Believing

Belief and Knowledge (in Theory)

 

In the study of epistemology (theory of knowledge), the generally accepted definition of knowledge is “justified true belief.” That is, I know something if (a) I believe it, (b) it is true, and (c) I am somehow justified in believing it true. When you first encounter and consider the definition, that last component seems the trickiest: What counts as justification? What justifies my belief that the earth orbits the sun? Entire books have been written on the question of justification, but my focus today is different.

 

Many people – probably all of us – hold some beliefs that fall short of knowledge, believes we hold on faith and/or because we have made a decision to believe. What, though, about the opposite? 

Is it possible to know something and yet find that same something impossible to believe? To see daily bits of reality as too insane to be true?

 

Okay, that’s one question, but now, for the moment, I want to set it aside and ask a different question about belief. I’ll come back to disbelief after a long detour….

 

***

 

Believing vs. Not Believing in Something,

Stated “Belief” vs. Actual Choice

 

Years ago I had a community college student, an older married woman, who “did not believe” in government programs. She acknowledged – believe me, I had not asked! – that she and her husband lived on unemployment and disability, but she insisted that they “did not believe” in such programs. She “believed” the programs were wrong and should not exist. She “believed” the money was “stolen” from taxpayers. And yet she was comfortable receiving money she considered “stolen.” It didn’t make sense to me. 

 

I could not bring myself to press her on the question in class. I would have felt cruel to do so. And yet, all these years later, I still cannot make sense of her statement. When stated “belief” and personal choice are in stark contradiction, what sense can be made of the stated “belief”?

 

(Please forgive all the scare quotes in today’s post. I can’t see a way to omit them.)

 

When people call themselves “pro-life” because they oppose abortion yet are unconcerned with higher sepsis rates in places where medical personnel are afraid to intervene during a miscarriage for fear of going to jail, I feel a similar disconnect. Sepsis, when not treated in a timely manner, can result in the inability of a woman to have children in future--or even in her death! Do these women’s deaths not matter? Is their future fertility something for others to sacrifice? I hear no concern, either, about the risks to a woman’s life if an ectopic pregnancy cannot be terminated by abortion, if a nonviable fetus must not be removed, etc., etc. 

 

What is “pro-life” in this? To me it looks more like an exaggerated and misplaced concern for fertilized eggs and a complete lack of concern for the lives of women and girls in dangerous situations. To “believe” in life and choose to risk the lives of others is, as I see it, a blatant contradiction. And yes, it would be different to me if these people simply chose to put their own lives at risk, but none of the male “pro-lifers” will ever have to face that challenge.

 

Many abortion opponents in recent elections have been single-issue voters, and they were one block of voters (among others) that helped to elect (assuming votes were accurately cast and counted) a man three times divorced and six times bankrupt … who mocked a disabled reporter, made numerous vulgar remarks about women, boasted that he could shoot someone in the street and not go to jail for it … who was convicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying his business records … who railed against “criminals” and bragged about supporting police and then, almost the minute he got into the Oval Office, issued full commutations and pardons to everyone convicted in the violent insurrection of January 6, 2021 (which he fomented), including those who had most violently attacked the police guarding Congress that day. He was probably right about being able to shoot someone in the street and not go to jail, because these single-issue voters were certainly willing to overlook everything else for his promise to oppose abortion. 

 

(Actually, his “promise” was not always clear, and he is not, in generally, very good at keeping promises or honoring contracts, although he does, much more consistently, follow through when he makes threats. But it isn’t the word of an established liar that concerns me today. It’s the people who call themselves “pro-life” that I don’t understand.)

 

One anti-abortion friend told me that lowering abortion numbers with education and contraception was not enough: Only the goal of zero abortions is acceptable, nothing less. How does my friend square his obviously unreachable ideal (zero) with the obvious fact that more girls and women will die, once again as in the past, of unsafe, illegal abortions if no exceptions whatsoever are to be made to a total ban? Again, these lives that will surely be lost seem to count as nothing. Pro-life? Hardly. More like pro-punishment.

 

Let’s be clear about something. No one “believes” in abortion. Unlike economic safety nets such as unemployment insurance and disability payments for those unable to work, abortion isn’t something anyone wants. Only a worse alternative makes it something a woman ever chooses. Because sometimes, more often than oversimplified, hypothetical dilemma problems acknowledge, life presents us with situations in which there is no choice that does not involve loss and/or regret. 

 

I suppose my student and her husband--that couple living on disability and unemployment checks--felt the choice they made, while bad, was not as bad as allowing themselves to become homeless and starving to death, and if my student had put it that way, I would agree. It’s that framing of “believing” and “not believing” that troubles me, that business of absolute right vs. absolute wrong, such that a person can apparently feel in the right while doing what s/he thinks is wrong.

 

Does it make sense to you?

 

If I say I believe in charity and yet live like a miser, how is my belief demonstrated, and how can it be called a belief at all? If I speak in favor of nonviolence and live a violent life…? If I vocally advocate free speech and seek to shut down voices that do not echo my own…? If I talk “law and order” but flout the law at every turn…? If I call myself a truth-teller and utter nothing but falsehood, bearing false witness right and left…? 

 

By their fruits shall you know them.

 

***

 

I know it’s true, and yet –

 

Circling back around to my opening, I return to another troubling question: Can I know something and yet find it impossible to believe? Obviously, if I can, the traditional definition of knowledge is false, since the first component of the definition is belief. These times we are living through, however, strain credulity. Day after day, events occur to which I can only respond with horrified disbelief. This cannot be happening in my country. And yet it is. I know it is.

What Is ‘Woke,’ and What Is So Terrible About It?

At its simplest, ‘woke’ means being awake to the facts of history and biology and life in the United States from colonial days to the present. 

 

‘Woke’ means learning not only that Africans were brought to our shores in chains but that they were considered property here for two centuries, often treated worse than livestock. It means learning that each black human body was counted as 2/3 of a person—not given the vote, you understand, but just counted so as to give Southern states greater representation in Congress. Woke is realizing that the Emancipation Proclamation was just that, a proclamation, and that enslaved people were not freed until long afterward—and then, after an all-too-brief period when their rights were protected by U.S. troops, once more treated as subhuman by white men in power. 

 

‘Woke’ means knowing the history of the indigenous peoples of North America, the litany of broken treaties, slaughter of Native women and children by the United States military, slaughter also of the buffalo so that the people would starve, leaving their land open for railroads and homesteaders. It means learning about boarding schools where Native languages were prohibited, abuse was rampant, and where many children died and were buried in unmarked graves. Native American adults were not allowed to vote in U.S. elections until 1924, but the Snyder Act passed that year left it up to states to decide eligibility, so Native peoples were still frequently barred from participation in American democracy, and even today people on reservations without street addresses have difficulty registering to vote.

 

‘Woke’ means learning that until 1870 in the United States, only white men were allowed to vote. In 1870, black adult males were supposedly eligible to vote, but poll taxes, literacy tests, intimidation, etc. kept the ballot from most men. Women were not “given” the vote until 1920, with passage of the 19^th Amendment to the Constitution. Native Americans had to wait until 1924 and, as noted above, still have trouble registering today in many places, though in 1964 poll taxes were outlawed by the Twenty-Fourth Amendment, and in 1965 the Voting Rights Act officially secured the vote for all adult Americans.

 

But ‘woke’ also means awareness that there is more to equality than voting rights. It means recognition of ways that discrimination persisted in laws and social customs, such as insurance and real estate practices, etc., that intergenerational trauma has been passed down through families and communities, affecting health and longevity, and ways in which privilege enjoyed by white Americans by virtue of their skin color is unearned and exceptional. 

 

About one percent (1%, or 1 in 100) of human beings are born gender-nonbinary, or intersex (having both male and female sex organs), with a mismatch between visible sex organs and sex hormones that activate at puberty, or with some other variation from a clear male or female identity. ‘Woke’ means recognition of this minority and respecting each individual’s way of dealing with the binary world.

 

‘Woke’ means, basically, being politically and socially aware, having an awareness that rests on thorough knowledge of history, along with recognition of privilege and its absence. The antonym is ignorance. 

 

A number of Republicans use ‘woke’ as a pejorative term and proudly declare themselves ‘anti-woke.’ In this context, the term ‘woke’ is carelessly thrown around to inhibit open inquiry and discussion. 

Ron DeSantis, for instance, calls it the belief that there exist systemic injustices in American society that need to be addressed. Does he think this is a false belief? Does he not see examples of injustice? Does he see them but want them left unaddressed? What he would have, rather than asking God to mend our country’s flaws, is that we insist that our country is flawless. Book bans and exclusion of “sensitive” topics in history are the result of anti-woke campaigns. 

 

As to the matter of gender terms, the current administration in Washington has declared, with unintentional humor, that the government will now recognize only two sexes, those fixed at conception. This is humorous because sex organs of embryos are not yet developed as male or female. And who is there at conception to conduct a sex test? 

 

As a white female American, I have known unearned privilege. I certainly did not earn the parents to whom I was born. And yet, as an adult in certain situations in company with a white male adult, I have been ignored while the man was recognized. In situations with an African woman friend, however, I was the one recognized while she was ignored, and when shopping with an elderly white woman, again I was the one recognized while the older woman was ignored. Women, people of color, people with foreign accents, old people, the disabled, the mentally ill—all experience discrimination. It’s a fact, and pretending it doesn’t exist, being indifferent to it, is downright callous.

 

Years ago members of my undergraduate department had not participated in graduation and wanted to make up for my disappointment (it took me 20 years to earn a B.A.) by taking me to lunch. One of the late arrivals at lunch was the university president, who sat across the narrow table from me and never once made eye contact or acknowledged my existence. Later I compared notes with another employee in the college where I worked. She, a black woman with a Ph.D., had had a similar experience with the president and thought it was because of her race, while I’d thought it was because I was a new and very lowly B.A. We concluded, perhaps too easily, that the president’s problem was with women. It took years for me to consider that his antipathy towards women did not rule out a racist attitude. He could easily have been biased on both counts. Perhaps also fixed on academic status, I think now.

 

Much earlier in life, I was called to babysit for a couple with two young boys and a new baby. Before they left for the evening, I was given instructions about what to do “if ‘it’ [the baby] wakes up.” It? They did not use a name for the baby, which I found very strange. Later, when the baby cried and needed a diaper change, I was shocked and confused about what I was seeing, and it took years for me to sort it out. Whatever happened to that baby? How did the parents raise their nonbinary child? I was not called to babysit at that house again (had only gone once when their regular sitter was unavailable) and never talked about the baby with anyone, my parents or my friends. My parents were never comfortable talking to my sisters and me about anything to do with sex, so we were not comfortable asking them questions. I’m glad to say they did better with questions of race and religion and taught us to respect people of different backgrounds and faiths. 

 

The questions remains, why are people so afraid to wake up? Why do they fear history? Why do they fear nonconforming genders? Realizing where our country falls short is the only way we will ever make it better, so teaching history honestly is our only chance. As for gender issues, the fear no doubt arises from confusion and shock, but that can be overcome. Human beings come in many variations, a very wide range of skin colors and in a wider gender range than is generally acknowledged. 

What’s strange can be frightening. But it doesn’t have to be. We don’t have to stay stuck in fear and let it turn to hate.

Are you brave enough to explore learning? The Revolutionary Love Project is not about hating yourself if you have had privilege: You can't love anyone else if you hate yourself. Check it out. Be brave. 

My parents are rolling over in their graves.

Where are we going? Is that light up ahead growing dim?

A new standard operating procedure has emerged in the Republican Party: that of contesting results of what all know to have been legitimate political elections. If, that is, the Republican candidate fails to win. 

 

If a Democrat is elected to Congress, for instance, state election results are challenged, even where the sitting Governor and election officials are themselves Republicans. Lawsuits are filed, recounts demanded. No evidence of fraud is necessary. It is enough for a Republican to lose a political race for the party to spring into action, claiming suspicion of fraud, where said suspicion comes most often from baseless rumors claimants have themselves disseminated. (We all know the originator of this vicious practice, so there is no need to mention his name.) Indeed, such challenges are planned in advance of elections, contingent upon the results. 

 

Nor are partisan grievances confined to legal challenges. Ordinary voting citizens, stirred up by their party’s public statements and shenanigans, first mutter and then shout. Election officials receive threats, and across the country many of these honest, hard-working, experienced overseers of the democratic process are resigning. Some fear for their lives. Or fear a minor, innocent, technical error could result in crushing personal debt under new state laws. Others have simply had enough.

 

It’s hard not to see this loathesome practice as a long-range strategy aiming to put an end to free elections in the United States of America.

How anyone can remain loyal to a party behaving so reprehensibly and talk about its “principles” is way beyond me. My parents’ Republican party has turned away from principle, from conscience, from decency, and from the American way of life. If you couldn’t see it from the way the Speaker of the House treated President Obama, what do you say now, those of you who continue to call yourselves “conservative”? And please explain to me how undermining the democratic bedrock of our country – one citizen, one vote, all to be fairly counted – fits into any conservative agenda worthy of the name?

Moreover, hideous as this new political reality is, it doesn't stop at our shores. Would-be dictators and tyrants around the world are taking a tip from the new American playbook. Once again, we are leading the world -- this time, in a nightmare direction. Sometimes the light at the end of a tunnel is an oncoming, high-speed train.

Not Enough. Nowhere Near Enough.

November 6. Next Tuesday. It’s not that far away. 

Vote! Get others out to vote! We need to vote! It’s a rare prescription, one on which the majority of Americans agree. The bad news is that all the votes cast from Atlantic to Pacific and from Alaska to Hawaii won’t be enough to make our country better without a whole lot of ongoing effort, over a very long time, in other parts of our lives. 

There is a two-pronged concept in philosophy, that of the necessary and the sufficient. If your car has a gasoline-powered or diesel-fueled engine, it won’t start and run without the proper fuel. Empty tank means no-car-go. You gotta have fuel. Fuel is necessary. 

Fuel all by itself, however, is not sufficient. 

Suppose the fuel line is blocked or the battery dead or the ignition switch has gone bad. Then your car may have plenty of fuel and still not start. And that, unfortunately, is the situation we’re in in these presently Disunited States. Every eligible voter in the country could turn out and vote, and no matter which party came out on top, we would still be not just a country divided but a country at each other’s throats. We’ve been moving away from each other for a long time, our national moral battery is just about dead, and our public communication — political speech, social media posts — has gone from bad to worse.

“Milton, thou shouldest be living at this hour! England hath need of thee!” 

Well, we aren’t England, and it isn’t Milton we need, and it isn’t enough for good men and women merely to be alive. We need good people of integrity, maturity, and wisdom — more of them, that is; there are a few here and there already — in leadership positions in government. We need officials and public servants with the courage of their convictions and the temperamental ability to abstain from name-calling and shouting. We need leaders willing and able to focus on real issues, on what needs to be done, women and men who can put personal issues aside and move forward, rather than bogging down in endless ego battles. 

And the change really needs — this is really the Gordian knot of the present moment — to be top-down, because that’s what leadership is. Leadership is not whining and blaming and taking cheap shots and encouraging the intensification of hatred and intolerance. Leadership isn’t tapping into irrational fears that keep people from seeing or thinking straight. It’s calling on a nation’s strengths, on people’s better selves. And if the man at the very top cannot lead, those whose job it is to advise him — that would be Congress first and foremost — need to grow spines (to put it in polite terms) and start standing up to him and for our country’s future. But clearly, most of them are not going to do it if we let them get away with shirking their duty and prancing around like movie stars, so while it has to come from the top eventually, it may have to begin at the bottom.

So we cannot stop with casting a ballot. At the personal and local level, we need to listen to and talk to one another, both one-on-one and in groups. On social media and in other public arenas, we need to remain civil. Remain? Maybe more like return to or initiate and practice civility. But we must also continue to urge our elected officials to keep civil tongues in their mouths, focus on practical matters of government, listen to all their constituents, and not sell their souls for short-term financial gain or temporary political career advancement. (People will remember, Mr. and Ms. Candidate. Keep that well in mind.) We cannot rest secure by electing people and then turning them loose on trust to look out for us. We have to watch them like hawks, every minute, and not let them forget for a minute that we’re watching. 

There are a lot of us, though, so we can take turns. Once we’ve established the habit. Once our fevered brains have a chance to recall that we’re all in this together, sink or swim. That’s the good news. It can be done. We can pull together. We can treat one another decently, with respect. And we have everything to gain.

The question is, will we get it together in time? Vote on Tuesday! But don't expect voting to produce a miracle. It's just not that fast or easy.

We Should Not Be Wall-Builders, Either

[What do you do when you can't sleep? I read and write.]

Saturday Morning Reflections

We who do not want to see a physical wall built between our country and Mexico must be careful not to build a social wall between ourselves and the Americans whose different views and votes carried the day on Tuesday, because “They” are not a homogeneous block but a diverse group, with diverse reasons for voting as they did.

·     Some are party loyalists and would have voted for the Republican candidate whoever he or she had been, and a certain segment of Republican party loyalists are of the all-government-is-bad stripe. (Ideologically, they are libertarians.) This group will always vote their ideology.

·     Others are one-issue voters (e.g., anti-abortion). One friend told me her group of Catholic women friends fall into this camp. All other issues, all other statements were unimportant to them.

·     Some “liked some of what he had to say” (e.g., “he talked about jobs”) enough that they could somehow set aside the rest. One woman told me she tried, in looking at both candidates, to set aside personality and character and look only at issues. Apparently there were people who could do that.

·     A very large segment flocked to the Republican Party because they had been feeling invisible and the Republican candidate paid attention to them. Most of the people in this group (amazingly! This came out in post-election coverage) won’t even care all that much if he fails to make good on his promises. Mobilization of the overlooked (overlooked by media and by mainstream politicos alike) is the #1 explanation favored by mainstream journalists in the election aftermath. I say it is significant, but it can only serve, in my view, as one explanation among others. We human beings crave simple explanations, but life is not always simple. Yes, this is an important factor (and we must all draw a lesson from it), but it is not the only factor.

·     Don’t forget that many who supported Bernie Sanders in the primary voted Republican in the election! Crossover vote from Democrat to Republican accounts for people (1) who believe that American workers have not benefited from trade agreements (I did NOT cross over, but I also believe that the agreements have benefited corporations at the expense of workers both at home and abroad; NAFTA was my biggest disappointment of the Bill Clinton administration) and (2) who want a president not beholden to the status quo.

·     Even the anti-Hillary contingent cannot be dismissed simply as anti-woman or anti-feminist. I voted for her but have never fully trusted either of the Clintons since NAFTA. Be honest, my dear fellow feminists: was she your ideal candidate? Not mine, but I voted for her because I mistrusted her opponent far, far more on almost every issue and could not stomach his behavior or rhetoric.

·     This brings us to racism and sexism and bigotry of all kinds. Undoubtedly, those played a part, and undoubtedly racism persists in this country, as does sexism and homophobia and xenophobia, etc. Unfortunately, too, the worst segment of that contingent now feels it has a mandate to act out its hate. And no, we cannot stand back in silence, and we cannot hide fearfully in our homes. We must oppose hatred and bigotry and persecution wherever we find them. But it’s important we not characterize half our country’s population on the basis of what I have to believe is a minority splinter contingent.

Nothing in my list above is meant to excuse odious speech or behavior on the part of the candidate or any of his supporters.

But now, two conclusions I hope you will share with me: First, supporters of the new president-elect cannot be dismissed as a monolithic demonic army of hate-mongers. And second, to prevent the social disintegration we so deeply fear it is important that we not build walls that would escalate divisions and turn our beloved country into warring camps.

President Obama never fails to amaze me, and he and the First Lady, Michelle, are the examples I would have us take for our own. We need to do as they have always done and continue to do: to oppose bigotry and hatred at every opportunity, to continue to listen to others, to demand and bestow respect for and on human beings, and to model the behavior we want to see surrounding us. I hope and fervently pray that the hour and a half the president-elect spent with the president the other day will have a lasting and beneficial effect on the future behavior of the man who will next inhabit the White House. I also hope, (somewhat desperately, I must admit: these are ugly, frightening times) that the president-elect will be inspired speak out publicly to rein in the worst behavior of his supporters. The sooner, the better. In fact, I hope it will have already happened before this post goes online.