There’s a lot of discussion in the blogosphere about likely Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s remarks in 2001 when she was an appeals court judge.
““I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor.”
(Published by the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal)
At The Volokh Conspiracy, Jonathan Adler finds the implication of her remarks troubling. He suggests that they go beyond simply stating that each individual’s perspective matters to negating the existence of an objective stance altogether.
Ho hum. This is such a tired battle. No one ever seems to say anything new or insightful. It all seems to boil down to a power struggle. Those upholding objective standards claim they do so because indeed standards are “out there” – i.e. objective.
Those arguing for identity as the trump card claim that the objective standard merely disguises power relations and the (white, male) identity of the powerful.
Can I say anything new? I don’t know, but it’s worth a try if only to spare myself future boredom reading the reasoning on both sides of these kinds of debate.
Back later with more.
******
OK. Here’s how I see it.
Experience always alters perception, so, to that extent, Sotomayor is not saying anything inaccurate.
I think the part that bothered Adler is this one (and I can see why): He says she “quotes approvingly” law professors who have said that “to judge is an exercise of power.”
Again, note the problem with reasoning in the social sciences here. There is an elision, a gap, in which changes in meaning are lost.
To say something is an act of power is not the same thing as saying it’s only an act of power. Moreover, power has a connotation in today’s political lingo that’s inherently negative.
Supposing then you were to substitute the word “will,” for the word “power,” what then?
Sotomayor would then be saying that people’s experiences influence the way they think, which informs their judgment. Their judgment is as much an act of will as it’s the logical conclusion of reasoning independent of the actor who performs it.
Instead of discussing power relations (politics), we’d end up in a much more fruitful arena, exploring the relationship between our will and our perceptions and reasoning. We’d be in the territory of cognitive science and philosophy. And we’d be much more likely to come up with something useful.
And all from looking at our language a bit more critically.
Of course, I have no idea whether that’s what Sotomayor meant. I’m just saying that a nuanced reading of words might be a place where both sides of the debate could start.
Instead, the debate ends locked in what I think I’ll label a Catholic (God is all-knowing*) versus Protestant (God is all-powerful) polarity, with judge substituting for God.
* I originally wrote all-rational, which seems to have led to a misunderstanding. I meant “reason” (as in ‘right reason’ rather than Reason, as in Enlightenment rationality)
It is true, and sadly funny, how so many people appeal to such noble and lofty ideals as “objectivity” ONLY when it suits their interests, but completely ignore it most of the time. (In the first place, the entire coercive monopoly on third party arbitration, a.k.a. The Judicial System, which is unaccountable and non-elected, seriously undermines the very principles of fairness and freedom it was meant to uphold. Proof of this can be seen in any of the myriad of completely evil laws, let’s say any prohibition law for simplicity. Where was their objectivity when they endorsed these evil laws?)
(Also, I can’t help but take offense to the implication that catholicism, or any other religion, endorses rationality/reason :b. They might very well claim this, as every religion does–each self-proclaims itself to know The Infallible Truth–but this, yet again, spits in the face of Real Objectivity(tm).)
Hi Dennis –
rationality and reason – two different things.
Catholicism does indeed see God as knowable and his actions as in conformity with reason – but not ‘R”- eason – the enlightenment reason – which was the object of Catholic critique.
These sorts of things give rise to errors.
Still, I can’t help but take offense to the idea of omniscience/all-knowingness–since it completely contradicts the idea of “free will”–not because I think free will exists (it’s hard to say), but only because oxymorons hurt my eyes 🙂 (Catholicism et al simultaneously believe in an all-knowing deity and a not-all-knowing deity who leaves the future to our own whims.)
Perhaps you mean the Catholic stereotype of the compassionate forgiver, versus the stricter Protestant? Latinas are notoriously Catholic :\.
Otherwise, besides this minutia, I agree. Although, whether you call it subjective and personal *power* struggles or subjective and personal *will* and *personality* struggles–the problem is still the same–namely the subjectivity.
Why would omniscience contradict free will? It doesn’t. If I drive my car over a cliff, you “know” before hand that it’s a bad idea..but your knowing this doesn’t deprive me of my free will..
also – presumably, god lives in the eternal now, so “not knowing the future” is part of the human condition.
I mean that catholicism sees the universe and god as reasonable and understandable by reason (right reason).
One strand of protestantism tends to the idea that God can contradict reason..hence it plays up the omnipotence of God…and if you’re an atheist and eliminate god from the picture, then of course you get the state or the law giver or in this case, the judge – as the all powerful..
Re – subjective vs objective
We have to get away from such rigid dualities. All things have a subjective and an objective elements in them at all times and in different degrees and at different levels. Our analysis has to be better than subjective versus objective…
it’s far too crude to make any contribution to understanding..
It’s like trying to understand an impressionistic painting by classifying colors as either black or white..
Does this magical “god” entity know the future? If he is omniscient, he does–he would know exactly what will happen. In other words, somehow expecting us to make our own personal decisions, and choose from a multiple of possible destinies is an absurdity. This is one of countless extremely blatant logical absurdities that I couldn’t in good conscience simply let fly by :). (I’d say the flippant betrayal of the laws of conservation of mass and energy are pretty close to the top too. (How could a massless non-electronic/magnetic god communicate with a massy eletromagnetic human being? 😛 But I don’t want to digress.))
Re: subjectivity, I disagree. We are specifically dealing with laws here, nothing else. And laws, IMHO, have to be absolutely objective. The same law cannot be interpreted two diametrically different ways by a protestant and a catholic.
You’re assuming a lot of things…
“god” does not have to be an “entity”
– nor are you entirely a “massy thing” – as for the communication…there was a lot of discussion of that in the 17th c (the mindbody question)…today
we have cognitive and neuroscience to help us…
the results may be less supportive of your position than you think.
It’s not I who am illogical –
you are getting misled by language.
There was nothing absurd in my argument.
Having foreknowledge of something doesn’t mean you’re influencing the free will of the doer of the deed.
You’re not taking into account time…
You should read Flatland..if that’s the name of the book…
and that’s besides the point that all logical oppositions contain their negation in themselves..
it was the underlying theme of “Mobs”
dichotomies arise from our language.
we should use logic…we shouldn’t be “enchanted” by it..
I think you’re reacting so sharply because you think I side with Sotomayor.
relax, I don’t. But not because I think ala Volokh conspiracy that objectivity is at stake (the horror!)
Yes–we are entirely massy (or the corresponding energy equivalent). Neuroscience, thank god, has finally arrived to confirm this. (I can understand how, in the technical darkness of the 17thC, people may have thought otherwise. But today there is no excuse.)
I also don’t know how else to rephrase this 1=0 absurdity about omniscience. Nobody is compelling you to believe in an omniscient entity (I’m not sure what you mean by a non-entity), nor in free will. I only meant to point out quite conclusively this unacceptable concept. You don’t seem to be appreciating the implications of this absurdity :P. If this magical pink god knows the future, as the magical concept of omniscience demands, then he knows *exactly* what decisions we will make–so why the hilarious pretext of asking us to choose? These two concepts simply cannot coexist. Logic is not “just another framework” that we are “enchanted by”. It’s all there is. (Yet another of countless asides: the human species will almost certainly be extinct in a million or so years from now, and definitely within the lifetime of our solar system, which kindof leaves the whole idea of our animal behaviors and “wills” moot, no? 🙂
I realize that the actual physical concept of time itself is not entirely understood by us (ie. what happened at/before the big bang when time/space was a singularity)–but please don’t hide behind that to magically lend credibility to an infinitely more complex concept of a massless timeless white male jewish-speaking “non-entity” who created evolution or everything et. ad nauseum :P.
My sharp reaction is merely to the religious tangent, not to the rest of the post :).
I think you’re having an emotional reaction…..
Like Hitchens, many people set up a straw man and then get annoyed when other people don’t subscribe to those straw men (sorry for being blunt).
My beliefs or lack thereof are worlds removed from what you think..and your fundamentalism about language and logic is quite as frightening as religious fundamentalism I think.
It’s simply untrue to hold that omnipotence and omniscience are incompatible, even if we accept that our logic is adequate to discuss such things. But it isn’t and they aren’t. Such discussions are (strictly) in the realm of nonsense, from a philosopher’s point of view. Which is why I don’t indulge in them, except in defense.
2. My use of the word ‘god’ could be rephrased as ‘ground of our being,’ ‘nothing,’ sunyata,’ ‘void’ – but calling it god also doesn’t bother me. I could talk about ‘suchness,’ ‘inwit,’ ‘inscape’ and many other intellectually more acceptable terms. But I am a simple person and I like to use simple language. I like the word god. I don’t have any hangups one way or other about using it. I could rephrase the whole argument in philosophical terms, but then no one would understand me, which defeats the purpose of blogging.
3. You got rather unnecessarily sharp because I called into question your understanding of time.
We experience time as moments succeeding each other in linear fashion. This is strictly a human experience. We can’t project that onto reality and cancel any other apprehension of time.
4. Why is the notion of god, white,male and jewish, please? and please tell me when I said it was? Do I take it that you think that is what Christianity amounts to? In that case, I probably can’t say anything to you, I presumed more knowledge on your part. Could I also say your notion of libertarianism is white, male and jewish (ala rothbard)? Do you think that makes much sense?
I also accept other culturally specific representations of “being” – including all sorts of practices that don’t fit into a fundamentalist notion of religion.
One can have faith and be an atheist. There are Christian/atheist theologians. One can also be a monist and a dualist and still be Hindu. I am sure there are also atheistical strands of Hinduism.
But it’s too much for a blog post I think.
I consider myself both Hindu and Christian and a skeptic and a pagan.
How do you reckon with that?
I appreciate your comments but I do think they stem from a certain amount of naivety.
And you should try to read Mircea Eliade on time.
You’ll enjoy it, I think.
Lila
To say that 1!=0 is not “logical fundamentalism” :P. I didn’t say that omnipotence and omniscience were contradictions, but rather those two and “free will” were. Free will is supposed to be the power of an individual to choose from an alleged variety of possible destinies. Either the individual has this power, or “god” does. Which is it? (Let me guess, we are god, yada yada ;). )
(To say that god is omnipotent/omniscient means that he knows exactly what we will do. In this case, what can one say about a “god” who allowed millions of people in Hiroshima to be instantly vaporized? He certainly had the power to stop it. I certainly would not appreciate such a “god” who vaporized me or my family.)
I’m not sure what you’re getting at with the relativism of time perception. At best, you can claim that we don’t know much about it. But there is simply no ground anywhere to resort to pink spaghetti monsters who somehow exist outside of space-time-mass–which introduces FAR more vague and FAR less understood concepts into discourse. How is it possible, and what is the point of discussing things about which we know absolutely nothing about–except a few scraps of heresay written by ignorant farmers thousands of years ago, which were copied several times over by earlier pagan astronomical traditions?
Christian mythology depicts “god” as a male patriarch. Every artistic depiction of “him” that I’ve seen (which I’d guess is at least 90% of all renderings of him) show him as a white male, with white hair, and a white beard. The prayer “Our Father” and countless others reinforce this patriarchal image. And all this is because it’s all made-up fantasy. The mere image of a caring father-figure is enough to evoke the appropriate emotions among the ignorant masses.
By the way, I hate to break it to you, but you’re not Christian–or at least definitely not Catholic :P. Whether you like it or not, it is a pretty rigid system with very specific rules–and you have to believe in miracles and transubstantiation and a lot of other nonsense to be a part of the club. You cannot be a Christian-Atheist LOL! Try running that by the Pope and see how far you get. Or to your local Imam. Hinduism is more forgiving, and there are atheist versions of that.
You’re right–I am having an emotional reaction :)–I’ve been trying to hold back my criticism of your super-natural beliefs for a long time, and I guess I just cracked :|. I don’t mean to be too sharp, since I realize you try /really/ hard to adjust your beliefs to a very personal and inoffensive and perhaps even pleasant flavor, but you’re still wrong. (Or if you’re not, then I’m wrong, and I would really appreciate correction. There either is or isn’t a deity. He/She/It/non-It either is or isn’t omnipotent. Etc.)
Dennis: To say that 1!=0 is not “logical fundamentalism” :P.
Lila: No, but to say that that kind of reasoning is essential to every kind of discourse is logical fundamentalism. Talking about God is like saying what a great composer Bach is and disagreeing or agreeing over it. It’s not like asserting that a is not b.
Dennis: I didn’t say that omnipotence and omniscience were contradictions, but rather those two and “free will” were. Free will is supposed to be the power of an individual to choose from an alleged variety of possible destinies. Either the individual has this power, or “god” does. Which is it? (Let me guess, we are god, yada yada ;). )
Lila: I don’t see the need for sarcasm. As to your objection, which I already answered in several ways, see above. Your either/or polarity doesn’t work here. I’ve already explained that your alternatives are false.
Dennis:
(To say that god is omnipotent/omniscient means that he knows exactly what we will do. In this case, what can one say about a “god” who allowed millions of people in Hiroshima to be instantly vaporized? He certainly had the power to stop it. I certainly would not appreciate such a “god” who vaporized me or my family.)
Lila: Human beings choose to do evil things..God does not intervene in human actions. If you
throw a rock, he won’t intervene in gravity, not because he can’t, but because he is himself reasonable and partakes of law.
You’re trying to apply mathematical reasoning to propositions which aren’t mathematical. I’ve said this several times. The whole of “mobs” is an attack on economics just on this point.
Dennis:
I’m not sure what you’re getting at with the relativism of time perception. At best, you can claim that we don’t know much about it. But there is simply no ground anywhere to resort to pink spaghetti monsters who somehow exist outside of space-time-mass–which introduces FAR more vague and FAR less understood concepts into discourse. How is it possible, and what is the point of discussing things about which we know absolutely nothing about–except a few scraps of heresay written by ignorant farmers thousands of years ago, which were copied several times over by earlier pagan astronomical traditions?
Lila: Hi Dennis -pink spaghetti monsters is a term of derision. People deride when their arguments are weak. Likewise, I can assure you those farmers would be able to teach us all a thing or two.
Dennis:
Christian mythology depicts “god” as a male patriarch. Every artistic depiction of “him” that I’ve seen (which I’d guess is at least 90% of all renderings of him) show him as a white male, with white hair, and a white beard. The prayer “Our Father” and countless others reinforce this patriarchal image. And all this is because it’s all made-up fantasy. The mere image of a caring father-figure is enough to evoke the appropriate emotions among the ignorant masses.
Lila: Yes, that’s the Christian convention in its foundations…but there is also the Virgin, and Sophia and other feminine influences. And modern Christianity is very saturated with every cultural trend of feminism and environmentalism.
All ideas are clothed in conventions. The notion that these images are simply meant to brainwash the ignorant masses was the conclusion of a man of strong intellect and weak insight, Karl Marx. Since he did not understand or care to understand religion or the symbolism and thinking behind it, he dismissed it.
Anyway, reductionism is no objection. Nearly everything we do – including politics – is the sublimation of irrational drives. It doesn’t mean we can reduce culture to nothing more than drives.
Dennis:
By the way, I hate to break it to you, but you’re not Christian–or at least definitely not Catholic :P. Whether you like it or not, it is a pretty rigid system with very specific rules–and you have to believe in miracles and transubstantiation and a lot of other nonsense to be a part of the club. You cannot be a Christian-Atheist LOL! Try running that by the Pope and see how far you get. Or to your local Imam. Hinduism is more forgiving, and there are atheist versions of that.
Lila:
Some of the leading Christian theologians didn’t subscribe to a literal understanding of transubstantiation. IN fact, most of protestantism probably takes it metaphorically. The pope is a Catholic – that’s only one branch of organized Christianity. there are many branches and there are many beliefs that don’t fit into an established church.
Dennis:
You’re right–I am having an emotional reaction :)–I’ve been trying to hold back my criticism of your super-natural beliefs for a long time, and I guess I just cracked :|. I don’t mean to be too sharp, since I realize you try /really/ hard to adjust your beliefs to a very personal and inoffensive and perhaps even pleasant flavor, but you’re still wrong. (Or if you’re not, then I’m wrong, and I would really appreciate correction. There either is or isn’t a deity. He/She/It/non-It either is or isn’t omnipotent. Etc.)
Lila: You have no idea what my beliefs are or aren’t. All I said was that I do consider myself a Christian and can profess the Nicene creed in terms that satisfy me. I didn’t say it would satisfy the Anglican church, but I think you might surprised.
No hard feelings, argument is fine. But not ad hominem.
PS – supernatural is your term not mine. I think what I accept is well within nature…just nature that we don’t understand yet. That’s precisely why I am interested in religious symbolism.
I really think you are confusing me with a fundamentalist….
Quite funny.
I claim free will; who will take it from me? I claim my right to define my life, my beliefs and my observations pertaining to the divine. I grant the same to others. Humans are not onmiscient and even the Catholics had to have numerous confabs to refine their orthodoxy.
The primary difference between the Catholics and the rest is that they have an executive to enforce creed. Protestants don’t which is why over 400 yrs they have devolved into hundreds of sects (they claim the bible as their executive but it doesn’t work too well for that function).
As for a christian being an athiest, well that is a tradition that pre-dates catholicism and all other living creeds. Since Jesus left no writings, we cannot know who he was. I know many protestants who claim otherwise…that they have a personal relationship with Jesus, but I am certain they do not. Rather than challenge them, I simply claim that if what they are saying is true, they are prophets, which doesn’t meet with much approval, but it’s the most non-threatening response I can muster.
For myself, I believe in god. I believe in a universalist god nor do I deny polytheism. I do believe god is unknowable and I tend to not believe this aspect of it’s creation (humanity) attracts any particular interest apart from the rest of creation. But I do believe there is a power attached to it that humans can tap into (the mind of god).
I am about godded out…