Two Questions for File Sharing Pirates
By Jonathan Bryan | April 4, 2012
1. Does plagiarism in any way wrong the person being plagiarized? And if so why?
At a very obvious level, plagiarism is wrong because it is a form of lying. But lying about something is sometimes to wrong someone in particular. I could lie about my date of birth, and it would be wrong, and presumably it would wrong the person that I lied to. But it wouldn’t wrong, say, Jane Austin if I lied about the date of my birth. On the other hand, if I said that Jane Austin was a prostitute, it would wrong Jane Austin. So, saying that Jane Austin is a prostitute is wrong both because it is a lie, and because it in some way wrongs Jane Austin.
So, the question is this, is plagiarism only wrong because it is a form of lying, or is it also wrong because it in some way wrongs the person being plagiarized? And if it does wrong the person being plagiarized, in what way does it wrong him? Does it wrong him only because some obscure untruth about him is being implied in the lie (e.g. I wrote X implies that it is not the case that Joe wrote X), or is there something more?
2. Let us say that Joe writes a nice poem for a girl he likes (Sally). Now, Sally thinks it a nice poem and decides to post it on Facebook, giving Joe credit, but without consulting Joe. Is this action wrong? If so, in what way and why? What grounds, if any, would Joe have for saying that he was wronged by Sally’s action, and would there be any grounds for saying that Sally had no right to do what she did?
Topics: Debating White Monkees | No Comments »
With Jon in the School of Jogging
By Jonathan Bryan | January 28, 2011
I went jogging today. From the moment that I stepped out my door, laces tight, walkman blaring, orange shorts flapping in the breeze, I knew that jogging was not just a “sport” or a “physical activity”…it was life itself. It rejuvenated the soul and spirit, and brought the light of peace to the tempestuous world of the mind. There was indeed a universe next door, and I, a Nike-clad starship, was chugging along to meet it. I pondered this thought for about the first minute and a half of my cardiovascular experience. Then I hit the wall- the ragged, dry breaths, the quickened heartbeat, the burning, dripping sweat. The aching bones and muscles. The utter exhaustion. Jogging was, in fact, the doom of man.
Of course, it was my job as a philosopher to investigate to what extent my discoveries about the metaphysical value of jogging were contingent upon my subjective experience, and to what extent they superseded my experience, and indeed to what extent my experiences led to false beliefs about these values. As I trudged doggedly on, I developed what I have decided to call the “Four Noble Truths of Jogging,” as a guide for the jogging nonbeliever to find meaning in this seeming well of madness and chaos.
The Four Noble Truths
1) Jogging is suffering. Anyone who says differently is selling jogging shoes.
2) People who are selling jogging shoes are not to be trusted.
3) Suffering can be diminished by the diminishing of jogging.
4) This can be accomplished by the Eightfold Path.
Because these Truths are self-evident and, of course, based upon “a priori” truths which each of us already hold, no more need be said about any of them except Truth 4, which mentions the Eightfold Path. In fact, the Eightfold Path is quite simple. The underlying concept states that there are eight paths which one can take from his front door: seven of them lead in various directions through the neighborhood, whereas one of them leads back inside. The only path that can diminish suffering is this mysterious path; this great paradox between jogging and not jogging, the “unjog” itself, herein lies transcendence. Herein lies Nirvana.
When I arrived home smelling like teen spirit, I realized that I had just run the equivalent of one of your American miles, and was not feeling so terrible. I have heard more experienced joggers talk about a “Second Wind,” probably referring to the co-creation of man that all engage in and experience: the rebirth of the spirit. I cannot be sure. In fact, it is this very unsureness that I cling to, cleave to with all my heart. I believe I will go jogging again tomorrow.
Topics: Debating White Monkees | 3 Comments »
The body would be all foot?
By Jonathan Bryan | June 8, 2009
Inexplicably, the ole website is back up. Not sure what happened there, but anyway, St Athanasius made an interesting argument (a long time ago) against the universe coming into existence spontaneously or “automatically”:
“In regard to the making of the universe and the creation of all things there have been various opinions, and each person has propounded the theory that suited his own taste. For instance, some say that all things are self-originated and, so to speak, haphazard. The Epicureans are among these; they deny that there is any Mind behind the universe at all. This view is contrary to all the facts of experience, their own existence included. For if all things had come into being in this automatic fashion, instead of being the outcome of Mind, though they existed, they would all be uniform and without distinction. In the universe everything would be sun or moon or whatever it was, and in the human body the whole would be hand or eye or foot. But in point of fact the sun and the moon and the earth are all different things, and even within the human body there are different members, such as foot and hand and head. This distinction of things argues not of spontaneous generation but a prevenient Cause; and from that Cause we can apprehend God, the designer and maker of all.” - From “On the Incarnation”
So the argument is simply:
1. If the universe came about spontaneously, there would be no distinctions among things. (S>~D)
2. But there are distinctions among things. (D)
3. Therefore, it is not the case that the universe came about spontaneously (~S from 1,2 Modus hocus pocus tonens).
The argument, being perfectly valid, needs only its premises to be defended. The second premise is obviously true. As Athanasius points out, there are differences between the hand and foot, making them distinct. The first premise, however, is rather difficult. Why should we think it true that if it were the case that the universe came about spontaneously, that there would be no distinctions among things? Well, one way to argue for the first premise is to first argue that the universe did not come about spontaneously. As everyone knows who has dutifully done their truth tables in logic class, if both sides of the conditional are false, the proposition as a whole is true (for example, “If that’s not a hamster, then my name isn’t Captain Barbarian!” is true so long as it is false that that’s not a hamster, and false that my name isn’t Captain Barbarian.) So all we need is another good argument that the universe did not come about spontaneously (say, the Cosmological argument, for example) to argue for the truth of premise one, and St. Athanasius’ argument will work! Problem solved.
Topics: Debating White Monkees | No Comments »
What we need in America
By Jonathan Bryan | February 6, 2008
What we really need in America today is a decent propaganda machine. Or, if we’re going to have to tolerate all these kids and their anti-war rallies, it should at least be accompanied by some good original music like there was during Viet Nam.
Topics: Debating Politics | 1 Comment »
By Jonathan Bryan | December 15, 2007
We had a pillow fight and I broke a Christmas ornament.
Topics: Debating White Monkees | 3 Comments »