergson: that is what I picked up from some literature, yes [13:24] herman Bergson: it is one of the reasons Anna Maria could believe in her mission too [13:24] hope63 Shepherd: paula.. he lived in north africa.. not in brazil..:) [13:24] Paula Dix: lol, same weather :) [13:24] herman Bergson: Regarding being unmarried as virtuous for a woman [13:25] herman Bergson: stick to the topic plz [13:25] hope63 Shepherd: but female convents are very old.. [13:25] hope63 Shepherd: the idea.. [13:25] Cailleach Shan: Even Aristotle chose to get married though. [13:26] herman Bergson: Her father even had asked her NOT to marry [13:26] hope63 Shepherd: and means married to christ.. which is like monks just fefusing sex.. [13:26] herman Bergson: For Aristotle being unmarried wasnt a virtue [13:27] herman Bergson: But on the other hand..a woman had little meaning in Aristotle's ideas [13:27] hope63 Shepherd: all greek gods were married.. or had at least an affair:) [13:28] herman Bergson: When you read the Ethica and search for remarks about women....it is really stunning....it is a handbook for boyscouts, not for girls [13:28] herman Bergson: There is one paragraph...I think I read it in the Rhetoric, where Aristotle tells us that women better understand their children than fathers [13:29] herman Bergson: So leave the kids with mummy... [13:29] Alarice Beaumont: well.... lol women spend more time with the children [13:29] herman Bergson: I guess he overlooked that detail, Alarice [13:29] Alarice Beaumont: because men work or talk philosophie ,-) [13:29] Paula Dix: lol [13:29] hope63 Shepherd: german men spent more time on their cars in germany,alaricxe? [13:29] herman Bergson: His statistics were not that good [13:29] Cailleach Shan: Doesn't that go right back to cave dwelling days when the 'strong' men had to go hunting. [13:30] Alarice Beaumont: lol no hope.. that changes [13:30] Alarice Beaumont: some men start spending more time with their kids [13:30] AristotleVon Doobie: sure Cailleach, I think so....stereotypyes [13:30] herman Bergson: Well Cailleach...the ideas of Aristotle and the position of the women in our society ...they were pretty revealing to me [13:30] Alarice Beaumont: yes.. Cail.. think that is so [13:31] hope63 Shepherd: cave dwelling society can't be called a stereoptype.. [13:31] herman Bergson: You have to fight 2000+ years of misconceptions [13:31] Alarice Beaumont: that's that "hunter - collector" talking if you know the play "caveman" [13:31] AristotleVon Doobie: the continuance of that typycasting can [13:31] herman Bergson: And Anna Maria did it in a most elegant way...:-) [13:31] hope63 Shepherd: but why this misconception.. in egypt woman had the same rights as men.. [13:31] herman Bergson: I dont know Hope [13:32] Cailleach Shan: I also think that much of the attitudes were there to protect the 'male' lineage. If your woman is locked away then you 'know' your son is really yours. [13:32] oola Neruda: dominance of the chistian-judeo point of view in western civ? [13:32] herman Bergson: Could be a point Cailleach [13:32] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL, Cail, you are so in tune [13:32] hope63 Shepherd: based on greek philosophers.. [13:33] Cailleach Shan: :) [13:33] herman Bergson: and yes oola...Aristotle's ideas fit in very nicely with those of the catholic church [13:33] oola Neruda: but actually, those values are seen in oriental and arab countries too... hmmmm [13:33] Manfred Pessoa: thats the other way round Herman [13:34] Manfred Pessoa: well works both ways [13:34] herman Bergson: It is inevitable to discuss feminist development through history [13:34] Cailleach Shan: Sorry folks.... have to go... I am taking my husband out to his birthday lunch. [13:34] AristotleVon Doobie: a happy birthday to him [13:34] Ze Novikov: smiles [13:34] hope63 Shepherd: give him my regards cal.. [13:34] herman Bergson: ok Cailleach..bye [13:34] Paula Dix: good lunch to you both :) [13:34] Ze Novikov: bb [13:34] AristotleVon Doobie: bye cail [13:35] herman Bergson: My observation is that before women can really participat ein the philosophical discourse they first have to get rid of the Aristotelian influences... [13:36] herman Bergson: so in fact a double task....cleaning up and then participating [13:36] hope63 Shepherd: but if i got it right Anna used aristoteles rhetoric to prove her point.. [13:37] herman Bergson: no..she used the aristotelian syllogistic logic..a common practice in those days [13:37] herman Bergson: the forms of resoning not the aristotelian content of his reasonings [13:38] hope63 Shepherd: right.. [13:38] hope63 Shepherd: wanted to say logic when i said rhetoric.. [13:38] AristotleVon Doobie: the direct wound caused by these early attitudes about women is the diminishing of women's self esteem [13:38] AristotleVon Doobie: it was intentionally [13:38] herman Bergson: I wonder what the ladies here in the group think about this history? [13:39] Paula Dix: i lost the start, its hard to take any conclusion [13:39] Alarice Beaumont: I'm glad that there were women who changed it [13:40] herman Bergson: yes..but for those you have to wait till the 19th century [13:40] herman Bergson: All efforts of Anna Maria and her contemporaries got lost in history [13:40] Alarice Beaumont: no responisibilties [13:40] Alarice Beaumont: and to be honest.. i 'm not quite sure if not a lot of women like it that way [13:40] AristotleVon Doobie: I think that it is and will take the enlightment of men and their sons to make it right [13:40] oola Neruda: there are places in the world where it is still like that... in africa i watched women kneeling before men... and that is only a start... [13:40] Paula Dix: maybe related: ive read somewhere that women only got away with feminism in 20 century because they were need on economy... can that be related to previous feminism movements being forgotten and not succeded? [13:40] oola Neruda: the funny thing is that the men have meetings... [13:41] oola Neruda: put off decisions until they talk to the women...then go back and give the woman's opinion as their own [13:41] herman Bergson: Yes Paula..I think you hits the mark.... [13:41] AristotleVon Doobie: :) yes oola [13:41] oola Neruda: it seems to be some kind of "public" appearnace thing [13:41] oola Neruda: ego? [13:41] AristotleVon Doobie: peer pressure? [13:41] Rhea Thor: the first women revolt is the one of Lysistrata [13:41] AristotleVon Doobie: got to be manly [13:42] herman Bergson: Feminism became a fist when they became workers in factories and workshop..so during the industrial revolution [13:42] Rhea Thor: but it's only a piece of theater :) [13:42] AristotleVon Doobie: WWII played a significant role in negating some of the typecasting [13:42] Anne Charles: I blame religion for a lot of it -- the concept of women as an "imperfect vessle" [13:43] herman Bergson: the idea of the imperfect vessel is from Aristotle himself... [13:43] Paula Dix: its funny to notice how religions started putting men and women as equals [13:43] Alarice Beaumont: yes.. religion played it's role.. there even is supposed to be a women pope... Johanna [13:43] Anne Charles: and promoted by the Catholic church [13:43] herman Bergson: the religion absorbed it for its own purposes [13:43] AristotleVon Doobie: yes [13:44] Marya Blaisdale: Pardon me (visitors arrived) will have to go over the transcript later :) [13:44] oola Neruda: i don't see religion as making them equal [13:44] oola Neruda: so many places men and women have to sit separately...even in church [13:44] herman Bergson: Ok Marya..:-) [13:44] Samuel Okelly: were women treated in presocratic greece ? [13:44] AristotleVon Doobie: religion is anther 'good ole boy, ' network [13:44] Samuel Okelly: treated "better"? [13:44] herman Bergson: yes and what is the rationale of it??? [13:44] Paula Dix: surely not, oola, but at start, yes. like christ and mary, and mohhammed and his prefered wife he wanted to be the leader after him [13:45] Paula Dix: even jews had a goddess as powerful as jeova at first, if discovery is right :) [13:45] oola Neruda: i could not even enter some of the mosques in the middle east ... because i was a woman... modestly dressed as i was... still no [13:45] Paula Dix: yes, its totally crazy what religions turned into [13:46] Paula Dix: like catholic church having opinion about abortion... what that bunch of men know about it? [13:46] herman Bergson: Ok... [13:46] oola Neruda: amen [13:46] Samuel Okelly: *sighs* [13:47] Samuel Okelly: ad hominem anybody? [13:47] herman Bergson: I think teh postion of Anna Maria van Verschuur in history gives us a good insight in the position of women and its historical causes. [13:47] Ze Novikov: lol [13:47] herman Bergson: Next class we'll see how she managed to get know anyway...and forgotten as well [13:48] hope63 Shepherd: which ended in avery "selfish" individual chioce.. in a way she talked about women.. and thought of herself .. [13:48] Samuel Okelly: @paula - please address me only in public chat tx [13:49] herman Bergson: Then I thank you for your participatin and see you on Thursday...^_^ [13:49] Paula Dix: not sure its related to topic samuel, but sorry, wont happen again [13:49] Paula Dix: (i asked him what ad hominem means) [13:49] AristotleVon Doobie: it is good to recognize the droplets of water through history that contributed to the eriding of the rock of predjudice [13:49] AristotleVon Doobie: eroding [13:49] Ze Novikov: bb everyone [13:49] herman Bergson: yes... [13:49] AristotleVon Doobie: bye Ze [13:49] Alarice Beaumont: ah still there Ari [13:49] Paula Dix: bye [13:50] Samuel Okelly: tc ze [13:50] Alarice Beaumont: only in western civilisation it has become better! [13:50] Rhea Thor: bye everyone [13:50] herman Bergson: Well Alarice....a little I would say [13:50] Paula Dix: bye

Posted by herman_bergson on 2008-11-19 11:48:01