One of the things that sends me straight up a wall to paw helplessly and violently at ceilings comprised of crushed glass, old nails, and asbestos fibers is when I hear a young woman blithely claim that she isn’t a Feminist and, in fact, “wouldn’t want to be one.” They…
When developing buildings or ideas, it is critical to start with a good solid foundation. In fact, when people fail to build with a solid foundation, is usually not even worth one's while to correct the work. It's best to trash the entire project and start over with a worthy foundation. When it comes to ideas, there are three intellectual foundations that become indispensable. These three foundational ideas were set forth in the opening words of Philosophy in the Flesh: the Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought, by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson (1999):
Based upon evidence proposed by Lakoff and Johnson (and numerous other cognitive scientists), the battle over these ideas is utterly over. To argue otherwise is, in fact, to argue foolishly. Yet, for many, these three principles have not soaked in. There is constant deep resistance to these ideas among many of the people who present themselves as today's premier philosophers, sociologists, psychologists, theologians, teachers, and political leaders. As to why these ideas are so often ignored, there could be many potential explanations. I suspect that many people fear each of these principles because they suggest that we humans lack complete power and control over our lives. That thought makes all of us uncomfortable, of course, though a few of us are willing to take our harsh medicine to heart. Most people, however, are not willing to re-conceptualize traditional accounts of what it means to be human. They are not willing to dispense with a believe that each of us has an ethereal soul that is "free" to think any thought, a soul that is unencumbered by our clunky, fallible, poop and saliva-laden bodies. They like to believe that our conscious thoughts fully capture the full importance of every moment and every drop of sentience and proto-sentience. They prefer to believe that when it comes to words, Humpty Dumpty correctly declared: "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or less." They want to believe that humans have the power to speak forcefully without first having to develop a coherent theory of language, as though words serve as infallible conduits for transporting our purified ideas from here to there. [more . . . ]
- The mind is inherently embodied.
- Thought is mostly unconscious.
- Abstract concepts are largely metaphorical.
In a recent poll, reading in America is revealed to be, well, less than appreciated by large swaths of the population. This ought come as no surprise. We live in a time of stupendous ignorance, which allows for the expression of epic stupidity. The Founding Fathers were suspicious of democracy…
The political season is getting into high gear, so it's a good idea to have a list of types of fallacious arguments handy. I recently found this collection, titled "The Nizkor Project." All of your favorite fallacies are here, including these: Ad Hominem Ad Hominem Tu Quoque Appeal to Authority…
For the past couple years, I have had the privilege of working as a consumer attorney. I’ve occasionally written about some of the topics I’ve encountered as a consumer lawyer. In this post, I’ll address another issue that I commonly encounter in my practice: illegible forms full of fine print that deprive consumers of fundamental rights.
What provoked this topic is a lawsuit I am currently handling. My client sued a payday lender based on a payday loan that she alleges the defendant repeatedly processed and renewed in violation of the payday lending laws of Missouri. This is a big deal to my client and to all of the numerous potential class members of this class action. Why is it important? For starters, this particular payday lender (and many others) charged 469% interest. This is not a typo. I have often asked friends and acquaintances whether they’ve heard of payday loans. They usually say they have heard of those sorts of businesses. I then ask them how much interest they think payday lenders charge. Most people say something like this:
“Oh, I hear that it is an exorbitant rate of interest, perhaps 25%.”
They are shocked to hear that it is legal to charge consumers 400 or 500% interest on a small consumer loans. They are shocked to hear that some of these companies make it part of their business plan to repeatedly violate Missouri lending laws. They are also shocked at one other thing, the topic of this post. …
