I’ve never had a firm grasp on the emotional differences between major and minor key. Amazingly, I just learned a heck of a lot about it by listening to a version of R.E.M.’s song, “Losing My Religion” changed to a major key.
Here’s the original version in its minor key:
Now here’s the modified version in a major key:
It’s titled “Recovering My Religion” for good reason. As one commenter said, “I’ve never been so happy while losing my religion.”
Also, here’s another version.
PJ Media has published my recent interview with my friend Ryan Moore:
“‘Carrying a Gun Saved My Life’: Meet Ryan Moore” http://pjmedia.com/blog/carrying-a-gun-saved-my-life-meet-ryan-moore/?singlepage=true
He talks about the time he needed to use his firearm in self-defense, what he learned from the experience, and what he thinks of proposed restrictions on gun magazines and so-called “assault weapons”. Ryan offers an important perspective for anyone interested in the gun rights debate.
The interview has already gotten a nice Instapundit citation: http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/162482/
On Wednesday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I interviewed former Arizona prosecutor William E. Perry about “What It’s Really Like to Be a Prosecutor.” The podcast of that episode is now available for streaming or downloading.
Remember, you can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed:
What is the work of a prosecutor really like? In this interview, former Arizona prosecutor William E. Perry discussed the cases he prosecuted and various issues in criminal law – including the role of juries, standards of evidence, the drug war, confessions, and plea bargaining.
William E. Perry was a lawyer for 34 years. He spent seven years as a defense attorney and one year as a temporary judge. Most of the rest of the time he was a prosecutor for the Navajo Nation and four counties in Arizona. Mr. Perry supervised the criminal prosecutors in Arizona’s third largest county. He was was a major fraud and public corruption prosecutor, and then a homicide prosecutor, in Maricopa County. (That county includes Phoenix and the surrounding area. It was the sixth largest county in the United States at the time.) He is now retired.
Listen or Download:
Topics:
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.
Philosophy in Action Radio focuses on the application of rational principles to the challenges of real life. It broadcasts live on most Sunday mornings and many Thursday evenings over the internet. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.
Oh, poor doggie:
Our own doggie Mae is very attached to toys, and last week, she secretly brought home a tennis ball from the dog park. I’ve required it to be an outside-only toy, so that she doesn’t compulsively chew it, as she would in the house. Hence, we’ve had multiple “conversations” of like the following:
Me: “Mae, drop. That’s an outside toy.” Mae: “NO! YOU CAN’T POSSIBLY EXPECT ME TO LEAVE MY BEST FRIEND OUT IN THE COLD!” Me: “No Mae, drop.” Mae: “PLEASE! PRETTY PLEASE! PRETTY PRETTY PLEASE!” Me: “No Mae, drop.” Mae: “HAVE MERCY, WOMAN! I NEED MY BALL! IT’S MY BEST FRIEND!” Me: “No Mae. It’ll be here when you go outside again.” Mae: “Fine, but (*sniffle*) I don’t know how I’ll bear it.”
Her joy upon reuniting with that tennis ball is extreme!
Back in July, I dumped a glass of water on my increasingly slow MacBook. At the time, I thought I was up-ending glass containing supplements onto my hand. Alas, I was actually holding the glass with a cup and a half of water. Since then, I’ve been making do with Paul’s very old MacBook Pro. (I’m pretty sure he bought it in 2007!) As it happened, that wasn’t a bad deal, since the older MacBook Pro was actually speedier than my newer MacBook.
I have an iMac too, but I often like to work on the laptop at home, and I definitely need a laptop for when I’m travelling. Plus, it’s been rather unpleasant to work in my makeshift office since the havoc wreaked by the leak in our shower. (Construction is still very much ongoing Chez Hsieh.)
So, I’ve been wanting to get a new laptop for a while now. I delayed, however, because I didn’t really need an upgrade while I wasn’t doing much travelling. But this spring, I’ll be travelling quite a bit, so I thought it was time to buy.
Here’s what I ordered:
I’m super-excited about it… and it’s already been shipped! It’s supposed to arrive on February 4th.
As you know, on Sunday morning’s Philosophy in Action Radio, I answer four questions chosen in advance from the Question Queue. Here are the most recent additions to that queue. Please vote for the ones that you’re most interested in hearing me answer! You can also review and vote on all pending questions sorted by date or sorted by popularity.
Also, I’m perfectly willing to be bribed to answer a question of particular interest to you pronto. So if you’re a regular contributor to Philosophy in Action’s Tip Jar, I can answer your desired question as soon as possible. The question must already be in the queue, so if you’ve not done so already, please submit it. Then just e-mail me at [email protected] to make your request.
Now, without further ado, the most recent questions added to The Queue:
In your 27 January 2013 discussion of “Materialism in Marriage,” you talked about the importance of “spiritual values.” However, I found that confusing, since I’ve always associated “spirituality” with religion (often of the woozy variety). So what are spiritual values? How are they different from material values? Why are they important?
Should spouses always share activities?
A friend of mine is loathe to pursue any hobbies or interests that her husband doesn’t share. He’s not controlling: he’s the same way. Although I know that they want to spend time together, that seems really limiting to me. Is that a reasonable policy in a marriage – or does it lead to self-sacrifice and mutual resentment?
Does the idea of innate personality violate the principle of “tabula rasa”?
In past shows, you’ve indicated that you think that some aspects of personality are innate, rather than acquired by experience. If that’s right, isn’t that a form of determinism? Moreover, wouldn’t it violate the principle that every person is born a “blank slate”?
Should dueling and other consensual fights be legal?
In your September 5th, 2012 interview with Dr. Eric Daniels, you discussed some of America’s violent past traditions, including the practice of dueling. While I have no intention of challenging my rivals to mortal combat, I cannot see why this practice should be illegal. The same might be said of less lethal modern variants such as bar fights, schoolyard fights, and other situations where violence is entered into with the mutual consent of both parties. Should such consensual violence be forbidden by law in a free society, not just for children but perhaps for adults too? If so, what justifies allowing more ritualized forms of combat, such as mixed-martial arts fighting, boxing, or even football?
What is the solution to the is-ought problem?
David Hume famously claimed that statements about what ought to be cannot be derived from statements about what is the case. Does that mean that ethics is impossible? Can the gap be bridged, and if so, how?
How can an atheist teenager maintain his integrity in a religious school?
A few years ago, I read Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged” for the first time. After a year of struggling between faith and reason, I chose reason. Unfortunately, I am a teenager, and I am forced to attend church and a religious school. For a time, I was fine coexisting with religious people. However, in the next academic year, I will have to take a class entitled “Christian Apologetics” in which I will have to pretend to be a Christian theologian. Now my integrity is at stake. How should I confront my religious family about my atheism? How can I persuade them to enroll me a different school?
Are reparations for once-oppressed ethnic groups ever proper?
Periodically, we hear calls for reparations by the government to be paid to certain ethnic groups due to past racism, oppression, or slavery. Are such reparations ever ethical or necessary? If so, who should receive them and who should pay for them? When has too much time passed for such reparations? Are reparations based purely on group membership racist? Do they risk promoting racism in the broader culture, particularly among members of ethnic groups not party to the oppression?
Given the cost to society of parents shirking their obligations to their children, to entrust children to just anyone able to bear that child seems negligent. The state does, after all, forbid chronic drunk drivers from getting behind the wheel again. On the other hand, to give discretionary power to the state over such a personal matter seems very dangerous. Is there any middle ground that would better protect kids from abusive or neglectful parents and protect society from the growing scourge of poor parenting?
Should high-capacity firearms clips be banned?
Many advocates of gun control seek to limit the capacity of semi-automatic handgun clips to ten or even six rounds. Is that reasonable? Are such clips only useful for mass shootings – or might they be necessary for self-defense, such as when faced with home invasion?
To submit a question, use this form. I prefer questions focused on some concrete real-life problem, as opposed to merely theoretical or political questions. I review and edit all questions before they’re posted. (Alas, IdeaInformer doesn’t display any kind of confirmation page when you submit a question.)
I’ve had some great flight attendants on Southwest — including a guy from Brooklyn who gave a fabulously funny lecture on exactly what “regular” coffee is — but none can compare to David Holmes!
(Via Wimp.)
I’ve never seen a better commentary on modern art than this painting. The expression on her face says … everything!
The photo was posted here, with the following comment: “Another Spanish artist I like a lot, Cayetano de Arquer Buigas. Not on Facebook, but you can find more of his work online.”
More of his work can be found here. It looks to be mostly pastels, and many are well worth a look!
This short commentary raises an excellent question about the “if you have sex, you’re consenting to pregnancy” argument against abortion rights.
According to many pro-lifers, when women consent to sex, they thereby consent to (and commit themselves to) bearing any resulting children. And so, in deciding to having sex, these women have in effect voluntarily waived their right to get an abortion.
Now, I find this pro-life claim utterly baffling: consent to sex is clearly different from consenting to anything further, many women deliberately use birth control to avoid pregnancy, many women plan on getting an abortion if they should end up pregnant, etc. According to this pro-life claim, it seems, we are supposed to interpret the act of consensual sex itself as involving some sort of mysterious tacit consent and occult commitments that are not only morally significant, but so overwhelmingly morally important as to completely override the actual preferences of the woman. I don’t think actions carry occult commitments, and this all seems like superstition to me.
But here’s my question. Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that actions do carry occult commitments. Even granting this, we still need a way of telling what those commitments are. Without a method of interpretation, we’re utterly in the dark. For example, a typical pro-lifer might say that the act of consensual sex carries the commitment to bear the child, waiving one’s right to an abortion. But a more radical pro-lifer might say that the act of consensual sex carries the commitment to bear and raise the child, waiving one’s right to an abortion as well as one’s right to put the child up for adoption. My question is: how are we supposed to tell which interpretation is correct, and which occult commitments are (and are not) carried by the act of consensual sex?
Ultimately, all arguments against abortion rights — including the argument from tacit consent — depend on the claim that the fetus has a right to life. Ari Armstrong and I refuted that argument in our 2010 policy paper, The “Personhood” Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception. If you’ve not yet read it, be sure to check out the section on “Individual Rights and Abortion.”
That being said… over the past few months, I’ve been thinking off and on about how to defend abortion rights in a way that’s more persuasive than the standard pro-choice arguments, including the better arguments of Objectivists. I want to find a way to make my own view resonate better with reasonable people of the “but it’s a baby!” mindset. So if you have any thoughts on more effective rhetoric on this issue, I’d be interested to hear that in the comments. I’d be particularly interested to hear from people who switched from “pro-life” to pro-choice views: What convinced you?
On Sunday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I answered questions on the nature of addiction, unions for government employees, materialism in marriage, mandatory child support, and more. The podcast of that episode is now available for streaming or downloading.
You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed:
Listen or Download:
- Duration: 1:08:00
- Download: Enhanced M4A File (24.5 MB)
- Download: Standard MP3 File (23.4 MB)
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.
You can download or listen to my answers to individual questions from this episode below.
My News of the Week: I’ve been enjoying the National Western Stock Show with my parents and Paul, then getting back to work.
Question: Is addiction a genuine phenomena? Can a person become dependent on alcohol or drugs to the point that he cannot prevent himself from consuming it, except perhaps by a supreme effort of will? Is such addiction physiological – or just a matter of bad habits of thought and action? Similarly, can a person be addicted to certain foods (such as sugar or wheat) or certain activities (like gambling or pornography)? If so, what does that mean? If a person is addicted to something, is the cure to abstain from it forever?My Answer, In Brief: Drug and alcohol abuse and dependence are very serious problems, yet the standard disease model whereby a person cannot control his use of drugs or alcohol is wrong.
Listen or Download:
- Start Time: 3:09
- Duration: 30:48
- Download: MP3 Segment
- Tags: Addiction, Alcohol/Drugs, Character, Ethics, Food, Habits, Psychology, Self-Control, Values, Willpower
Links:
- Wikipedia: Alcoholism, Disease Theory of Alcoholism, and Alcohol Abuse
- Web MD: Alcohol Withdrawal
- Romancing Opiates by Theodore Dalrymple
- Alcoholism: the mythical disease and Heavy Drinking: The Myth of Alcoholism as a Disease by Herbert Fingarette
- Is Alcoholism a Disease? and Alcoholics Can Recover from Alcoholism and Drink in Moderation by David J. Hanson, Ph.D.
- Once and For All: What are “Addiction” and “Dependence”? by Dr. Michael Hurd
- Rational Recovery
To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.
Question: Should government employees be permitted to unionize? In your 16 December 2012 discussion of “right to work” laws, you said that business owners should have the right to refuse to hire union members (or to fire them). How would that work for government employees? In a free society, could legislators (or departments) forbid government workers from being union members? Could they require union membership?My Answer, In Brief: The role of unions for government employees can and ought to be set by the voters and/or legislators, but a smart policy would permit such unions to exist, but forbid any collective bargaining or any form of closed shop.
Listen or Download:
- Start Time: 33:58
- Duration: 5:32
- Download: MP3 Segment
- Tags: Free Society, Government, Law, Politics, Rights, Unions, Work
Links:
- Philosophy in Action: Right to Work Laws
To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.
Question: Are materialistic couples less likely to have a lasting relationship? A recent study by Brigham Young University claims to show that concern for money causes stress in a relationship and that people who love money tend to be more impersonal and less passionate towards their loved ones. Is that right? Does it reveal some defect with a morality of worldly values?My Answer, In Brief: The study in question was flawed – as is the standard distinction between “materialism” and “non-materialism.” People should recognize the importance of both material and spiritual values in their pursuit of the best that this world (i.e. the only world) has to offer.
Listen or Download:
- Start Time: 39:31
- Duration: 12:57
- Download: MP3 Segment
- Tags: Capitalism, Ethics, Finances, Justice, Marriage, Psychology, Romance, Value-Density, Values, Wealth
Links:
- Love of Money May Mess Up Your Marriage and Materialistic Couples Have More Problems, Poorer Quality Relationship
- Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy: Materialism and Marriage: Couple Profiles of Congruent and Incongruent Spouses by Jason Carroll et al
To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.
Question: Isn’t mandated child support basically just welfare for needy children? What is the moral difference between compelling parents to support their children and compelling all people to support the needy in society? Many critics of the welfare state believe that parents should be compelled to support their children with basic levels of physical sustenance and education, such that failing to provide these constitutes violating children’s rights. But how is that different from compelling people to support other needy or vulnerable people? Is the blood relationship what creates the obligation to support the child – and if so, how?My Answer, In Brief: The obligations of parents to care for their children are not based on need or blood, but rather the voluntary assumption of that responsibility.
Listen or Download:
- Start Time: 53:29
- Duration: 7:37
- Download: MP3 Segment
- Tags: Abortion, Adoption, Children, Child Support, Ethics, Fatherhood, Free Society, Government, Law, Parenting, Pregnancy, Welfare
Links:
- NoodleFood: Murray Rothbard Versus Children’s Rights
- Philosophy in Action: Child Support from Unwilling Fathers and Veto Power over Abortion
To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.
Questions:
- You said that Ayn Rand got a few things wrong on Aristotle. Which things?
- Why do many people talk about nihilism as if it’s a type of depression?
- Are there any works you’d recommend that in your opinion proof the legitimacy of transsexuality?
- Do you consider yourself primarily a philosopher?
Listen or Download:
- Start Time: 1:00:07
- Duration: 6:44
- Download: MP3 Segment
To comment on these questions or my answers, visit its comment thread.
Be sure to check out the topics scheduled for upcoming episodes! Don’t forget to submit and vote on questions for future episodes too!
Philosophy in Action Radio focuses on the application of rational principles to the challenges of real life. It broadcasts live on most Sunday mornings and many Thursday evenings over the internet. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.
