Hail to the Chief (A Charge to Philosophers)

Officer elections were held last night, and I am pleased to say that the club is left in very capable hands; this is one of the first years where I feel that every officer is fully capable, responsible, and has a passion for what we do. Congratulations to those elected! Even though it's time for me to retire from my position as Editor-in-Chief (due in no small part to my upcoming graduation), I might continue to post on occasion as a Guest Writer; we shall see what happens.

At any rate, Andrea Lowry, Arete's new Editor-in-Chief, has been a poster for quite some time, and will do a great job running the blog. I'm sure that she will handle things very well, continue to innovate, and perhaps even recruit some new writers and commenters into the mix. Hopefully some of the new officers will even consider posting a bit!

So, thanks for reading my posts throughout the months. I've come a long way from those first few posts, and even managed to create a few that I am genuinely proud of.

I would challenge you, dear reader, to be active! Take charge! Write something, post something, comment on something. Your investment bears a causal relationship to your return, and the responsibility you assume bears a direct correlation with your investment. If you're not active in the club, come check out a meeting! If you're not an officer, but have some ideas, talk to an officer and see if you can get something started! And, if you've been blessed with the opportunity to be an officer, make the most of it-- I can assure you that, if you work hard and maintain a passion for what you do, it can be one of the most rewarding experiences throughout your entire college experience.

I humbly say that I have been blessed with many opportunities, and for them I am grateful. However, I firmly believe that I have pursued them, as best I could, to the furthest ends possible, and I do believe that I have made a long-term impact on the club, its members, and even myself. I'm sad that my time as President has drawn to a close, but I am proud of how I used the time I was given. New officers, don't stand by the sidelines; act! Take control! Use this time creatively and forcefully, because it is incredible how quickly it goes. Philosophia Religioque-- now the Berry Philosophical Society-- is a club, but it has the potential to subjectively be much more if you live up to it. I would dare say that we have done things of importance, of significance, and, odd as this may sound for some, there is contained within the potential for edification, and for glory.

It has been a glorious year indeed!

Please note that, unless otherwise indicated by Andrea, this post is ineligible for the Arete contest.

Happy News

Some good news for philosophers!

Based on a recent study by psychologist Matthias Mehl, happier people tend to spend more time engaging in deep conversations and not very much on small talk. According to a New York Times article, Mehl proposes that the reason is two-fold: most of us enjoy social interaction and talking in general, and we also crave to find or unlock a sense of purpose or meaning in our lives. So by discussing with a partner questions like, “What does it all mean? Where did we come from? What is the best way to live a good life? Do I matter?” we satisfy a longing for connection with that other person, and also, in Mehl’s words, “manage to impose meaning on an otherwise pretty chaotic world.”

So it seems that perhaps you may be a happier person by discussing (or questioning) happiness itself –– or, in fact, its opposite: any “deep” topic will do. (This would make even the existentialists giddy in their angst!)

BBC: Pick and Choose Your "Fundamental Rights"!

The BBC recently commissioned an "international polling firm" called GlobeScan to determine various public opinions on the internet and internet access. There were 27,973 participants across 26 countries, a sizable amount of which (14,306) had internet access at the time of taking the poll. For the report as it was made available to the public, please click the following link, noting that it will bring up a PDF file:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/08_03_10_BBC_internet_poll.pdf

Of particular interest to me are the responses to the following proposition: "Access to the Internet Should Be a Fundamental Right of All People." 50% of respondents strongly agreed, 29% somewhat agreed, 9% somewhat disagreed, 6% strongly disagreed, and 6% did not know or did not respond.

The normative nature of this question-- "should", rather than "is", seems odd to me, particularly concerning what is commonly meant by "fundamental". The US Supreme Court, in Roe v Wade (410 US 113) defined a "Fundamental Right" as a right that is "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" (see Section VIII for the source of the quote). Clearly, however, internet access did not exist at times when ordered liberty existed, and thus it is not implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. Even if it were the case, however, that internet access was a fundamental right (implicit in the concept of ordered liberty), I'm going to side with Kant and argue that "should" implies that it's possible that something may or may not be manifested. If I tell you that you should go to class, that implies the possibility of you not going to class. If a scientist states that a test should work, the implication is that the test might not work, given certain contingencies. I would not, however, state that the sum of two and two should be four; I would state that it is equivalent to four.

If this is correct, then one ought not (read: should not) claim that one should do something if that something is fundamental, because fundamental means implicit-- it is already contained within. If free speech is a fundamental human right, the question of whether or not it is one is moot. If internet access is implicit in the idea of ordered liberty, it is analytically contained within the idea-- even if one has not discovered it-- and there is no question of whether it should be. By analogy, one does not debate whether the sum of two and two ought to be equivalent to four; while one might debate whether the sum of two and two is equivalent to four, whether it ought to be is a moot question, because we are speaking analytically, in the context of a predetermined system. In the case of rights, the system is ordered liberty, according to the USSC. One might debate whether this system ought to be followed, but if one accepts the system, one by extension accepts that which is implicit in the system. Being implicitly contained follows from the system, and one cannot pick and choose what follows; if I choose the system of classical logic, I am stuck with [(not a) or (a)] being tautologically true. I can reject classical logic, but, if I do not, I cannot reject that which is implicitly contained, and thus the "should" question here is meaningless.

In conclusion, the pollsters ought to have asked if internet access is a fundamental right, not whether it should be. While it seems intellectually untenable to hold it as such, that sort of move seems far less problematic than the question of whether it should be one.