Common Sense, Jealousy, Applying Philosophy, and More
Q&A Radio: 7 July 2013
I answered questions on common sense versus rationality, jealousy over love lost, applying philosophy to new domains, marital infidelity in the military, and more on 7 July 2013. Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers was my co-host. Listen to or download this episode of Philosophy in Action Radio below.
The mission of Philosophy in Action is to spread rational principles for real life... far and wide. That's why the vast majority of my work is available to anyone, free of charge. I love doing the radio show, but each episode requires an investment of time, effort, and money to produce. So if you enjoy and value that work of mine, please contribute to the tip jar. I suggest $5 per episode or $20 per month, but any amount is appreciated. In return, contributors can request that I answer questions from the queue pronto, and regular contributors enjoy free access to premium content and other goodies.
My News of the Week: I closed the OLists. That was long overdue, but also bittersweet. Lately, I've been moving the podcast archive from Podbean to Libsyn. That's been a huge amount of work preparing and uploading files, but the much-improved statistics and reliability of downloads will be worth that effort. (Alas, the move is expensive, but you can support that move with a contribution to the tip jar.) My next major improvement for Philosophy in Action is likely to be writing my own script for the Question Queue.
You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:
Segments: 7 July 2013
Question: Is "common sense" a form of rationality? Wikipedia defines "common sense" as "sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts." Is that a form of rationality? What's the value of such common sense? Should a rational person rely on common sense in moral decision-making?
Answer, In Brief: Common sense is not an expression or type of rationality. It's relative to a culture – meaning that it's value depends on the rationality of that culture.
Question: Was Francisco's lack of jealousy in Atlas Shrugged rational or realistic? In Part 3, Chapter 2 of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, Francisco tells Dagny, "...No matter what you feel for [Hank Rearden], it will not change what you feel for me, and it won't be treason to either, because it comes from the same root, it's the same payment in answer to the same values..." Is that a rational and realistic response? Given their love for Dagny, shouldn't Francisco and Hank have been more disappointed in their loss of Dagny to John Galt, and perhaps even jealous of him? Is a person wrong to feel bitter disappointment or jealousy over a lost love?
Answer, In Brief: Hank Rearden and Francisco d'Anconia were not automatically or easily accepting of Dagny Taggart's choice of John Galt. They had to endure painful feelings of loss, then come to a rational acceptance. That's possible and realistic – and it's the self-interested course too.
Question: Can rational philosophic principles solve problems in philosophy and other disciplines? Many advocates of Ayn Rand's philosophy hope to see its principles applied to solve philosophy's tough problems, such as the mind-body relation and the validity of induction. Moreover, they hope to apply the philosophy to other disciplines, such as psychology and education, to advance those fields. Is that possible? If so, what might be a fruitful method of approach? What might be some likely pitfalls?
Answer, In Brief: To speak in terms of "application" of philosophy to solve new problems is deeply misleading. Any interesting, innovative, substantive intellectual work must be based on, informed by, and integrated with already-known rational principles – not merely "derived" or "deduced" from them.
Question: Should the military ban marital infidelity? On your June 2nd, 2013 radio show, you explained why marital infidelity should not be illegal. I agree with you, but I wonder about other contexts. Might some government groups legitimately ban and even criminalize infidelity for its members? According to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, infidelity is against the law for military members. Might that be proper, particularly given that we have a volunteer army? More generally, might the military want to enforce strict rules of moral conduct on their members, even for seemingly private matters?
Answer, In Brief: The military does not have a blanket ban on adultery, which would be irrational and counterproductive. Instead, the rule requires that such negative impact the military in some fashion. That's reasonable in theory, although the practice may leave something to be desired.
Rapid Fire Questions (52:04)
- Regarding the third question, do you mean that one must apply Ayn Rand's inductive approach to check Objectivist conclusions on things like ethics and human sexuality, or can even rational epistemology be rethought and re-examined?
- What skills and qualities, in short, does it take to be a great programmer? Is it more like math or just plain logic to make code do things you want it to do? What factors should one consider if one wants to write code?
- Who is the better man? Howard Roark or John Galt? Who would you rather spend a day or evening with?
- If Dexter Morgan was your brother, and you just discovered he was a serial killer, what would you do next?
- Would you prefer to live in a world of deeply corrupt morality, but with modern technology, coasting on a past rational era, or a completely undeveloped frontier with rational people?
Thank you for joining us for this episode of Philosophy in Action Radio! If you enjoyed this episode, please contribute to contribute to our tip jar.
Support Philosophy in Action
Once you submit this form, you'll be automatically redirected to a page for payment. If you have any questions or further comments, please email me at [email protected].
Thank you for contributing to Philosophy in Action! You make our work possible every week, and we're so grateful for that!
If you enjoy Philosophy in Action, please help us spread the word about it! Tell your friends about upcoming broadcasts by forwarding our newsletter. Link to episodes or segments from our topics archive. Share our blog posts, podcasts, and events on Facebook and Twitter. Rate and review the podcast in iTunes (M4A and MP3). We appreciate any and all of that!
About Philosophy in Action
I'm Dr. Diana Brickell. I'm a philosopher specializing in the application of rational principles to the challenges of real life. I received my Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Colorado at Boulder in 2009. My book, Responsibility & Luck: A Defense of Praise and Blame, is available for purchase in paperback and Kindle. The book defends the justice of moral praise and blame of persons using an Aristotelian theory of moral responsibility, thereby refuting Thomas Nagel's "problem of moral luck."
My radio show, Philosophy in Action Radio, broadcasts live over the internet on most Sunday mornings and some Thursday evenings. On Sunday mornings, I answer questions applying rational principles to the challenges of real life in a live hour-long show. Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers co-hosts the show. On Thursday evenings, I interview an expert guest or discuss a topic of interest.
If you join us for the live broadcasts, you can ask follow-up questions and make comments in the text-based chat. Otherwise, you can listen to the podcast by subscribing to our Podcast RSS Feed. You can also peruse the podcast archive, where episodes and questions are sorted by date and by topic.
I can be reached via e-mail to [email protected].