The Insightfulness of a One-Line Marketing Slogan

This morning, as I was driving to meet with a new potential client, there was a sign that caught my attention. It read, "Everyone drives used cars." At first glance, it seemed like the typical appeal-to-popularity type of marketing gimmick used to convince you, as a consumer, to join the masses (real or imaginary) by making the same choice they all are supposedly making. My second thought, in analyzing the one-liner from a logical basis, immediately shocked me with the profundity of the statement. It wasn't merely an appeal-to-popularity. It was a statement of logical fact. That simple fact is one that has been quite obscured to us, due to mental conditioning.

When considering cars, as consumers, we are taught that there are two extremely different categories of vehicles: new and used. These categories of vehicles are presented to us as polar opposites. New vehicles and used vehicles are sold at different places, for different prices by different sorts of people. New vehicles are presented to us a superior choice, FAR more valuable than any used vehicle could hope to be. Used vehicles (except when being described by a salesman) are old, decrepit things that are merely functional, but not especially desirable.

That one-line slogan cut through all of that socially-conditioned thinking. The simple fact is, the only actual difference between a used one, is simply that it has been owned by someone. But even an ostenibly new vehicle can quite accurately be described as "used" a mere week after its purchase. The moment the car is even driven off the lot, its market valuable depreciates, and it may properly be classified as a used vehicle. Hence, the statement "Everyone drives used cars," is a mere declaration of fact. The fact that we have accepted the taxonomies offered to us and created an artificial mental distinction between new and used vehicles is a sign that we often embrace the modern tendency to taxonomize things without giving them much thought.

The other insight this slogan offers is that social status is mostly a mental illusion. Social perceptions play an undeniable role in influencing the decisions we make and the judgments we make of others. A person's car is a sort of status symbol. Regardless of the actual substance and being of a person, people use psychological shortcuts to judge a person. I recently read about a fellow who performed a social experiment. He scheduled dates with two different women. With the first woman, he dressed up really nicely and picked her up in a brand new Bentley. With the second woman, he wore very casual clothing and picked her up in an old beat-up car. The content of the dates themselves were essentially the same. Yet, the way the two women viewed him was extremely divergent. While one had an extremely positive view of the fellow, the other woman described him as a "loser." The exact same guy was perceived in completely different way, simply based on the way he dressed and what car he drove.

In that regard, the brilliance of the slogan is in the way it highlights the way we often don't even see things through our own eyes, nor do we judge things rationally. Instead, we often allow other people's judgments and categories to be used in lieu of our own. We accept the inaccurate and agenda-driven perceptions of others and use them as a shortcut to thinking things through on our own. Humility offers us an alternate way to approach life and people, by pointing out the wisdom of suspending judgments and by pointing out the potential pitfall that arises when overcategorizing various aspects of life.

On The Odd Apparent Disconnect Between Religiousness and Intelligence

There are a great many odd and peculiar ideas in our world. Recently, I was pondering one of the most odd of all of them. Even just the other day, someone responded to one my posts with the entirely off-topic comment:

You seem so intelligent, Silas, therefore, your religiosity puzzles me.

My initial thought upon reading such a comment was, "How could I possibly be intelligent and not be religious?" Of course, the simple fact is that I couldn't be both intelligent and non-religious. There are a great many people who can be intelligent and yet non-religious, but I most certainly am not one of them. Yet, there, in precisely that paradox, is the simple truth revealed. Intelligence has very little to do with the veracity of one's beliefs. Intelligence may be correlated with the complexity and depth of one's worldview, but never with the correctness thereof. The intelligent mind takes the apparent facts that it is confronted with, and formulates the best possible explanation of those facts. Yet, the conclusions that are actually reached are inextricably dependent on the apparent facts that are observed and pondered.

In many ways, the human mind is like any other tool. If you give a man a hammer, he will be quite puzzled how to use it, unless he is also equipped with and familiar with nails. A screwdriver is quite a useless and perplexing tool to one who hasn't seen a screw. Similarly, intelligence is only a practically useful tool to those who are properly trained in how to use it. There are proper ways of thinking and improper ways of thinking. There are correct applications of the mind and incorrect applications. If one uses thinking only to justify erroneous conclusions, then one may be using one's mind, but the justifications that are made are in opposition to reason. If one uses thinking only to prevent future thinking, then one is using intelligence merely to destroy intelligence. For this reason, it is imperative that a person of intelligence not only be intelligent, but also have the wisdom necessary to properly use such intelligence.

Additionally, even supposing that one does possess the needed skills to properly use their intelligence, it remains that there must be suitable material to ponder and reasonable premises with which sound conclusions may be formed. Much as a hammer isn't especially helpful when one only possesses bent nails, and a screwdriver is of no help when one only possesses sheared screws, so intelligence is of little benefit when one is only equipped with faulty premises. And this is precisely the modern plight!

After all, in any case of inquiry, it is certain that there is only one right explanation of a thing, while there are a vast array of wrong explanations. If we were to inquire into why apples fall off trees towards the earth, there are a near infinite number of possible explanations that could be given. Perhaps apples like to be nearer to tree trunks than to tree leaves. Perhaps, apples are overly warm from being in the sun and are drawn towards the cool of shadier places. Perhaps, apples are migratory creatures who seldom stay near their birthplace. Yet, despite the fact that there are a near infinite number of possible explanations, there is one only possible explanation that is both plausible and true. Hence, whenever explanations are offered, there are always infinitely more possible fallacious explanations than true ones. In practice, there are always more real faulty explanations than true ones.

Due to the rise of advanced civilization and the connecting of the globe, ideas have spread faster than at any time prior in human history. The past three hundred years, in fact, have given rise and voice to a variety of major ideas and have propagated them broadly among minds, both great and small. Unfortunately, as error is more plentiful than rightness and lies are more plentiful than truth, many of the ideas that have been broadly accepted are fallacious. More than just being fallacious, a good many of them have more than a quantum of insanity about them. The explanations of many things are, as far as they go, logical and consistent enough. However, that which some such theories (like materialism) leave unexplained is broad enough in scope to leave the explanatory power of such theories utterly deificient. Alternately, that which other theories (like macroevolution) explain is far more than can possibly be deduced from the evidence. Most popularly held modern ideologies possess one of those two flaws: either they explain far too little, or they explain far too much.

Logic dictates that when proper syllogisms are used in conjunction with valid premises, the conclusions that follow are similarly valid. However, logic also dictates that even when using proper syllogisms, if the premises are invalid, the conclusions that logically follow are also invalid. The problem with modern thought is that much of our collective body of conclusions rest upon foundational conclusions and premises that are faulty, and provably so. Once a few faulty conclusions were reached and accepted as valid, they then began to be utilized as foundational premises for the derivation of further conclusions. Now, we find ourselves with an entire cathedral of thought, marvelously constructed, with remarkable ornamention. Yet, the cathedral is built upon a foundation of sand. Nearly a century has passed since we passed beyond what Francis Schaeffer termed the Line of Despair, where the abandonment of reason began in earnest, and hopelessness in any quest for truth became prevalent. In F. Scott Fitzgerald's first novel, This Side of Paradise, published in 1920, he brilliantly captures the essence of his generation with this memorable quote:

Here was a new generation, shouting the old cries, learning the old creeds, through a revery of long days and nights; destined finally to go out into that dirty gray turmoil to follow love and pride; a new generation dedicated more than the last to the fear of poverty and the worship of success; grown up to find all Gods dead, all wars fought, all faiths in man shaken...

That philosophical foundation, which we now call modern thought or existentialism, is founded on precisely those tenets. All Gods are dead, all wars have been fought, all faiths in man have been shaken. There is no ultimate answer to anything. Instead, there exist only disconnected fragments to be discovered. So it has come to pass that the intelligent minds of our day have fed and feasted upon such tenets and the ideological developments that have been built upon those tenets. Yet, we have not stopped long enough to consider whether our presuppositions are true. For this reason, the apparent disconnect between religiousness and intelligence now exists. No one can be intelligent, accept the modern premises, and be religious. Simply stated, if the premises accepted by modern society are valid, then it is thoroughly irrational and unintelligent to be religious. The problem, however, is not one of religion or intelligence, but rather of the premises accepted by modern society. G.K. Chesteron aptly describes such a modern tendency towards blind acceptance of highly debatable tenets, in his book, The Everlasting Man:

...but this habit of a rapid hardening of a hypothesis into a theory and of a theory into an assumption has hardly yet gone out of fashion.

Statements are made so plainly and positively that men have hardly the moral courage to pause upon them and find that they are without support.

With each passing year, as those questionable inferences continue to be taken for granted, the pathways of intelligence and religiousness appear to grow even further apart. Yet, the conflict was never between religiousness and intelligence. The wedge that divdes the two is the great body of faulty assumptions that underlie the entire worldview of contemporary Western society. The intelligent but gullible mind of today is logical and rational enough, but since such a mind has a great many misconceptions which are perceived as facts, such a mind is also one that rejects religion prima facie. The intelligent but skeptical mind has either reached the conclusion that religion and mysticism are a necessary part of sane human existence, or yet remains in a state of intellectual limbo. There is no true disconnect between intelligence and religiousness. The apparent division between the two is merely an illusion, widely propagated by misplaced faith in tenets and principles which are highly debatable, at best, or provably false, at worst.

Constructed Desires

Recently, a certain question has surfaced in a number of different ways. It's a perplexing question and not an easy one to answer. In many ways it is a very human question, which relies heavily upon epistemology. In setting up this question, it's important to note a few things. First of all, like it or not, we are all, to a greater or lesser extent, a product of our culture. We do not exist in a vacuum, but receive constant feedback and suggestions from others. Second, we are highly susceptible to suggestion, especially of the pervasive and consistent sort. Given these two things, how can any individual determine which desires of his are natural, and which are artificially constructed?

In the modern world, there exist entire career fields that are devoted to convincing people that they desire certain things. Your life is incomplete without a sleek, new car. Your beauty is seriously lacking unless you have the latest makeup products. You aren't sufficiently cultured unless you've read this book or seen that movie. If only you did this, bought that or lived there you would be happy and content. Of course, it's all a cleverly-contructed lie. But, it works. Because of the constant stream of things we're told, we begin to internalize some of these constructed desires. It's not especially hard to know what you desire. You might think, "I wish I had a different job." Or perhaps its, "I would be happier with a more attractive girlfriend/boyfriend." Maybe it's more innocuous like, "I really want a Pepsi." In most cases, you probably do actually desire whatever you think you desire. But, would you desire whatever it is, if you were simply left to your own devices? Another way to ask it is, it your desire a genuine and natural one, or an artificial and constructed one?

The easiest answer is simply to say that all desires are natural. I want a Pepsi because I actually enjoy it immensely. I want a high-paying job at a good company because that would actually satisfy me. I want to wear nice clothes because I enjoy dressing well. But, this answer can't be quite right. After all, both individual tastes and collective tastes are subjective. What is considered a good job varies from person to person, and even varies in its social status perception from one group to the next. To some, being a Hollywood actor is a very prestigious and desirable job. To others, Hollywood actors, while an understandable part of society, are a bit of a joke; they are viewed as people to be pitied rather than envied. Often our individual preferences conform fairly consistently to the preferences of our various social groups. You avoid certain activities, brands or items because of what your peers would think. You tend towards certain activities, brands or items because they are positively perceived by your peers. Obviously, there are a good many desires that are socially-constructed or socially-modified, rather than being natural.

Contrarily, it is similarly clear that not all desires are socially-constructed. Even when doublethink occurs, there is always some underlying natural desire. Though feminism may teach that women can be quite happy and satisfied in pursuing a career-centric life and eschewing relationships, the innate hard-wired desire of women to raise a family and find meaning through a romantic relationship is something that will inescapably emerge, either when there is still hope or too late. Though relentless advertising may have subconsciously linked thirst with a desire for soft drinks, the underlying thirst is still a natural desire. Though the latest technological fads may seem to promise to be the final gadget you'll need to be happy, a promise which it will not fulfill, the desires for satisfaction and happiness are natural ones. Though many natural desires are diverted or distorted, they still exist on some level and, in their purest form, are completely valid.

It is quite evident that, for the modern person, their desires are a convoluted mixture of natural and artificial desires. The artificial desires almost always promise more than they can deliver. This perpetuates an endless chain of striving, while the dangling lure of satisfaction always remains just barely out of reach. They are deceitful desires. Yet, because of social indoctrination and exposure to the ceaseless barrage of lies, we either falsely hope that the next thing will deliver the satisfaction we seek, or we despair in believing that there is no satisfaction to be found. Blind pursuit or hopeless resignation are not the answer. If there is to be freedom and contentment it must come from cutting through the lies and clinging to the truth. That is no easy task, but it is a necessary discipline if we wish to have contentment and happiness.

In order to be free from the culturally-contructed discontent that permeates our minds, we must be able to separate our natural desires from our artificial ones. We must deny the false belief that having newer or better things, people or circumstances in our lives will bring contentment. Contentment is found only in a consistently practiced attitude of gratitude and in the spiritual discipline of resisting the impulse towards self-gratification. Only once we intentionally climb down off the hedonic treadmill and stopping concerning ourselves with social acclaim and approval will it be possible to be content. It's not an easy task, but it is the only way to be freed from the overwhelming drive towards the next thing that promises meaning and satisfaction. A prettier girl, a new hobby, a bigger house or more vacation hours won't really bring the happiness they promise. Contentment will. But it's a discipline, and quite a challenging one at that. It's one that I struggle with daily.

In Defense of Stereotypes

In these days, outside of the context of jokes, there seems to be much public aversion to stereotypes of all sorts. There also is a great deal of misunderstanding about generalizations. The common aversion to stereotypes and the reflexive inclination to apply needless disclaimers to generalizations seem to be related issues that stem from a fundamental misconception about how the world works and about how the human brain functions.

A stereotype is, "a commonly held public belief about specific social groups, or types of individuals." Definitionally, a stereotype is more generally accepted than a mere generalization. Apart from that, all of the standard limitations that apply to generalizations also apply to stereotypes. Namely, that there are always exceptions, and that the strength of a stereotype is determined by how consistently it correlates with reality.

Generalizing is a necessary and useful component of human thought. It is what enables us to contemplate the world, and it is what differentiates human thought from computer processing. Computers process information on the basis of established and invariable rules. Because of this, computers are very effective at processing information that requires linear processing or computation. Computers excel at adding number, performing queries, retrieving data and manipulating information sets. However, computers are generally quite weak at pattern recognition. Pattern recognition is something that humans excel at, precisely because we generalize.

If you show a person three different bowls, they are able to easily internalize the concept of what constitutes a "bowl." From that point on, if you present that person with any sort of bowl, regardless of color or shape, they will consistently be able to recognize the object presented as a bowl, even if they have never been told that the object specifically presented is a bowl. Likewise, suppose a person is presented with a lemon, a lime and a orange and taught that all of these fruits are citrus fruits. When you present the person with an apple, they will correctly deduce that it is not a citrus fruit. When you present the person with a grapefruit, they will note the vast array of similarities to the other citrus fruits and correctly categorize it as a citrus fruit. This cognitive pattern recognition is intimately tied to the human capacity to generalize.

In fact, all human critical thinking skills rely upon the cognitive ability to generalize. Generalization is used in problem-solving, in object-identification, in answering questions, in envisioning new approaches, in creating new things and in developing heuristics. In interacting with the world, we interact with objects, people and challenges by using generalizations. Proper cognitive processing is a necessary prerequisite to performing proper actions.

If we threw away mental generalizations, then we would be unable to function in our world. For example, let us suppose that I learned to program on my computer at home. When I go to work and am given a workstation and told to program an application, I would be unable to do it if I assumed that this strange box in front of me was entirely dissimiliar from my computer at home. I would be unable to program if I assumed that different computers require utterly different types of programming. If I threw out all generalizations, then I would have to re-teach myself everything from the ground up, since I would assume that all my previous knowledge only applies to the highly limited set of conditions under which it was learned. It is quite impossible to function in the real world without generalizing.

Similarly, a stereotype about a specific social group is simply a commonly held generalization about how individuals in such a group appear, act or think. There are many possible examples of stereotypes. Women are short. Blacks have dark skin. Corporate executives are highly-paid. Young men drive fast. As with any generalization, a stereotype may be strong or weak. A stereotype that is nearly always true is a strong stereotype, and therefore is more useful than a weaker stereotype. A stereotype itself is simply a statement that describes how things appear. Also, it is important to note that there is nothing intrinsically judgmental about using a stereotype. If I say that women are short, my statement may be valid or invalid, but it casts no judgment on the fact. I haven't said whether it is good or bad for women to be short. The only legitimate question is whether my stereotype accurate reflects reality.

Now, usage of a stereotype may depict an unpleasant truth. If I say that lawyers are greedy, the proper question is not whether I am judging lawyers but whether or not my statement is generally true. If I say that women are romantically irrational, it is of no use to jump all over me for stating such a thing. The proper question to ask is simply what precisely I mean, and whether or not my observation is generally true. If the stereotype matches reality, then my statement is true, regardless of the implications of such a truth.

Unfortunately, some people have a relexive aversion to all stereotypes. They are more than happy to dismiss any unpleasant truths simply because they are stated as a generalization or because they express a stereotype. This is an cognitive error. Last week, in response to a statement I made about men and women, someone responded:

Saying that all men are goal-oriented and all women are relationship-oriented is a gross generalization that can't be taken seriously. Haven't we been over this before?

That something is a generalization or even a "gross generalization" has no bearing on its veracity. The question is not whether stating that men are goal-oriented is a generalization or not--of course it is! The question is whether or not it matches reality. If it matches reality, then it is an accurate generalization. If it is commonly held and correct, then it is an accurate stereotype. This vital distinction is lost on those who emotionally react to all generalizations and stereotypes.

Just as generalizations are necessary for accomplishing tasks and interacting with the world, stereotypes are necessary for guiding personal interactions. By categorizing people and create mental depictions of those categories, we are able to develop useful heuristics for how to deal with various sorts of people. One should interact with women differently than one interacts with men. One should interact with friends differently than one interacts with teachers. One should interact differently with strangers than with family members. One should treat lawyers differently than firemen. This is common sense. Common sense declares that stereotypes are a very useful way to establish a metnal framework for relating to any new person.

To throw out stereotypes when dealing with people is as dangerous as throwing out generalizations when approaching tasks. If I meet a new girl and I assume that she is entirely different from any other person I have ever met before, then I will be absolutely clueless as to how to treat her. If I throw out all assumptions then I cannot even assume she speaks the same language as I do, nor that she gets hungry and eats food, nor that she is even a human being. Instead, in order to relate to her at all, I must assume that she is mostly similar to other American girls her age. Though there certainly will be some differences, the differences will be fairly minor and the applicability of stereotypes will be nearly comprehensive. 11 Minutes has written an insightful series on this very topic. He persuasively argues that no-one is as unique as they think they are.

Therefore, it is evident that stereotypes are useful and necessary for informing social interaction and social analysis both on the personal and cultural levels. To reject stereotypes simply because they are stereotypes is to commit an error in logic that will consistently lead to poor ways of interacting or, in rare cases, an ignorance-based passivity. There is no intrinsic danger in the use of generalizations and stereotypes. There is great danger in whimsically or categorically rejecting them.

If there is one danger related to stereotypes, it is the error of inaccurate stereotypes. If a stereotype does not generally correlate with reality, then it is a commonly held misconception. Misconceptions are dangerous since they constitute a distorted view of reality. The danger of inaccurate stereotypes, then, is not that they are stereotypes; the danger of inaccurate stereotypes is that they are inaccurate. The danger of inaccuracy is a large one, and one which serves as the basis for nearly all fundamental worldview differences. Inaccurate views of the facts is what causes the divide between Catholics and Protestants, feminists and traditionalists, conservatives and progressives, capitalists and socialists and nearly any other ideological schism you can recall. People fundamentally disagree over what is observed. When such disagreements occur, at least one of the views must be incorrect. The danger of inaccuracy is an epistemological issue and is by no means limited to the confines of stereotypes.

We are left with the conclusion that stereotypes and generalizations are both useful and necessary for thinking about our world. They are useful and necessary for interacting with people, solving problems, dealing with new situations, advocating social change, and encouraging people to be true to their natures. The sole danger in stereotyping or generalizing is simply that they may be inaccurate. Since this is a danger that inescapably applies to all of life and perception, it is not a danger unique to generalizing, and therefore is by no means a reason to oppose the usage of stereotypes. On this basis, the only rational and reasonable recourse is for stereotypes and generalizations to be readily stated and utilized for the purposes of understanding, discussing and relating to social groups. The common modern aversion to stereotypes and the reflexive desire to add excessive disclaimers is irrational, unreasonable and actively harmful, since it inhibits frank discussions and the quest for truth.

A False Fallacy - Argument from Bias

For quite some time I have been surprised about the remarkable popularity of a certain misconception. There are a good number of people who seem to hold the strange idea that a person who is biased is less trustworthy than a non-biased person and that a biased opinion is less credible than a non-biased opinion. Such people have essentially created a new category of logical fallacy, by which they can dismiss arguments and statements made by biased individuals. For example:

Person A: Public schools are institutions that primarily exist as a means of governmental indoctrination.

Person B: You're just saying that because you don't like governmental institutions, therefore your assertion is false.

Despite that fact that some people regard statements made by biased persons as less credible than statements made by non-biased people, the fact remains that bias itself has no bearing on the validity of an assertion or argument. In fact, I would suggest that biased individuals are more likely to present truthful, detailed and accurate cases for things than either non-biased individuals or mildly-biased individuals.

A biased person is simply one with a mental tendency or inclination towards something. For example, if one prefers chocolate ice cream to vanilla, that is a form of bias. Similarly, if one holds the opinion that, on average, men are more intelligent than women, that is another form of bias. Bias is simply an opinion that leans in one direction and not in another. However, the fact that a person is biased has absolutely no bearing on validity of their opinion. It might be true that, on average, men are more intelligent than women, yet the mere fact that a person holds such an opinion does not affect the validity of such an opinion. Completely independent of any opinions held by anyone, the statement itself is either true or false. An examination of the relevent evidence is the most rational way to determine the validity and accuracy of any assertion.

The rejection of a idea because of its source, rather than its merit, is itself a common fallacy, known as the genetic fallacy. As such, those who reject the opinions of another simply because of alleged bias are the ones who are committing the logical fallacy. Bias has no bearing on logical cohesiveness of an argument nor of the validity of the postulated supporting evidence. To dismiss an argument prima facie without considering its merits simply because the argument or its presenter appears biased is to make a common logical fallacy.

Moreover, in further consideration, it would seem that a strong bias is more likely to result in more credible and meaningful arguments in support of a given thing. One who is only slightly biased is much more likely to rely on fanciful and invalid reasoning to support their opinion than someone who is more strongly biased. For example, suppose a man recently purchased a new Ford automobile, and yet isn't fully convinced that he made the best decision. He is only slightly biased in favor of his new car. As such, if you ask him why he thinks the Ford was the best choice, he will offer whatever feeble reasons he can, such as "It's a great value for the price,” “The color is really vivid,” It gets better mileage than competing cars," yet he remains not completely internally sold on the idea that his new Ford is really superior. His rationalization hamster is working hard to justify his choice to himself and others.

However, one who is strongly biased need not construct fanciful reasons in support of his choice. The musician who has purchased a brand new 5-string bass guitar and is fully knowledgable about its merits and imperfections is able to present a solid case for why it is a better choice than other similar models. He need not embellish the facts, since the raw facts alone support his choice. He will say, “My bass was absolutely the best I could purchase for less than $1000. It has received favorable reviews from over 200 satisfied customers. It has a build-in active equalizer. There is plenty of room in between the strings, making it easy for slap bass techniques. It normally retails for $1500, yet I bought it on sale for only $700. The body of the guitar made from natural cut Alder wood helps give the tone more sparkle than other models.” He is biased in favor of his new guitar because he is utterly convinced, by the simple facts alone, that his bass guitar best meets his musical needs.

As such, whenever I seek to find out the truth about something, I always look for someone who is strongly biased in favor of it. If I were seeking to find a religion that is practical and matches reality, I wouldn’t ask a Muslim what he thought about Buddhism, since he clearly remains unconvinced of the Buddhist worldview and therefore probably won’t offer good reasons for why I should accept Buddhism. But, a dedicated Buddhist monk, the most biased person possible, would be able to best present a sound argument for why I should accept his way of seeing things, since he truly believes that Buddhism is the most truthful and meaningful religion. Likewise, if I am looking to a buy a CD by an artist I haven’t listened to before, I would go to a dedicated fan of the band and ask his opinion about which album is best, and why. He will happily explain the many merits of his favorite album, and I will be able to judge whether I would enjoy it for similar reasons or whether he likes certain aspects of the music that I don’t enjoy as much. The critic, having disliked the album after listening to it only once, simply won’t be as familiar with the material and won’t be able to offer equally well-constructed reasons, either favorable or unfavorable, for why I should or shouldn’t buy a certain album.

Similarly, it is easiest for a salesman to sell a product that truly is of superior quality. While it certainly isn’t impossible to sell a product by lying to a customer and convincing them that a product is better than it is, it is far easier to sell a product by telling the truth about it, so long as the product itself possesses sufficient merit. The second way also never results in disillusionment, product returns or angry customers, whereas utilizing deception is a sure way to harm one’s business in the long run.

Or, in another example, there are many skeptics who doubt the authenticity of the Gospels because all of the authors of the Gospels are, quite clearly, strongly biased in favor of Jesus. These people seem to think that this bias would lead the apostles to construct clever falsehoods and embellish the truth in order to convince people of Jesus’ divinity. However, it would seem to a more reasonable assumption that because the apostles were so strongly convinced of what they had seen and heard, that they would accurately report the facts, knowing that the facts alone are compelling enough to convince a person that Jesus is divine. Their willingness to die rather than recant their faith in Jesus would further support such a hypothesis. Why would a person willingly die for a lie?

In any case, regardless of whether a strongly biased person is more likely to be honest and accurate or not, it still remains quite clear that to claim that "Arguments from Bias" are intrinsically fallacious is a logical error of its own. Neither the opinion of a single person nor of a collection of people has any bearing on the truth of their claims. A prima facie rejection of an argument or claim simply because of its author’s bias is a violation of the rules of logic and a perfect example of committing the genetic fallacy. The odd idea that bias leads to untruthfulness is neither a logical nor a rational hypothesis.

Positive Thinking Need Not Be Blind

Last week, I wrote a post postulating that a person's outlook on life is the primary determinant of their experience of life. Recently, Talleyrand wrote a post voicing his opposing opinion. Rather than nitpicking over a few unsupported assertations elsewhere in his post, I'm simply going to focus on his primary contentions with such a mindset. Fundamentally, he objects to the idea that a person's outlook on life determines the quality of their life. His first objection to such a view is that magical thinking, as he calls it, necessarily entails an ignorance or denial of reality. He refers to this way of perceiving events and situations as blind optimism.

While I am a firm believer in positive thinking, I do believe that there is a major danger in ignoring reality or denying unpleasant truths. Blind optimism and blind pessmism are equally deadly. In one case, one blindly believes that nothing can or will go wrong--this unswervingly leads to taking foolish risks and crashing up against unexpected and unanticipated negative consequences. In the other case, one blindly believes that nothing can or will go right--this leads directly to hopelessness, despair and unfounded cynicism. If magical thinking truly is inescapably tied to a blindly optimistic paradigm, then Talleyrand's objection would be the silver bullet that soundly vanquishes such false hope.

However, there is no necessity that one live in denial or ignorance to adopt a positive attitude towards life. It is difficult, though certainly not impossible, to embrace painful events and ruinous situations with both eyes wide open, recognizing the reality of the pain and yet not succumbing to resignation, cynicism or despair. It is blindness to foolishly believe that nothing bad will happen. Yet, it takes bold faith and courage to face suffering with a smile. It takes a transcendent perspective to realize that often trials and suffering are helpful occasions to reveals weaknesses of character and bring greater strength. It takes a lion-hearted individual to be undeterred and undaunted even in the face of torture or death. This precise attitude is one that is repeatedly encouraged by the pages of Scripture and exemplified by the apostles and countless Christian martyrs.

My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience. But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing. (James 1:2-4)

I have a recent example from my own life about how positive thinking need not be blind. Last September, my apartment was robbed, and the theives stole over $2500 worth of stuff that I owned. While I could have been bitter about the whole affair, I honestly wasn't especially set back by the occurrence. Objectively, the robbery cost me a lot of money and time, as well as being a major inconvenience. However, in adopting the view advocated by Scripture, I chose to be grateful for what I still had, and to use the incident as a springboard for character-growth. Since my happiness is not rooted in my possessions, I could honestly say, "All things considered, I think the whole robbery might have been a win-win scenario." I penned those words just six days after the robbery. Positive thinking means that one must take in suffering and loss with a broad-angle perspective. When you simply realize that the very worst things that can happen to you aren't that bad, then your soul is free to embrace even the painful parts of life with joy and gratitude. Of course, my example is but a frail and pitiful one compared to someone who has truly suffered.

Richard Wurmbrand, a Romanian pastor who was brutally tortured for his faith, was a shining example of holiness, positive thinking, courage and faith in God. Regarding his time in chains, he writes: "It was strictly forbidden to preach to other prisoners, as it is in captive nations today. It was understood that whoever was caught doing this received a severe beating. A number of us decided to pay the price for the privilege of preaching, so we accepted their terms. It was a deal: we preached and they beat us. We were happy preaching; they were happy beating us—so everyone was happy." What a bold and fearless statement that is! If you but read a fraction of the stories of his imprisonment and torture under the Romanian Communist regime, you will see how much he suffered, and how he consciously and willingly suffered it all. Richard Wurmbrand undeniably demonstrated positive thinking and an incredible faith in God, yet never was he in denial of the very real persecution that he endured.

To believe that everything will turn out well, one must have a clear criteria for what it means for things to turn out well. If, for everything to be good, one must continually be blessed with material wealth, bodily health and a lifestyle of comfort, then denial of reality or discontentment is certain to result. However, if one adopts a posture of humility and gratefulness, then even with nothing but dry herbs and tattered rags there can be near infinite joy. If one's affections are fixed upon the pleasures the world offers, then happiness will ever be elusive. However, if one follows Jesus' advice to "lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal," (Matthew 6:19) then it does not matter how little or much one has, how wealthy or poor one is, how blessed or how tortured one is. When Christ is your surpassing treasure, the promise of God given to us by Paul will never fail, "And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose." (Romans 8:28)

The real question that must be asked is, "What is your foundation for happiness?" If your joy rests on that which is transitory and temporal, then your emotional state will be as chaotic as the situations and circumstances of your life. Trying to put on a smiley face with such a foundation necessitates a blind ignorance or a willful denial of that which is unpleasant. However, with a transcendent perspective that welcomes trials and suffering as opportunities for character growth, no such blindness is needed. When one values spiritual freedom, integrity, patience and perseverence more than happiness, then even disastrous incidents and cataclysmic events cannot effectively dampen one's joy. Emotional security and freedom come through valuing that which is most valuable and most intransitory. Cynical resignation, emotional numbness and denial of reality are all equally unhealthy ways to try to maintain emotional equilibrium. Only those who accept and embrace life as it is, with all its pleasures and pains, with all its ecstasy and agony, are able to maintain a consistently positive perspective while remaining fully conscious of all that is.

Therefore, while I agree with Talleyrand that blind optimism is a deadly perspective, to be avoided at all costs, I also would like to point out that blind pessism is equally deadly, since it paints the entire world as darker and more soul-crushing than it truly is. I have to wonder whether his lack of recognition that a positive perspective need not be mere blind optimism is simply a mental oversight, or whether it illustrates a blind pessism and a lack of emotional security. To deny the darkness of life or to deny the goodness in life are both forms of willful blindness. A balanced individual will always recognize and accept the good and bad in everything. A spiritually mature person is able to fully feel and experience both pain and pleasure without becoming numb to either and without becoming either overly cynical or adopting a false facade of happiness.

Christianity and Moral Authority

The strength of an appeal to moral authority (as with any other appeal to authority) lies in the validity of the claims of the authority. Since a logical argument is as strong it is presuppositions, an appeal to authority is as strong as the authority is.

The moral authority of a person or organization does depend on their foundational morality. In the case of the Church or Christians, their moral authority is not intrinsic and self-derived, but is derived from God’s moral authority.

The Christian presuppositions then are:
1. The God declared by Christianity exists
2. God has communicated to humanity truly

The conclusion is:
3. All humans are morally bound to follow God’s mandates

Concerning any particular moral claim made by an individual or organization, the only real question is: “Is this person or organization correctly declaring what God has spoken?” If such an entity correctly declares God’s truth, then their appeal to moral authority is valid. If such an entity perverts, denies, confuses or misrepresents God’s position, then their appeal to authority is invalid.

Christianity itself does encourage questioning what is taught and going to the source (the Bible) rather than blindly accepting the teachings of pastors, priests and preachers. Acts 17:11 says, “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” The principle expressed is that while whatever God says is definitely true, it is crucial to ensure that no entity is misrepresenting God’s position on a matter.

Creative Energies and the Artist

Recently, my sister and I were discussing what it means to be an artist, and what it's like to have an artistic perspective of the world. Following our talk, she wrote a great blog on the subject. As I was thinking more about some things that make an artist unique, I stumbled across another fascinating realization. While some artists are extremely focused and narrow in their forms of artistic expression, some artists use various mediums to express themselves. There are advantages and disadvantages of both sorts of artists. Multi-media artists, who have several means of creative expression, often have a broader creative vision and sometime have broader-scope insights into life, as well as having added flexibility in how they choose to express themselves at a given time or to a specific audience. Single-media artists, who express themselves primarily through one form of creative expression, generally do not have as much breadth of insight, but their focus on one form of expression often results in greater mastery of their preferred method of art. Their dedication can lead them to excel at their preferred form of art. Most artists that I know, however, do not solely fit one category or the other. Instead, there is typically some sort of balance between the two, with a bit of an emphasis on breadth or an emphasis on dedication.

As an aspiring renaissance man, I am definitely a multi-media artist with several major interests and artistic outlets. In seeking to develop my various faculties and talents, I often have to prioritize my uses of energy. As much as it might be desirable to have a never-ending source of creative energy, the simple truth of the matter is that there is a limit to how much creative energy a person has, and how much time can be spent pursuing art. All artists recognize this truth. Sometimes you have seemingly limitless ideas, yet there is simply never quite enough time to bring all of them to fruition. Other times, you have the desire to do something creative, and the time needed to do it, but lack the necessary energy. The first part seems quite intuitive to me, yet the second part struck me especially strongly last Friday. Last week, I spend a lot of time in the studio, producing and recording a new song that I wrote a few weeks ago. While finishing the song and releasing it was quite a fulfilling process, I also felt that I had significantly less creative energy remaining to engage in other creative endeavors. Writing is another creative outlet that I much enjoy. However, when Friday came around and I sat down to write, I found that though I had the desire to write, and though I had a couple of topics that I felt inspired to write about, I was completely lacking in creative energy. I could tell that even trying to write for 3 or 4 hours would hardly be sufficient for me to write even a mediocre post about any of the things I wanted to write about. The energy to write a post bursting with inspiration and creativity simply wasn't there. Since mediocrity is something that I never settle for, I didn't bother writing anything at all.

This brought me to a simple realization: just as human beings have a limited amount of physical energy to expend during a day, we also have a limited amount of creative energy. The second, a more profound realization, is an expansion on the first: multi-media artists are more likely to hit their energy limits than single-media artists, since multi-media artists typically have more ideas that they seek to realize. For this reason, proper priorization is vital for multi-media artists. While lost or wasted energy for a single-media artist only affects one discipline, lost or wasted energy for a multi-media artists affects all of their artistic disciplines. This fact presents one more insight to be gleaned: the importance of proper prioritization and efficiency rises proportionally with the number of artistic outlets an artist has.

Multi-media artists, because of their multiple artistic disciplines, are capable of higher overall creative output, because they typically have more active sources of inspiration, and because they are more likely to utilize their creative energies to the fullest. Single-media artists are capable of higher-quality output, and higher quantities of output in their primary artistic field, although their overall artistic output will generally be somewhat lower than the multi-media artist, due to having fewer active sources of inspiration, and less incentive to fully utilize all of their creative energy. This offers artists an interesting choice of which method to pursue. Both types methods have their own advantages and disadvantages. There are the Ludwig Beethovens of the world, who are renowned for their lifelong pursuit of one creative field, and there are the Leonardo Da Vincis of the world, who are known for their sublime contributions to numerous fields of life. There are the Adam Smiths of the world, who completely revolutionize a single field, and the Isaac Newtons of the world, who make notable strides forward in several fields of study.

What is your natural artistic tendency? Do have one favorite form of creative expression that dwarfs all others? Or, do you have several means of creative output, accompanied by the desire to hone your skills in each artistic discipline?

Two Prevalent Forms of Reductionism

As humans, we conceptualize our world. Since reality is as vast and complex as it is, we create mental categories and models to explain how our universe works and how we should function within it. Both categories and models are very useful, and both are indispensible for finite creatures capable of abstraction. However, due to the fundamentally limited nature of models, sometimes we overlook or ignore crucial information. The best models in any area of life are the ones that reduce a given interaction to a comprehensible series of components, while still retaining all of the critical elements of the interaction. The falling of an apple, for example, involves a vast number of physical interactions. However, such an interaction can be nearly perfectly explained by the Law of Gravity, which describes the physical attraction between objects. Though wind, friction, chemical reactions and intervening objects may alter the way an apple falls, gravity alone is able to explain the vital component of how and why an apple falls to earth. That is an example of a sound and pragmatic model.

Reductionism, on the other hand, is an attempt at explaining an interaction which ultimately leaves out one or more vital elements. It results in models that lack sufficient explanatory capacity, due to overlooking, ignoring or denying applicable truths. Any reductivistic paradigm, then, is a worldview that overlooks, ignores or denies vital truths. While this might seem like a purely academic topic, the forms of reductionism that I wish to discuss are anything but pedantic. In particular, there are two forms of reductionistic thinking that have major practical implications and impact numerous aspects of life. Of these two forms, women have a tendency to lean towards one sort of reductionism, while men are more inclined to lean towards the other.

Yesterday night, I was spending some time with a new friend that I just met. Alex is currently doing a bit of substitute teaching and is contemplating pursuing a teaching credential. We were chatting about some of his classroom experiences and he noted how superficial many kids are today. Often the seemingly smallest things that he did, said or even wore would profoundly impact his students' perspectives of him. One day he walked into class and several of the kids made remarks about his Converse shoes. They viewed him as a cool person, simply because of the shoes that he wore. In another classroom, upon entering he was immediately barraged with mostly innocuous questions (and a few less-innocuous ones). When one girl asked him if he was married, he held up his hand and asked, "Do you see a ring on my finger?" He didn't answer the question directly, since he felt that it wasn't really any of his students' business. Immediately, a few of the kids lost respect for him and commented about his answer being "all snooty." Alex and I then began discussing the possible reasons for why kids are so superficial these days. Attitudes and perspectives never emerge in a vacuum. They are always learned.

The reason some kids are very superficial is because they have adopted a form of reductionistic thinking that isn't confined to hall of high schools. Our culture, in many ways, has become very superficial. Many people view style and image not merely as important, but as nearly all-encompassing. This is Stylistic Reductionism. It is pervasive. It is a horribly flawed way of seeing the world, that leads to poor ways of interacting. You see this form of reductionism is the very ways people enslave themselves to social status, whether by wearing the latest clothes, driving nice cars, opting for endless cosmetic surgery operations, continually seeking high-status romantic partners, and refusing to associate with lesser-status people or social outcasts. In this sort of worldview, image is king. How one appears is more important than who one actually is. Public perceptions are more important than character. Presentation is far more important than substance. If someone doesn't seem attractive and interesting enough, then they aren't worth talking to or spending time with. It is a world of snap judgements and endless comparison; life is a perpetual masquerade. This is Stylistic Reductionism. In its overglorification of image and appearance it overlooks the necessity of substance.

The other form of reductive thinking, which is embraced by a very different sort of person, is Substantive Reductionism. It is the polar opposite of Stylistic Reductionism. Some people view image, appearance and style as completely unimportant. Instead, what matters is the essence of someone or something. A person's inward character is all that matters. Just have good character, and be yourself. What matters is simply how something functions, and not its aesthetics. You see this form of reductionism in people who are completely unconcerned with appearance, whether by dressing in a sloppy or frumpy manner, walking around in public with poorly groomed hair, having mannerisms that betray an indifference to how their actions are words are perceived, leaving their houses cluttered and messy, speaking articulately but seeming distant and unengaged with their body language, having their desks piled with reams of papers, and lacking an appreciation for art or beauty. In this sort of worldview, image is irrelevent. Because of that, there is little consideration given to social status or even social perception. People with this sort of thinking often have some difficulties in every area of life, whether in job-seeking, in dating, in fitting in with social groups, or anything else involving people. They also often lack an appreciation for aesthetics, and therefore miss out on an entire section of life. This is Substantive Reductionism. Its overemphasis on substance and the genuine essence of a thing or oneself leads to imbalance and completely overlooks the importance of style.

As it nearly always is, truth is a balance. Yes, it is true that image matters. Yes, it is true that substance matter. To focus solely on image is to become superficial and lose connection with oneself and the people in one's life. To focus solely on substance is to ignore the vital importance of grace, beauty and social tact. Those who embrace Stylistic Reductionism focus so much on status and appearance, that they often lose parts of their soul in the process and are unable to connect deeply with others. Such a person becomes a Chameleon, easily adapting to the present social group and conveying precisely the desired image, but never being true to the image conveyed. It is an eternal deception. Those who embrace Substantive Reductionism focus so much on being genuine and true to their ideals, that they often alienate others by expressing controversial opinions or judgmental thoughts without considering whether it is the appropriate place or time to express them. They are often unaware of the messages that their words, actions, posture and tone conveys to other people. The fact is, most people have a tendency to lean towards and value either style or substance more than its counterpart. Yet, the ideal perspective is a balance of the two which rightly recognizes both the importance of subtance and style, realizing that it is crucial for there to be a correlation between how something appears and how it actually is.

In many ways, Game Theory is a recognition of the Stylistic Reductionism of modern women. Women, being more naturally socially aware, have a greater tendency to embrace Stylistic Reductionism. They are very concerned with how they appear to others physically, intellectually and socially. Even their purchases are often heavily influenced by the desire for social approval. They care not only about who a man is, but how he presents himself and how he is perceived. One of the central truths offered by Game Theory is that women are, by nature, hypergamous. Their attraction for a man, whether a complete stranger or their husband of many years, is directly influenced by how he is socially perceived. Women want to be with a man who has status. Women want to be with a man who is respected as a leader of men and who is desired by other women. Hypergamy and valuing social status, image, appearance, style and connection are all good things. Stylistic Reductionism, however, is a perversion of those good things. Women are naturally hypergamous, but they are not naturally Stylistically Reductionistic. That is a new and infectious strain of cultural disease that permeates modern America because of the philosophical relativism of the day, which undermines and even denies substance, and because of the pervasive nature of visual media, which glorifies image through its ceaseless use of photo and video. We are an image-driven society, which apmlifies and distorts the natural propensity of women to be image-centric and status seeking. Such reductionism is one major pitfall that modern women incessantly tumble into. It is good to value status and social approval, but it is very dangerous to overvalue status and overlook the criticality of essence.

Similarly, Game Theory is an antidote to the Substantive Reductionism of modern men. Men, being more naturally logical and analytical, have a greater tendency to embrace Substantive Reductionism. Men are often more concerned with solving problems, overcoming challenges, and figuring things out than they are worried about connection and social perceptions. How it works is always a more pressing question than how it appears. What you are doing with a person is more pertinent than how you feel about whatever you're doing. Because of that, men often don't focus as much on aesthetics or appearance, either in their manner of dress, in their workspaces or even in their homes. Men tend to be either simple and conservative in how they dress, or somewhat sloppy and disheveled. A few of my younger brothers look more like ragged waifs than well-dressed boys, simply because they aren't concerned with how they appear. Likewise, in dating, many men think that just being a nice guy is enough to win a girl's heart. They properly recognize that character and heart are important. However, they also fail to recognize the importance of how they dress, how they present themselves, their body language, how they interact with people, what stories they tell and/or any number of other social behaviors. Game Theory is something that is developed by men to help other men become more socially aware and improve their ways of interacting with other. By studying Game Theory a man can understand the messages that are being conveyed by how he interacts with others, and can learn to read other people better. This is something that many modern men desperately need, especially because of the decline of patriarchy and the lessening involvement of fathers in the lives of their sons. Modern men are not taught to have a holistic worldview that recognizes and values the importance of image, social status, personality and style, in addition to the importance of character and essence. This directly affects men's success in numerous arenas of life.

Given that all of us have a tendency to overvalue either style or substance, it is critical to be aware of our own internal biases, so that we can avoid imbalance and the negative consequences of living a life of imbalance. While Stylistic Reductionism is more commonly a feminine mistake and Substantive Reductionism is more commonly a masculine error, there are certainly some men who overvalue image while neglecting essense and there are some women who overvalue functionality at the expense of beauty. Wisdom dictates that each of us should be aware of our own imbalances and seek to temper them by choosing to embrace a balanced perspective. Both substance and style are vitally importance. What a person or thing is, does matter. How a person or thing appears also matters. We must be sure to keep both in mind at all times. It is not enough for something to be good or to be true, it must also be beautiful. It is not enough for something just to be beautiful, it must also be good and true. Reductionistic thinking is very easy to do. But a proper model of our world acknowledges and appreciates the importance of both appearance and essense. Women are glorious because they do value status, image, appearance, and beauty. Men are glorious because they are practical and value the substance of people and things. Yet, we must be vigilant in order to avoid overlooking, ignoring or denying the truth and value of the other.

The End of Philosophy

Recently I had an intriguing conversation with a friend of mine. He is currently studying to earn his master's degree in philosophy, which is a topic that he took an interest in when he was halfway done with his undergrad degree, which was going to be in art. I've had an interest in philosophy for several years now and have quite enjoyed studying and discussing philosophy, so I was quite happy to have someone else to have lots of philosophical discussions with. We've had numerous conversations about everything from the various modern strains of existentialism, to the major worldview changes that were brought about by post-cartesian philosophy, to the expansiveness of sin as a social concept, to any one of our other deep and complicated debates. But, our latest conversation really struck me with a profound insight.

We were discussing how Wittgenstein's philosophies changed dramatically over the course of his lifetime. His early philosophical works focused on semantics and the importance of defining concepts clearly. But, his later works headed in a very different direction as he began to consider the ultimate goal of philosophy. One of the major ideas he presented is the concept that the goal of philosophy is simply to live life. More expansively, philosophy is a tool to be used to resolve challenging mental and conceptual conflicts and to find a worldview with practical implications that puts the mind to rest. Philosophy is only needed to resolve philosophical problems. In that sense, philosophy is not a goal unto itself but instead is merely a means to an end.

Interestingly enough, that sort of a conclusion about philosophy finds itself nearly unified with my own thoughts and ideas concerning philosophy. My ultimate test of any philosophy or worldview includes only two criteria. First, a philosophy must be consistent with the evidence of reality. Second, a philosophy must be practically applicable. As you can see, half of my criteria centers on the concept of practical applicability. It is for that reason that I call myself a practical philosopher. I only use philosophy to solve apparent problems, so that I can live confidently and consistently, and so I can show others the philosophical answers I have found so that they can do the same. In that regard, my purpose in utilizing philosophy is nearly identical to what Wittgenstein eventually decided it was for: to live life.

To that end, the study of philosophy isn't what it seems to be. Knowing philosophy doesn't make you smarter; it just fills your mind with a few more facts. Knowing a lot of philosophy is of no use unless you live well. Knowing little philosophy is no hindrance if you live well. What this means is that philosophy doesn't matter in the end. The entire goal of studying philosophy is the cessation of studying philosophy. One only studies philosophy so that one won't have to study it anymore. If philosophy is used for anything beyond this, then it ceases to become useful and simply becomes tedious, tiresome head-wrangling.

For too many modern people, philosophy has exceeded its rightful bounds and become exactly the sort of tedious, twisted, convoluted mind-wrangling that it was never meant to be. Last year I had an ethics professor who had exactly this sort of approach to philosophy. He was one of the kind of philosophers who values the process of inquiry and the endless discussions, but has an unhealthy disdain for answers. Never wanting to commit to any final answers, he also led his students in the endless circular quest for more answers and more answers, with a precommitment to ultimately ignore all of them. The books we read and movie clips we watched weren't being used to teach us how to live. They were being used to teach us that there are numerous points of view, which are all valuable and useful in their own right. But, to say that everything is an answer is to say that there are no answers. If 2+2=4 is correct, and 2+2=5 is correct, and 2+2=8 is correct, then there is no right answer to the math problem 2+2. If everything is right then nothing is right. By transgressing the natural bounds of philosophy, his form of philosophy became mind-twisting exercises in futility rather than equipping students to better ponder life and live well. This is a perversion of philosophy. Needless to say, I promptly dropped the class.

If the goal of philosophy is to live well, then in the end we are looking for a series of answers to practical dilemmas. In that regard, a systematic theology is the best possible set of answers to life. While it is certainly possible to seek answers to life's plethora of dilemmas one by one, having an entire set of answers to all of life's metaphysical complexities, moral problems and epistemic challenges is, if not correct, at least expedient. In that regard, Confucius' teachings are more valuable that all that Kierkegaard ever wrote. The teachings of Jesus Christ are far superior to all of Plato. Ghandi's life is more useful for showing us how to live than the entire works of Karl Marx. Knowing if taxes ought to be paid is a far more practical consideration than deciding whether there exists the perfect idea of bed, which is imperfectly conceptualized by a bed-maker and then imperfectly created by him; for we care nothing for perfect beds, but simply for sleep, whereas the question of paying taxes is a vital and practical one. Similarly, seeing a life that demonstrates the power of non-violent resistence is much more practically potent than being told that all of modern life is fundamentally a class struggle, between the haves and the have-nots. Information, unless actionable, is merely useless trivia for cocktail party conversations and crossword puzzles. For that reason, all good philosophy transcends itself and properly points a person towards living rightly.

And if a systematic theology presents answers to all the practical issues a person faces, and gives answers that are consistent with reality, then adherents of such a theology have no need for philosophy. It may be a fun diversion or a useful exercise in logic and rationality, but it is thoroughly optional. The secular humanist may need to spend his whole life seeking more answers, since he must seek them one at time with each new dilemma that arises. For the Christian, all of the answers to life are contained in the pages of Scripture. "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so", is both the foundation and the final conclusion of philosophy for a Christian. Upon that foundation rests answers to all the other multi-faceted perplexities of philosophy.

Returning to the main point of this blog, philosophy, utilized correctly, is simply the means to an end. The goal of philosophy is right living. Any other goal of philosophy leads to needless exercises in mental frustration. One only does philosophy so that he doesn't have to do philosophy anymore. The only reason a person becomes a philosopher is so that eventually he won't need to be a philosopher anymore. The end of philosophy is its own obliteration, because philosophy kills philosophy. For those who lack the answers, this happens slowly, perhaps taking more than a lifetime. For those who have found the answers, the death of philosophy is swift and sure. As the blood of philosophy is spilled, real life is no longer hindered by needless ponderation.

Preposterous Shaming Words: Narrow-minded

While there are certain times and situations where shaming may be appropriate, most attempts to verbally or socially shame another person are completely uncalled for. Today, during a discussion, someone referred to certain ideas as "narrow-minded." Strictly speaking, all that means is the the person in question didn't like the ideas. But, the word "narrow-minded" has very specific connotations attached to it, which turns such an expression from being one of simple personal distaste to verbal shaming based on the implications of a fixed standard. While the literal meaning of the term doesn't imply any shame, in today's world calling someone "narrow-minded" is a major insult, akin to calling someone a "racist," a "bigot," a "sexist" or a "homophobe." Why do we allow such a generic, yet connotation-laden word to be used? I don't know, but I certainly oppose it.

My reason for opposing it is that the word "narrow-minded" really doesn't mean anything at all. Allow me to explain. Strictly speaking, something that is narrow is limited or constricted. Therefore, narrow-minded simply means that an idea or belief is limited or constricted. Alternately, in colloquial usage, narrow-minded means that some idea or belief is inflexible, intolerant or prejudiced. As a culture, we have been conditioned to view such thinking as unreasonable and petty. We have been brainwashed into thinking of narrow-mindedness as a character flaw of the highest sort. However, simply a moment's consideration is required to dismantle this ridiculous perception. I must ask, which idea or opinion isn't narrow? Supposing that I believe the sky looks blue in the daytime, by definition my belief is exceedingly narrow. That I think the sky looks blue necessarily means that I do not think it is red, yellow, purpose, green, black, turquiose or maroon. Nor do I think that it is invisible. Similarly, my belief must be inflexible or it isn't a belief at all. If I am certain that the sky appears blue, then it would take a lot of arguing and persuading for me ever to consider changing such a belief. If I am so uncertain that I can be easily swayed, then I don't really believe the sky is blue at all. Therefore, so long as I think that the sky is blue, such a thought must intrinsically be both narrow and inflexible.

Allow me to utilize another example. Let us suppose that grape popsicles are my favorite dessert. If grape popsicles are my favorite, then it is necessarily true that no other dessert is my favorite. Key lime pie, chocolate chip cookies, rainbow sherbet and candy canes may be perfectly delicious, but none of them is my favorite. Only grape popsicles are. My taste is intrinsically narrow. Additionally, if my taste in desserts is too flexible, then the concept of favorite means almost nothing. If my favorite dessert changes ever day or two, then saying that grape popsicles are my favorite means nothing at all. Only if my preference for grape popsicles is fairly static does my preference carry weight at all. Therefore, favorites are intrinsically narrow and inflexible. Moving on to a more serious example, let us suppose that I believe murderers should be put to death. If I believe that murderers should be subjected to the death penalty, then it logically follows that I do not believe murderers should be paid to kill more people, go on vacations to Hawaii, or shop for clothes at my local Target. My belief that they should die necessarily excludes those things. Similarly, my belief must be relatively static or else it doesn't mean anything at all. My belief in the death penalty is by definition narrow and inflexible. Likewise, if you oppose the death penalty, then you believe that murderers should not be drowned, shot in the head, stabbed in heart, injected with lethal poison, nor electrified. Your opinion also is narrow, since it necessarily exlcudes a great many things, and it is inflexible, else you don't really oppose the death penalty. I could list a thousand more examples, but my simple point is this: all serious ideas, opinions, tastes and beliefs are necessarily narrow and inflexible.

Granted that all serious ideas, opinions, tastes and beliefs are necessarily narrow and inflexible, it logically follows that all is strictly meant by calling something "narrow-minded" is that it is actually a thought. Since all ideas are ideas, all opinions are opinions and all beliefs are beliefs, calling something "narrow-minded" means nothing at all. The fact that it is a word laden with connotations means that when you call something "narrow-minded" you are trying to shame the other person for holding an idea, simply on the grounds that it is an idea.

Although, there is one other way such a statement could be meant. Perhaps one is not complaining that an idea is narrow (since all ideas are), but that the given idea is narrower than it should be. For an idea to be narrower than it should be, there must exist a standard for acceptable and unacceptable amounts of narrowness. Unless this standard is fully stated and supported, then it is simply an unfounded accusation. But, it is an unfounded accusation that is usually used by people who have embraced modern political correctness and are attempting to use political correctness as the standard for any idea. In that sense, saying that someone is narrow-minded simply means that their beliefs do not conform to acceptable social norms. But why should an idea conform? Political correctness is tyrannical demagogic excrement. Political correctness is used as a shield for the fearful to live in denial of reality and socially shame others into doing the same.

Therefore, any reasonable and courageous person would do well to completely reject the idea that narrow-mindedness should be opposed or frowned upon. In its literal usage, narrow-mindedness is intrinsically unavoidance. In its colloquial usage by those who support the modern system, narrow-mindedness is generally something that should be supported and applauded, since "narrow-minded" individuals are the only ones courageous enough to step outside of the box, think for themselves, say what's on their minds and question popular consensus. As a non-conformist, I take pride in being called narrow-minded or having people object to certain ideas I have. Holding "narrow-minded" ideas is the only way to move towards reform, oppose democratic tyranny, and fight for liberty and justice. When I do dicuss ideas with people I disagree with, I use logic and rationality to oppose their ideas, and don't stoop to using cowardly tactics like simple name-calling and shaming. No reasonable, courageous, logical person should ever refer to another person or idea as "narrow-minded."

A Practical Rejection of Determinism

One of the longest running debates concerning human nature is whether or not people possess freewill. Though I have previously written concerning whether freewill and foreknowledge are mutually exclusive, until this point I have not written any sort of essay concerning whether people actually possess freewill, which is obviously an important issue. Are peoples' actions determined or predetermined by some external cause, such that people have no true control over their lives, or do people have the capacity to make real choices, and through those choices exert real control over various aspects of their lives and the world around them? That is the central question of this essay. Before we begin our analysis let us define the terms "determinism" and "freewill," let us establish a criteria for what qualifies as an acceptable answer to our inquiry, and let us set boundaries on the scope of the question.

Fundamentally, both freewill and determinism are philosophies that declare the ultimate determinant of human action. In that sense, both freewill and determinism recognize that there may be a large numbers of factors that influence any given human action. However, at some point, any action is taken or decision made (including a conscious or subconscious decision to refrain from acting) based on one final criteria. This is where freewill and determinism diverge. Determinism states that after all the factors have been taken into account, all human actions finally result from something external to a person. Freewill states that considering all factors, all human actions ultimately result from the basis of an internal, freely chosen decision. By "freely chosen," I simply mean that a person has the ability to choose to act or not act in any particular way. For a more in-depth analysis on which definitions of "free" seem to relate to human freewill, please read my sister's blog post on the topic.

Having defined both freewill and determinism, I also want to add a couple of brief clarifying notes. First, due to their definitions, freewill and determinism, in their pure forms, are mutually exclusive. That is, if human actions are internally determined, then they cannot simultaneously be externally determined. Likewise, if human actions are externally determined, then they cannot simultaneously be internally determined. Therefore, if freewill exists, determinism cannot be true. Alternately, if determinism is true, then freewill does not exist. Second, there is a third possible answer to our question. Though pure freewill and pure determinism are mutually exclusive, there is the theoretical possibility that a hybrid exists, such that people have freewill at certain times or regarding certain events, but that some actions are externally determined. A thorough analysis must consider this possibility. Third, there are many different sorts of determinism. Some people postulate divine determinism, where God controls the human soul and chooses peoples' choices for them, leaving them with no final volition. Some postulate biological determinism, where genetic code determines both biological traits and the choices that a person will choose to make. Some postulate forms of sociocultural determinism, where people's values, opinions and choices are determined by the sociocultural influences that shaped them during formative years. I am certain that there are other such forms of determinism. However, because the various types of determinism vary in quality, but not in effect, it is reasonable to place them all in the same overarching category, since all forms of determinism hold firmly to the tenet that human actions are externally determined.

Next, we must establish a clear criteria for what constitutes an acceptable answer to our inquiry. For any philosophy to be true and consistent with the real world, it must meet two criteria. First, it must fit the evidence. Second, it must be practically applicable. That is the criteria that will be used to decide whether people actually possess freewill, whether determinism reigns supreme, or whether there exists some hybrid of the two.

I hesitate to add a section solely to preempt those who will point out the obvious exceptions and extenuating circumstances that would cast my conclusion in a dubious light, but given the prevalence of those who would swiftly contribute irrelevant anecdotes and hypothetical situations rather than debate my thesis on a rational, evidential basis, it seems to be a practical necessity. When contemplating the question of whether humans possess freewill, we will limit the scope of the inquiry to normal, non-altered human capacity. As such, this inquiry is not concerned with whether physically or mentally impaired people are capable of making genuine choices, nor does it take into account those who are in physically, psychologically or spiritually altered states. Instead, for clarity's sake, our fundamental question is, "Do normal humans, operating in normal conditions, internally choose their own actions, or are their actions externally determined?"

The first criteria leads us to weigh the evidence for determinism and freewill. Since, volition is a very personal thing, which cannot be directly observed externally, let us first consider practical human experience. Whenever I take actions, I have the distinct impression that my actions are chosen by me, and are not externally compelled. Right now, I am convinced that I am writing this blog because I chose to. If I were to become bored, hungry or decide that my argument was weak, I am convinced that I could choose to cease typing and do something more entertaining, munch on a snack or take a break to clear my mind. There are no actions that I recall taking which seem to me to have been externally determined in any way. Supposing that this constitutes as evidence, all of my personal experience serves as evidence that freewill does in fact exist and that none of my actions are externally determined.

Now, the use of my personal experience as solid evidence is predicated on the assumption that my impressions and memories are correct and that my brain is functioning properly. It is entirely possible that I am deceived, uninformed or mistaken concerning the choices that I think I have made. If it can be conclusively determined that I am deceived, uninformed or mistaken concerning the choices that I think I have made, then my personal experience cannot be counted as sound evidence, and should be discounted. In fact, it is entirely possible that if determinism is true, I would be the final determinant of none of my actions and yet simultaneously be convinced that I do possess freewill. Supposing this hypothetical case were true, then it would quite impossible for me ever to know which of my actions are internally chosen and which are externally determined. Because of this, supposing this case were true, I would be incapable to find any evidence for it. If I am unable to find any evidence that both my actions are externally determined and that I am deceived into thinking that I maintain internal locus of control, then this hypothetical situation can be reasonably discounted under criteria #1, since there necessarily is a complete absence of evidence for such a case.

Therefore, having considered the alternate case, it is rational to assume that, given the present absence of evidence to the contrary, my personal experience can be counted as acceptable evidence since it stems from a sound mind. Similarly, I would like to submit your personal experience as evidence in favor of freewill, since I am convinced that you are consciously capable of making decisions to take actions, since you are consciously capable of refraining from such actions, and since in the normal course of life you are not aware of having taken any actions which were not also chosen by you. As I did for myself, I will also consider you to be of sound mind, and include your personal experience as acceptable evidence. If, for some reason, you consider your own mental state to be compromised, or your perceptions to be inaccurate, feel free to exclude your experiences from the evidence in favor of freewill.

Having examined the personal experience evidence for determinism and freewill, let us now consider the various sorts of external evidence. When observing the behavior of others, no one can directly ascertain whether actions taken by another person are done of their own volition or because of some external sort of determination. As such, when considering the actions of others, we can only hear their testimony concerning whether or not their actions are freely taken or externally determined. As such, any ordinary observation of the behavior of others will result in evidence of the same sort as the first category. Therefore, there are no new additions to our list of evidence from ordinary observations of the behavior of other people.

Concerning hard scientific evidence for determinism, some scientists have suggested that neuroscience provides clear evidence that a person does not ultimately have control over their own actions, but that instead, the biology of the brain means that the final determinant of human actions is the brain, which is formed by genetics and operates under the laws of biochemistry. There are numerous intellectuals and scientists who postulate that the discoveries made by neuroscience research serves as solid evidence that we live in a world of biological determinism, which would categorically disprove human possession of freewill. Joshua Greene, Jonathan Cohen, Daniel Dennett, Daniel Wegner, and many others hold the stance that freewill is an illusion based on the evidence of biology. However, there are several major problems with such arguments. First, as Lucretius of the Mises Institute points out in his brilliant essay concerning neuroscience and freewill, proponents of biological determinism mistakenly create a false dichotomy by suggesting that a person and a person's brain are separate entities. Second, even concerning what the evidence of neuroscience shows, there is no consensus about what it actually shows. For this reason there are a great many books which have been written in the past few years and many more which are being written. As neuroscience is a fairly new branch of science, it will be quite some time before there is a large enough body of research and enough scientific saturation to reach any sort of scientific consensus. Third, because neuroscience and indeed, all science, is categorically limited to the study of that which is empirical, all arguments in favor of biological determinism necessarily rest upon the premise that their exists no non-physical component of a person. Because of this inherent limitation, no neurological research can possibly establish or disprove the existence of freewill or a state of determinism so long as there may exist such a thing as a human soul or spirit. And, indeed, since there can be no empirical evidence supporting or refuting the existence of a human soul, the validity of any scientific evidence on the matter necessarily rests upon philosophical evidence or non-physical evidence of some sort. As such, there can be no conclusive evidence of biological determinism that is self-supporting. We see then, concerning any form of scientific evidence for or against freewill or determinism, none is self-contained, and therefore no acceptable scientific evidence has yet been discovered nor can ever be discovered concerning the existence of freewill. Because of the logically flawed nature of the present arguments in favor of biodeterminism, the lack of scientific consensus on the matter and the intrinsic limitations of the scope of neuroscience, no valid evidence for our inquiry can be admitted from the hard sciences.

Next, we must consider the evidence from sociology and psychology that pertains to our inquiry. There are some that argue that the choices people make are based on the social and cultural conditioning a person undergoes as part of growing up and functioning in a society. They argue that since one's decisions are, to a large extent, based on the results of past decisions, which often stem from the reaction of other people and the environment to one's choices, then all of one's decisions are not made freely, but are determined by the sociocultural environment that one lives in, which psychologically conditions people to behave and think in certain ways. Whether nature or nurture most dictates a person's potential and realization of such potential, sociological determinism suggests that all of a person's actions are ultimately based on their own prior choices and the response of their physical and social environments in response to such choices, which means that ultimately all of a person's choices are finally a result of operant conditioning, similar to Pavlov's dog. Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx are notable advocates of such theories, believing that people are ultimately slaves to their upbringing or their economic class, respectively. However, these sorts of theories, while interesting and even plausible, lack sufficient evidence to be considered conclusive. Though it is certainly possible that people are inescapably products of their own culture and that all human actions are determined by psychological and sociological forces, it has not been established that this is the case. While testing on animals has shown the power of operant conditioning, humans are very different sorts of creatures and are not as functionally limited, due to their established possession of higher-reasoning capabilities. For that reason, even people who have been psychologically conditioned to act certain ways because of their past, are capable of breaking the cycle and learning new patterns of behavior, either on their own or with the help of cognitive behavioral therapy. Given that there is much documented evidence of the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy, it is clear that while humans may learn certain patterns of behavior, they are also capable of unlearning them. Additionally, given the nature of sociology and psychology, though it is quite clear that social and cultural forces influence behavior, there is no evidence that people's decisions are completely determined by them. The existence of people who are non-conformers in all groups, regarding many aspects of life, even to their own detriment, would provide evidence that people are not solely molded and shaped by cultural and social forces. If it is granted that people's actions are not simply the result of social and psychological forces, then it cannot be clearly established that all people lack freewill, nor that all human decisions are sociologically or psychologically determined. If there is a case for sociological or psychological determinism of some form, it has not been sufficiently established. Additionally, due to the fact that humans are extremely complex beings, whose behavior often does not fit the predictive models of sociology or psychology, while it is reasonable to utilize such models to attempt to predict or explain human behavior, there is clear consensus that no one model in either category is empirically solid enough to make strong claims of any sort. For this reason, both sociology and psychology are considered soft sciences. As we are seeking only to admit solid evidence into our inquiry into freewill and determinism, no evidence from psychology or sociology can be considered acceptable.

Lastly, let us consider philosophical arguments that relate to the question of human freewill. Of these, there are more arguments for and against freewill than can be examined in detail in this paper. Though there are countless books, papers and resources written on the subject of philosophical arguments supporting or opposing determining, here is one by Norman Swartz that summarizes and analyzes a number of the most popular arguments on the subject. Among these are logical arguments in support of determinism, epistemic arguments in support of determinism, and causal arguments in support of determinism (which include the sorts of determinism that we examined in the last two paragraphs). Even in the realm of theology, there are countless proponents and opponents of divine determinism. These arguments rest either on the alleged incompatibility of freewill and foreknowledge (an epistemic argument), or on various unscriptural and illogical doctrines of God's sovereignty. The philosophical debate concerning determinism and freewill has been going on for over two thousand years and probably will not end anytime soon. However, given that suitable rebuttals have been written for every philosophical argument laid forth in favor of determinism, and also given that it is likely that a consensus will never be reached, we may either consider there to be a complete absence of evidence for determinism, or we may consider there to be a complete absence of evidence in support of both freewill and determinism. Since I am not presently aware of any arguments positively establishing the existence of human freewill, only of arguments showing that that there may be freewill, then we will consider there to be no evidence for or against determinism or freewill. As such, no sound philosophical evidence will be admitted pertaining to our inquiry.

Therefore, in conclusion to our examination of the evidence for freewill and determinism, we find that the only admissible evidence is personal experience, which provides support for the case of freewill, and offers no support for determinism. Though this is only one sort of evidence, it still is evidence, nonetheless. Any sound answer to our inquiry must properly explain why people think they have and seem to have freewill regarding their actions. An examination of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that our final answer must be one of the following:

1 - Human beings actually possess freewill and an awareness of their ability to exert control over their own lives
2 - All human actions are externally determined, including a determination that humans will have the illusion of freewill
3 - Human beings sometimes possess freewill and sometimes do not, and when they do not they still think they do

Having examined the evidence, we will next consider the case of freewill and determinism in regards to practical living. As stated above, the second criteria for an acceptable answer to our inquiry is that it must be practically applicable. We will now examine the practical implications of each of the three possible answers.

In the first case, if one believes that human beings possess freewill and an awareness of their ability to exert control over their own lives and the the world around them, then there are a good number of practical implications. First, we may trust our own brains and senses, since the information our brains provide (thinking that we choose our own actions) is trustworthy. This also means that, for the most part, we can trust our brains to provide us with mostly accurate information regarding ourselves and our world. Though our thinking may be wrong in some ways, at least the raw data that we process may be reasonable and acceptable. Second, since each person chooses their own actions, each person is capable of shaping their own life and is responsible for who they are, how they act, where they live, how happy they are and so forth. Additionally, if a person is unhappy with their life, they have the capacity to improve it by taking practical steps to increase their well-being. In psychology, this is referred to as "internal locus of control," and is a sign of mental health. Third, because each person is capable of impacting the world and other people, they also are personally and morally responsible for the impacts of their actions. This means that people can reasonably be held accountable for their actions and rewarded or punished based on what they do, how they impact the world and how they treat people. These are the primary and most important practical implications if people actually do possess freewill.

In the second case, if one believes in determinism and holds to the ideas both that all human actions are externally determined and that people maintain the illusion of freewill, there are also quite a number of practical implications. First, the fact that a person is being deceived by their own brain into thinking that they possesses freewill, when they do not, must lead to the conclusion that one's mind is not reliable and therefore no mental or sensory data can be rationally accepted. In such a case, your brain and all your thoughts are demonstrably untrustworthy, and therefore should be completely discredited. Second, since no person has any control over their own actions, every person is completely incapable of shaping their own life or the world in any way. Each person's actions, personality, living accommodations, and happiness are completely out of their control. If your life sucks, there is absolutely nothing that you can do about it. In psychology, this sort of thinking is referred to as "external locus of control," and is a sign of poor mental health. It is nearly identical to learned helplessness. Third, because each person is incapable of controlling their impact on the world or their treatment of others, there can be no personal or moral responsibility. All crimes that are committed could not have been prevented or avoided in any way, neither by the volition of the criminal nor by the choices of third parties, since no person has any control over their own actions. This means that all morality, laws and heuristics are ultimately powerless, unnecessary and ineffective. Nothing could occur any way other than how it does, and no person is capable of acting differently than they do, nor of volitionally changing in the future. Everything proceeds exactly how it must. Fourth, because of those previous implications, not only is freewill an illusion, but nearly everything about human existence is an illusion. Personality, relationship, thought, discovery, love, adventure and emotion are all ultimately vacuous. There can be no such thing as rationality. In this sense, the deception of determinism is even more profound and pervasive than simply being massively deluded beings, as depicted in The Matrix, for at least in such a case the deception may not be permanent, and even though the brain is deceived, there still exists real people, real choices and the potential for real impact in one's world. In the deterministic case, even the concept of personality is a delusion, for not only is the world illusory, but people do not exist as they seem to. This is the necessary and inescapable practical implication of believing in both determinism and the human possession of the illusion of freewill.

In the third case, if one believes that sometimes people possess freewill and sometimes their actions are externally determined, but that even when actions are externally determined, people still think they possess freewill, one is led to similar conclusions as in the case of pure determinism. So long as there are more externally determined actions than internally determined ones, then one cannot trust one's own brain regarding physical or cognitive information about oneself or the universe. Similarly, since for any given action you are more likely to lack control than have control, a majority of your actions, thoughts, situations and personality are not under your control. This leaves you in a similar psychological position, where most of your life you are helpless to change or alter. Not only will this leave a person with learned helplessness, but also there is the constant doubt and confusion over whether this is one of the times where one has freewill or whether this is one of the times where one's actions are externally determined. The case for moral and personal responsibility is the same as in the previous example, for no-one can be certain whether they or others are acting under their own volition or are externally controlled, which makes it impossible to establish reasonable culpability of any sort. In summary, a belief that more actions are externally determined than not must lead to a practical belief that most of life is an illusion and that when it isn't, the illusion is indistinguishable from truth. Practical living in accordance with this philosophy inevitably leads to a perpetual confusion, and a denial of personal and moral responsibility for one's life and the impact of one's actions.

Summary
Finally, we have concluded the analysis of determinism and freewill in regards to both of the established criteria. The final answer to our inquiry must be one that is both consistent with reality and practically applicable. In the category of evidence, we find that there is no solid evidence for determinism and their is one type of evidence that strongly supports the existence of freewill. The personal experience of each and every normal living person supports the hypothesis that people do possess freewill, since all are convinced that their actions are freely taken. Concerning practical applicability, there is no incompatibility between a belief in unfettered freewill and a real participation in human living, in every aspect of life. There is clear incompatibility between any form of belief in determinism and practical living, for a belief in determinism means that one cannot trust their own brain or sensory experience. Also, a logically consistent belief in pure determinism necessitates a belief that all of life is ultimately an illusion, and that no thoughts, people or choices exist, in any real sense of those words. Alternately, a belief in partial determinism necessarily entails a perpetual state of confusion about oneself, the actions of others and the resulting state of the universe. Partial determinism is, in many ways, even more mentally deadly than pure determinism since it entails a perpetual belief that the universe and the self is being tossed about by invisible entropic forces. Therefore, based on the evidence, the only rational conclusion to reach is that freewill exists. Similarly, concerning practical applicability, no human can logically and consistently live with a belief in any sort of determinism. On this basis, the only rational and consistent stance to take is that humans do possess unfettered freewill, and that they are aware of it. Normal people, under normal circumstances are in control of their lives, since they choose each and every action that they take.