Showing posts with label Timothy Chambers philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Timothy Chambers philosophy. Show all posts

Sunday, January 22, 2012

Timothy Chambers "Habits Trump Resolve: Downhill Always Easier"


 
 
Habits Trump Resolve: Downhill Always Easier
By: TIMOTHY CHAMBERS 
January 22, 2012

Just after New Year's, I did a bit of informal research. While the statistics vary by source, one conclusion rang clearly: Before long, most of us who made resolutions for 2012 will lapse back into our old ways, and end up feeling no newer than we did in 2011. It goes to show what a challenge "making a change" can be.

 https://www.scribd.com/document/84191071/Habits-Trump-Resolve-Downhill-Always-Easier

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Review of George Yancy, Black Bodies, White Gazes: The Continuing Significance of Race

 
by 
 (Goodreads Author)




Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Timothy Chambers: Important lessons for kids in hard facts about Santa

Timothy Chambers: Important lessons for kids in hard facts about Santa

Good not always rewarded in harsh light of real world
Published  

 https://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Timothy-Chambers-Important-lessons-for-kids-in-1775423.php

Saturday, June 2, 2007

Timothy Chambers, "Nature, Nurture? How About Both?" [letter] (2007)

NATURE, NURTURE? HOW ABOUT BOTH?

THE HARTFORD COURANTJune 2, 2007
As one who as co-authored articles in neuroscience, I was fascinated by the front-page story on the brain's role in our abilities to empathize and moralize [May 29, "We Can't Help But Do Good"]. But as one who has also written about ethics, I worry that the philosophical conclusions the article draws are hasty and flawed. Two of these conclusions merit particular attention.
Because "morality arises from basic brain activities," we're told, our values are "not 'handed down' by philosophers and clergy, but 'handed up' [as] an outgrowth of our brain's basic tendencies." But this ignores another, equally scientific, fact: A child who is raised in chaotic, valueless surroundings will, far more often than not, grow up to bear a pathological lack of conscience.
For this reason, it's best to view nature and nurture as partners, not rivals, in crafting the adult moral faculties we take for granted.
Nature indeed "hands up" a brain that is amazingly receptive to learning values. But then it's necessary for the environment -- in the form of conscientious parents and mentors -- to "hand down" the specific values to that receptive brain. Otherwise, like a seeded field that lacks hands to tend it, the brain's ethical potential will fail to achieve fruition.
Another "troubling question," according to the article, is that neuroscience reduces "morality and immorality to brain chemistry -- rather than free will," and that this "might diminish the importance of personal responsibility."
A little reflection shows why this is an overreaction. We've long known that our capacity to use language is ingrained in various brain centers. Does this mean that we use language robotically? Does it mean that I have no choice over the words I'm writing now, or would lack responsibility if my words were libelous? Clearly not. But if brain-based language centers don't threaten our free use of language, it's unclear why brain-based ethical centers should threaten free will, either.
Beneath both of these errors, I imagine, lies a more general worry: that if we can scientifically explain our astonishing human abilities, then this somehow makes those abilities less astonishing. I disagree. After all, embryologists have come a long way toward describing how a zygote becomes a full-term infant. Does that make childbirth any less of a miracle? I think not.
Timothy Chambers
West Hartford
The writer teaches philosophy at the University of Hartford.

Thursday, December 15, 2005

Timothy Chambers, "Godel's Time-Traveling Universes: True or 'Refreshing Surprises'?"


Timothy Chambers, "Godel's Time-Traveling Universes: True or 'Refreshing Surprises'?"


In Transcendent Philosophy vol 6 (December 2005): pp. 147-152 In this discussion, I offer further reflections on matters John L. Bell discusses in his "Time and Causation in Godel's Universe" (Transcendent Philosophy, December 2002). Inter alia, I point out that a principled defense of time travel must include consideration of "personal identity"--especially if we appeal to Bell's "ramifying universes" so as to evade the vexing "Grandfather Paradox."

https://www.docdroid.net/5V6zqNC/timothychambers2005.pdf