Event: Larwill Lecture in Philosophy: Graham Priest
Date: February 25th 2013
Location: Higley Auditorium
Correspondent: Andrew Stewart

Professor Graham Priest of the University of Melbourne and the CUNY Graduate Center visited Kenyon this week, giving a Philosophy Department Larwill Lecture. His visit, significantly hyped in philosophy and math circles here at Kenyon, did not disappoint.

Priest is well-known (and infamous) for his work in paraconsistent logic. Such systems oppose the “explosive” theory of logic, which is associated with the so-called “classical” (early-20th century) logic currently taught in textbooks. According to the explosive theory, say that some contradiction, “A and not-A,” is true. Using the rules of classical logic, one can use this premise to prove any proposition at all, including that the world is round, the world is flat, and 3+4=128. Consequently, classical logicians feel they have good reason to avoid contradictions at all costs. Paraconsistent systems of logic oppose the explosive theory. Within such systems, it is not the case that any old contradiction can be used to prove absolutely anything. In a typical paraconsistent system, propositions have one of three truth-values: “True,” “False,” or “True and False.” Yes, you read me right: there are systems of logic that actually allow (some) contradictions.

Considering Priest advocates a departure from classical logic that is, at least at first glance, so radical, it is not surprising that Priest’s lecture topic was “Revising Logic.” He began his talk by reassuring the audience that there would be “no squiggles involved” and that no background in formal logic was necessary to understand what he had to say. This was a talk in the philosophy of logic, not logic proper. He kept his promise: there were no squiggles! Nevertheless, a bit more background in epistemology and semantics would have been helpful for understanding his finer points, as some of his concluding arguments went a bit over my head.

A common move in contemporary debates on logic is to claim that logic cannot be revised. Priest argued that revision has happened in the past and continues to be possible. He discussed the potential for revision in three different types of logic: logica docens (what is taught in logic textbooks), logica utens (what we actually use), and logica ens (logic in itself: the “truth” about logic). Priest’s first contention was that Western logic has, in fact, changed a great deal over time, particularly during chunks of activity in ancient Greece, the Middle Ages, and the early 20th century. The concept of explosion, for example, does not go all the way back the ancient Greeks: it was first articulated during the Middle Ages, neglected, and then rediscovered in the 20th century.

Priest argued that many past revisions to logics extended their application and relevance. For future revisions to be rational, logicians should remember that a given logica docens is essentially a theory to compare to other logics. Changes ought to be based on criteria such as unifying power, adequacy to data, and simplicity. As for logica utens–the use of logic–it should stay in line as much as possible with the theory provided by logica docens. Some particular situations, though, might call for use of a slightly different logic for practical reasons. As for logica ens, or the truth of logic, Priest claimed that it might be revisable, or perhaps not, depending on one’s standard for what constitutes validity.

I would imagine that lectures on logic have a tendency to become dry, but Priest’s talk was both accessible and captivating. He was enthusiastic, articulate, and relaxed. Rather than doing injustice to intricate issues by trying to provide all of the answers in a short time, he presented an appropriate amount of material, leaving many questions open. Though his talk was fairly general and did not get into the details of alternative logics, I think his topic is critical to a clearer understanding of academic discourse. Very often, we think of logic as a set of unchanging rules to which one must appeal to produce a valid argument. The notion that there can be revision and progress in logic might change the relationship of other disciplines to it. Revision also reveals that the particular discipline of logic has just as much of a demand for innovation as other fields. More broadly, revision might also challenge certain things we thought we could take for granted about the connections between language, mathematics, and the structure of the universe. Or maybe not. Or maybe both.

Often in political debates, especially when the notion of an alternative is raised, the idea of human nature manages to slink its way in. This is a tactic used most often for cynical or reactionary purposes to convince people that there is no possibility for an alternative, and especially not for a radical alternative. What is worse is that often entire theories and philosophies are based on assumptions about human nature that are flimsy at best and outright false at worst. We have all heard these assumptions before, that people are “naturally selfish,” “driven entirely by self-interest,” and my personal favorite, “naturally inclined towards the marketplace.” These conclusions are made by people who look out their window and conclude universal, timeless truths from what they see. What must be done is to place what appears to be the nature of human beings in its historical and societal context.

In a recent essay, Seth Ackerman correctly states, “Skeptics scoff that people are too selfish for such a system to work. Optimists argue that humans are a naturally cooperative species. Evidence is adduced for both sides of the argument.” He continues that, “It’s safe to assume that humans display a mixture of cooperation and selfishness, in proportions that change according to circumstances.” I believe this analysis to be correct. Human beings have a wide-ranging capacity for many dispositions, ranging from selfishness to selflessness, hatred to love, violence to caring. We see the range of these dispositions in our own society, but one is right to notice that our society tends towards selfishness and self-interest. This is not because human beings naturally tend toward this side of the parameter, but because there are certain structures in our society that value selfishness over altruism.

For example, in competing on the market, beating out your neighbor, your friends, and your family is valued. Greed and the maximization of profit at all costs (or externalities as an economist might say) are praised in business, and reducing people to means to achieve ones own ends is both commonplace and a necessity to succeed in a capitalist society. These structures of our society, which place possessions and individual achievement over relationships and community achievement, create a selfish disposition in its members, ourselves included.

The point is this: when having any political conversation about possible alternatives to the vicious state of society in which we live now, do not be persuaded by people who claim to know the universal truth of human nature. Alternatives should not be reduced to fantasies by such false limitations as those posited by people who cling to a distorted sense of the essence of our species. If there were any time, with crises upon crises at our doorstep, that alternatives to our current system need to be discussed, now is that time. Do not let current dogmas destroy the dreams of the future.

Warning: This post contains spoilers.

Like millions of other people around the world, this past break, I saw the film adaption of Claude-Michel Schönberg and Alain Boublil’s musical version of Victor Hugo’s classic novel, Les Misérables. I came to the film in a strange position—while I had never seen the musical staged, I was familiar with the novel, and did see bits of the 25^th anniversary concert (with Nick Jonas) and had listened to the soundtrack. However, the soundtrack that I owned was not any Broadway Cast, nor West End cast, but rather, the 2005 Paris revival version. Meaning that the entire album is in French. And, while I could pick out a few key phrases here and there (e.g. “Je m’appelle Jean Valjean”), my French listening skills were not refined enough to comprehend the storyline. Therefore, this post is not going to be a comparison of the film versus the musical versus the book, nor a film review, but rather, an examination of themes and storylines prevalent in all three works.

Central to the plot of Les Misérables is the plight of Jean Valjean, who at the start of the story has just been released from 19 years in prison for stealing bread to feed his sister’s starving child, as well as an escape attempt. His foil is Inspector Javert, who, after Valjean breaks his parole, devotes his life to bringing Valjean to justice and returning him to prison. However, as the story progresses, these two men take on a symbolism much greater than their individual personas.

Valjean, from the start, is associated with acts of kindness and mercy. His imprisonment itself is the result of his attempt to provide for a starving child. When Valjean is released from prison and is unable to find neither work nor a place to stay because of his tainted criminal record, a bishop offers him a place to stay, and Valjean spends the night there. In the middle of the night, Valjean steals the bishop’s silver and attempts to run away with it, but is caught by the police. But, in perhaps the most poignant moment in the musical, when the police bring Valjean back to the bishop with the silver, the bishop claims that he not only gave Valjean the silver, but that Valjean forgot that he also gave him a pair of silver candlesticks, asking, “Would you leave the best behind?”

From this moment, Valjean changes significantly, devoting his life to what he sees as the will of God, which is forgiveness and mercy. With the money from the silver, he becomes mayor of a town, and opens a few factories in which he treats his employees kindly and fairly. When Fantine, one of his former workers who is fired without his knowledge because she has an illegitimate child, is close to death, he promises to her that he will raise her daughter, which he does with care and love.  When given the chance to kill Javert, and ensure that he will no longer have to run from him, he instead spares his life, allowing him to escape.

Javert, conversely, rejects the idea of mercy in pursuit of justice as determined by the law. He pursues Valjean relentlessly, and sees himself as almost extension of the arm of God, as opposed to Valjean who he believes is “fallen from God, fallen from grace.” While he was born in the same lower class environment as Valjean, the two men diverge extremely in their view of the law and the role of religion (specifically, Christianity) in determining what is morally right and wrong.

This idea of justice versus mercy is examined in countless other works of literature and fiction, notably in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice. And, while in Les Mis, both Javert’s and Valjean’s perspectives can be supported by religion (both men believe that they are acting in the name of God and pursuing the essence of Christian virtue), Victor Hugo’s perspective on which of these two men is in the right is hardly unclear. Hugo’s perspective seems to emulate that of Portia’s in Act IV of Merchant of Venice, where she claims, “The quality of mercy is not strained./It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven,/Upon the place beneath./It is twice blessed//It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.” This is supported by the fact that, once Javert realizes that he can no longer pursue bringing Valjean to justice because Valjean showed him mercy, he jumps off a bridge to his death in a moment where he questions whether he was right in pursuing Valjean.

However, while Hugo (and perhaps Schönberg and Boublil as well) clearly sympathize with Valjean’s commitment to mercy over Javert’s relentless pursuit of retribution, the issue is one which many people continue to struggle with in issues of law and politics. To what extent are people responsible for their actions, and how much should the intent behind these actions be taken into account? Valjean did, indeed, break the law multiple—though his sentence was undoubtedly extremely harsh, is it fair of the audience to view Javert as a villain when he is simply trying to uphold the law? Still, there seems something morally wrong about trying to bring Valjean to justice when we see example after example of him acting in a benevolent, generous manner.

Ultimately, I believe the criticism here is not of the Javert-types of the world, but rather of the inherent failures and biases in the legal system. Overall, Les Misérables deals with the plights of the lower classes within a regime that does not respond to their needs. Perhaps neither Valjean, who broke the law only to fill a moral obligation to sustain another person’s life, nor Javert, who sees himself as protector of order and justice, are able to carry any blame—but rather, both are the victim of a political system that does not care about them.

In his acceptance speech last night, President Barack Obama said, “we know in our hearts that for the United States of America the best is yet to come.” Though there are plenty of policies I’ll be working to change in the next four years, a number of exciting measures and candidates were affirmed at the polls yesterday.

Breakthroughs for Women and GLBTQ
Last night was truly inspiring for those passionate about women’s and LGBTQ rights; there were a number of decisive and historic outcomes. Four states voted in support of marriage equality. In Maine, Washington, and Maryland, voters approved and affirmed equal marriage rights for their citizens. In Minnesota, voters rejected a measure which would have prohibited marriage rights for LGBTQ residents.

In addition, last night was a watershed for GLBTQ representation amongst elected officials: Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin was elected the first openly gay Senator. Votes are still being counted in a very tight race, but it looks like Kyrsten Sinema will win the seat for Arizona’s 9th district. If elected, Ms. Sinema will be the first openly bi-sexual member of the House of Representatives.

Slowly but surely, women are increasing their numbers in political offices. A record twenty women will become members of the 113th Congressional Senate, an increase of three from the current 112th Congress. My hometown hero, former employer, and the longest serving woman in the House of Representatives, Marcy Kaptur, successfully battled to claim her 16th term representing Ohio’s 9th district. She faced election absurdities which included gerrymandering that pitted her against famous leftist Dennis Kucinich, and a general election opponent in Joe the Plumber (remember him from ‘08? Yes, he actually ran for office). HuffPost has an interactive map where you can check out where women ran and won in the House and Senate.

The Public says A’ OK to Mary-J
For those whose policy concerns are a little hazier, momentous decisions wafted in from the polls last night. Voters in Colorado approved Amendment 64, which will amend the state constitution to legalize and regulate the production, possession, and distribution of marijuana for persons age 21 and older for recreational use. Washington State voters are hoping for major tax revenue by doing the same thing: they approved Initiative 502, which will also legalize and regulate the production, possession and distribution of cannabis for persons age 21 and older. The catch? A 25% tax rate will be imposed in all stages of the transaction process: “when the grower sells it to the processor, when the processor sells it to the retailer, and when the retailer sells it to the customer,” according to CNN. A similar measure in Oregon was defeated. Massachusetts and Montana passed referendums in favor of legalizing marijuana for medical use; a similar measure in Arkansas failed.

What Is “American?”
The ballot for voters in the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico offered a two-part choice to voters regarding their relationship to the States. In the first section, 54% of voters say they did not favor their current commonwealth status. Following, given the choice of statehood, independence or “sovereign free association,” 61% chose statehood as the alternative, with 33% choosing the semi-autonomous “sovereign free association” and 6% voting for outright independence. The non-binding referendum is seen as a mark of popular opinion on the island. Significantly, one third of ballots cast left the question of status blank, prompting many to argue that results which favor statehood may be misleading. Barack Obama has previously stated that he will support the will of the Puerto Rican people on this issue.

In the midst of increasingly racialized political attacks, a rise in hate crimes and workplace discrimination, and a Census-projection which estimates that America’s demographics will no longer be majority white by as early as 2042, upcoming debate about Puerto Rico’s status will be an important indicator of America’s tolerance of diversity. America’s racial, linguistic, and religious diversity is expanding, and in many ways this election was characterized by these tensions and evolving attitudes.

On a personal note, I was pleased with the results of many of the races in the House of Representatives. One of my least favorite representatives, the always-Islamophobic Allen West (R-FL) was not re-elected. At least four out of the 5 Arab Americans in Congress won their reelection bids.

Forward?

As the President reminded us yesterday,

“These arguments we have are a mark of our liberty. We can never forget that as we speak people in distant nations are risking their lives right now just for a chance to argue about the issues that matter, the chance to cast their ballots like we did today.”

When I cast my ballot for President Obama early last week, I did so cognizant of the reservations I hold about many of his policies over the last four years. Yet, I believe in the sincerity of his promise to move the country forward, and I am ready to speak up on how I believe we can do so. When I canvassed for Obama back in 2008, I wanted to help change the image and policies of America abroad. In 2012, I look at the radical expansion and militarization of the CIA, the dramatic increase in deportations here, and the tarnished image of “Made in the U.S.A.” stamped on tear gas canisters, thrown at peaceful protestors in places like Egypt and Kenya, and I want change.

It is time to move the country forward, and finally close Guantanamo Bay.
We cannot go backward; we must repeal sections of the NDAA which permit the indefinite detention of American citizens.
We need to move forward and bring an end to the quagmire in Afghanistan.
We cannot go backward: a decade of drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia has endangered innocent civilians, radicalized our enemies and fomented anti-American sentiments abroad, as well as jeopardized the safety of our troops, and has not made our country safer.
We need to move forward: members of Congress can no longer find endless funding to send my friends to war without supporting them adequately when they return.
We can not move backward by slurring and discriminating against minority communities in this country. America’s religious freedom means that all communities should be safe to practice their religion without the threat of violence, as Sikh and Muslim Americans have endured in recent months.
We can no longer selectively buy off illegitimate and unjust rulers in the Middle East in the name of stability; apartheid, destruction of religious sites, and the tyranny of the minority can no longer be accepted if we are to move forward. The politics of fear and segregation are stagnant, and will not bring peace to the region. As a religiously and ethnically diverse nation, America can assist by brainstorming creatively, promoting democratic solutions which simultaneously allow for self-determination of all citizens while ensuring the safety and participation of minority communities.

Last night was a good start, but we need to keep moving forward. I remain full of hope, and ready for change.

The Observer asked students, professor and administrators to talk about their reaction to last night’s election and the future of the United States.

Kyle Henderson – Associate Vice President for College Relations

“I find it inspiring that so many students – as many as 800 by some counts – registered to vote here in Knox County.  For most of you this is likely your first Presidential election, and you could not have picked a better place to be an important part of our democracy.  I hope you’ll share your experience with others and help make this a Kenyon tradition that lasts.”

Katharine Weber – Richard L. Thomas Visiting Professor of Creative Writing

“I am hugely elated to look ahead to teaching next semester in the great state of Ohio, which has played such a significant role in returning Barack Obama to the White House for a second term. (Even though at this moment the Romney campaign refuses to concede Ohio.)”

Michael Hayes 14′

“The President of the United States of America called for the equality of the gay citizens of this country in his acceptance speech last night, observed with elation across the globe. Our nation’s first openly gay Senator, Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), was elected, and several more of these United States have voted in favor of marriage equality. The efforts of the LGBT community, of which I am so proudly a part, to affirm to the children of this country that “it gets better” have been appropriately desperate and genuinely concerted. This election has shown these discouraged and frightened young Americans, those who many of us are or were, that this affirmation was not made in vain, that we have the support of our head of state and our nation and that it is always getting better. Never have I felt so proud to be a citizen of this remarkable country.”

Devon Beeny 15′

“I was a little surprised at how quickly the race ended. I found it a little anti-climactic. It was really close and then it wasn’t at all. I am glad President Obama pulled out an electoral win and just hope that he can win the popular vote. I think we will have a lot of gridlock if the President doesn’t have a popular vote majority.”

Max Rappaport 14′

“While I’m definitely not opposed to four more years, I’m not an emphatic supporter of Obama and can’t display the zeal for him that many of his supporters seem to display unconditionally. Regardless, I’m looking forward to what the next term will hold.”

Benjamin Ros 14′

“OW-BAMA!”

Andrew Gabel 15′

“”In an election that should have been about America’s economic
stagnation, it’s $16 trillion dollar debt, trillion dollar yearly
deficits and a grossly unfair tax and regulatory structure, we were
instead treated to months of ad hominem attacks and “binders full of
women”.  Has there ever been a presidential campaign in the history of
United States so entirely unworthy of it’s significance?  Over the
next four years, America faces serious and difficult choices that will
determine its trajectory in the 21st century.  One hopes that when the
day comes to make these choices, it will do so with more seriousness
than it displayed in the 2012 presidential campaign.”

Melanie Shelton 13′

“I AM SO FUCKING HAPPY! Not only did Obama win, but same-sex couples can now legally marry in Maine. I’m feeling relieved, and more hopeful about our country than I have in a while. And I’m so proud of my home state.”

Andrew Firestone 14′

“Who knows what’s in store. President Obama’s victory in 2008 was followed by a recession that constrained his agenda and complicated his desire to effect real change. Today immigration deserves comprehensive reform, the unemployment rate hovers just under 8%, health care continues to pit states against the federal government, and congress will likely remain incredibly divided.

The threat of terrorism looms, Greece remains in peril, Iran continues to enrich uranium and Prime Minister Netenyahu has asserted that he does not need support from the United States to attack Iran’s underground nuclear bunker. Syria is slipping deeper into a conflict that is no longer a civil war and militants from surrounding countries are flocking to the region to join the fight. The list goes on and on. Simply put, though, I was quite scared by the prospect of Mitt Romney facing all of those things in the Oval Office. I believe in the President’s conviction – I have faith in his vision – and I look forward to witnessing the full realization of his liberal politics in the national and international arenas.”

Andrew Stewart 15′

“The American people themselves can accomplish a lot between now and the next election. We shouldn’t just sit back and silently pray that our politicians will find time to do whatever they claim to be good at. They should be held accountable every day, not just on Election Day.”

Qossay Alsattari 15′

“It is very promising to see Americans peruse change. President Obama is attempting to lead Americans towards progress.”

Sam Whipple 16′

“As a freshman who’s finally able to vote, and lucky enough to be working in a state that matters so much, I’m deeply emotional about tonights results; for myself, for this campus, and for the country. I spent most of today, like I did for the rest of the past two months, with many of the best and brightest of the Kenyon Democrats. We canvassed today in Columbus, which ended up blue for the president, and to see Ohio emerge as the state that pushed the President past 270 was so intensely gratifying for all of us. We chose to stick with CNN, and even as each of us was texted about the results being confirmed in Ohio, we stayed cautiously optimistic until the very last votes. The president’s reelection tonight I know means a validation of all of our hard work, and of the efforts that the First Lady urged us to on Saturday – we fought for Ohio and its nice to know how much it mattered. The president told us at the DNC that we were the change we wanted, and I’m pretty sure every member of the kenyon dems feels that way tonight. Truly extraordinary.”

James Dennin 13′

“Knew it. Elizabeth Warren 2016.”

Tyler Dierke 13′

“My first thoughts after hearing about Obama’s re-election is the off-air comments to Medvedev about having “flexibility” after election. While in context the comment referred to missile defense, I think that Obama will apply this “flexibility” to many other aspects of his position. And if that means to expand further on what he did (or didn’t do) during his first term, it may be a pretty alarming future for our generation. Thankfully, I already have a job lined up, so good luck to everyone else.”