Meta-dream

All kidding aside, this really happened to me a few nights ago.


I dreamed I was giving a philosophy lecture using two underlined books instead of lecture notes. As the lecture went on, I started having more and more trouble locating the quotes I needed. Soon the lecture was getting more and more confused, and the students were starting to get restless. A couple of my best students came up and complained that they really could have gotten more out of staying at home and studying than they were getting out of this lecture. Roger Bell, the department chair, appeared magically in the back of the room. He looked friendly, as always, but his presence made me feel I better get this lecture on track soon.

Then I got a flash of inspiration. I started telling the students that what I was going through was very similar to what psychologists call an anxiety dream, and that many people have similar dreams. I then began to describe one of my real anxiety dreams, if you'll pardon the oxymoron. (i.e. I didn't dream that I dreamed this, I really did dream it several years ago). In my anxiety dream, I am supposed to be playing drums with the Rock band Jethro Tull in a huge sold out arena, but as in real life, I can't play drums at all. I figure that I will make somewhat less of an idiot of myself if I can at least reach all of the drums and cymbals. I spend the entire dream rearranging the drumset with the band and audience staring at me patiently in dead silence. I tell the class that the one difference between the dream and my current situation is that in the dream I wake up before I have to play the drums. I remark that I wish I could get out of this situation the same way, which gets a good laugh. Great, I think, they're with me now. All I have to do is tie that story back to the subject matter of the lecture, and I'm home free. So I pick up the two books, and once again I get hopelessly lost trying to find the quotes I need.

At this point I realize that I'm dreaming, and that acknowledging this fact will create a meta-level that really will enable me to tie this story back to the course material. The connection is right on the tip of my tongue, however, so I mark time with a few qualifying clauses, hoping that I will soon be able to explain clearly how all of this meandering relates back to the lecture. Then I realize "Wait a minute! If I'm dreaming I don't have to finish the lecture. All I have to do is wake up." So I do.

Why we need the Humanities

The Sciences teach us how to deal with machines and mechanisms. Even Psychology is primarily interested in what we have in common with Rats and Pigeons. The Humanities, as the name implies, deal with what makes us uniquely human. Any job that requires us to deal with humans as humans is best prepared for by studying the humanities. This is because humans, unlike machines, cannot be understood fully by reducing them to mathematical algorithms. You learn to understand people by hearing stories about them: in History and in Literature. In Philosophy, you learn about the relationship between these different ways of understanding people and the mechanical world. If you don't learn to step back from the assumptions that are made while viewing the world scientifically--something all of the greatest scientists knew how to do--you end up treating everything, including people, as machines that are only there to serve your ends.

Society needs for everyone to be able to take that kind of broader perspective. That is why a college education is designed to teach you not only how to do a job, but to think carefully about what sort of job you ought to do. I think one of the reasons for the present financial and moral collapse is that the richest and most powerful people never took courses--or at least never took them seriously-- that forced them to ask questions of that sort. This produced a group of people who grew up with a value system that no sane person would ever embrace seriously if they took the time to question it: "He who dies with the most toys wins." Unfortunately, that is the value system subconsciously adopted by those who never question their value system. They got their toys and we lost.

Sura 4:89

Both extremist fundamentalists and Islamaphobes like to use this passage to prove that the Koran requires that apostates should be killed.

They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper. (4:89)

This is not, however, the only interpretation accepted by orthodox Muslims. Osama Abdallah attacks this interpretation at great length on his website http://www.answering-christianity.com and also cites several orthodox Islamic scholars as rejecting this interpretation. His response is based partly on Dr. Munir Munsey’s translation, which clarifies that the quote refers, not to apostates, but to hypocrites.

The hypocrites wish that you would reject faith just like they have. Then, you will (descend down to their level and) be equal to them. Therefore, do not choose them as friends unless they (emigrate and) leave their homes in the path of Allah. If they revert (to open hostility), then seize and slay them wherever you see them. Do not take them as friends or protectors, nor as helpers. (4:89)

The hypocrites are explicitly mentioned in the previous sura, so there is no question that they are the ones being discussed here. According to Abdallah, the hypocrites referred to in the quote were Jewish and Christian Arabs who pretended to convert to Islam for a while, then left and rejoined their own tribes. This would mean the people being discussed are not people who changed their minds and decided to leave Islam, but rather people who PRETENDED to convert to Islam. At the very least, this means that the injunction cannot apply people who were born Moslems and decided to convert to another religion. But more importantly, it does not refer to anyone who sincerely believes that they should convert to another religion. Consequently, this verse is fully consistent with the famous passage that says “Let there be no compulsion in religion.”

Abdallah says that these Jewish and Christian Arabs pretended to convert to Islam so they could make the religion look bad when they left. But I think a more likely explanation is that they were spies trying to gather military information. It is important to remember that the word ‘Moslem’ in the Koran refers to a small community under constant aggressive military attack. At that time, leaving Islam didn’t mean going down the street to another place of worship. It meant joining another army that was actively trying to kill Muhammad’s people. How would an American general in World War II respond to a soldier in his battalion who had joined the Nazis? Wouldn’t the most likely response be to have him shot?

However, Muhammad’s response was in fact much more lenient that my hypothetical general. The two passages that come immediately after this one show that this quote has been taken radically out of context.


Except for those (hypocrites) who find refuge with a nation with whom you have a treaty! Or unless they come to you such that their hearts cringe and neither allow them to fight you, nor their own people. Had Allah willed, He would have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. Therefore, if they stay aloof and do not fight you, or if they make overtures of peace, then Allah has given you no reason to commit aggression against them. (4:90) (My Italics)


You will find other hypocrites who seek to stay safe from you, as well as from their people. But, (as soon) as they are tempted with a lure, they plunge headlong into mischief. If they do not stay neutral, and do not make overtures of peace towards you, and do not restrain their hands, then seize and slay them wherever you see them. In their case, we have given you a clear sanction. (4:91)

The first passage gives exceptions to the rule for killing hypocrites, which clearly show that if the hypocrites don’t cause trouble, they should not be hunted down and killed. If they are far away in another non-aggressive country, or if they have surrendered, or if they are not aggressively attacking Muhammad’s community, they should be ignored. The second passage does advise caution in dealing with the hypocrites who are still living within that community. But it also reiterates (in the contrapositive) the previous passage’s admonition that the hypocrites should be killed only if they are actively aiding the community’s enemies.

Thus the so-called “death to apostates” sura does not refer to sincere apostates at all, and does not advocate death except as a response to violent aggression. It’s amazing what taking a quote out of context can do.

What Obama Said

A few posts back I created a paragraph of what I thought Obama should say in response to those who want to continue to compromise our rights in the name of security. Here is what he actually said in his inaugural address. Pretty darn close, actually.


"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers ... our found fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all the other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint."

Money for the Arts

The so-called 'moderates" in the Senate are now demanding that items that don't stimulate the economy be removed from the stimulus bill. High on their list is 50 million new dollars for the National Endowment for the Arts. This is less than a thousandth of a percent of the entire package, and less money than the City of Vienna spends each year on Opera alone. So apparently it's not the money, it's the principle of the thing. These people think that art must not be good for the economy because artists don't make money-making their first priority. The fact of the matter is, however, that money spent on the arts probably delivers more stimulus per dollar than almost any other investment. Here are two reasons why.

1) To have a long term effect, the work funded in a stimulus program has to create not just jobs but wealth. Bridges to nowhere won’t create any new wealth. Bridges that increase commerce, and energy plants that create new energy, do create wealth. Art is wealth producing. Picasso regularly took about twenty dollars worth of paint and canvas, and used his skill to transform it into millions of dollars worth of art. This is an extreme case, of course, but every artist transforms raw materials into valuable pieces of craftsmanship. That creates new wealth.

2) One of the biggest problems with stimulus funding is that businesses often don’t do what they are contracted to do. Companies are given tax breaks, even outright cash, to start a business in a location that needs jobs, then they close their local factory because they can make more money elsewhere. Banks are given money to lend, and instead spend it on bonuses, mergers, and thousand dollar parchment trash cans. The way to solve this problem is to give the money to people who would do the work you want them to do EVEN IF THEY WERE NOT BEING PAID AT ALL. Artists are the only productive workers in that category. They will work on their projects on their own time, invest their own money into them, and and will continue to work even when no money is coming in. Because of all the personal capital and sweat equity they have already invested, most artists need just a little bit more capital to take their work to the next level where it can be financially productive.

I'm not talking about artists who allegedly make paintings only in garrets and then never show them to anybody. Every artist I've known actively seeks audiences, and most eventually find them. Those audiences pay them money for their work--just not enough for them to consistently make a profit. (They're rather like automobile manufacturers that way.) A few well-placed grants can turn these artists into productive businesses, that generate jobs for countless other people. A successful concert generates work for ticket salesman, tee shirt vendors and food concessions, creates advertising revenue for newspapers and magazines—the list goes on and on. The fact that art is an essential part of what makes human, and enriches the human spirit, should not cause us to forget that it has many other uses as well.

Said Ali al Shihri

It was bound to happen. A Guantanamo prisoner named Said Ali al Shihri was released, and is now apparently actively involved in terrorist activity in Yemen. Al Qaeda websites have gleefully announced this, and with good reason. They know that Guantanamo is one of the strongest propaganda tools they have, and anything they can do to delay the release of those prisoners is to their advantage. Al Qaeda's dysfunctional co-dependents, the Republican Noise Machine, will triumphantly exclaim that this justifies keeping these guys locked up forever.

If Obama were a Clinton, he would say something like "of course, we'll make sure that something like this never happens again." I'm hoping, however, that he will bite the bullet and say something like this.

"A Court of law found this man innocent, and so we released him. Perhaps he really was involved in terrorist activities before, and it was impossible to prove it. Perhaps he was innocent, and was so embittered by five years of torture and imprisonment that he became what we thought he was. Either way, this is an inevitable part of the rule of law, and must be accepted. Freedom doesn't come Free. The cost of Freedom is a willingness to live with uncertainty. If we lock up everyone who might commit a murder or a burglary someday, we might have fewer murders and burglarlies. But we also would lose the freedom that once made this country an inspiration to the rest of the world. If we are to earn that respect again, we must not retreat to a willingness to compromise all of our freedoms in order to acquire security. These sacred principles of justice under law must not be compromised, even if they do make us somewhat less safe.

However, equally importantly, it is likely that when we make such a compromise we are paying for something we are not going to get. It is highly plausible that every innocent prisoner creates a hundred new terrorists. To ignore this risk is to be not only immoral but impractical. Let us hope that if we return to the principles that we hold dear, the terrorists will lose the ability to recruit new members, and will be easier to manage and capture. This strategy does not have the satisfying simplicity of 'kill everybody who might be a bad guy". But it has a much greater chance of success, and promises us both liberty and security."

I just saw two articles that unconsciously conflicted with each other in the New York Times. One was Stanley Fish's review of a book written by one of his former students. It basically said that the humanities degree was finished, that colleges of the future would do nothing but teach "practical" course to prepare people for the business world. One bit of self-contradiction in the article: It was filled with historical references going back to the 19th century that supported his claim that this an inexorable trend which is finally reaching its fulfillment. What the author didn't notice was that the only way he could have discovered that trend was to do the sort of research done in an academic history department. Like the Logical Positivists, he was presenting an argument whose premises contradicted his conclusion.

The second article was about Obama's extensive knowledge of literature and history, and how he used that knowledge to become who he is today. One reason Obama is so persuasive is that he has read great literature, and learned how to write from it. The reason he is so skillful politically is that he has learned things from studying the great politicians of the past.

The difference between so-called Academic studies and so-called Practical studies is not the difference between the useless and the useful. it is between short term usefulness and long term usefulness. People with nothing but business degrees are more likely to follow in the steps of Madof and Enron. Reading the humanities makes us take the long view, asking not only what will help us achieve or goals, but what goals are worth achieving. If a few more people in business and finance had taken that long view, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now.

When the world is changing as fast as it is now, today's "practical" knowledge is tomorrow's useless relic. What is essential to survival in the modern world is knowing how to think, not what to think. Only a broad academic education can give you that. Skills like being able to do research, construct arguments, write persuasively, and being familiar with the historical trends that shape the modern world will not come from only reading a hastily written paperback on hotel management. But contact with the minds of the greatest thinkers of all time can be an exemplar of how one can behave both skillfully authentically in the world. The transfer process doesn't work as smoothly as it does in typing school. Every Socrates has his Alcibiades, but occasionally he also produces a Plato. Don't understand that reference? Too bad, you might have learned something useful if you had.