Yet There Is Method In It

“Functional Conclusion 1: The male nipple serves no functional purpose, but the nipple exists, or begins its existence when we are gender-neutral and therefore for the male is only a reminder of when it indeed was functional.”

No problem there – men have nipples because almost(?) all mammals have nipples. Well its not an explanation but it is easier to answer “Why do mammals have nipples?”

“Functional Conclusion 2 & 3: Clothes and Food serve functional purposes.” (you are emphasizing usefulness for humans)

“Functional Conclusion 4: Swearing served a variety of functional purposes…” (2nd)

“Functional Conclusion 5:…” “…functionality supersedes aesthetics.” (3rd time)

This is a very human centric view of the existence of (admittedly human) observed phenomena. For a deserted island somewhere, this does not have any obvious purpose.  Could you provide more thoughts on this?

“An interesting response, if not somewhat disheartening.”  yeah sorry about that!

“To the Iban society, religion is an integral functional part of the whole.” … I agree with that. I guess I am trying to say religion was formerly integral to other societies but they have become secular over time. When you say “collapse of society” I think it might be a “significant change in society”. Take Ireland for example:

In the 1970s, more than 90% of Irish Catholics said they went to Mass once a week. Now the number is 44%, according to a recent survey.  LA Times

There has been a massive change in life style but not what I would call a collapse. Ireland life in the 1920s (my history is a bit vague) was strongly tied to religion. Is it possible you can think of example of a society collapse due to loss of religion?

“I would guess practise the triple-religion of Buddhism, Taoism and Confucuianism [sic - first time I ever wrote one of those!].” Taoism is polytheistic? Buddhism promotes spirituality over “worldly life” so would be incompatible with Atheism – but I am not sure what exact question was used in the survey. Confucuianism probably is not a religion but is a belief system which might come under functionalism theory. I am not sure what I think about that right now…

“Vietnam the majority of the population practise ancestor worship, irrespective of their religious adherence, how do we balance that with the notion of the state being atheist?”

I agree this is not really religous belief and I am not considering it right now. We can start a separate discussion on non-religious belief changes affecting society? Perhaps later…

“As of Sweden, 75% adhere to the Church of Sweden…”

According to Norris and Inglehart (2004), 64% of those in Sweden do not believe in God. According to Bondeson (2003), 74% of Swedes said that they did not believe in “a personal God.” According to Greeley (2003), 46% of Swedes do not believe in God, although only 17% self-identify as “atheist.” According to Froese (2001), 69% of Swedes are either atheist or agnostic. According to Gustafsoon and Pettersson (2000), 82% of Swedes do not believe in a “personal God.” According to Davie (1999), 85% of Swedes do not believe in God. ref

Most surveys point to a majority non-theistic belief in Sweden. Regardless of these two countries, the fact is there are some societies which have changed from religious to secular and they still manage to get by.

“I would propose that we carefully consider the terminology behind the statistics.” Details, details….

“Many of those who would be described as irreligious would still hold some form of spiritual belief or superstition”. This is just bogging down the discussion! You were saying relgion which is deeply integrated into society is necessary to prevent collapse. Vague beliefs or superstitions don’t fall into this category of capable of societal collapse.

“…hardly a resounding victory for the Dawkins appreciation society.” I will grant that most people, including scientists, have weird beliefs.

“But is dechristianization the same as atheism?” I don’t think the impact of this resurgent mix of spirituality is that significant for the maintenance of the integrity of society. Except for perhaps Princess Diana worship…*I prepare to get shot at by somone*

“who said anything about truth?” You have a point that it fulfils some need but at the price of the truth? Thats too high in my opinion. Remember your comment if we come to debate the positive and negative impact of religion… We got to watch Inherit the Wind some time. Or perhaps you have seen it?

“…the religious collapse you talk about is in reality only the collapse of organised or institutional religion.” Thats an interesting distinction which I had not considered. I will think about it some…

On functionalism generally, guess who had something to say (paraphased by me):

The psychological explanation: to extract something familiar from something unknown relieves, comforts, and satisfies us, besides giving us a feeling of power. … First principle: any explanation is better than none. … We use the feeling of pleasure (“of strength”) as our criterion for truth.

The “why?” shall, if at all possible, result not in identifying the cause for its own sake, but in identifying a cause that is comforting, liberating, and relieving. A second consequence of this need is that we identify as a cause something already familiar or experienced, something already inscribed in memory. … Result: one type of causal explanation predominates more and more, is concentrated into a system and finally emerges as dominant — that is, as simply precluding other causes and explanations. N

I thought about leaving the quote there as its probably antagonised you enough.. but I better let Nietzsche finish off digging his hole:

The whole realm of morality and religion belongs in this category of imaginary causes or “explanations” for disagreeable feelings. N

Update: I just read on to these comments:

“By proposing this argument are you not making a moral observation? Do you still believe in murder? Where does your belief in murder come from is it a social taboo?” Neitzsche would agree with you and call for the revaluation of all values. I would say murder can be based on humanistic thinking and does not rely on metaphysics. I need to expand my point when I have time…

“When religion completely ceases to exist then society equally will do so.” Aaahh now we get to what I call the core of your argument. You don’t think a secular society is viable? I again point to the figures for Sweden and other majority secular countries.

To be continued… (I ran out of time)

Anti Citizen One

Response to this.

PS Onion strikes again

An interesting response, if not somewhat disheartening. I will attempt but briefly to comment on some points.

>>”Many societies now have low religions beliefs (e.g. Vietnam and Sweden). How come their society haven’t collapsed? Or are remaining believers working harder to make up the difference?”<<

I should have clarified the point I was making a bit better. Where religion is integral to that society i.e. a functional part of the whole then to remove that aspect will lead (according to Durkheim) to the functional collapse of that society.

To the Iban society, religion is an integral functional part of the whole.

It is also perhaps dangerous to point to various communities as an example of religious disintegration and surmise that the culture is not in collapse or has not collapsed. Vietnam for example is a contentious issue. 80% describe themselves as atheist, however it has been argued that this is a misleading statistic. Atheism and secularism although compatible are not identical. Of the 80% of Vietnamese society that describes itself to be atheist, a rather significant number I would guess practise the triple-religion of Buddhism, Taoism and Confucuianism. Neither of the above subscribe to a belief in a god, therefore I’m sure could be described as atheist, but non-religious? Thats a different question.

A second point concerning Vietnamese religious adherence concerns the fallacy of associating a culture with a nation state. The Iban of Sarawak find themselves within the greater Indonesian nation (which I believe has the largest Islamic population in the world), however the Iban are animist not Moslem. Within Vietnam also are smaller ethnic groups, to whom a nation state statistical analysis would be misrepresentative. The Cao Dai and Hao Hao communities are almost exlcusively Christian yet perhaps only account for less than 20% of the Vietnamese state.

Finally with regards to Vietnam the majority of the population practise ancestor worship, irrespective of their religious adherence, how do we balance that with the notion of the state being atheist?

As of Sweden, 75% adhere to the Church of Sweden and in the recent Eurobarometer poll (2005) 23% described themselves as atheist, 23% as theist and 53% believe in “some sort of spirit or life force.”

By means of a concession similar polls also show that religious practice (as opposed to adherence) suggests that Church attendance in Sweden is in single figure percentages.

Still religious adherence and religious practise are surely different things?

I would propose that we carefully consider the terminology behind the statistics. Irreligiosity, having or practising no religion (of which between 46-85% of Sweden describes itself) is an umbrella term that includes, atheism, anticlericalism, agnosticism, deism, skepticism, freethought, secular humanism, general secularism and heresy. All of these terms are different. And it is misleading to identify irrelegiosity with atheism or rational skepticism. Many of those who would be described as irreligious would still hold some form of spiritual belief or superstition, hardly a resounding victory for the Dawkins appreciation society.

On a slight aside Jung believed that the historical development of european religion was unhealthy moving from polytheistic/animist/shamanic paganism to monotheistic christianity in a very short space of time. He described monotheism as being a semitic belief system hastily grafted onto an unready western psyche. So perhaps the dechristianization of Europe isn’t a bad thing. But is dechristianization the same as atheism?

As for the argument to the consequences, although it is correct to state that a belief in a raindance that works is a logical fallacy, and as Dawkins stated because something is comforting does not mean it is true, my response would have to be, who said anything about truth? I’m sure Durkheim didnt believe that the raindance worked, and as unsophisticated and as logically fellacious as the Iban belief system may be, it is nonetheless a belief system that satisfies the ‘spiritual need’ in Iban society.

I will conclude for now however with the assertion that the religious collapse you talk about is in reality only the collapse of organised or institutional religion. This of itself I do not believe to be a bad thing. If spirituality or a notion of the noumenos were to be lost then in my opinion societal collapse would be imminent.

A final point, to restate Emile Durheims views, religion is an expression of social cohesion. “God, is society writ large.”  What constitutes religion differs from society to society, and in Durkheims view Dawkinist Atheism may well be a religion as well, what unifies religion across all societies, for there is not one society without religion, is the human conceptual seperation between the sacred and the profane.

Durkheim defined religion as “A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, i.e. things set apart & forbidden– beliefs and practices which unite in one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them.”

Church here is used in a broad term.

Religious phenomena occur when a separation is made between the profane (the realm of everyday activities) and the sacred (the realm of the extraordinary and the transcendent); these are different depending what man chooses them to be. Trinitarian Christianity/Taoism/Confucianism/Logical Atomism/Atheism.

Durkheim further identified four major functions of religion:

1. Disciplinary, forcing or administrating discipline
2. Cohesive, bringing people together, a strong bond
3. Vitalizing, to make more lively or vigorous, vitalise, boost spirit
4. Euphoric, a good feeling, happiness, confidence, well-being.

For Durkheim in repudiation of Dawkins, the feel-good factor of religion is functional, as it is functional it is true in itself, irrespective of whatever truth claims the religion makes for itself.

Religion is a social phenomenon and is society divinized. Even in atheism religion exists. When religion completely ceases to exist then society equally will do so.

Re: the figures on divorce and murder being lower in ‘irreligious’ societies. By proposing this argument are you not making a moral observation? Do you still believe in murder? Where does your belief in murder come from is it a social taboo? I would argue that the self within society clings to ancient social taboos, taboos which are essentially religious. If you abhor murder and align yourself within society in this belief then you are preserving an ancient totemic taboo, and even in your atheism or agnosticism or irreligiousity, then you are still holding in your abhorrence of murder a religious belief.

Response to this.

Wow! Those are big posts! I have at last got time to reply.

A: “If one aspect disintegrates then society as a whole is in danger of collapsing.” … “a society that is held together by its religion, will maintain and preserve that religion…”

Until recently (by which I mean the last few centuries) many countries had a general policy of discriminated against non-believers or even had the death penalty for apostasy.

Many societies now have low religions beliefs (e.g. Vietnam and Sweden). How come their society haven’t collapsed? Or are remaining believers working harder to make up the difference?

In fact in states where religions beliefs are lower, the divorce rate is lower… as is the murder rate!

In sum, countries with high rates of organic atheism are among the most societally healthy on earth, while societies with nonexistent rates of organic atheism are among the most destitute. The former nations have among the lowest homicide rates, infant mortality rates, poverty rates, and illiteracy rates and among the highest levels of wealth, life expectancy, educational attainment, and gender equality in the world. The sole indicator of societal health in which religious countries scored higher than irreligious countries is suicide. secularhumanism.org

“…I conclude be wholly wrong to take away their belief in the efficacy of the rain-dance. For to do so would destroy their entire religious belief system, and to do that would bring about the complete collapse of the Iban social system entirely. Iban religion as it is, performs a necessary and functional role in the overall successful organic mechanism of Iban society.”

I would call this an argument to the consequences – “an argument that concludes a premise (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences”.

The Iban have to choices:

1) They do the rain dance, the rain falls, they continue their beliefs and are happy.

2) They don’t do the rain dance, the rail falls, they find something else to think about. I accept this might impact their society but too bad! And I don’t advocate we impose our views on them because we have as much work to do in fixing our belief systems!

There are all sorts of things that would be comforting. I expect an injection of morphine would be comforting—it might be more comforting, for all I know. But to say that something is comforting is not to say that it’s true. Dawkins

“This I am sure would horrify Richard “I don’t believe in anything” Dawkins…” This is typical misrepresentation of atheism as nihilism. (Oh yeah… “Nihilist: We believe in nothing, Lebowski! Nothing!!!”) Theists often portray atheists as this (Nihilistic) or as equilivent to their belief by saying athists have “faith” in no God. Both are not fair or correct.

“…who recently berated comedian Peter Kay for stating that although he no longer practised the religion of his upbringing (Catholicism) he nonetheless still believed in a God, for such a belief was he felt a consolation.”

Dawkins might have restated the morphine quote And I find Peter Kay soooo annoying – but thats hardly relevant.

“My answer to Dawkins is therefore the answer of functionalism, the phenomena exists because it serves a function.”

It was only a matter of time before I quoted Nietzsche, so here it comes:

There is no more insidious error than mistaking the effect for the cause: I call it the real corruption of reason. Yet this error is one of the most unchanging habits of mankind: we even worship it under the name of “religion” or “morality.” Every single principle from religion or morality contains it; priests and moral legislators are the originators of this corruption of reason. Nietzsche

By applying this (I think) it would mean that the sign of a collapsing society is the collapse of its religions. Religious collapse does not necessarily imply societal collapse.

Thanks for getting the ball rolling with your thoughts on functionalism. I look forward to your comments/rebuttal. I will follow up in the next few days talking more directly about functionalism and part 2 of your entry.

Anti Citizen One

Response to this.

Response to this

This not an actual response but this strongly reminded me of a quote/paraphrase by Prak from Douglas Adams’s book:

**SPOILERS**

“There is one other thing I can remember from the truth drug. Apart from the frogs, and that is God’s last message to his creation. Would you like to hear it?” “It is written in thirty-foot-high letters of fire on top of the Quentulus Quazgar Mountains in the land of Sevorbeupstry on the planet Preliumtarn, third out from the sun Zarss in Galactic Sector QQ7 Active J Gamma. It is guarded by the Lajestic Vantrashell of Lob.” It reads: “WE APOLOGIZE FOR THE INCONVENIENCE”

I will think up some orginal thoughts in a few days…

Anti Citizen One

As a homage to the awesome American author Kurt Vonnegut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Vonnegut) who died this week, I thought I would post an extract from Philosophy in Practice that refers to what is known as the Vonnegut Problem.

This problem occurs in the Philosophy of Religion, primarily in the area concerning God and Morality.

“In The Sirens of Titan, the novelist Kurt Vonnegut tells a story about the last surviving human being. After the painful extinction of the entire human race he meets a robot, who explains to him that he broke down while carrying a message from one galaxy to another. He then caused life to evolve on earth just so that millions of years later a cataclysmic war would result in this man standing before him with, in his pocket, the small piece of metal he needs to repair himself. Then he can continue on his way. ‘What’, asks the man, ‘is the message you are carrying?’ The robot searches and finds it. The message says ‘Hello’. All the history and the suffering of the human race were for that.

The Vonnegut problem is that a purpose and an intelligence behind human life would not make it meaningful, or underwrite morality, unless that purpose was a good one. So we must be able to think that God’s purposes are ones we would think of as good. They must not treat human beings as incidental tools, as in Vonnegut’s story, or as objects of amusement, as in some ancient myths. Can we think of God as having good purposes? According to most religious thinkers, we cannot understand God’s purposes. If we could understand them, God would be like just another person, with no more authority than one of us. But if we cannot understand God’s purposes, how can we think of them as good?”

Secondly I wish to consider Functionalism in a completely different light, and it is this light to which my associates consider my evangelism to be quite bizarre or extreme.

I am what could be described as a revolutionary functionalist. I wish to see everything understood in the terms of functionalism, and anything that is not functional should be swept away. (This is however somewhat contradictory in that I am also a micro-social functionalist, concerned not only with the question of does it work for society, but does it work for the individual within society).

I therefore wish to ask some questions, over which I ask you all to meditate upon in the spirit of functionalism which is: Phenomena are seen to exist because they serve a function.

1) Why do men have nipples?

2) What is the purpose of neckties?

3) Why a dress code?

4) Is there any such thing as bad language?

5) What is the correct pronunciation of the letter ‘H’?

Problem 1: Why do men have nipples?

Meditation 1: They do not seem to serve a functional purpose as the male of the species (ordinarily) does not possess mammary glands and the ability to provide milk. There have been isolated reports of Polynesian islanders displaying the ability to suckle or wean young children, however such reports are questioned/questionable. That an infant would attempt to suckle on a teat is no surprise (male/female) but that a male teat could provide sustenance does seem to go beyond what is accepted scientific knowledge. A number of small possibilities could be postulated. A high incidence of Hermaphrodity, or perhaps a common adolescent problem of female hormones developing breasts uncommonly then developing into adulthood, or a genuine evolutionary phenomena (even though there appears little purpose in terms of species survival thanks to the ordinary male/female balance). My own particular thoughts are that an infant will naturally attempt to suckle on even a dry male teat, as a form of emotional consolation.

Still what place do male nipples have in a functional theorem? Our answer must look to Stephen Jay Gould and his collection of essays in Adams Navel. He proposes a feasible biological theory that at the moment of conception and the early Blastocyst fetal stage the embryo has no gender assignation (in common with medieval scholastic thought incidentally). And that gender assignment may not necessarily be contained by the information within the growing cellular structure, only a pan-sexual blueprint exists allowing for the possibility for the Embryo to develop male or female characteristics at a later stage. Although both genders share the same elementary biological structure (hearts, lungs etc.) there are also gender specific biological structures (i.e. genitalia). These gender specific biological structures have to develop on the embryo at quite an advanced stage (i.e. once the embryo has developed into being recognisably ‘human’) therefore the original developmental blueprint contained by the blastocyst and conceptus allows for the possibility of specific biological structures from either gender to develop when necessary. Thus the male and female genitalia develop from the same ‘gender-neutral’ pre-genital cellular structure. Or in layman’s terms a Penis and Vagina are structural mirror images of each other and begin their development from the same starting point. Similarly so the anatomy of the mammary gland and male and female breasts, in gender-neutral phase both possibilities exist (as witnessed by the shared characteristic of the nipple), following gender assignment the female breasts develop rendering the nipples useful and the male show no development rendering them superfluous.

Functional Conclusion 1: The male nipple serves no functional purpose, but the nipple exists, or begins its existence when we are gender-neutral and therefore for the male is only a reminder of when it indeed was functional.

Problem 2: What is the purpose of neckties?

and because they are related questions

Problem 3: Why a dress code?

Meditation 2 & 3: In these two questions we can really tackle the meaty substance of functional theory in a manner that is both comprehensible and reasonably succinct. Phenomena exist because they serve a function. Thus when I am hungry my body sends various signals to the brain to indicate that it requires food, so it can process energy to sustain the organism at peak levels. This is generally translated into hunger pains, which are not real physical manifestations/sensations of pain in the same way that a cut finger would present, but are pains nonetheless. Hopefully nature and nurture will present me with the realisation of the simple solution that hunger pains are sated by eating. But now to the specific questions of neckties and dress codes, what functional purpose do clothes provide us with?

In specific and deliberate order of importance they serve the following functions:

a) clothes keep us dry from the wet,

b) clothes keep us warm from the cold,

c) clothes protect us from extremes; shoes from rough surfaces, lab gloves from corrosive substances, etc.,

d) clothes protect our modesty, hiding our nudity from the sensibilities of others or the watching of others from our sense of prudishness or shame,

e) clothes make us feel comfortable and look nice to other people.

If I were to give a functional rating to the above 5 items on a scale of 1-10 (1 low – 10 high) then a, b and c would all in the correct* circumstances rate an 8+ * obviously it is not functional to wear insulating clothes in stifling hot weather (so I’m assuming we all have a sense of proportionality here).

d I would only rate as a 5, for modesty is not of the highest functional importance, and I would suggest it is a more relative function than a, b & c. However in some societies modesty is considered important so again its functionality is proportional to that societies views on modesty/nudity.

e I would rate a rather lowly 1 or 2. What do we mean by feeling good? comfortable? And furthermore clothing has more important functional values to us surely than merely being a decorative tool to attract prospective partners? We are human after all and not peacocks. This latter point of course is more open to debate, some social norms may place a greater functional importance upon presentation than I would. However I could only consider the presentational or smart quality of clothing to be functionally of any importance if that same society was so ultimately prudish that all we saw of each other was the clothing we wore. It would also I suggest be a profound statement about how shallow that society would be if the presentational function of clothing was rated so highly, higher perhaps than the virtues and qualities of the person wearing them.

Sounds alas very much like the society that we live in, obsessed with dress codes and the like. A society where the news media can actually ruminate over whether a newsreader not wearing a necktie constitutes a dumbing down of acceptable broadcasting standards! A society where fashion (just like economic trends) is taken to be a real and actual phenomena and not just an invented fad. A society where the intellectually challenged kill over percieved lack of respect shown for the ‘coolness’ of someones new designer wear clothing.

Functional Conclusion 2 & 3: Clothes and Food serve functional purposes. Fashion and Cuisine do not. Functionality often must outweigh aesthetics.

Problem 4: Is there any such thing as bad language?

Meditation 4: By bad language I am talking about swearing and cursing. Once described and often repeated as an indication of a lack of vocabulary. Oh really? Are we actually suggesting that Shakespeare and Chaucer had such a limited vocabulary that they littered their English therefore with foul and vulgar language? The curse word is the same as any other word, its function is to describe or give a name to an idea, a concept or a material thing. It’s coarseness however is also functional in that it can either indicate the urgency with which someone is trying to express themselves or is an attempt to shock the listener by invoking some form of social taboo. An example of the latter is the Veronan (Italy) expression of God Pig! And an example of the former is the Spanish habit of only saying an incomplete curse phrase actually omitting the curse but also adding to the dramatic effect of its meaning, i.e. your mother! Swearing and cursing is also functional in its sense of emotional release, in moments of crisis or tension or heightened anger it offers a means of expression that Oh deary me just doesn’t satisfy.

Contrary to popular opinion there is no such thing as the rudest word in the English language. The media currently suggests it is the C word. All language is functional and therefore its rudeness is matter of perspective and proportion.

All swear words in the English language have perfectly acceptable uses, and are often found being so used by the likes of Shakespeare and Chaucer, even if they are using the language in a parody of the vulgar tongue of a common man.

Shit and Piss, both found in Chaucer and both etymologically related to old English and old french are simply functionally descriptive words. They describe a function and therein is their function.

Bloody was considered a blasphemous term whose function therefore is to shock. Bastard was a perfectly acceptable descriptive functional term for an illegitimate child.

Formely Unkown Carnal Knowledge was an example of a meaningful acronym. Although probably the word was originally of Saxon/viking origin.

The C word, pronounced and spelt in middle-English (although originally probably Brythonnic or Belgic/Gaulish) as Quente meant a corner or promontory. So an anatomical corner so to speak developing into the C word and a geographical corner lending its name to the Cantiaci tribe and the modern county of Kent.

Clearly however it is possible to overuse the curse word and thus deny it of its rich functional purpose. Take for example the quote attributed to the England spin bowler John Embury who after being enquired as to the condition of his back replied “well the fackin fackers fackin facked.”

So a healthy balance needs to be maintained, as Billy Connolly once beautifully argued; language like weather is always good and never bad it is just a matter of not wearing the wrong clothing for the right weather.

Functional Conclusion 4: Swearing served a variety of functional purposes and everyone should be encouraged and educated on how to swear properly so this notion of bad language never arises again.

Problem 5: What is the correct pronunciation of the letter ‘H’?

Meditation 5: This matter gets a lot of people into a frothing mass of rage whenever I discuss it with them, so it happens to be one of my favourites. The debate revolves around how to correctly pronounce the latter ‘H’ is it ‘Aitch’ which is the taught method or ‘Haitch’ which is considered the incorrect fashion? I personally pronounce it ‘Haitch’ for ‘Hello’ and ‘How do you do’ ‘Have a nice day’ ‘He said I Hope your Happy, did you Hear me?’ … you get the picture. Furthermore from a linguistics point of view I also follow the Haitch principle, in Greek there is no letter H, rather it is an aspirant, a breathing sound that proceeds a vowel and a sound that is quite distinct from an un-aspirated vowel. And if we are going to be really picky about it lets consider the French hache which derives from the Latin haca or hic which suggests that the puritanical aitch pronunciation is in fact an example of poor and vulgar educated h-dropping. And one final point haitch is the correct pronunciation of the letter in Hiberno-English, which like Scots is not etymologically considered a dialect but is acknowledged as an Independently developed English derivative language in its own right.

But finally here in the meditation the most important point of all is who cares? After all you say Aitch, Ta-Mato, Gar-idge and I say Haitch, Toe-Mayto, Ga-raj. Either way we both understand what the other is saying, so technically we are both functionally correct, we pronounce our H’s in such a way as to functionally demonstrate a mutual understanding of the linguistic value of H.

Functional Conclusion 5: It is Haitch I tells ya! Seriously though correct pronunciation is like fashion and cuisine (and in many instances grammar too) an aesthetic value, as long as two people communicating with each other can understand each other then if not aesthetically correct then they are at least functionally correct. And as they understand each other functionality supersedes aesthetics.

So remember folks Everything Must Be Functional!

The Philosopher Contra-Gaunilo

Response to this.

I thought I’d open my contribution with a brief outline of a theory that has become something of a bugbear for me in my life. At first people thought it rather quaint that a philosophical ‘ideal’ could manifest itself in someones practical adherence to their daily lives. Then gradually as the people surrounding me realised that I had become an insufferable evangelist for this theory, any notions of quaintness were rapidly replaced with terms such as eccentric, obsessive or “you’re one of them crazies aren’t you?” An interesting point, as the psychologist William James observed in his Varieties of Religious Experience the prophet and the saint often display repulsive characteristics that directly contradict those characteristics of theirs that are attractive. However I digress.

The theory about which I am talking here is of ‘Functionalism.’

There are in fact many different theories of Functionalism that cover the Philosophy of the Mind, Sociology and Anthropology. The Functionalism that I speak of is most frequently expounded in Sociology.

Without going into the sociological aspects of this theory (which I shall leave you to investigate if you so happen to be interested) the best and most simple definition of Functionalism is “Phenomena are seen to exist because they serve a function.”

The father of modern functionalism is Emile Durkheim and it is his theories to which I have become something of a disciple. Durkheim the sociologist was interested in the analogy of society as a living organism, and viewed the ‘whole’ as the ‘sum of its parts.’ Thus different parts of a society such as family, education, religion, law and order can only be seen and properly evaluated in the context of their contributions as a whole to the functioning of society.

The functioning of society is dependent upon the correct functioning of the different parts. If one aspect disintegrates then society as a whole is in danger of collapsing. It is why ‘society’ tends to cling so fervently to its ‘institutions’ when they are deemed to be under attack.

Thus whatever the views of an atheist, rationalist, scientist a society that is held together by its religion, will maintain and preserve that religion irrespective of the evidence against it.

One interesting anecdote tells of the Iban of Sarawak, a society who have lived in the rainforests of Borneo for thousands of years. Their indigenous religion could be described as being ‘animist’ that is seeing ‘spirit’ in everything. Over many thousands of years the Iban had perfected the art of rice farming in the highlands of Borneo, and rice became central to the Iban both as staple diet and as a religious sacrament. The rice it was believed contained spirit, it also could contain the spirit of the ancestors who had metaphorically returned to the earth (although this description does not do the Iban tale of the afterlife justice). Rice had both a real and physically quantifiable value, as well as a significant ritual importance. Quite literally for the Iban “Rice is life!”

Iban religion was concerned therefore with the rules, regulations and rituals for successful rice farming. Rice farming was an integral part of Iban life taking up a significant amount of a persons time. Furthermore Rice farming is a highly intense agricultural industry and thus required the entire Iban family unit to participate in working the land and the rice. With rice so intimately connected to Iban life and religion it would be fair to describe Iban religion as also being the Iban way of life, virtually indistinguishable, and therefore thoroughly ‘foreign’ to our concept and divisions of the sacred and the profane.

So integral is Iban religion to Iban life and farming, that when anthropologists first chanced upon the Iban and studied their culture they were amazed to observe a society that seemingly had no religion. It would take many years for them to realise, with Iban help that Iban religion was simply the Iban way of life and vice versa. Good Iban religious practise and the good life was synonymous with good farming practises. A farmer who produces a good crop was clearly a good man of upright virtue.

Now to my favourite bit.

Amongst Iban religious and ritual practises were ceremonies performed in an attempt to control the seasons. One in particular was the rain-dance. Now the rain-dance was not simply performed at any random time, it had to be performed when certain signs and symbols had been observed by the local Augur. One of the key signs that the Augur depended upon was the movements of the birds of the rainforests. Augurs also had a knowledge of astronomy as well.

When the requisite signs were observed then the ritual specialist (shaman/priest) could perform the rain-dance. And low and behold shortly after the cessation of the very precise ceremonies the rains would come.

Western observers were fascinated by these rituals, and were further charmed by the claims of the Iban that the rain-dance never failed. But being rationalists and of a scientific mind they quickly came to a fairly obvious and satisfactory conclusion. Of course the rain-dance worked, for it was performed on the eve of the rainy season. Furthermore the rain season of the forests were an annual and predictable thing, so there would always be rain. And most importantly of all the Augur who observed the signs that predicted when the rain-dance should begin (in order for it to be most successful) was really just observing various phenomena that naturally occurred and ‘predicted’ the coming of the rains. The Augur was therefore nothing more than an indigenous meteorologist who measured the changing of the seasons by the stars, and the oncoming rainy season by the movements and migrations of the forest birds.

The conclusion of the anthropologists therefore was that the rain-dance didn’t really bring the rain, as the Iban believed, it just ‘announced’ its coming, so to speak.

The Iban of course could not accept this, they performed the dance, and the dance worked when it rained. There was they were satisfied a demonstrable cause and effect. Even amongst the educated and ‘westernized’ Iban, the rain-dance still maintained its power over the imagination.

Now we may laugh at, or criticise the superstition and misplaced belief in ritual and magic that underpins the Iban rain-dance. But we would be wrong to do so. For considering functionalism we have to concede that the Iban rituals indeed do work. If they performed the rain-dance at any other time they would not work, and they could not perform the ritual dance at any other time anyway as the signs, symbols and portents that the Augurs had looked for would not be present, therefore the omens would predict the failure of the rain-dance.

As rice growing and its religious ceremonies connected to rice farming are so integral to Iban culture it would I conclude be wholly wrong to take away their belief in the efficacy of the rain-dance. For to do so would destroy their entire religious belief system, and to do that would bring about the complete collapse of the Iban social system entirely. Iban religion as it is, performs a necessary and functional role in the overall successful organic mechanism of Iban society.

This I am sure would horrify Richard “I don’t believe in anything” Dawkins, who recently berated comedian Peter Kay for stating that although he no longer practised the religion of his upbringing (Catholicism) he nonetheless still believed in a God, for such a belief was he felt a consolation. My answer to Dawkins is therefore the answer of functionalism, the phenomena exists because it serves a function.

It may serve no purpose other than as an irritant to Richard Dawkins but, belief in God for Peter Kay (and doubtless countless others) provides them with a sense of consolation. Consolation from existential angst, consolation from the totality of death and physical mortality, consolation from the at times seemingly amoral or moral indifference of the world around us. Whatever it is, it is a consolation, and that consolation seems to work for many people, on a micro-social or individual scale in particular one should be wary of attempting to tinker with it. If the consolation is mental or emotional, to forcibly remove such a facet from somebody’s psychological makeup would surely bring about terrible emotional consequences. See Jung and his discussion on the conversion of St Paul on the road to Damascus, in particular his description of Saul’s blinding as being a psychosomatic blindness. Only upon accepting his religious or spiritual nature, rather than repressing it could Saul/Paul regain his sight.

Interesting: “The majority of us believe in God, pray and think of ourselves as Christian, despite not going to church. But if you cut out the middle man isn’t it cheating?”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6517807.stm

Anti Citizen One

PS Good ol’ onion.

Response to this.

I would consider myself a learner of the interpretation of Nietzsche at this stage but here is what I am thinking:
Kolakowski has a point that Nietzsche seems to contain “numerous inconsistencies” but N is driving at something removed from normal “common sense”. (note: I am writing this after a few glasses of wine and N’s writing style is a bit mad). N might say that the goal is to be master of ones self or otherwise to be a slave to another will. K is counting the number of Christians as evidence of their victory. With N, everything seems(?) to happen within a person and not in a social level (he despised the majority – but it a loving way) and total numbers don’t count. In fact total numbers probably is probably evidence against a point! You could say only the person who defines good and evil has achieved any victory according to N – that would be one man in most(?) religions (Mohammed/the Pope/Moses/IPU/FSM).

I don’t think N affirms the perfection of the world…. N stresses the importance of the physical world over metaphysics. You might shoot me down with a quote but I think that was a recurring theme. In fact he never shuts up about it! Oh yeah and N didn’t say right is “strength and vitality” but he did emphasise truthfulness and the will to power (different to strength I think).

K’s last comment was a bit odd – an alternative view: perhaps N had reached his capacity for truth (beyond most others) then over-reached? (again this is probably a drunken idea)

Any you probably heard all of this before.. at least you might have some ideas about it that you could share.

Regarding your second paragraph, I will grant the point that if you confine yourself to one idea, then that single idea seems to be sufficient. But in Dawkins’s science did he depart from main stream science? – Though I know you probably are objecting to his anti-religion views. I am going to have to apologise for bringing N into it again – but “he who hath to be a creator in good and evil–verily, he hath first to be a destroyer, and break values in pieces.” Sounds like Dawkins?

I am reading another of his books and perhaps that causes over emphasis on N. Just call it a phase.

(sorry for the amount of brackets….. d’oh!!!!)

Anti Citizen One

Response to this.

- Christianity was to Nietzsche a rebellion of the withered branch against the resilient tree. One may wonder how this envious frailty could prove to be victorious against the elan of robust ‘life’. It would rather seem that the weak, if they succeed in imposing their values on the world – however circuitous and cunning their tactics – prove not to be weak after all, in accordance with Nietzsches own criteria: there is no ‘rightness’ other than strength and vitality. Since he glorifies the innocence of the natural process – Unschuld des Werdens – and affirms the perfection of the world as it is, scornfully rejecting the ide of what it ought to be, it might seem that the winners were right by definition – and the Christians were winners. This is only one among his numerous inconsistencies. He Glorified the infallibility of instinct and, in the same breath , the greatness of science and of scepticism; thus he suggested that scepticism might be the result of instinct, or that instinct naturally produced sceptical attitudes!
Still, it would be too easy to dismiss Nietzsches anti-Christian fury as a mere presage of his oncoming madness.   – Leszek Kolakowski

And I think the following would apply to Dawkins (courtesy of Kolakowski again)
- Monistic reductions in general anthropology or “historiosophy” are always successful and convincing; a Hegelian, a Freudian, a Marxist, and an Adlerian are, each of them, safe from refutation as long as he is consistently immured in his dogma and does not try to soften it or make concessions to common sense; his explanatory device will work forever.

A