Philosophy's wilful stupidity

3 Quarks has an essay by Rachel Robinson-Greene who teaches philosophy. It is titled-  

Personal Identity and Willful Ignorance

Neither identity nor ignorance matter. Tardean mimetics of an economic type motivate most actions. 

Ada sits alone at a table contemplating whether she should drink the liquid from the glass in front of her. She’s been promised that the result of doing so will be an immediate revision to her set of beliefs.

Who believes promises? Only people who will eat shit if you promise them they will really really like it.  

If she drinks from the glass, she will believe only things that are true.

No. The moment she drinks from it, or chows down on a turd sandwich, she knows she believed at least one thing which was false- viz. a promise that was made to her by a guy who thought her a gullible moron.  It is obvious that if the drink had the magical property claimed for it then the guy offering it would be ready to drink it himself and then say whether he believes she will be stupid enough to take his offer. Whatever he says can be proved false. In other words, the drink can't have the property claimed for it. 

She won’t become omniscient; she won’t know everything. The liquid will simply replace all false beliefs she has with corresponding true ones.

The problem here is that even a 'zero knowledge proof' re. at least some of our beliefs would yield enormously valuable information. Several open questions in STEM subjects would be closed and there would be massive shifts in R&D budgets and geopolitical strategy and so forth. Interestingly, some of my beliefs are inconsistent and so I gain new information as well as better methods to use information. In other words, if an average person like me were given the magic drink then a lot of new information would be available and this would move markets. Thus the thing would become common knowledge soon enough. 

On the other hand, it must be admitted, I am very handsome and lovely which is why so many super-hot  Wakandan princesses are promising to pay me millions to deflower them. This is a negotiating tactic, I bet they can afford billions. Also, I insist they 'put a ring on it'. I want to be Prince of Wakanda.

Ada likes to think that she is intellectually humble.

Humble but as stupid as shit and very very gullible. 

She likes to believe that she generally acts in accordance with reliable processes for forming beliefs.

e.g. believing people who offer you magic beans, or a magic drink or a magic turd sandwich. 

Most importantly, Ada believes that she values truth.

She must also believe she isn't so very gullible that she really ought to be under Guardianship. What other things does she believe? That everybody wouldn't necessarily be better off if she topped herself? Or that she smells bad and her Mummy hates her? That God created man because the 'human soul' is actually a type of celestial toilet paper?  

Nevertheless, she can’t shake the feeling that drinking from the glass would be a kind of suicide.

Fuck suicide. There are some beliefs you have which, if you find they are untrue, might cause you to take an axe to your kith and kin. Also, you'd feel morally obliged to quit your job as Pope. Btw, I passed out of Pope Skool in 1974- I traded my comic books for a diploma from there- and then Virendra Fernandes's Mum, who was the Archbishop of Goa at that time, got we on the wait list for Pope.  There might be a Cardinal or two ahead of me in the queue but they're really really old so, bottom line, everybody will be kissing my ring by the end of the decade. 

In The Sources of Normativity, philosopher Christine Korsgaard argues that reasons for action spring from what she calls our “practical identities.”

But most 'reasons for action' are wholly impersonal. It doesn't matter which person does them.  What matters is whether the reward is greater than the 'opportunity cost'. 

These practical identities are ways of conceiving of ourselves that we value and hold dear.

When a subject turns to shit, you end up having to teach drooling imbeciles who aren't valued or held dear by anybody. Also their Mummies pretend not to recognize them when passing them on the street. That is why Professors have to keep talking about 'valuing' and 'holding dear' and the importance of 'recognition' and 'acknowledgment'.  

For example, I may view myself as a friend, a mother, a lover, etc.,

her students, sadly, will never have such things. Still, they may have Trust Funds and thus will get corner offices in Charitable Foundations where they can drool away their days.  

and the reasons I have for behaving in various ways are picked out by what those identities permit or forbid.

Coz a person's identity as a married man always prevents him fucking whores- right?  

The identities that provide us with overriding reasons are those we’d rather die than give up.

Unless we actually have to die- or just pay a sizable sum of money- for it.  I will defend Ukraine to my dying breath- unless Rooskis threaten to nuke me or my taxes go up. 

As Korsgaard says, “The only thing that could be as bad or worse than death is something that for us amounts to death—not being ourselves anymore.”

No. What's worse than death is taxes. We all have to die but we do a lot to ensure we pay as little death duty as possible.  

Harry Frankfurt

who started off as a bright guy in a field considered brainy. By 1976, the year Rockefeller University shut their Philosophy Dept, it was obvious that the discipline had turned to shit. 

makes a similar argument in his book, Reasons of Love. He argues that the things we care about are the sources of our reasons

Sadly, a very caring person may have shit for brains and thus may only be able to formulate very  terrible reasons. Reason is the source of reasons. Caring is the source of caring. One could say It is a volitional necessity, for nice, peeps, to care about stupid shite Philosopher's gas on about. One would be lying, but one could say that. The trick is to fart loudly every time you say 'volitional necessity'. 

and the things that we love create what he calls “volitional necessities”—they generate reasons for action that can’t fail to motivate us, at least to a degree. The things we love and care about define who we are and what we’re willing to do.

That's a story you tell little kiddies. If you are teaching this in College, you have wasted your life.  

Ada bonds with her sister over their shared love of music.

Ada has a sister. Isn't she a lucky girl! 'Class, what do we say to Ada? No, Timmy we don't say 'fist yo' sistah'.  We say 'give nice hugs and kisses to your sister. She loves you very much and is very proud that you are learning to tie your own shoe-laces at Grad Skool.''  

They enjoy the work of one particular artist above all others.

'Yes, Timmy. Many artists do paint using their own faeces. You are a very creative artist Timmy. That's why you have an MFA. Soon you will get a Doctorate in Moral Philosophy. Everyone will think you are really smart and they will love you and care about you and, maybe, you could even have a play-date if you stop setting fire to cats.'  

In particular, they admire this artist’s skill and creativity. They also share her values. If Ada were to learn that this artist actually didn’t write her own music,

Oh. We're speaking off a composer. Nowadays, they are all shit- more particularly if they are women.  

it would not only impact her perception of the artist, it might also impact her relationship with her sister.

If she has shit for brains- sure.  

If she were to learn that the artist was actually cruel, manipulative, or abusive, she might find her new assessment of the artist’s character at odds with her sister’s assessment. What would happen then?

Blood is thicker than water. If you have a sibling who experiences cognitive dissonance and turns against you because of a fucking artist then ask her for a kidney. If she says no, break off the relationship.  

Ada is a volunteer for a local charitable organization. Her contributions to the organization provide a great sense of meaning to her life.

Ada isn't a loser. She represents the sort of high functioning moron we hope all Philosophy students will aspire to be.  

She met most of her friends in this capacity and they’ve put together a bowling league that meets on Wednesday nights. One person from this group has become her closest friend.

She is a real person. Ada is very happy to have a friend who isn't imaginary. The two of them sit together drooling happily and making grunting noises.  

They both have mothers battling cancer,

but not very hard coz she wants to get the fuck away from Ada.  

and Ada and her friend are one another’s sources of support in difficult times.

In which case, they won't turn on each other even if it turns out the charity is fraudulent or their Mummies aren't cancer patients. The whole thing is an elaborate scam.  

The work of the charitable organization is predicated on three fundamental premises. If any of the premises turned out to be false, it would shatter her faith in the organization’s work. Where would her meaning come from then? Her friends? Her support?

People who need support get it from those who provide them with support. That's all that matters. Cognitive dissonance doesn't work in the way stupid philosophers think it does.  

Ada is married to a man with many opinions about which he seems unshakably assured. She and her husband have different interests. Because he is passionate about what he cares about, she trusts that he has good evidence for the things that he believes. Nevertheless, she is worried that, if she were to learn that the propositions he so boldly asserts were mostly false, she might come to disrespect him for his many flagrant displays of unearned confidence. What would happen to her love? Who would be her companion?

If you want someone to love get a cat. If you want to be loved, get a dog. Marriage is a partnership where there is a joint utility function. If the joint benefit doesn't outweigh annoying personal habits, it probably isn't a partnership worth preserving.

If we’re being honest with ourselves,  we must acknowledge that some of our identities

Ada has a secret identity as Cat Woman. But, if she were honest with herself, she would acknowledge that she doesn't really fight crime. She just licks herself all over while watching Garfield.  

not only involve false beliefs, but actually depend upon them. We may not know which identities fall into this category, but it is probable that some, perhaps even many of them, do.

Identities don't matter. I might pretend that my identity as a transgender penguin anti-Zionist Rabbi is very important to me but it isn't really. On the other hand, the neighbour's cat really is talking to me. It is vital that Donald Trump recognizes that I, Chairman Miaow, am the only true and rightful representative of the Rodents' Republic of Ruritania. Failure to do so will trigger World War III. 

It isn’t uncommon to be mystified by the extent to which people seem unwilling to become better informed about social issues.

Nobody is mystified by the very low status of Philosophy professors. They refused to inform themselves about anything useful or true and thus became a laughing stock. 

We wonder why they won’t critically reflect on the coherence or consistency of their positions, especially when widely known and compelling evidence provides good reason to be skeptical.

These guys won't critically reflect on their positions because they would have to resign their jobs. If you get paid to be stupid, it is smart to be stupid.  

We wonder why they refuse to engage with sources that support any position other than those they were already inclined to believe anyway. Why, we ask, do people often seem so willfully ignorant?

In this lady's case it is because she gets paid to be stupid and ignorant. I suppose she is a vegan who thinks she is battling for animal rights or some such thing. I myself only maintain this blog because I am campaigning to gain Educationally fucking Retarded status for all Iyers.  

It’s hard work crafting oneself into a fully formed person. We adopt certain aesthetics or roles because they feel authentic.

When we are 15- maybe. Then we get jobs or get the qualifications we need for those jobs. This means spending your twenties dressing like your boss in the hope people will think you are Partnership material.  

Ohers are imposed upon us by our environment. Still more arise out of trauma and grief.

Identities are mainly economic. I suppose if you teach adolescents you have to pretend to have a complex inner life whereas, the truth is, a parrot could give your lectures and a retarded monkey could write your papers.  

At a certain point, for better or for worse, we’ve invested so much time and effort into our identities, we feel that there’s too much at stake to change them.

Very few people want to change identities. Gender reassignment surgery aint as much fun as it sounds.  

We don’t want our social lives to change. We don’t want to feel differently about who we are and what we’ve done. We don’t want different kind of reasons to motivate our actions. We’d rather have stability than truth.

You can have both easily enough. The fact is, even 'zero knowledge' verification that x is true is an addition to the information set and can have a cash value.  

Ada knows she doesn’t have the best possible life, but it’s hers.

She knows that if she has extra information which confirms or contradicts her beliefs regarding the direction in which the stock market or the currency market is going, then she can get more money.  

She’s comfortable. If she is the source of the suffering of someone else, she’s not aware of it.

She'd want to know about it. 

If her decisions prevent someone from achieving full liberation, she can’t be blamed.

If she has information which would could free a person who has been wrongly incarcerated, she can be blamed. 

If her choices put our most cherished institutions at risk, it surely couldn’t be her fault alone, or perhaps even at all. S

It could. She chooses not to tell the FBI about terrorists with nukes. That's misprision of treason right there.  

he doesn’t want her identity as she knows it to be shattered.

Madoff didn't want his identity as a skilled financier to be shattered.  

She wants to go on being the person she recognizes.

As opposed to one whom she considers a stranger and reports to the police coz that stranger keeps trying to touch her fanny.  

She stands up, walks to the sink, and pours the liquid down the drain.

No. She makes the other guy drink it and, if, as she suspects, it contains a roofie, she fucks him in the ass with a chair leg. Ada is the sort of daughter any man would be proud to have.