On March 13 1944, George Albert Cairns had his left arm hacked clean off by a Japanese officer. A lesser man would have not risen above this impediment. But George did the unthinkable. He killed the Japanese officer, picked up his sword, then slashing right and left, killed several more Japanese officers with the captured sword.

George eventually died that day, but in dying, he inspired his comrades enough to complete route the Japanese. For this act, George was posthumously awarded a Victoria Cross — the highest (and rarest) military decoration in the Commonwealth. What George did boggles the mind. It was a selfless act, an act that could only doom him seeing how his enemy had an arsenal of firearms. Ultimately, it was an act of unmerited kindness.

The false dichotomy

Of course, World War II is not comparable to our time. While the Allies fought brazenly Fascist nation-states, our governments can’t even find a bunch of Al Qaeda thugs hidden in the caves of Afghanistan. Whatever moral fortitute we have is hidden in the abstractions of “left wing” and “right wing” categorizations.

Someone on the “left” is supposed to support the legalization of marijuana, yet support the illegalization of tobacco. Conversely, someone on the “right” is supposed to advocate for the sanctity of life except when the life in question was convicted of a crime by our court system. This is an inconsistent dichotomy, with lots of (unintentional) overlap, and it makes no sense to simply categorize belief systems as left or right.

We don’t need this abstraction. The question is not whether one is left or right wing. The question is whether one shall do good or refrain from doing good. It’s whether one is a coward or one who has the courage to act in such a way it is selflessly kind.

The Blowback

Of course, the risk of unmerited kindness is that it can be misinterpreted as weakness. If you are a giving person without regard for personal benefit, that leaves you open to hucksters and social infants who see your kindness as a means of getting a free lunch. And if one does not approach unmerited kindness with a critical mind, this will certainly be the case.

But in the case of George Albert Cairns, this was not so. When the Japanese hacked off his left arm, he did not volunteer his right arm. He lunged further into battle. In George’s case, kindness was extended to his comrades, but not to his Japanese foes. Kindness, in this case was a critical thought process. It was based upon a profound understanding of doing the right thing.

Even if kindness can be interpreted as weak, bad PR is no excuse for not doing the right thing. If kindness isn’t seen as “cool” or “with it”, so what? In the real world, kindness is never actually weak because a kind ideology is a moral superior ideology — and if you’ve won the battle or morality, you’ve completely won the war.

The Practical Use of Kindness

So far, I’ve spoken of unmerited kindness in theoretical terms, but I now submit some concrete ideas. Why not disregard “left” and “right” ideologies? Why not thumb your nose at the religiosity of party platforms? Why not consider who to vote for in a radically different lens?

The politician you vote for, does he have a kind spirit? Does he consider the good of his consituents above all else? Is he a divisive man, or is he a man who can communicate a vision?

We cannot afford to have cowardly leaders. We need bold men who have unexplainable courage — and not courage based on posturing and bravado. We need leaders who articulate the courage to be kind and dispense acts of kindness. This should be kindness for kindness sake; kindness that has no explanation.

Who are these leaders?

In my previous posts, I wrote about solipsism: the belief that nothing exists save what is invented by the mind. I summarized that solipsism, while totally plausible, is in the end unworkable. Today, I will examine Scottish Common Sense Realism, solipsism’s polar opposite.

Common sense realism suffers from the opposite malady: while workable, it is in the end implausible. This seems like a contradiction in terms. Most of us are taught that if something works, it must be good. But as I will soon show, this is not the case.

Before I speak about common sense’s plausibility, I must first explain why and (more importantly) when common sense works.

Why does Common Sense Realism Work?

Where common sense realism defers from regular common sense is in its claims of being rooted in an objective reality. Thomas Reid, the founder of the Scottish School, believed that common sense was not a social construct but rather a precondition of the possibility that humans could reason with each other. A common sense realist will state that you and I know that a steak is a steak due to a sense of innate quality of steak.

In the real world, this works. When I buy a steak, I don’t need to first argue with the butcher about the nature and essence of steaks. Based upon our unspoken agreement of what a steak is, I can pay for my food and be on my way. Sounds good, but sometimes working relationships can be deceiving.

A Case of Mistaken Identity

The problem with reality is that human error abounds. What the butcher and I believe about the steak may be a case of mistaken identity. Perhaps the meat we are dealing with didn’t come from a cow. Perhaps it came from a giraffe. If this is true, and our unspoken agreement about the steak is wrong, suddenly our working relationship is also wrong — because we misunderstand the value of the meat. (I, for one, wouldn’t want to explain this situation to the butcher’s boss!)

This case of mistaken identity is absurd, but not as absurd as events that actually happen every day. Now granted, most people come to common agreements of reality most of the time. However, the vast instances of this being otherwise shows common sense isn’t common enough. Most people isn’t all people, and most of the time isn’t all of the time.

The Tyranny of Common Sense

Common sense realism is bad philosophy in the truest form. I have often had questions dismissed by being told to “use my common sense”. When people appeal to my innate sense of reality, what they often don’t realize is that senses may lie, and our perceptions may be divergent.

I focus on common sense realism because this is the fundamental philosophy of much American conservatism. When Sarah Palin speaks of “real Americans”, she is speaking about what she and her audience commonly perceive this to be. More ominously, fundamentalism has its roots in Scottish Common Sense Realism. When a fundamentalist, such as John Machen, speaks about the “plain meaning of Scripture”, he is speaking about the common sense of its plain meaning. If there’s disagreement, he thinks it’s because he’s being more true to the plain meaning than you!

Common sense realism doesn’t make sense because it imposes a tyranny of unspoken social agreement upon all of us. Pity if we disagree upon basic assumptions yet make no mention of it. In the end, that’s where common sense realism falls apart: it makes assumptions, assumes others make the same assumptions, and offers no further discussion about those assumptions. In short, common sense realism may work, but only works superficially since it’s not very plausible.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Carnival! Carnival! Submissions to the 123rd Skeptics’ Circle (scienceblog.com)

Last Saturday, someone asked me to rationalize my belief in God. I am sure he was hoping for a hearty debate on the merits of science and the authenticity of the Bible. However, my belief in God doesn’t depend on those things. Rather, my belief in God comes from a radical doubt.

"I think therefore I am"

The Plausibility of Solipsism

Perhaps the most famous philosophical aphorism is Descartes’ “I think therefore I am.” It is a statement of both radical belief and doubt. Everything in this universe is questionable except for one’s self-awareness. Notice how I said, “one’s self-awareness” since it is easy to doubt someone else’s self-awareness. For all I know, I could be the only conscious person on the planet, and everyone else could be zombies.

But let’s assume for a moment you are self-aware. Let’s try a thought experiment. If you had a fight to the death, and you won, would the sun rise the next morning? That is quite likely. However, if you had a fight to the death, and lost, would the sun rise the next morning? In your world, as you experience it, the sun will no longer rise.

Materialists will object to this statement. Afterall, it is observable through quantifiable data that the sun most probably would rise the next morning. However, if seeing is believing, how can something be true if you cannot observe it? If you are dead, scientific observation is no longer an option.

Philip K. Dick

How to Build a Self-Sustaining Universe

If you have not read Philip K. Dick’s essay How to Build a Universe That Doesn’t Fall Apart in Two Days, I suggest you do. In this essay, Mr. Dick discusses not only the plausibility of alternate universes but how he was personally convinced he was occupying one. Interestingly, Mr Dick has this to say about reality:

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.

How to Build a Universe That Doesn’t Fall Apart Two Days Later

One of the mistaken assumptions about solipsism is that it is about belief: if you are earnest in your belief about reality, reality can be remade how you see fit. But belief has nothing to do with how you perceive reality.

The human mind is a complicated thing. While the human mind has a conscious aspect to it, most of its functions have little to do with self-actualization. In other words, it is entirely possible that my unconscious mind has created this universe without my conscious mind knowing it — and that it may even run counter to what I think I wish for.

It can be that I created scenarios in which I experience pain for reasons I have forgotten. Another possibility is that my unconscious mind perceives there is a greater ultimate happiness that will happen after I experience this pain. More likely, my unconscous mind just may be a masochist.

Are humans rational?

The Problem with Rationality

Let us return to Descartes. He was a great man of doubt, but his problem was he had too much faith in humanity’s ability to rationalize. Thinking may mean that I am, but that should not assume any standard of thought.

In the early 20th century, psychology revealed that humans are not rational, but are driven by irrational desires. Our decisions are not based on carefully reasoned arguments but on impulses to eat, sleep, and mate. In other words, perhaps the reality you experience is based not on objective mathematical certainties but on primal urges.

What this more ominously means is that phyicality is probably not experienced directly but rather experienced indirectly after passing through neurochemical reactions. My observation of various mental illnesses has convinced me of this likely scenario.

What does this have to do with God?

Solipsism is a plausible philosophy, and it simplifies a great many things. If I cannot perceive something, why should I assume it’s true? In my world, I cannot be insane. Everyone in my self-created universe may come to a consensus about what reality means, but since it is of my own devising, I am the standard of sanity.

However, I am such a doubtful person, I must doubt my own doubt. It is here I must believe. I will explain more tomorrow.