Epistemological Relativism

After hearing of the Supreme Court’s decision regarding detainee’s rights at Guantanamo Naval Station I decided it was time to read their opinion. No, I have not read the entire 125 page document. I just finished reading the eight page syllabus. For those that are living under a rock, the detainees at Guantanamo Bay have been held there without the entitlement of the Writ. This basically means that they have not been given the opportunity to question the legality of their imprisonment. As a result, many of the detainees are held there indefinitely. Now, this is a gross oversimplification. There are many other factors at play such as the location of the detention center, it’s status as a territory, the citizenship of the detainees and their status as “enemy combatants”. Based on these and other factors the court ruled that the detainee’s rights to the Writ cannot be suspended. I have to say at first, because of the “at war” considerations, I thought this was a bad decision. After reading, some reflection and a few interesting conversations I now think this was a good decisions. It is, of course, not without difficulties, but the decision heads in the appropriate direction.

One of the main themes touched on in the Syllabus is the Writ’s ability to ensure individual liberty. If the conditions by which the Writ may be suspended are broadened our liberties will have been significantly curtailed.

That the Framers considered the writ a vital instrument for the protection of individual liberty is evident from the care taken in the Suspension Clause to specify the limited grounds for its suspension: The writ may be suspended only when public safety requires it in times of rebellion or invasion.

The problem is that the Guantanomo scenario is unique. Some argue that because Guantanamo isn’t a United States territory that the Constitution has little influence or power. The Court does agree that this uniqueness presents challenges for effectively resolving the dilemma.

None of the cases the parties cite reveal whether a common-law court would have granted, or refused to hear for lack of jurisdiction, a habeas petition by a prisoner deemed an enemy combatant, under a standard like the Defense De- partment’s in these cases, and when held in a territory, like Guantanamo, over which the Government has total military and civil control.

The Court, thankfully, does not agree that the location of the detention center determines where and when the Constitution applies. We cannot simply claim that because Cuba is sovereign over Guantanamo that we must obviate the entitlements to the Writ.

but it does not accept the Government’s premise that de jure sovereignty is the touchstone of habeas jurisdiction.

Furthermore, to draw a clear line in the sand, it is not the place of the Executive or Legislative branches to determine where the law should be applied.

The Constitution grants Congress and the President the power to acquire, dispose of, and govern territory, not the power to decide when and where its terms apply.  To hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution on or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this Court, say “what the law is.”

The Court, through the Syllabus, understands that there are other considerations when extended the entitlements to Writ to detainees. “Due process” in this context takes time. It may be the case that the governement and/or military have very good reasons for detaining individuals. At the end of the day, at some reasonable point in time and in this context they must be allowed to understand why they are being held.

This holding should not be read to imply that a habeas court should intervene the moment an enemy combatant steps foot in a territory where the writ runs.

I think the Court understands the complexity of the situation. This isn’t a straight-forward case of a citizen being withheld certain rights. This isn’t a straigh-forward case of detention on U.S. soil. There are aspects terrorism, intelligence information, “aliens” that are intertwined in this case. We have to protect the country from foreign hostilities, but it cannot come at the expense of the liberty of citizens or, worse still, at the expense of our countries heritage of preserving liberty through due process.

 In considering both the procedural and substantive standards used to impose detention to prevent acts of terrorism, the courts must accord proper deference to the political branches.  However, security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom’s first principles, chief among them being freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to the separation of powers.

I had a very interesting discussion with my carpool buddy about those atheism versus theism debates that are all the rage these days. He had some very astute observations despite his self-proclaimed lack of knowledge (he’s agnostic and I’m kidding). He noticed how the various camps typically claim that their side was the victor. See, debates aren’t exactly like the UFC. There isn’t a tap-out, a referee stoppage or a decision in the end. Instead, it is just a bunch of fans cheering for their fighter. What’s worse is that it is unlikely that one side would switch to the other as a result of such a brawl, but it is still entertaining and a great fuel source for conversation.

We discussed how atheistic arguments are sometimes made up of refutations of theistic arguments. Now, there is nothing wrong with this. If you can demonstrate that premises are incorrect or invalid you have successfully torpedoed the conclusion. What we observed is that in some cases this method (the refutation of theistic arguments) is successful. If they are successful (I think they are in some cases) then the argument for god is refuted. I agree with this. However, and I know this is obvious here, by refuting a positive proposition we have in no way confirmed it’s negative. In other words, refuting an argument for the existence of god does not get us to the truth claim that there is no god. I know, “the burden of proof is on you to prove god”. I agree. But if I cannot conjure up proof or my proofs are refuted, we simply slide into agnosticism. I can’t jump over the chasm into atheism without some logical help (I need some arguments). At the heart of it atheistic propositions, just like their theistic counterparts, are knowledge claims.

This of course led to all sorts of discussions regarding the problem of knowledge (a favorite of mine). Rarely, if ever, do I get the opportunity to talk about something that I think is fun and yet painful. So, I was sort of like the abominable snow man in this Looney Toons spoof. We talked about deduction and induction and the challenges of a priori knowledge. We talked about what meta-justification is. We even ventured off into the notions of “proof”. It seems that many today view scientific knowledge and proof in  the same way and forget that even within science there are a priori assumptions at play; nevermind the fun that ensues when we talk about sense data and what that data represents. Needless to say debates are a great way to pass the time of a long commute!

I’m on my latest book in our ‘08 reading bonanza. I’ve tried to read a variety of historical, philosophical and religious texts thus far (you can review the current list here). Since it *is* a race and I don’t yet have the desire to tackle the Barthian corpus, I selected Dogmatics in Outline. It is a short 150ish page book that is literally an outline of Barth’s theology (if I can make such a coarse assessment). I’m only 30 pages into it and as early as the second page you can see Barth’s emphasis on God’s transcendence and the limits of human reason to acquire any sort of meaningful (real) knowledge of God. What’s interesting is that in my recent reading of Russell’s Problems of Philosophy I’ve found similar themes regarding the limits of human reason.  I can say with some honesty that for a time I thought human rationality was the panacea for all human challenges. It seems to me from my reading of Barth that he is under no such illusion.  While conceding the human reason can figure things out, with respect to God Barth will not give an inch.

What man can know by his own power according to the measure of his natural powers, his understanding, his feeling, will be at most something like a supreme being, an absolute nature, the idea of an utterly free power, of a being towering over everything. This absolute and supreme being, the ultimate and most profound, this ‘thing in itself’, has nothing to do with God. It is part of the intuitions and marginal possibilities of man’s thinking, man’s contrivance. Mn is able to think this being; but he has not thereby thought God.   

-Karl Barth, Dogmatics in Outline (SCM Press, 1949) 15. 

You don’t get any beating around the bush with Barth. In many ways I agree with this theological reflection. In the past few centuries there has been a vigorous effort to “prove God”; to demonstrate through deductive arguments or experience of nature that God must exist. Human reason may be able to arrive at some vague notion of a divine power, but you’re very far indeed from anything that is communicated in the texts of Judaism, Islam and Christianity. I’m sure this need to prove God has arisen because for many centuries the existence of God has no longer been axiomatic. Barth is completely comformtable with the situation. For him,

Knowledge of God takes place where divine revelation takes place, illumination of man by God, transmission of human knowledge, instruction of man by this incomparable Teacher.   

-Karl Barth, Dogmatics in Outline (SCM Press, 1949) 16.

I know, I know, the modern, “I only *know* what I experience” person within us all is decrying this sort of “knowledge”. It’s fake, it can’t be trusted, it’s a mind game that we play on ourselves are the common responses. Barth, knowing this human emotion perceptively writes that,

The greatest hindrance to faith is again and again just the pride and anxiety of our human hearts.  

- Karl Barth, Dogmatics in Outline (SCM Press, 1949) 12.

This isn’t an apologetic or a comprehensive assessment of faith versus reason and their respective epistemic validity. I just wanted to point out that it is a modern “problem” that we struggle *in this way* with faith. We reflexively bar any sort of knowledge that we don’t immediately experience, but we don’t realize, in the way that Russell most certainly did (and Descartes before him), that that significantly and artificially limits what we can know (even though we already really know that we know). Confused? Yeah, me too. 

Within the wide arena of everyday life we see evil in all of its ugly dimensions. We see it expressed in tragic lust and inordinate selfishness. We see it in high places where men are willing to sacrifice truth on the altars of their self-interest. We see it in imperialistic nations crushing other people with the batter rams of social injustice. We see it clothed in the garments of calamitous wars which leave men and nations morally and physically bankrupt

…evil is recalcitrant and determined, and never voluntarily relinquishes its hold short of a persistent, almost fanatical resistance. But there is a checkpoint in the universe: evil cannot permanently organize itself.

– Martin Luther King Jr., Strength to Love (Fortress Press, 1981) 78-79

I can appreciate King’s point regarding the checkpoint in the universe against evil. Because evil’s manifestation is most accurately characterized by self-interest, it is not hard to imagine why it is difficult for evil to organize and persist in the same unique way in which it originated. This self-interest is a force that constantly pulls at the fabric of evil itself. It attempts, inadvertently of course, to undo any sort of organization and cooperation that would give it the longevity that it really desires. Add to this internal conflict the external pressure of resistance and it does seem that evil is checked by both itself and external forces. Of course there are many cases where evil’s “brief” stay is anything but and for me to presume that even a short-term visitation of evil is enjoyable borders on the insane.

Sadly, this universal checkpoint only seems to prevent the spiral down to “all against all” and little else. Humanity’s unfortunate documented legacy is the way in which evil is stopped. It is not typically because we stops it, but because evil unwinds itself as it ventures closer to this universal barrier. It is nice that we have this emergency shut-off valve, but you would think that after the first few dozen activations we would figure out a way to prevent such runaway evil in the future. Regrettably, because humanity is capable of great good and great evil, because we individually swing back and forth between altruism and self-interest, it seems quite a feat to be able to eliminate evil altogether. Yet, many groups dream of and pursue such an ideal. How can we possibly eliminate evil without some sort of world-wide psychological surgery? What hope do we really have without such surgery? Does it mean our existence is merely an act of resigned survival or survival of the fittest?

The tough mind is sharp and penetrating, breaking through the crust of legends and myths and sifting the true from the false.

Who doubts that this toughness of mind is one of man’s greatest needs? Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking. There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions. Nothing pains some people more than having to think. 

Martin Luther King Jr., Strength to Love (Fortress Press, 1981) 14. 

A couple of weeks ago, after I had finished the final Harry Potter novel, I wrote a couple of paragraphs about the appeal of these stories. It is a novel where kids and adults witness Harry experience new, exciting and terrifying things almost always for the first time. Even the most mundane and insignificant encounter is dramatic and memorable for Harry. Of course, in the novels, Harry experiences the fantastic as well. This transformation of the mundane into the extraordinary is something that occurs regularly in the life of a child. And this is perhaps why the novels are so appealing. As adults we may have vague memories of that transformation and through the novels we glimpse dimly into those cherished experiences. For the child reader, it is the best of both worlds. G.K. Chesterton says that these types of stories will endure because they place an ordinary character within the extraordinary.

The old fairy tale makes the hero a normal human boy; it is his adventures that are startling; they startle him because he is normal…You can make a story out of a hero among dragons; but not out of a dragon among dragons. The fairy tale discusses what a sane man will do in a mad world.

In fact, Chesterton applifies my own sentiments of this joy of discovery.

This is proved by the fact that when we are very young children we do not need fairy tales: we only need tales. Mere life is interesting enough. A child of seven is excited by being told that Tommy opened a door and saw a dragon. But a child of three is excited by being told that Tommy opened a door. Boys like romantic tales; but babies like realistic tales — because they find them romantic

I see this often in the lives of my own children. The young child is living the romantic and mystic life at every step as new encounters, people and experiences bombard his inquisitive and naive sense and open his heart and mind to the wider world around him. This is why proper education (or even facilitation) is important. This activity of timely and responsible disclosure that leads and allows children to discover the wonder of world is perhaps one of the finest things we can do. Sadly, because we have lost that feeling of wonder and live in the mundane, we have forgotten the excitement, enchantment and magic of the world that our children experience at every turn.

Yesterday while browsing the children’s books at my local Borders I spotted Rumpelstiltskin. While it is not the version I am used to, it is very nice to look at and captures the major plot points quite simply. I’m trying to figure out why it has taken me this long to get this tale and share it with my children, but I have no answer. When I read it last night my children gasped in horror at the king’s ultimatum given to the miller’s daughter. They gasped even louder as the straw-filled rooms grew in size after each night. It was great fun and I’m sure it will become a common bedtime request.

Stories, real or imagined, have incredible power. While I’m certain that the lectures I give my oldest are quickly forgotten, I know with equal certainty that after just one reading of Rumpelstiltkin that the story will be forever locked away in her memories. This is instructive in a number of ways. Using stories to communicate moral messages, values and beliefs can be found in some of the oldest documents in antiquity. I think that as a modern society where we are surrounded by “facts” and “laws”, we quickly forget the power of story. This is especially the case when we forget that most young children are not developmentally ready to hang “facts” and “laws” onto their neural hooks and use them appropriately. Stories have this magic ability to bypass the developmental requirements and plant themselves firmly within the child’s mind with all the associated moral messages. Are stories that contain the messages we value most more effective than other methods? I don’t know, but it would seem quite foolish to completely ignore the wisdom and traditions of previous generations.

The man who cannot believe his senses, and the man who cannot believe anything else, are both insane, but their insanity is proved not by any error in their argument, but by the manifest mistake of their whole lives. They have both locked themselves up in two boxes, painted inside with the sun and stars; they are both unable to get out, the one into the health and happiness of heaven, the other even into the health and happiness of the earth.

– G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (Doubleday, 2001) 22.

I was thinking how odd it must be for the few people that find their way to this blog to see such a mix of topics. Typically, at least from my experience, you find blogs that have some sort of focus. Whether this focus is a person’s professional life, life at home, philosophical musings or specific interests there is some guiding principle that attempts to bring some coherence to the parts. I have deliberately, and perhaps I will regret this someday, attempted to resist such compartmentalization. Life is seldom so neatly divided as we’d like to present in a blog. I’m sure it isn’t the intention of many to hide other facets other their lives from their readers. I imagine it has more to do with not wanting to bore a reader with vacation exploits when what they’re expecting is a recipe of the day. So, it is with an apologetic attitude that I must inform anyone who is reading that you’ll have to scroll past what is of little interest to you on this blog to find what does interest you. I know it is terribly inconvenient.

I’m constantly amused by the romanticism surrounding the transition and transformation of Colonial America into the collection of united states. We’ve all (those who have been educated in the U.S.) been exposed to the themes of oppression, misrepresentation and tyranny that are found throughout the writings of the period. In some ways this romanticism is well-founded. We witness a loose collection of colonies fight and scrape their way toward independence. Following on the heels of this new found independence they manage to construct and implement a system of government that was an amalgam of incredible ideas and ideals. The Enlightenment, the earlier Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution were the fertile seedbeds from which the founders harvested. All of these events, which seem trivialized by my meager coverage, are worthy of respect and study regardless of your political and religious views. Despite all of this, there is this irony just below the surface; the type of irony contained within a tragedian’s masterwork.

This tragedy was not, however, written by a poet attempting to craft a contemporary version of a Homeric epic replete with fatally flawed characters. Instead, this is the story of the truly tragic. Yet, in school, in our romanticism and admiration of the great and fantastic accomplishments all that is dark and gone awry is obscured or hidden away. There can be numerous reasons and explanations of why this is the way it is. How, though are we to learn from our mistakes and improve ourselves and our nation except through gazing long and hard at our past in all its greatness and imperfection?

Very early on we see the expansion and colonization (if I can use that word) of the west. As a newly united and sovereign nation there appears some implicit expectation of entitlement. We can see the transformation of the once oppressed into the oppressor. The Thrasymachian undercurrents can be seen when battle after battle is fought to annex more territory. Might makes right is what we can read between the lines. But, how can this be? Surely there are some foundational, unalienable rights that should not, no cannot, be violated. And yet by some weird twist of fate the new republic dons the mantle of tyranny.

What entitles a sovereign nation of any size to seize or purchase territory? What entitles a sovereign nation to marginalize an indigenous population in such a way as to sell the land that they live upon? This question raises a host of complex questions, that we loathe to address. Deep down we all know the answer. But to answer the question requires a great shift in thinking and action. Could this be why we don’t think about how our lovely land was formed?

To add additional irony, I am writing this from a chair in a state that was ceded to the United States after the Spanish-American War. Without a U.S. victory, I may not have been born here or anywhere for that matter. I enjoy the freedom to write and live as peacefully as possible. I enjoy what all the wars and innumerable deaths have provided. I am truly thankful, but it sounds odd or morbid to offer any sort of thanks for these events. The founders did great things in constructing a country such as this. It is unfortunate that it came at such an incredible price both before and after the founding of our nation.

Note: This isn’t some crazy anti-war polemic. I try to resist such polarization and classification, but if you must label me, consider me a supporter of patriotism, freedom and reform. Consider me optimistic that we can be truly human by improving ourselves through honest reflection.