rabbits in the literature

is there any interesting connection between rabbits and 20th century analytic philosophy? obviously not, but i've found 2 interesting examples of philosophy and rabbits entering the same discussion:

quine's "lo, gavagai!"- the infamous thesis of the indeterminacy of translation. here's the situation: an anthropo-linguist is placed in a foreign land with some indigenous people speaking a language he has no remote clue about. they happen to find themselves in a field. the indigenous people point in a particular direction and exclaim "Lo, gavagai!" the linguist looks towards where they're gesturing, and he sees a rabbit. does this mean the indigenous people were talking about rabbits? or were they saying 'there goes dinner'? or maybe 'the village will have good luck this year'? well quine's idea is that there is no way to know what they were talking about. it's an epistemological point, from what i can tell.

wittgenstein's "duck-rabbit" - this example of wittgenstein, used to illustrate the difference between seeing AS and seeing THAT, is so famous a brewery is named in its honor. his main philosophical point was that there are some ambiguous symbols, and images, and in these cases (which are more commonplace than one might think), we have to see "as", meaning our own perceptions are necessarily imbued with personal concepts and whims. hopefully i didn't get wittgenstein TOO horribly bad in this brief characterization, although i probably did.

on the ethics of discourse

(for the purposes of this post, i will be using a very primitive notion of right and wrong)

how okay is it to use as much rhetoric, outside of logic, in order to argue for something in the course of some discourse?

my gut reaction is to say that it's not okay at all. but there seems to be a very big difference, though, if you consider certain types of rhetorical devices (mostly the aesthetically inclined ones) than if you consider certain rhetorical methods that directly contradict logic (affirming the consequent, or whatever.)

let's take some concrete examples. using anaphora is a well known method for capturing the attention of the audience, especially if spoken. This seems harmless, and it sure does sound good.

on the other hand, affirming the consequent is a straightforwardly false in deductive logic. and unless used in a provisional and very specifically delineated discussion (where it might be justifiable under the guise of an abductive inference), it would be either a formal fallacy (to some uninformed speaker) or an intentional manipulation (where it would be used as a rhetorical device). either way, some shady stuff is going on and there very clearly see that something bad is going on here.

but even upon reconsideration of the previous example, of the aesthetically-motivated rhetoric, is there more to these devices than meets the eye? could it be that these rhetorical methods are distracting from the point of the message? in some way, is discourse supposed to be just presenting the facts in a logical manner without the hooplah and smoke and mirrors that any rhetorical device other than the clear argumentation only cold hard logic can offer?

no way, that can't be right either. i need to unstiffen my requirements for an acceptable discourse, as those aesthetically motivated rhetorical devices add a lot to some speeches, they help deliver the message more than hinder it. such as in dr. king's "i have a dream" speech, which is in english language anthologies nationwide.

could it be that any of these methods are acceptable if the GOAL of the discourse if justified, or in any case "right" by some other standard? this is a question i'll leave for another time

absolutely perfect bacon grilled cheese

MATERIALS
*knife
*sourdough bread
*butter
*four slices of cheese, preferably two sharp cheddar and two muenster.
*bacon

PROCEDURES
1. gather materials
2. preheat pan on medium-low heat
3. slice the bread twice, creating two not-necessarily even slices of bread
4. prepare bacon
5. butter one side of each of those slices of bread you just made
6. put one slice BUTTER SIDE DOWN on the pan
7. quickly and carefully, put two slices of either cheese on first
8. put on top of that the already-cooked bacon
9. now the other two slices of the other kind of cheese on top of the bacon
10. put the other slice of bread, butter side up, on top of the cheese.
11. wait several minutes, untill the bottom of the cooking bread is golden brown
12. flip and wait for golden brown on the other side
13. serve with ketchup and hot sauce

sartre's 'existentialism and humanism'

The main ideas of Sartre's philosophy as expressed in "Existentialism and Humanism" can be summed up in a few basic points:

1. "Existence precedes Essence" - which is an ontological claim, that one must exist already in order to investigate the essence of that existence

2. Subject-Relative Constructive Ethics - which is a meta-ethical position, in the sense that it is a claim about ethics as a whole. There is no static, objective ethics to speak of, yet individuals have the power of creating their own ethical standards through their personal investigations of their own essence. And

3. Humanistic Marxism - which is an ethical/political position. Each individual will eventually reach conclusions, through the construction of their own ethics, approaching a humanistic Marxism. That is to say, that their ethical stances will be human-centered and equalitarian.

Each of these positions is causally independent. One can defend any of these three basic points without holding either of the other two; but Sartre combines these three to form the basic tenants of his Existentialist Philosophy. Because they're independent of each other, they can each be critiqued independently. Further, they can be critiqued in relation to each other. What I shall be doing, however, within the limited scope of this paper, is to critique at least a bit each proposition independently. I will leave the problem of their consistency untouched (although I suspect they cohere as well as Sartre would have liked).

1. 1. "Existence precedes Essence" is a quotation of Sartre's that could be taken one of two ways. It is either trivial or false. If by "existence precedes essence" he means that it is necessary for a cognizant person to be alive in order for it to investigate their own essence, then that seems to me to be a trivial point. Of course someone has to have the property of existence in order for them to have any thoughts whatsoever. However, if by this ontological claim he means to say that in order for any human being to have an essence they must first exist, I don't see how this is true. We can figure out the essence of any human being just as we figured out the essence of gold, or the essence of electricity: through scientific investigation. Gold's essence is a substance having the atomic number 79, the essence of electricity is what Einstein figured out, and the essence of Humanity is having 46 chromosomes and the only living members of the Homo genus. So to me this claim is rather nonsensical.

2. 2. Having an ethical system of subject-relative constructive ethics has many potential advantages as well as many drawbacks. If all ethics is is a series of claims reached by each individual through their own constructions, then there is obviously a sense of empowerment that each individual attains. In this sense, Sartre is very similar to Nietzsche, who would have agreed with his vision of individuals creating their own ethics. However, to me this reeks of a self-help manual more than a rigorous examination of what the true meanings of "right" and "wrong" are. IF this is all that ethics boils down to, there are no real truth values to ethical statements, only truth values as assigned by each individual. What then, if anything, do we use as a basis for grounding our morality? Do we use consensus between independently attained ethical propositions held by individuals? But then we slide back into a kind of utilitarianism that I believe Sartre wouldn't agree with either. My point here is that, as of right now, I can't make a decision as to whether I like Sartre's meta-ethics or not, but I feel that this kind of idea might as well be Dr. Phil's.

3. 3.I won't touch the third point.

So where does this leave Sartre? I don't think he's in very good shape if any of my criticisms hold.

externalism in experience/sensations

ok this is going to be really short and i hope to expand on this later, but i was thinking about externalism in sensations. here's my thought: when you feel a pain, where exactly do you feel it? many people have argued that you can only feel pain in your brain. that is, if something pinches you on the hand, you feel the pain in your brain nevertheless because that's where the c-fibers directed.

but, if you realize that each particular pain has an origin, then that origin is necessary and thus, even though the brain registers the pain, it is actually felt whereever it was actually felt.

this intuition is largely caught in a thought experiment that to my knowledge, is new. it is no doubt inspired in part by kripkenstein on other minds and mcginn on imagination, but here goes.

is it possible to imagine a pain in your knee? well, sure, you can imagine your knee being in pain, and in the simulated pain, it is your knee that has the sensation. however, can you imagine a pain in your knee in your elbow? well that doesn't really make sense. you could imagine a pain in your elbow, even a particular type of pain, the same your knee had, on your elbow (sharp vs. chronic, etc), but you can't imagine a pain in your knee in your elbow.

if i'm right about this, then particular pains have necessary origins, which lend support to an externalist account of sensation.

however, an objection quickly arises in the cases of pain in phantom limbs. i either have to come up with a pretty damn good explanation for them, or categorize them as non-legitimate pains. i tend to agree with the latter, but then i'd have o come to the conclusion that sensations of pain are not the same as pain. however, kripke himself has argued for this claim, that sensations of pain ARE pain (and the argument seems to be sound).

how to reconcile my seemingly correct previous intuition with kripke's? this'll take some time to figure out.