Your last question is one i have thought about a lot (it usually comes up in my ancient philosophy classes, as well as medieval philosophy, and in: well in almost all of them that involve metaphysics! The provisional position I hold on that question at this point (always subject to revision in the light of argument) is that the question is a category mistake in the following sense:

the principle of sufficient reason states that every event has some cause, some reason for its being so. But this principle, as well as the principle of causality in general, addresses observed conditions within the real of conditioned experience. So that to apply a principle that holds without question within the universe makes no sense when talking about the universe itself (especially given the fact that no one can take up a position outside of experience, outside of the universe, and observe the principles that govern it). It gets really fun to talk about in my 18th century philosophy class, because we go through Kant's first critique (well, an abbreviated account of it!) before addressing this point. I then am able to speak intelligibly to my students on the idea that we have no knowledge of unconditioned reality.

Anyway: you got me excited, man. Classes are about to start up again and I'm beginning to get that philosophical itch.

Apologies to all for going briefly off topic. This metaphysical break will now conclude.

we had a leader who would lead us in giving all kinds of things up so that we could have a more just role in the world. It is hard to thin of what I wouldn't give up if my country did not have to bear the shame of all those needless Iraqi casualties. I love my country and I am ashamed of what it has done. As a soldier I was willing to die for my country: losing a privileged lifestyle seems a walk in the park compared to that.

you are surely right. The last year has shown us the democrats are as much to blame as Bush. All the so-called leaders.

http://tinyurl.com/2mbxwx

good question: I would have put something on it in my original post but didn't want to go on too long. It has to do with the need for collection action for such a thing to be effective. But the point is a hard one. If LWM and I both walk instead of drive a car then the net effect is that of two cranky dudes walking while everything continues the same. I am thinking in this context (given this post about Iran and so forth) about what would be just for my country to do. I am ashamed of the actions of my country, and it would take large scale action to make a difference. If I make the radical step of living a Gandhian lifestyle on my own, say, I am unsure of what that means. It is a point of contention for me in my personal dialogue with myself: am I just a coward not to live that way, even though it has no possibility of effecting change? then folks will say: well, if everyone started doing it, one by one it would happen, etc.: but I am not so sure. There is this huge pragmatic empirical streak in the midst of my idealism that is very suspicious of personal grandstanding. I just don't know. Individual acts as acts of education i understand (that is the point of civil disobedience a la Thoreau: to educate): but what level to take it too is unclear to me. Maybe I am just a kind of moral coward in waiting for a movement, but I've known a lot of cranky people living cranky lifestyles (crank a relative term: i.e. cranky in terms of how society views them) and it SEEMS to make no difference. I understand the arguments on both sides and find myself in suspense on who has the better arguments.

I don't accept Singer's argument, by the way, and that factors in. I do not think I am obligated to give x away until some ratio is achieved: it is not that clear to me. Singer attempts a kind of precision that I don't think make sense in ethics (I am a follower of Aristotle in that: ethics is not a science, but a dialectical matter). What EXACTLY is required of me is unclear. But I know if someone could show me my individual actions would have a real measurable impact: say a President saying we will all now do x, y, and z (like Carter did) and such and such will result and we can make it a better world, I would not hesitate. I am not particularly willing to be a kind of martyr to consumerism if I am not sure it will have any impact.

Well, quick thoughts here: but I wanted to answer you.

collection action = collective action

It is not that we have now knowledge WITHIN our universe but that we have no knowledge of THE UNIVERSE AS A WHOLE.

So--pace Kant--I can have knowledge of the structure of the universe vis a vis the universal structuring components of human experience (thus validating science, which was Kant's big deal) but statements about the universe considered as a whole are always spoken as if: or in faith, if you prefer.

Thanks for kind words: I love teaching. Been on leave this past year and that was good but now I am ready to see all those young faces again and talk with them and listen to them and have fun.

now knowledge = no knowledge.

Let's all write Joan and get her to switch to a forum with an edit function for after we post!!!!!