Bullshit or Not: Erik Erikson Edition

There's an old sketch film called Amazon Women on the Moon which contained a spoof of Leonard Nemoy's old program In Search Of that had the tagline, "Bullshit or not, you decide." We use it as a basis for an occasional series of posts where we assess a passage from a prominent writer.

Today is the 110th anniversary of Erik Erikson's birth.  A post-Freudian Freudian, Erikson was born out of wedlock and not told who his father was.  Questions of alienation and identity in childhood development became the center of his research.  Seems a great place to launch another episode of "Bullshit or not." 

From Erikson's Identity and the Lifecycle:

"Therapeutic efforts as well as attempts at social reform verify the sad truth that in any system based on suppression, exclusion, and exploitation, the suppressed, excluded, and exploited unconsciously believe in the evil image which they are made to represent by those who are dominant."

 Is self-hatred a necessary result of oppression?  Do out-group members really internalize the picture of themselves painted by the in-group?  Bullshit or not?  You decide.  As usual, responses may be a single word or a dissertation.

Bullshit or Not: Woody Allen Edition

Here's a bit that used to be a regular at the Playground, but which I haven't dusted off in a while. The title comes from a sketch in the old film "Amazon Women on the Moon" which included a spoof of the old Leonard Nemoy series "In Search of..." The satire had the tag line "Bullshit or Not...you decide" and I thought it would be a good idea to use it as a theme for a series of posts. I provide a quotation and you weigh in...bullshit or not.

Since today is Woody Allen's birthday, let's go with one of his more cynical quotations. From "Shadows and Fog":

"There's only one kind of love that lasts. That's unrequited love. It stays with you forever."

So, bullshit or not? You decide. Feel free to leave in the comments anything from a single word to a dissertation.

Bullshit or Not: Zappa Edition

There's an old sketch film called Amazon Women on the Moon and one of the bits is a parody of the old Leonard Nimoy show, "In Search Of..." called, "Bullshit or Not?" with the tagline "Bullshit or not? You decide." It's a line I like so much that I've stolen it for an irregular series of posts.

Since, we're already talking about Frank Zappa, here's a quotation from an interview with him to play with today:

"I think love lyrics have contributed to the general aura of bad mental health in America. Love lyrics create expectations which can never be met in real life, and so the kid who hears these tunes doesn't realize that that kind of love doesn't exist. If he goes out looking for it, he's going to be a kind of love loser all his life. Where do you get your instructions about love? Your mother and father don't say, 'Now, son, now daughter, here's how love works.' They don't know, so how can they tell their kids? So all you love data comes to you through the lyrics on Top Forty radio, or, in some instances, in movies or novels. The singer-songwriters who write these lyrics earn their living by pretending to reveal their innermost personal turmoil over the way love has hurt them, which creates a false standard that people use as a guideline on how to behave in interpersonal relationships. 'Does my heart feel as broken as that guy's heart?', 'Am I loving well?', 'Is my dick long enough?'"

So, are love songs responsible for unattainable images of love whose lack causes psychological distress? Are we psychologically poisoned by our popular music, striving for an unreachable ideal and feeling wrongly inferior because of it?

So, bullshit or not? You decide. As usual, feel free to leave anything from a single word to a dissertation.

Bullshit or Not: Schopenhauer Edition

There's an old sketch film called Amazon Women on the Moon and one of the bits is a parody of the old Leonard Nimoy show, "In Search Of..." called, "Bullshit or Not?" with the tagline "Bullshit or not? You decide." It's a line I like so much that I've stolen it for an irregular series of posts.

Reading 19th century German social/political philosophy for the chapter of Einstein's Jewish Science that I'm currently working on, paying special attention to those thinkers who were railing against the Enlightenment concepts of egalitarianism. In that reading, I came upon this beauty from Schopenhauer's On Human Nature that lays out the classic case against democracy:

“A peculiar disadvantage attaching to republics—and one that might not be looked for—is that in this form of government it must be more difficult for men of ability to attain high position and exercise direct political influence than in the case of monarchies. For always and everywhere and under all circumstances there is a conspiracy, or instinctive alliance, against such men on the part of all the stupid, the weak, and the commonplace; they look upon such men as their natural enemies, and they are firmly held together by a common fear of them. There is always a numerous host of the stupid and the weak, and in a republican constitution it is easy for them to suppress and exclude the men of ability, so that they may not be outflanked by them. They are fifty to one; and here all have equal rights at the start.
In a monarchy, on the other hand, this natural and universal league of the stupid against those who are possessed of intellectual advantages is a one-sided affair; it exists only from below, for in a monarchy talent and intelligence receive a natural advocacy and support from above.”

Nothing we don't see in Plato, but well said.

If we want to defend democratic rule, we need to show why this is nonsense or, if not how it is counteracted.

So, bullshit or not? As usual, feel free to leave anything from a single word to a dissertation.

Bullshit or Not: Cervantes Edition

There's an old sketch film called Amazon Women on the Moon and one of the bits is a parody of the old Leonard Nimoy show, "In Search Of..." called, "Bullshit or Not?" with the tagline "Bullshit or not? You decide." It's a line I like so much that I've stolen it for an irregular series of posts.

Today is not only LilBro's birthday (happy birthday, man), but also that of Miguel de Cervantes, so let's play with a short quotation from him,

"Love and war are the same thing, and stratagems and policy are as allowable in the one as in the other."

Is it true that all is fair in love and war? In both, we leave ourselves vulnerable and seek certain objectives. Both tend to lead to hostilities which conclude with negotiations in which either (1) both sides find a way to exist next to each other, or (2) one dominates the other. In these negotiations are we not allowed strategems? But how apt is the metaphor, really?

As usual, feel free to leave either a response anywhere between one word and a dissertation.

Bullshit or Not: John Muir Edition

Been a while since we've done this, but on the eve of Earth Day and John Muir's birthday, it seems appropriate to play with a quotation from him:

Why should man value himself as more than a small part of the one great unit of creation? And what creature of all that the Lord has taken the pains to make is not essential to the completeness of that unit - the cosmos? The universe would be incomplete without man; but it would also be incomplete without the smallest transmicroscopic creature that dwells beyond our conceitful eyes and knowledge. From the dust of the earth, from the common elementary fund, the Creator has made Homo sapiens. From the same material he has made every other creature, however noxious and insignificant to us. They are earth-born companions and our fellow mortals.... This star, our own good earth, made many a successful journey around the heavens ere man was made, and whole kingdoms of creatures enjoyed existence and returned to dust ere man appeared to claim them. After human beings have also played their part in Creation's plan, they too may disappear without any general burning or extraordinary commotion whatever.

Are humans just another species of equivalent moral value to the smallest transmicroscopic creature, or is there sopmething special about us? Human exceptionalism, bullshit or not?

As usual, feel free to leave anything in the comments from a single word to a dissertation.

Cosmic Debris or Not: Frank Zappa Edition

There's an old sketch film called Amazon Women on the Moon and one of the bits is a parody of the old Leonard Nimoy show, "In Search Of..." called, "Bullshit or Not?" with the tagline "Bullshit or not? You decide." It's a line I like so much that I've stolen it for an irregular series of posts.

Yesterday would have been Frank Zappa's 69th birthday and was officially proclaimed Frank Zappa day in Baltimore by the mayor, something that would have amused him on a number of levels (hat tip to YKW). Let's play today with a quotation from the most clever and cynical figure in American culture to come out of Baltimore since H. L. Mencken.

The '60s was really stupid ... It was a type of merchandising, Americans had this hideous weakness, they had this desire to be OK, fun guys and gals, and they haven't come to terms with the reality of the situation: we were not created equal. Some people can do carpentry, some people can do mathematics, some people are brain surgeons and some people are winos and that's the way it is, and we're not all the same. This concept of one world-ism, everything blended and smoothed out to this mediocre norm that everybody downgrades themselves to be is stupid. The '60s was merchandised to the public at large... My pet theory about the '60s is that there is a sinister plot behind it... The lessons learnt in the '60s about merchandising stupidity to the American public on a large scale have been used over and over again since that time.

So, bullshit or not? As usual, feel free to leave anything from a single word to a dissertation.

Of course, we couldn't leave without some Frank:

Bullshit or Not: Bill Gates Edition

There's an old sketch film called Amazon Women on the Moon and one of the bits is a parody of the old Leonard Nimoy show, "In Search Of..." called, "Bullshit or Not?" with the tagline "Bullshit or not? You decide." It's a line I like so much that I've stolen it for an occasional series of posts.

Since today is Bill Gates' birthday, let's...hang on, let me reboot. %#$*&!#@ Vista...

O.k., sorry about that.

Since today is Bill Gates' birthday, let's play with a short quotation from him:

Success is a lousy teacher. It seduces smart people into thinking they can't lose.

It's very easy to say we learn from our mistakes, but doesn't Darwin argue the opposite, that it is the accumulation of successes that leads to fitness? Failures do not leave us back at square one, but in a hole, so that our new context doesn't resemble the last. Are lessons you take from a post-mortem ever really applicable? And after all, shouldn't the winners have a higher degree of confidence in their intuitions? There is no doubt that we do learn from small mistakes, but is it true of all errors, big and small alike?

As usual, feel free to leave anything from a single word to a dissertation. So, bullshit or not? You decide.

Bullshit or Not: Eugene Debs Edition

There's an old sketch film called Amazon Women on the Moon and one of the bits is a parody of the old Leonard Nimoy show, "In Search Of..." called, "Bullshit or Not?" with the tagline "Bullshit or not? You decide." It's a line I like so much that I've stolen it for an irregular series of posts.

In honor of Labor Day, let's look at a quotation from Eugene Debs.

"Ten thousand times has the labor movement stumbled and bruised itself. We have been enjoined by the courts, assaulted by thugs, charged by the militia, traduced by the press, frowned upon in public opinion, and deceived by politicians. 'But notwithstanding all this and all these, labor is today the most vital and potential power this planet has ever known, and its historic mission is as certain of ultimate realization as is the setting of the sun."

So, is it still true that labor today the most vital and potential power this planet has ever known? Is it at least one of the more vital and potential powers?

So, bullshit or not? You decide. As usual feel free to leave anything from a single word to a dissertation.

Bullshit or Not: Marshall McLuhan Edition

Today would be Marschall McLuhan's 97th birthday, a perfect time to go to "bullshit or not."

There's an old sketch film called Amazon Women on the Moon and one of the bits is a parody of the old Leonard Nimoy show, "In Search Of..." called, "Bullshit or Not?" with the tagline "Bullshit or not? You decide." It's a line I like so much that I've stolen it for an irregular series of posts.

From Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man:

"Ideally, advertising aims at the goal of a programmed harmony among all human impulses and aspirations and endeavors. Using handicraft methods, it stretches out toward the ultimate electronic goal of a collective consciousness. When all production and all consumption are brought into a preestablished harmony with all desire and all effort, then advertising will have liquidated itself by its own success"

McLuhan was writing before television had hundreds of niche channels, thousands of slimly tailored blogs could connected on-line communities across the world, and cookies on your computer could allow pinpoint marketing.

Have the new media shaped the advertisers' messages? Is McLuhan's insight here still meaningful or was it tied to his context?

As usual, feel free to leave anything from a single word response to a dissertation. So, bullshit or not? You decide.

Bullshit or Not: Hitler Edition

There's an old sketch film called Amazon Women on the Moon and one of the bits is a parody of the old Leonard Nimoy show, "In Search Of..." called, "Bullshit or Not?" with the tagline "Bullshit or not? You decide." It's a line I like so much that I've stolen it for an irregular series of posts.

Last weekend was Adolph Hitler's birthday, so let's take a passage from Mein Kampf,

"To take abstract and general principles, derived from a philosophy which is based on a solid foundation of truth, and transform them into a militant community whose members have the same political faith – a community which is precisely defined, rigidly organized, of one mind and one will – such a transformation is the most important task of all; for the possibility of successfully carrying out the idea is dependent on the successful fulfilment of that task. Out of the army of millions who feel the truth of these ideas, and even may understand them to some extent, one man must arise. This man must have the gift of being able to expound general ideas in a clear and definite form, and, from the world of vague ideas shimmering before the minds of the masses, he must formulate principles that will be as clear-cut and firm as granite. He must fight for these principles as the only true ones, until a solid rock of common faith and common will emerges above the troubled waves of vagrant ideas."

If we want to turn ideals and ideologies of any stripe into material reality, does this require the arising of a statesman as the face of the movement? Is the great individual a necessary condition for social change of any kind?

Bullshit or not? You decide. As usual, feel free to leave anything from a single word to a dissertation.

Bullshit or Not: Thomas Jefferson Edition

There's an old sketch film called Amazon Women on the Moon and one of the bits is a parody of the old Leonard Nimoy show, "In Search Of..." called, "Bullshit or Not?" with the tagline "Bullshit or not? You decide." It's a line I like so much that I've stolen it for an irregular series of posts.

In honor of Thomas Jefferson's birthday yesterday, let's play with a quotation from this Founding Father,

"There is a debt of service due from every man to his country, proportioned to the bounties which nature and fortune have measured to him." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Rutledge, 1796. ME 9:354

So, does everyone owe a debt of service to his or her country and community? If so, is it like a progressive tax increasing with one's bounties or do we all have the same obligation to give back? Why should your reward for hard work give you an increased obligation? What forms could this service take? do accidental services count, for example, one often hears the argument for regressive tax breaks in the form of an argument that the wealthy create more jobs and therefore simply by being rich and doing what rich people do, they are doing their part.

As usual, feel free to leave anything from a single word to a dissertation. So, TJ, bullshit or not?

Bullshit or Not: James Joyce Edition

There's an old sketch film called Amazon Women on the Moon and one of the bits is a parody of the old Leonard Nimoy show, "In Search Of..." called, "Bullshit or Not?" with the tagline "Bullshit or not? You decide." It's a line I like so much that I've stolen it for an irregular series of posts.

On Saint Patrick's Day, it seems appropriate to pull a quotation for discussion from one of Ireland's greatest minds, James Joyce. Here's the quotation:

"Saying that a great genius is mad, while at the same time recognizing his artistic worth, is like saying that he had rheumatism or suffered from diabetes. Madness, in fact, is a medical term that can claim no more notice from the objective critic than he grants the charge of heresy raised by the theologian, or the charge of immorality raised by the police."

Is the notion of the mad genius just a fiction? Is it something we've dreamt up to make the great seem flawed for precisely what makes them superior, thereby protecting ourselves in our mediocrity? Or was Aristotle right that "There was never a genius without a tincture of madness"?

So, bullshit or not? You decide. As usual, feel free to leave anything from a one word comment to a dissertation.

Bullshit or Not: Einstein Edition

On the eve of his birthday, let's play Bullshit or Not.

There's an old sketch film called Amazon Women on the Moon and one of the bits is a parody of the old Leonard Nimoy show, "In Search Of..." called, "Bullshit or Not?" with the tagline "Bullshit or not? You decide." It's a line I like so much that I've stolen it for an irregular series of posts.

Here's the quotation,

“The psychological root of anti-Semitism lies in the fact that the Jews are a group of people unto themselves. Their Jewishness is visible in their physical appearance, and one notices their Jewish heritage in their intellectual work.”

Can you find Jewish heritage in intellectual work? Do Jews write peotry differently? Do biology differently?

Surely this is not restricted to Jews. Is there a Japanese style of particle physics? An African-American style of anthropology?

So, bullshit or not, you decide. As usual, feel free to leave a single word or a dissertation.

Bullshit or Not: Beethoven Edition

There's an old sketch film called Amazon Women on the Moon and one of the bits is a parody of the old Leonard Nimoy show, In Search Of... called, Bullshit or Not? with the tagline "Bullshit or not? You decide." It's a line I like so much that I've stolen it for an irregular series of posts.

Today is Ludwig von Beethoven's birthday, so let's play with a quotation of his.

I despise a world which does not feel that music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy.

Does music reveal? If so, what? Surely, we've all had the sensation of epiphany from music, what has come to be called "having one's mind blown." Is such a musical experience truly revelatory as Beethoven suggests?

So, bullshit or not? You decide. As usual, feel free to leave anything from a single word to a dissertation.

Bullshit or Not: Wittgenstein Edition

There's an old sketch film called Amazon Women on the Moon and one of the bits is a parody of the old Leonard Nimoy show, "In Search Of..." called, "Bullshit or Not?" with the tagline "Bullshit or not? You decide." It's a line I like so much that I've stolen it for an irregular series of posts.

This turn's quotation comes from Ludwig Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, a short book with an arrogant title that Wittgenstein himself neither gave it nor liked.

5.6 The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.

5.62 ...The world is my world: this is manifest in the fact that the limits of language (of that language which alone I understand) mean the limits of my world.

Is our world limited by our language?

So, bullshit or not? As usual, feel free to leave anything from a single word to a dissertation.

Bullshit or Not: Plato the Elitist Edition

There's an old sketch film called Amazon Women on the Moon and one of the bits is a parody of the old Leonard Nimoy show, "In Search Of..." called, "Bullshit or Not?" with the tagline "Bullshit or not? You decide." It's a line I like so much that I've stolen it for an irregular series of posts.

It seems only appropriate today to focus on democracy. Plato, of course, was an opponent of democracy and it would be interesting to kick around his reasoning to see what folks think. The gist is that democracy is an inferior brand of government because it puts the power in the hands of the unwashed masses who are insufficiently thoughtful to handle it well.

Imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is a captain who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and his knowledge of navigation is not much better. The sailors are quarrelling with one another about the steering --every one is of opinion that he has a right to steer, though he has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tell who taught him or when he learned, and will further assert that it cannot be taught, and they are ready to cut in pieces any one who says the contrary. They throng about the captain, begging and praying him to commit the helm to them; and if at any time they do not prevail, but others are preferred to them, they kill the others or throw them overboard, and having first chained up the noble captain's senses with drink or some narcotic drug, they mutiny and take possession of the ship and make free with the stores; thus, eating and drinking, they proceed on their voyage in such a manner as might be expected of them. Him who is their partisan and cleverly aids them in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain's hands into their own whether by force or persuasion, they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man, whom they call a good-for-nothing; but that the true pilot must pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or not-the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer's art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling. Now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing?

So, bullshit or not? You decide. As usual, feel free to leave anything from a one word comment to a dissertation.

Bullshit or Not: Nietzsche Edition

There's an old sketch film called Amazon Women on the Moon and one of the bits is a parody of the old Leonard Nimoy show, "In Search Of..." called, "Bullshit or Not?" with the tagline "Bullshit or not? You decide." It's a line I like so much that I've stolen it for an irregular series of posts.

Since today is Friedrich Nietzsche's birthday, let's play with a passage from The Twilight of the Idols:

My demand upon the philosopher is known, that he take his stand beyond good and evil and leave the illusion of moral judgment beneath himself. This demand follows from an insight which I was the first to formulate: that there are altogether no moral facts. Moral judgments agree with religious ones in believing in realities which are no realities. Morality is merely an interpretation of certain phenomena.

So, are there moral facts? Bullshit or not, you decide. As usual, feel free to leave anything from a single word to a dissertation.

Bullshit or Not: Bertrand Russell Edition

There's an old sketch film called Amazon Women on the Moon and one of the bits is a parody of the old Leonard Nimoy show, "In Search Of..." called, "Bullshit or Not?" with the tagline "Bullshit or not? You decide." It's a line I like so much that I've stolen it for an irregular series of posts.

The quotation today comes from Russell's 1918 paper "On the Notion of Cause,"

"The law of causality, I believe, like much that passes muster among philosophers, is a relic of a bygone age, surviving, like the monarchy, only because it is erroneously supposed to do no harm"

Russell is arguing that the entire concept of cause and effect is outdated, a relic left over from the days when we believed that gods in chariots pulled the sun across the sky. We've taken away the chariot and the conscious mover, but left the metaphysical notion of cause in its place out of habit. We can say what preceded a given event and give the laws by which the system evolved and why one should have expected the event, but to say that something caused the event is going too far.

Physics specifically, but science more generally, nowadays says nothing about causes, he argues. Science describes how and not why and the cause questions are why questions that are not even meaningful to ask. He proposes that we have replaced cause and effect statements with differential equations, only philosophers haven't yet gotten the memo...or if they have ignored it out of fear of losing their jobs or because they didn't know what a "differential equation" is.

So, bullshit or not? You decide. Is there any meaningful sense in which we can talk about causes and effects? As usual, feel free to leave anything from a single word to a dissertation.

Bullshit or Not: Descartes Edition

There's an old sketch film called Amazon Women on the Moon and one of the bits is a parody of the old Leonard Nimoy show, "In Search Of..." called, "Bullshit or Not?" with the tagline "Bullshit or not? You decide." It's a line I like so much that I've stolen it for an irregular series of posts.

This time, let's work with a favorite quotation of mine from Rene Descartes' Discourse on Method

Good sense is the most evenly distributed commidity in the world, for each of us considers himself to be so well endowed therewith that even those who are the most difficult to please in all other matters are not wont to desire more than they have. It is not likely that anyone is mistakedn about this fact. Rather, it provides evidence that the power of judging rightly and distinguishing the true from the false (which, properly speaking, is what people call good sense or reason) is naturally equal in all men.

So, bullshit or not, you decide. As usual, feel free to leave anything from a single word to a dissertation.