French pervert philosophers: Something new to me

Via a Boston Review piece about a new biography of Simone de Beauvoir, which notes, inter alia the hypocrisy in The Second Sex behind the various abusiveness she shared and spread along with Jean-Paul Sartre, I saw a link to a Wikipedia piece from a description that, in the 1970s, the two of them, along with many other leading lights of French philosophy, as in Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Roland Barthes, Jean-François Lyotard, Gilles Deleuze and others, including intellectuals outside of the world of philosophy, had signed a petition asking the French government to ...

 Wait for it, wait for it ....

Abolish all aged-based laws of sexual consent.

No, really. Here's the petition, in Le Monde, and in English, with a link to a French blog post about it, and a similar one, two years later, in Liberation. Those, along with Figaro and Le Matin, would be two of France's top four daily newspapers by most accounts.

And, per some of the links off the Wikipedia page?

Atlantic describes a 2011 statutory rape of an 11-year-old. Except that it's not. It's technically not rape in France unless force is used, even on an 11-year-old. In other words, France has no statutory rape law. French law did allow original lesser sexual charges, but until a judge explicitly instated a rape charge (Continental jurisprudence allowing a judge to do that), that was it. But, France, as of the time of that case, and the 2018 story, still had no formal age of consent. (Atlantic had the actual petition links.)

The story notes that this all started with France's version of the summer of protest and summer of love in 1968. From there, France had, well, had NAMBLA type organizations form.

Not all Frenchmen at that time or now agreed. Many were horrified.

So, Sartre et al weren't even protesting statutory rape laws, since France doesn't even have THAT! They were protesting something lesser. Rather than decrying that the "something lesser" was all that was on the books.

And, it gets worse!

Also linked off Wiki is this interview with Foucault (at left) and others, about six months after the first petition in Le Monde.

One of the speakers says the push for a an age of consent, after some people were outraged by the petition to see that France didn't have one, is all about American puritan prudery crossing the ocean.

No, really. Guy Hocquenghem, one of the signers:

When someone says that child pornography is the most terrible of present scandals, one cannot but be struck by the disproportion between this -child pornography, which is not even prostitution - and everything that is happening in the world today- what the black population has to put up with in the United States, for instance.

What is there to say but what the fuck?

Well, there's more about why this is a what the fuck.

Yes, it's true that children understand something about what sexual organs are, etc. But, for Foucault to try to equalize a child's sexuality to an adult's is ridiculous. Part of what I see playing out is a continuing interest in Freudianism at this time among both the philosophers and psychologists who signed the petition. And, a veiled hint that an age of consent would be a societal version of Freudian repression. And, of course, from that, Hocquenghem says that the idea of a "pervert" is nothing but a social construct.

What's also "interesting" is that both Foucault and Hocquenghem died from AIDS. Foucault is identified as the first French public figure to do so. Whether either took any sexual precautions after the first AIDS alarms, I don't know. But, they had the opportunity. After all, Luc Montagnier is French, and he was first talking about it as a retrovirus back in 1983, and most of the basic issues had been worked out by 1985 or 1986.. It's also "interesting" that Hocquenghem started a sexually abusive (because it might fall under statutory rape age!) relationship with a high school philosophy teacher when he was 15.

Speaking of that, and per the interview, I'm actually surprised that none of the signees made a direct appeal to Athenian pederasty.

I would like to think that Camus, were he still alive at the time, would not only not have signed such a petition but would have called it out. But, of course, I don't know that.

And, no, this isn't "old Europe" in general. The Atlantic lists information on a number of European states that have explicit age of consent laws and what those ages are.

Scientism, philosophy, and the Big Bang

 Regular readers of this blog and my main one both know that I like to comment at times on the issue of "scientism," which is, in a nutshell, certain scientists overblown claims for science, that it has explanatory power, or will at some day, and explanatory frameworks for many things that are rightly regarded as philosophical.

Aesthetics would be a great example.

"De gustibus non disputandum" Romans said 2,000 years ago, and it's just as true today.

Science has basically nothing to tell — certainly, hard sciences have basically nothing to tell — about why I think Mozart is overrated by many people. He IS and you shut up!

In some instances, the social sciences may indeed have some explanatory value, but even there, it's overblown. The hard sciences, though, are where scientism really hits the road.

And, last week, with Roger Penrose getting the Physics Nobel for his work on black holes, his naysayers on his anti-Big Bang ideas popped up.

I have little doubt Ethan Siegal knows cosmology well. Philosophy, including philosophy of science or more narrowly, philosophy of physics, )per the likes of Massimo Pigluicci postulating "philosophies of ..." for separate hard sciences at least) not so much, it would seem, per this anti-Penrose diatribe.

He says, near the end:

This presents a tremendous challenge for cosmology, and for science in general. In science, when we see some phenomena that our theories cannot explain, we have two options. 

1. We can attempt to devise a theoretical mechanism to explain those phenomena, while simultaneously maintaining all the successes of the prior theory and making novel predictions that are distinct from the prior theory’s predictions. 

2. Or we can simply assume that there is no explanation, and the Universe was simply born with the properties necessary to give us the Universe we observe. 

Only the first approach has scientific value, and therefore that’s the one that must be tried, even if it fails to yield fruit.

Uhh, wrong!

Accepting there is no explanation is itself of scientific value. It cuts down on possible pseudoscience; it allows scientific inquiry to be directed more productively, and other things.

And, in terms of philosophy of science, it leads to some epistemic humility. (That itself is something lacking in spades among many scientism practitioners.)

Siegal needs to read himself some early Wittgenstein and learn when to be silent.

Now, at times, explanations manifest themselves years or decades later. Planck's solving of the blackbox radiation problem, directly tied to Siegel's post, is one such answer.

BUT.

Even that is not guaranteed. Siegel acting like scientific answers are guaranteed is textbook scientism.

WRR: Unconstitutional Sunday programming?

 A few weeks ago I blogged about WRR, Dallas' classical radio station, about to enter its centennial year.

Now, many Dallas listeners know that it's required to carry live Dallas City Council meetings as part of its ownership by the city of Dallas.

Many others know that it has Sunday religious services. 

Given its ownership by a government, I find this unconstitutional two ways.

It violates the First Amendment both by establishing a religion in general, and by establishing Christianity as the only religion on its airway.

What about it, ACLU?

The new literary AI: Same as the old AI, overall

 A week after The Guardian wrote a shortish piece breathlessly touting new writing AI, specifically a program called GPT-3, The Atlantic takes a deep dive in the shallow end of the pool.

At least Renée DiResta gives us unedited, albeit excerpted, material to read (the Guardian only had edited slices):

In addition to the potential for AI-generated false stories, there’s a simultaneously scary and exciting future where AI-generated false stories are the norm. The rise of the software engineer has given us the power to create new kinds of spaces: virtual reality and augmented reality are now possible, and the “Internet of things” is increasingly entering our homes. This past year, we’ve seen a new type of art: that which is created by algorithms and not humans. In this future, AI-generated content will continue to become more sophisticated, and it will be increasingly difficult to differentiate it from the content that is created by humans. One of the implications of the rise in AI-generated content is that the public will have to contend with the reality that it will be increasingly difficult to differentiate between generated content and human-generated content.

Really? That's supposed to impress me? DiResta says yes:

It’s somewhat disconcerting to have a machine plausibly imitating your writing style based on a few paragraphs—to see it mindlessly generating “thoughts” that you have had. Even though I knew GPT-3 was putting words together based on probabilities, I found myself giving it prompts when I was stuck on how best to express a concept or wondering how it would answer a question.

Delude me, is more like it. Or delude her, which is more disconcerting. I am reminded of the old fake computer psychiatrist ELIZA, somewhat smoother version, and nothing else, other than the number of people who deluded themselves about it, too.

As for the horrors of AI being used for propaganda writing? Well, if Russian trolls can be replaced with AI bots to "flood the zone" even more, or capitalist businesses in America doing the same to We the People, that is troublesome to a degree.

But nowhere near the breathlessness degree.

Also contra DiResta, the "new AI" (think The Who, don't get fooled again) still needs humans to "prompt" it, and the Guardian admitted its excerpts were edited.

And "tells" will still happen. Response time, or response sloppiness, on social media will be one of them. One human stringer can only run so many bots at a time.

As for letters to the editor? Ms. DiResta, astroturfing campaigns opened that barn door years if not decades ago, and better-staffed newspapers regularly screwed the pooch.

Moving beyond the media angle, though, which is somewhat what the Guardian does? It claims editing on its AI piece took less than a human piece. That, in turn, makes me wonder what level of dreck its writers, or freelance op-ed submitters, actually turn in.

Other than the narrow world of yet more media-industry job losses, when I look at this, am I worried? No. As for other AI claims the Guardian flouts, I've heard some of the classical music. B-grade Philip Glass at best. And, that includes the same minimalist framework. Nothing anywhere close to Mahler or Stravinsky.

Is intelligence really about being a better bullshitter?

Or, more politely, about learning to be a better motivated reasoner?

So says Diana Fleischman in the pages of of Nautilus. 

Two caveats.

One, she's an ev psycher.

Two, she's working in part off work by Richard Dawkins.

Nonetheless, this delayed nutgraf:

Intelligence is associated with coming up with more convincing bullshit and with being a better liar, but not associated with a better ability to recognize one’s own bias.

Rings largely true in my book. (With caveats!)

First, one cannot say that intelligence, long before the syllogisms of Hellenic Greek philosophy, evolved "for" human rationality.

Second and related, per Kahneman and Tversky, "slow" thinking has high evolutionary cost, so intelligence wouldn't have evolved for that.

Third, per anecdotes, partially related to Julian Jaynes' book, intelligence probably did evolve in part for us to talk to ourselves better. Including couching our lies better.

So, there you are.

Sadly, sociopaths will read this as a huge self-justification.

That said, Fleitman is missing a page. Or two or three.

The first missing page? That is Goleman's varieties of intelligence. Especially when we get to the whole nine types idea, shown in one form here, emotional intelligence and interpersonal intelligence both offer the ability, even if not evolved for that, to detect others' bullshit.

Second, of course, as I've written many times, much of ev psych is pseudoscience. If Fleitman's ideas about why intelligence evolved are based on things like the Era of Evolutionary Adaptation, well, then they're also pseudoscience.

Finally, of course, we're NOT an ev psycher in this corner, nor are we Aristotelian final causers. Human intelligence did NOT evolve "for" better bullshitting, or "for" anything else. It was adapted "for" certain things after it evolved, and that adaptation was part of cultural evolution.

(Doorknob help us if the Ev Psychers try to trump this with a full-on ev psych based version of cultural evolution. Not that that's not already half their program.)

I will give Fleischman credit for not overstating her case, mainly through using the phrase "associated with."

For my take on Jaynes?

The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

It's been what, a decade or nearly so, since I last read this, so this review (I thought I had done one, but guess not) is from memory.

That said, I first read it in the early 1990s, when finishing up a graduate divinity degree and transitioning into a secularist.

Academics largely savaged the book at the time, but it's made somewhat of a comeback with them as well as the general public since then. In the world of philosophy, Jaynes' ideas somewhat parallel Dennett's subselves. Similar ideas have taken further root in psychology.

But, the biggie? Jaynes remains less than fully convincing in the when and why of how consciousness originated, both on general anthropology and on philosophy of religion.

The idea that god(s) might originally have been inner voices? Yes, not a totally unreasonable hypothesis.

But, why did these voices become "god(s)" when, as more and more cave paintings showed, some sort of religious experience may well have paralleled, not followed, the development of human language? Not really answered.

Also not really answered is why they STOPPED being internalized and instead became externalized.

Finally, although Jaynes doesn't go heavily into New Agey left brain/right brain stuff, he does drift a bit that way.

At the same time, the book remains provocative enough to get four stars, not three.

View all my reviews

Per Jaynes, and per Fleischman, to the degree she's on to something? Many people often tell themselves the best bullshit. And, per Goleman et al, they are highly lacking in intrapersonal intelligence. As a result, they can often get themselves wrapped around their own axle by someone who is transparent and guileless. Some of the greatest short stories in literature and parables in philosophy are about exactly this. 

Arguing facts about historical atheists with Gnu Atheists on social media

 Two weeks ago, I talked about the "fun" of arguing biblical interpretation with the Religious Right on Twitter.

Now, a flip side.

The background? Esha, who is one of "those people" — a DSA Rosey, still planted inside the Dem Party, but who stans for people like Uncle Joe — Stalin, not Biden. 

I called out a tweet via a podcast that she participates in:

Bullshit. The claim that the SPD put Hitler in power is like Democrats claiming that a Green vote is a vote for Trump. Guess you're as fucking tribalist as a Democrat.

— Again: Fuck Jesse Ventura & his lying cult 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) September 18, 2020

Then someone butted in:

hitler wasn't an atheist, get a clue.

— Skeptical AL (@Realist_Dragon) September 18, 2020

Wrong:

Ahh, no, you need a clue. As with Stalin and seminaries, the fact that Hitler was raised Catholic means nothing about his adulthood. Also, contra Himmler, Rosenberg et al, Hitler didn't believe in neopaganism, either.

— Again: Fuck Jesse Ventura & his lying cult 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) September 18, 2020

But that didn't stop him:

look stupid, hitler banned atheism, every german solider has "god is with us" on their belt, hitler continued his tithes to the catholic church, Hitler was a monster, insane, but not an atheist.

— Skeptical AL (@Realist_Dragon) September 18, 2020

And I noted:

Look, bozo, if you want to go there.
1. Atheists can co-opt religion. Look at Stalin opening the churches back up as Hitler drove on Moscow.
2. Gott Mit Uns was on the buckles of Prussian and Second Reich troops.

— Again: Fuck Jesse Ventura & his lying cult 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) September 18, 2020

(Update: I didn't even think about it until now, as prompted by a new Lincoln biography. American coinage says "in God we trust," but contra wingnuts, that doesn't make us a Christian nation.)

But that didn't stop him either:

no, you look bozi, Hitler practiced "positive christianity" maybe get off your ass and research.

— Skeptical AL (@Realist_Dragon) September 18, 2020

Followed by:

it was also on german buckles and all ss officers had to be christian.

— Skeptical AL (@Realist_Dragon) September 18, 2020

At this point, to me, it seemed clear he wasn't reading what I was saying and didn't care to. As I pointed out, SS officers were actually required to deny religious beliefs. Troops still identified as such, and big fucking deal, because:

it was also on german buckles and all ss officers had to be christian.

— Skeptical AL (@Realist_Dragon) September 18, 2020

At this point, to me, it seemed clear he wasn't reading what I was saying and didn't care to. First, re positive Xianity?

I know what "positive Xianity" is and I've already read about Hitler's religious views. If one wants to technically call him not an athiest, then his was the Nietzschean religion of the übermensch, with himself in starring role.

— Again: Fuck Jesse Ventura & his lying cult 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) September 18, 2020

Related to that? Joseph Goebbels' own words:

>>The Goebbels Diaries also remark on this policy. Goebbels wrote on 29 April 1941 that though Hitler was "a fierce opponent" of the Vatican and Christianity, "he forbids me to leave the church. For tactical reasons."<<

There. Research.

NOTE the "for tactical reasons."

— Again: Fuck Jesse Ventura & his lying cult 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) September 18, 2020

And topped by this:

The Wiki link has a footnote to a book. I know limits AND usefulness of Wikipedia.
Nice motivated reasoning.
Another Wiki entry notes they were required to "List themselves" as Xn.https://t.co/tgi7Ze8CtX
Big fucking deal.
At one time, there was no "athest" on US dog tags, either

— Again: Fuck Jesse Ventura & his lying cult 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) September 18, 2020

They stopped responding at that point. The reality, per pieces at Wiki and elsewhere, is that Hitler's official personal religious affiliations as an adult aside, he walked, talked and quacked like an atheist, unless per tweet above, Nietzscheanism übermenschen are considered gods within a religion. He rejected Christianity and laughed at Himmler and Rosenberg's neopaganism. Period. The closest I would allow to him not being an atheist is that he was perhaps, metaphysically, some sort of deistic pantheist. Even that is a perhaps. His private-life attacks on atheism seem to be attacks on something that wouldn't allow for the greatness of German blut. Or, even more likely, that as with post-WWII Americans, "godless" and "Communism" were always in the same sentence for Hitler.

Positive Christianity? As it rejects Trinitarianism, plus historical elements of Christian origins, it's not Christian. Claiming that it is, is laughable, especially its misinterpretation of the human Jesus as a crusader against Judaism.

And, Esha as a Rosey who stans for Stalin?