Wednesday, May 23, 2018

Review Bonanza, Part Three: The Frankenstein Chronicles, Three Virgins, Are Prisons Obsolete?, and More!

The Frankenstein Chronicles
Welcome to Part Three of my Review Bonanza!  See also Part One, which covered Annihilation, The Laplace's Demon, River of Teeth, and Moreand Part Two, which covered The Expanse, The X-Files, Infomocracy, Navigators of Dune, and More.

Here in Part Three, I've got The Frankenstein Chronicles, Three Virgins and Other Stories by Manjula Padmanabhan, Are Prisons Obsolete? by Angela Y. Davis, The Aztecs: A Very Short Introduction by David Carrasco, and What Kind of Creatures are We? by Noam Chomsky. 

Sunday, May 20, 2018

Review Bonanza, Part Two: The Expanse, The X-Files, Infomocracy, Navigators of Dune, and More!

The Expanse

As I mentioned in "Review Bonanza, Part One" I haven't been blogging quite as regularly in the last few months, so there are a lot of things I've meant to review that have sadly gone unreviewed on this blog.  In Part One I reviewed movies (Annihilation and The Laplace's Demon), fiction (River of Teeth), and non-fiction (The Island of Knowledge and Africa, Asia, and the History of Philosophy).

This time I've got two TV shows (The Expanse and The X-Files), two novels (Infomocracy and Navigators of Dune), and one work of non-fiction (What the Buddha Taught).  I even have a few more for Part Three, so stay tuned!  And despite my antipathy toward the superhero genre, I've also seen a few recent Marvel movies (Black Panther, Infinity War, and Deadpool 2), which I've decided to review in a separate Marvel Round Up post coming soon.

Wednesday, May 16, 2018

The Laurel/Yanny Debacle: A Skeptic’s Amusement



As someone who's partially color blind, regularly mishears things, and has read a lot about philosophical skepticism, the thing I find most amusing about the Laurel/Yanny debacle (and the 2015 iteration: the Dress) is that people are so certain that the world has to be the way it appears to them.

I ask people to repeat things a lot.  I regularly mishear things my students say (although on my curmudgeonly days I think this is just because those whipper-snappers need to speak up).  I’m sometimes quiet in social gatherings at loud places because I hardly understand what anyone is trying to yell over the din.  Sometimes it’s easier to pretend I heard someone, smile, nod, and hope that I’ll catch enough of what they say later to piece it together, like some sort of auditory detective.

I don’t see in black and white or anything, but I sometimes have trouble distinguishing colors, especially if they’re pale or washed out. I sometimes dread board games because the designers seem incapable of making the colors of pieces and cards bold enough for me to tell apart.  Maybe it’s my inner goth or my total lack of fashion sense, but I like wearing blacks and greys to avoid this whole inscrutable idea of “clashing.”

So I’ve never had much confidence in my auditory or visual capacities.  There’s also all the stuff I’ve read over the years on philosophical skepticism.


In the Know?: Philosophical Skepticism

For those not in the know (if, indeed, any of us are in the know), one type of philosophical skepticism is a view that we have less knowledge than we think (or even no knowledge at all) in particular domains.  Religious skepticism, for instance, is the view that we lack knowledge within a religious domain (say on the existence of God, the afterlife, etc.).  Skepticism about induction is the view that induction (roughly, making inferences from past experience to future occurrences) is not a legitimate source of knowledge.

Skepticism about the senses is (at least in modern times) related to a type of skepticism called external-world skepticism, or the idea that we lack knowledge of the external world.  Why on Earth would anyone believe that?

If you don't have time to watch The Matrix, try this.  How do you know the device upon which you’re reading this is really in front of you?  Because you see it?  Because of your senses?  But don’t things like the Dress and the Laurel/Yanny debacle show us that our senses aren’t actually all that reliable?

You might say that sure, the senses go wrong sometimes, but that doesn’t mean they’re wrong all the time.  But how do you know which situation you’re in at any particular moment?  After all, a lot of people have switched from Team Laurel to Team Yanny in a matter of minutes (another amusing/worrying thing to me is that people feel the need to “pick teams” about this).  So how can you be so sure about which one is right?

There have already been a lot of scientific explanations for how people see and hear different things with the Dress and Laurel/Yanny.  You might think that settles things, but if you think about it, if any of those explanations are right, that just makes the problem worse by giving us even more reasons to doubt whether our senses give us a true picture of reality.


The Truth of the Matter?

You might also give up on the very idea that there is an objective reality or that there’s any truth about the Laurel/Yanny matter.  Lots of college students and current US Presidents seem to take a view like this, but if you think about it, that’s a pretty crazy idea, too.  After all, how do you know that there’s no truth about the matter?  How could you ever know that?  Does the fact that some people disagree mean that anything goes?  That would be good news for the Flat Earth Society!  In order to figure out if there's a reality, you also need to get clear about what kind of reality we’re talking about (sound wave frequencies, auditory processing in the brain, etc.), but it’s hard to even do that without some sort of basic idea that there’s a truth of the matter whether we know it or not.

So the Laurel/Yanny debacle seems to leave us with some reasons to be skeptical about our senses.

The internet may on its way to tearing itself apart, but is all this actually anything to worry about?  Modern forms of philosophical skepticism, and especially in contemporary analytic epistemology, take this sort of thing as a troubling challenge.  After all, if we pride ourselves on being the type of creatures who know some stuff, the argument that we don’t know as much as we think ought to be a big blow to our self esteem, not to mention our existential sense of who we are as knowers.


Old School Skepticism

But older forms of skepticism, particularly those in the Hellenistic and classical Indian traditions, take this sort of issue as liberating rather than challenging.  For these types of skeptics, skepticism isn’t a challenge to be overcome but a means toward peace of mind.  It’s a therapy rather than a view.

Think about how much anxiety people have about the Laurel/Yanny debacle: you’ve got to defend yourself from members of the other team, you have to secretly worry that you might be wrong or that there’s something wrong with you if you’re not sure.  What if there were techniques for managing this sort of anxiety?

Try this: There are smart, honest people on both teams.  If they can’t get it right, how can you?  Maybe it’s just best to suspend judgment on the matter.  Or try this one: Maybe the first time you heard it as “Laurel” and then later as “Yanny” (or vice versa).  But then aren’t you just contradicting yourself?  Maybe it’s best to stop trying to support any particular contention on the matter.

I can’t guarantee these exercises will work.  They might have to become everyday therapies if they’re going to work at all.  But if they did or could work, wouldn’t you have a lot less anxiety about the whole Laurel/Yanny debacle?

(If you’re looking for more material, look into the ancient Greek/Roman skeptic Sextus Empiricus, or a trio of classical Indian philosophers I’ve written a lot about: Nāgārjuna, Jayarāśi, and Śrī Harṣa.  I should probably also engage in some shameless self-promotion and mention my forthcoming book, Three Pillars of Skepticism in Classical India: Nāgārjuna, Jayarāśi, and Śrī Harṣa).


Laurel and Yanny Walk Into a Bar...


For me the best thing about being a skeptic (or at least skeptic-adjacent: it’s hard to be a skeptic all the time!) is that I can look on with amusement as the internet convulses over the Laurel/Yanny debacle.  I might hear it one way or the other, and you might disagree.  But that’s okay.  And once you realize that, the whole thing becomes rather funny.

(Bonus: If all this isn't entertaining enough for you, Chuck Tingle already has a Laurel/Yanny story available.)

Sunday, May 13, 2018

Review Bonanza, Part One: Annihilation, The Laplace’s Demon, River of Teeth, The Island of Knowledge, and More!




The universe has conspired against me as of late when it comes to regular blogging.  Sad, I know!  But the good news is that this means I have enough of a backlog for a bonanza of reviews!  In this installment I've got two movies (Annihilation and The Laplace's Demon), a novella (River of Teeth), and two works of non-fiction (The Island of Knowledge and Africa, Asia, and the History of Philosophy).  Stay tuned for part two coming soon.

Sunday, April 29, 2018

Book/Movie Reviews: A Wrinkle in Time and Ready Player One

Movie and book: A Wrinkle in Time


There's an old chestnut that the book is always better than the movie, but I'm not sure that's true.  Usually I think of a book and a movie as such different media that it's hard to say which is better than the other.  A book focuses on the creative use of language and has space for character development and background that rarely work in a movie, while movies work directly in images and sound in ways that the printed word can only evoke indirectly.  Nonetheless, I sometimes find it interesting to compare the two to see how a story works differently in a different media.

This spring two movies based on much-beloved books were released: A Wrinkle in Time and Ready Player One.  How did they fare as adaptations?  What did they give us to think about?

Sunday, April 22, 2018

42: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams



Back when I started this blog in December 2014, I had a lot of ideas for what it might include, and one of these ideas would seem to be essential for any blog on philosophy and science fiction: a review of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy!  For the past three and a half years my circuits have been irrevocably committed to composing this review.  I've also been preparing by spending much of that time wearing digital watches.

But considering that The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy has become a sacred text for science fiction fans, what can my humble exegesis contribute?  Giving up on the pretense of originality, let me discuss a few personal impressions, partly based on having re-read the novel most recently as part of my course on philosophy and science fiction.

The highest praise I have for this book is that it's not just a zany, hilarious read (although there's plenty of zany hilarity), it's also really good, thought-provoking science fiction.  And that's no mean feat - not quite infinitely improbable, but close.  My only real complaint is that Trillian (basically the only woman in the whole book) has almost nothing to do, although if I remember correctly, this changes in the later books.

(Spoilers ahead, but if you can't be bothered to take interest in your local affairs, I can't be held responsible...)

Tuesday, April 3, 2018

Science Fictional Feminist Daoism: The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. Le Guin



The first time I read Ursula K. Le Guin's The Left Hand of Darkness, I liked it a lot, but realized I didn't completely understand it.  The second time I read it, I loved it, but still thought there was more to understand.  This third time, I've realized that this is not so much a novel to understand as one to experience.

It is impossible to do justice to Le Guin's genius in this humble review.  As a work of literature, Le Guin's writing is beautiful as is her use of mythological symbolism (from myths she herself created).  As a feat of world building, Le Guin's Hainish universe (of which this is part) is as breathtaking as Frank Herbert's Dune or Isaac Asimov's Foundation.  But I don't want to focus on the literary quality or world building here, as amazing as I think they are.

I've written before about how Le Guin was an educator more than a mere entertainer.  Re-reading The Left Hand of Darkness, it occurred to me that Le Guin blurs the line between literature and philosophy as much as anyone ever has.  Putting all this together, let's think of Le Guin as a philosophy professor.