This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/05/opinion/kick-this-rock-climate-change-and-our-common-reality.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Kick This Rock: Climate Change and Our Common Reality Kick This Rock: Climate Change and Our Common Reality
(about 9 hours later)
The 18th-century critic, Samuel Johnson, once tried to refute the Irish philosopher George Berkeley’s view that nothing is material by kicking a rock. “Thus I refute him!” he reportedly declared. For a long time, I thought this proved that Johnson should have kept to literary criticism and left philosophy to the professionals. Berkeley’s view, after all, was that everything we perceive is an idea — rocks (and rock-kicking) sensations included.The 18th-century critic, Samuel Johnson, once tried to refute the Irish philosopher George Berkeley’s view that nothing is material by kicking a rock. “Thus I refute him!” he reportedly declared. For a long time, I thought this proved that Johnson should have kept to literary criticism and left philosophy to the professionals. Berkeley’s view, after all, was that everything we perceive is an idea — rocks (and rock-kicking) sensations included.
But of late, I’ve started to suspect that Johnson was on to something. Perhaps his famous kick wasn’t a question-begging attempt to show that rocks weren’t just ideas in our head. Perhaps his point was that there are things that our perceptions of reality share in common. And that, as Berkeley himself knew, is a good objection to his view — often known as “idealism.” It is a good objection because if everything we perceive is subjective, what explains the commonalities of our experience? Why do we seem to perceive, at least some of the time, the same unyielding reality? Seen in this light, Johnson’s kick is not naïve; it offers a real challenge to the view that everything is in our minds.But of late, I’ve started to suspect that Johnson was on to something. Perhaps his famous kick wasn’t a question-begging attempt to show that rocks weren’t just ideas in our head. Perhaps his point was that there are things that our perceptions of reality share in common. And that, as Berkeley himself knew, is a good objection to his view — often known as “idealism.” It is a good objection because if everything we perceive is subjective, what explains the commonalities of our experience? Why do we seem to perceive, at least some of the time, the same unyielding reality? Seen in this light, Johnson’s kick is not naïve; it offers a real challenge to the view that everything is in our minds.
The exchange between Johnson and Berkeley is no mere historical curiosity. Our current political climate echoes their debate, and in a way that might seem initially to support Berkeley’s view. Johnson’s point rests on the assumption that we do share certain experiences. But at least when it comes to political matters — and almost everything seems political now — it can seem as if we no longer do so. I’m talking, of course, about the depressingly familiar litany of polarization: We now disagree not just over things like whether God exists or if abortion is morally permissible, but over the size of crowds, basic budget math, the safety of vaccines, Russia’s involvement in hacking the Democratic National Committee — and whether the fact that the climate is changing is something to worry about.The exchange between Johnson and Berkeley is no mere historical curiosity. Our current political climate echoes their debate, and in a way that might seem initially to support Berkeley’s view. Johnson’s point rests on the assumption that we do share certain experiences. But at least when it comes to political matters — and almost everything seems political now — it can seem as if we no longer do so. I’m talking, of course, about the depressingly familiar litany of polarization: We now disagree not just over things like whether God exists or if abortion is morally permissible, but over the size of crowds, basic budget math, the safety of vaccines, Russia’s involvement in hacking the Democratic National Committee — and whether the fact that the climate is changing is something to worry about.
The causes of those divisions are complex, but one is surely the increasing personalization of our online lives. Almost everything we encounter on the internet — from our Facebook newsfeed to the ads you see when reading this article — is personalized to fit our interests. That’s wonderfully convenient. But it also speeds up polarization by feeding into the basic human susceptibility to confirmation bias. (“I’m right; everybody says so.”) The result is the now familiar feeling that the left and right are really living in distinct realities. It is as if there is no point of reference, no rock to kick because our information bubbles — our epistemic worlds — are constructed to fit our political bias.The causes of those divisions are complex, but one is surely the increasing personalization of our online lives. Almost everything we encounter on the internet — from our Facebook newsfeed to the ads you see when reading this article — is personalized to fit our interests. That’s wonderfully convenient. But it also speeds up polarization by feeding into the basic human susceptibility to confirmation bias. (“I’m right; everybody says so.”) The result is the now familiar feeling that the left and right are really living in distinct realities. It is as if there is no point of reference, no rock to kick because our information bubbles — our epistemic worlds — are constructed to fit our political bias.
But while technology plays a part, we shouldn’t overstate its role. Ideology also matters. And the ideology that matters here is the increasing rejection not of common reality itself but the value of caring about it. Part of the thought is that we don’t really need to find common ground with those who disagree with us because, after all, they’re just wrongheaded idiots. And besides, as social media and talk radio constantly remind us, we have plenty of compatriots right here. We have the numbers — or so both the left and the right like to tell themselves.But while technology plays a part, we shouldn’t overstate its role. Ideology also matters. And the ideology that matters here is the increasing rejection not of common reality itself but the value of caring about it. Part of the thought is that we don’t really need to find common ground with those who disagree with us because, after all, they’re just wrongheaded idiots. And besides, as social media and talk radio constantly remind us, we have plenty of compatriots right here. We have the numbers — or so both the left and the right like to tell themselves.
But there’s more to it than that. As the sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild details in her recent book, “Strangers in Their Own Land,” a popular “deep story” of many groups in America right now is that their views are not represented in the common narrative, but are rather ignored and shamed. Seeing yourself as living in a broader common reality can therefore feel a bit traitorous to your own narrative. Professor Hochschild sees this as the deep story of the right. But I think this same ideology works on the left as well. The result is that the entire country is starting to seem like the character from “The Matrix,” who preferred his life in the constructed reality to life in the real world. We, too, it seems, would rather close our eyes, wrap ourselves in our cozy information bubbles and live in bad faith. It just feels better to take our perception as reality, to at least try to convince ourselves of Berkeley’s slogan, esse est percipi — to be is to be perceived.But there’s more to it than that. As the sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild details in her recent book, “Strangers in Their Own Land,” a popular “deep story” of many groups in America right now is that their views are not represented in the common narrative, but are rather ignored and shamed. Seeing yourself as living in a broader common reality can therefore feel a bit traitorous to your own narrative. Professor Hochschild sees this as the deep story of the right. But I think this same ideology works on the left as well. The result is that the entire country is starting to seem like the character from “The Matrix,” who preferred his life in the constructed reality to life in the real world. We, too, it seems, would rather close our eyes, wrap ourselves in our cozy information bubbles and live in bad faith. It just feels better to take our perception as reality, to at least try to convince ourselves of Berkeley’s slogan, esse est percipi — to be is to be perceived.
But here’s the thing. The world outside our personal matrices has a way of getting our attention. That’s why we do all agree that sick children denied health care suffer, that opioids are addictive, that adults need jobs to put food on their tables. That’s a lesson we would do well to heed. Reality finds a way. And that, fundamentally, is why, to cite the most telling recent example, leaving the Paris climate change accord is foolish. Even if we continue to bury our heads in the sand or put our fingers in our ears, the planet’s climate has altered. And those changes will eventually burst our bubbles whether we like it or not.But here’s the thing. The world outside our personal matrices has a way of getting our attention. That’s why we do all agree that sick children denied health care suffer, that opioids are addictive, that adults need jobs to put food on their tables. That’s a lesson we would do well to heed. Reality finds a way. And that, fundamentally, is why, to cite the most telling recent example, leaving the Paris climate change accord is foolish. Even if we continue to bury our heads in the sand or put our fingers in our ears, the planet’s climate has altered. And those changes will eventually burst our bubbles whether we like it or not.
Many philosophical truths are so obvious that we sometimes take them for granted; we look right past them, so to speak. That’s Johnson’s point. We need to start reconnecting with the obvious truth that we do live in a common reality. That’s as important politically as it is metaphysically. Democracies don’t work if we don’t acknowledge that we all live in the same world, facing the same problems — even if we disagree over how to solve them. Without a common reality, we would have nothing with which to engage. Forget that, and we’ll still end up engaging with it, whether we like it or not. Because sometimes, the rock kicks back.Many philosophical truths are so obvious that we sometimes take them for granted; we look right past them, so to speak. That’s Johnson’s point. We need to start reconnecting with the obvious truth that we do live in a common reality. That’s as important politically as it is metaphysically. Democracies don’t work if we don’t acknowledge that we all live in the same world, facing the same problems — even if we disagree over how to solve them. Without a common reality, we would have nothing with which to engage. Forget that, and we’ll still end up engaging with it, whether we like it or not. Because sometimes, the rock kicks back.
A new TED talk by Michael P. Lynch on finding truth in the internet age can be viewed here.