Bakker with less fire (cause he knows he drove the point home already) as usual, but good arguments as always.
What is to come is yet another repetition of the reason vs. faith debate and rightly so. Analytic philosopher may take science seriously, but they stick still to much to the empirical, not exploring its abysses for our all too blind brains, that, luckily or unluckily, can see what it wants to see. I dont understand why “contintental materialist” or cont. philosophers for short don’t explicitly say what they try to do: to save something holy in the world. All they do is to postulate “ontological gaps” that are at best only “empirical gaps” in our universe full of malignant useless stuff. Why not openly declare themselves as RELIGIOUS authors and not philosophical ones (I still honor that word too much). Why hide as materialist, when officially everybody is, why not dare to say what they want say, why don’t they call their books “Fuck Materialism – I believe in a benevolent God who makes himself visible in explanatory wholes in the whole of being”.
In the end it might be a justified point to choose to deliberately ignore the results of science or to be blind to BBT. One can argue for such a stance towards the world. It will sell. The scientific realist, who must become pessimists and nihilists at some point if they take science metaphysically serious might be closer to the essence of nature, cognition, our role in the universe etc., but the blind might win, cause they are nature – spreading phylogenetically induced belief and optimism in order to continue living.
In short: IT IS LEGITIMATE TO ARGUE WITH VALUES AGAINST FACTS -BUT THEN SAY IT -INSTEAD OF POSITING THE NORMATIVE AS THE REAL.
Living blind or to Die seeing – that is the question – do we have a choice?
Originally posted on Three Pound Brain:
In Thinking, Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman cites the difficulty we have distinguishing experience from memory as the reason why we retrospectively underrate our suffering in a variety of contexts. Given the same painful medical procedure, one would expect an individual suffering for twenty minutes to report a far greater amount than an individual suffering for half that time or less. Such is not the case. As it turns out duration has “no effect whatsoever on the ratings of total pain” (380). Retrospective assessments, rather, seem determined by the average of the pain’s peak and its coda.
Absent intellectual effort, the default is to remove the band-aid slowly.
Far from being academic, this ‘duration neglect,’ as Kahneman calls it, places the therapist in something of a bind. What should the physician’s goal be? The reduction of the pain actually experienced, or the reduction of the pain remembered. Kahneman provocatively frames the problem as a question of choosing between selves, the ‘experiencing self’ that actually suffers the pain and the ‘remembering self’ that walks out of the clinic. Which ‘self’ should the therapist serve? Kahneman sides with the latter. “Memories,” he writes, “are all we get to keep from our experience of living, and the only perspective that we can adopt as we think about our lives is therefore that of the remembering self” (381). As he continues: