So I really, truly do not want to dominate the discussion (take Philosophy as Conversation with me if you want that! T, Th, 8:15, spring semester. (note to self: you use too many parentheses.)) I'd be happy to carry out a conversation right here on this little ol' blog. I'd even give Collo hours for it. That said, here are some additional thoughts prompted by today's discussion.
(Resist the urge to put this whole paragraph in parentheses. Must resist. Ah, too weak...I think this kind of engagement is sort of the point, or at least a point, of this class. The class has prompted me to think about all kinds of things I would not have otherwise thought about. I've reflected on things, been challenged on things, and have had to confront things coming at me from different points of view. Those are all good things, and I know those are all things Pat hopes to accomplish with the course. Education should be about the free exchange of ideas. That means voicing opinions and exploring alternatives. We may turn out to be wrong, and that's important to know. We don't find that out if we don't play the game. Our knowledge doesn't advance in isolation. We have to engage in the sometimes messy arena of academic discourse. I think it's fun, too, but your mileage may vary. Anyway, that's the spirit of all of this. I want to engage the ideas, and I want to know if I'm wrong. I want to hear contrary views, and I want to try to defend my own. At the end of the day, I most want to believe things that are true, and I don't know any other way to go about that.)
Okay, with that out of the way...I was thinking about the discussion today in connection to my own vegetarianism. I think meat-eating is natural for humans. There is a lot of evolutionary evidence for this. Eating meat seems to have played a significant factor in the development of our brains, for example. People have eaten meat for a very, very long time. My choice to not eat meat is, in that sense, unnatural.
On top of the naturalness of eating meat, there are also a lot of cultural norms surrounding it. We eat turkey on Thanksgiving and lamb on Easter. Tailgating is for random assortments of beef and pork products, and bacon is apparently for everything. As a man, I'm supposed to love steak and softcore pornographic Hardee's commercials of women biting into greasy hamburgers. These things do not seem natural to me. They are clearly a product of our culture. They are cultural norms that are built on our natural inclination and evolutionary history of eating meat.
So I think the general predominance of meat-eating has both natural and cultural origins. I have seen many vegans and vegetarians get very animated and be very intent on denying the naturalness of eating meat. I take it that they believe they need to deny this in order to refute some argument that leads to the conclusion that eating meat is okay. I think this is mistaken. We don't need to be pushed into denying things that are true in order to argue for the wrongness of eating meat. The better place to cut off the argument is in the purported connection between something being natural and it being permissible. Violence may come naturally to us, but that doesn't make it permissible. Yes, eating meat may be natural, but so what? It is, and you shouldn't do it. That's perfectly consistent, and doesn't involve denying what seems to be true about our nature.
On culture, I can say from experience that it is hard to fight against the cultural traditions on this. They are powerful. I hear their call. I do think it's valuable to recognize them and, if you determine that they are promulgating immorality, to stop engaging in them. But I also recognize that that decision comes with a cost. The absolute best (and last) hot dog I ate was in 1998 outside of old Yankee Stadium (where, incidentally, I saw one of the best teams ever lose to the Anaheim Angels when they still sucked. (Damn it, Hedden, just stop with the parentheses, seriously.)) There was something unbelievably satisfying about that hot dog. Replacing that with a gelatinous hot dog shaped combination of chemicals, additives, and textured vegetable protein just doesn't do the same thing for me. I can't imagine having that same feeling of satisfaction gnawing on a carrot stick. I think that's largely cultural, maybe partly natural. I think those feelings have value and all of those traditions involving meat have value. That's all value that I miss out on because I've made a decision to not eat meat. I think it's the right decision, but I also think there are good things in the world that I miss out on because of it.
How does all or any of this relate to the discussion in class? Oh, hell, I don't really know. Maybe this. There is (it seems to me) a natural inclination for women to be more nurturing. There are also a lot of cultural norms that have been built around that. A lot of those are repressive and limit people's ability to live the life they want. Those norms are powerful, and they are often destructive. But we can work to change the norms without denying the underlying biological factors. Again, nature isn't normative. We can be natural born meat-eaters and natural-born nurturers and permissibly choose to do neither. Cultural traditions make both of those choices harder. That's a problem, and one we should try to change. But we should keep in mind that there is value in doing what comes naturally, and value in participating in some cultural traditions (that hot dog was damn good, I promise.) And, more importantly, whatever ends we seek and whatever kind of culture we want, we shouldn't elevate that above the truth. Truth matters, even when it is inconvenient for our particular ends.
Well put. Thanks for the comments about the hot dog. I am hungry now. I am kind of curious how you exactly are going to count this for colloquium hours, but I am really interested to see where this will go. We are really arguing for once (which is just part of the "messy arena of academic discussion"). This, I believe, is one of the only ways to really get down to the truth of any matter. It would be interesting to have something like this for colloquium and/or just this class. It seems to be bringing up a lot of discussion thus far, and it resonates well with the word for the former. Heck, colloquium comes from the Latin roots for "together" and to "talk. I would also love to see what MacAvoy would have to say about all this. Oh, it sounds like the screams of hypothetical babies already.
ReplyDeleteMy personal view on things is that our conversation might benefit with setting definitions to go by without key terms. What is "natural" per se? You defined what you believed it to mean and how it interacts with other issues dealt with in our discussion. I believe it to be something else (more on that later). The point I am trying to make here is that we might benefit from setting a standard for the primary terms of the argument before we expound.
From what I am seeing so far, the underlying issues between our discussion thus far is "how much is biological, social, and cultural pressures affecting our judgment in regards to gender roles." Mr. Cronin, I feel that you believe that, regardless of the biological drives, the cultural and social ones are the most pertinent and need to be addressed. Mr. Hedden, I feel that you say that these pressures exist and should be acknowledged as such, but it is up to us to accept them or not. I can agree to a degree with both of these stances, but there are parts of both that I do not.
Mr. Cronin, I would agree that the cultural and social pressures are a force to be reckoned with. It still amazes me how strong patriarchy has persisted in our history. It does not make much sense, but then again, we are not sensible creatures. I too hear the call of our culture in the references I make to the way I act. It is hard to shake off, especially coupled with societal pressures. People act very different amongst others, and psychological ideas (or sociological, I am not sure which side of the distinction this fits) like mob mentality can do wonders to a human psyche.
(continued...)
I do not exactly agree with a sort of an idea of a counterbalance (I feel like this is something you call for almost). Some of the things attributed to culture's fault did not seem like the main reason of their propagation. I feel like people posting pictures of their kids is affected by their culture but most of the time, the main reason is that they really like their kids. I feel like only focusing on one aspect to the problem while ignoring other factors just fixes the problems on top of the hood. We can make our culture dictate anything, but treating everyone as exactly equal for example could feel just as grating as being the macho man all the time. We would be better off in a world that would let us be free to choose our lifestyle and respect that choice. While social and cultural pressures can change, one cannot change one's biology. Corollary however, is that one can change how one deals with said biology, and I believe that we can both agree that everyone should respect one's choices of lifestyle in regards to that.
ReplyDeleteMr. Hedden, I agree that there are all sorts of factors that come into play here. In our species, women carry and birth the kids and men don't. Men tend to be stronger while women tend to be more flexible. There are viable differences that set us apart physiologically and that can sometimes set certain responsibilities that we cannot avoid. Having kids for example, women have to be more careful then men since they are stuck with it for nine months or so. She could get rid of it, but that is another question of morality there, one that hits home way more for women then for men. Even if you want to argue that, that is mainly a cultural thing (it does play a strong part), there is no denying that what is growing inside, with time, will be a human being. I can't imagine that not being surreal in any context.
I do not agree with your definition of natural. From what I understand of the context for your argument, I would say that natural is normative in your definition, and I say that in the reference to science. Scientific, or really any knowledge for that matter is propagated by experiments. This becomes the evidence, the basis, which lead to hypotheses, theory, and laws. Our knowledge of anything in the universe comes from a large pool of information in the form of experiments and observations, and especially in the realm of science, these trends form into what we except as truth. Even if you align with Kant, I believe we won't be able to find the "absolute truth" without fact checking it with something empirical (sorry if I misrepresented Kant's philosophy here). What I am getting at is that if we choose to define what is natural in a scientific light, then it is going to be defined based on trends, but it can also be based on a case-by-case basis. Women tend to have OxyContin, which tends to make them more nurturing. Men have testosterone, which tends to make them stronger. However, there are some women who have really high testosterone and men who have none.
(continued...)
To be honest, nature has a huge variety under the sun. A lot of people say that homosexuality is unnatural, but a counter statistic I have heard is that it is present in 10% of most animal species. It can happen. And why not? "Natural" has mainly been a word used to describe a term within the norm. Milk is something that also contributes to our development. Some humans are born with the capability to drink milk all their life (I love milk) while others are born to lose that ability after a certain age (I would die a little inside if this happened). Some people do fine without milk. It certainly does not go outside the realms of biology. (By the way, ask me about a study on nuts and seeds. One could argue that, that is unnatural, but I would have to explain more on that one). I don't understand how not eating meat or being un-nurturing is unnatural. Is it because of one's biology? One can argue that someone of that stock is going against their biology, but it is in the realm of our biology to accept that choice or not. Ultimately, I feel like natural is something that happens in the realm of nature. If a woman is born without a conscious (it can happen), I would argue that she is not a natural born nurturer. It also doesn't make sense for culture or society to say she is.
ReplyDeleteThese are my main thoughts about the discussion in class. I know I left out a lot of other things that were said. I didn't want to make this too complicated. I can't tell you how many times I forgot what I was going to say as I was writing this. This is also why I talked about your (Pat's and Hedden's arguments). I feel that my memory fares better if I construct something like this. But then again, I kind of felt we went into different camps over this and that this was one of the overarching issues.
Mr. Hedden, thank you for speaking up. (You can actually talk :)). Not only was it refreshing, but I felt like it sparked a lot of the dialogue. Pat, I know that we are coming to a big disagreement, but that doesn't mean you are losing us. I can't speak for anyone, but I do believe that you are still our Papa C. We don't have to agree with each other’s arguments, but it would be rude not to listen. I don't think there is any reason to worry though since I don't think any of us will do that. My class, while I was kind of anxious at first, I can't but feel closer to you all after this. We laid out more of our beliefs than usual, and I feel that this could bring us together or tear us apart. It reminds me of Pat's preference in women. Intelligence is one thing, but pairing up a person with an eastern-style philosophy background with a western-style background could be grating (it makes an excellent Epic Rap Battle though). The important thing to remember is to keep open the gates to communication, finding common ground amongst the difference while respecting everything and anything on and in between. The world would be a lot better place if we could learn to actually apply that.
Dear Mr. Hedden,
ReplyDeleteI am late to this conversation, but you'll be happy to know that it still sounds good almost a month after you wrote it. I'll begin by saying I am a meat-eater. Perhaps if I liked more vegetables, I could become a trendy vegan?? Either way, I like your insight and find it particularly refreshing given that most vegans seem downright trigger happy to fire-off their brand of gospel to us degenerate "animal killers". Personally,I try to respect everyone's choice. If we are what eat, then food is a very personal matter. I cannot force anyone to think like I do, regardless of how passionately I try or how loudly I scream. I can happily sit beside you at the table and talk while you enjoy a veggie burger and I have chicken sandwich....hey, we can even share some fries....we both like those!
Several years ago, I came across a book that had a different spin on nutrition and health. The author was advocating for "eating based on our blood types". He proposed that optimum health could best be achieved if we simply based our diets on foods that were in harmony with our genetic codes (blood). It was a fascinating read and if you haven't ever heard of it, I'd be happy to share it. He also explains the rise of different blood types over the ages and it makes a lot of sense. Incidentally, I have O negative blood which according it him, is the oldest type sprung from ancient hunter- gathers. So, therefore, I should eat a diet high in protein (mostly meat)and very little veggies, fruits, and grains. It is pretty interesting and may add to your conversation. I'm happy to lend you the book and diet guide, just say the word.