Cheeseburger Metaphysics
Years ago I was visiting a Roy Roger's establishment for lunch, when I overheard possibly the most interesting metaphysical argument I'd ever heard in a fast-food restaurant. As background, it's useful but not essential to know that Roy's sold only cheeseburgers, no hamburgers.
When I arrived there was in progress already a vigorous, if not heated, discussion going on between a would-be patron and the manager of the establishment. The patron insisted on ordering a "plain cheeseburger". The manager insisted he had received a "plain cheeseburger".
The patron pointed out that a "plain cheeseburger" should have nothing on it, and that included cheese. The manager pointed out that a "plain cheeseburger" should have no condiments whatsoever on it, but must include the cheese or else it would not be a "cheeseburger".
Now, what the patron wanted was a sandwich with a hamburger patty without the cheese; in other establishments this is known as a "hamburger". (Imagine asking for a "plain cheeseburger" at a McDonald's. Does it have cheese?) However, he refused to ask for a "hamburger" (would he get one at Roy's?), or for a "cheeseburger without the cheese". I don't know but I suspect the manager might have given him the "cheeseburger without the cheese", even though "hamburgers" were not technically available there.
But, they could not reach that point of productive discussion. For some reason, both felt it necessary to argue about "definitions", and both seemed to have a life-or-death stake in establishing the true meaning of "plain cheeseburger".
Perhaps my favorite philosopher is Karl Popper, best known for his work in the philosophy of science. One of the things he always insisted on in discussions, and one that I have taken to heart, is never to argue over "definitions". It's the most pointless waste of time, at least if one is actually trying to uncover meaning and understanding.
Oh sure, it's important that when we talk, and when we talk precisely, we all know what we're talking about. The point is, that's usually the case when two or more people are mutually trying to reach understanding, and when it's not we can work on clarifying the meaning of what we're talking about or take extra trouble with talking about it precisely. No big deal.
But you'll notice that mostly as soon as someone throws up his hands and proclaims that "we need to establish some definitions here", it's all about derailing the argument, distracting the discussion, obfuscating the meaning, and — typically — prevaricating. Sometimes this does serve a rhetorical purpose. Sometimes it serves a social-linguistic purpose by allowing people to talk at cross-purposes on purpose. Regardless, it certainly is not a way to establish clarity of meaning.
So, I do and I don't understand, say, the current "debate" with attorney-general-elect Mukasey, and why everyone is trying so hard to get him to say whether "waterboarding" is "torture". On the "I do" side it all has to do with admissions that it is and the administration has been "torturing" prisoners, or that it isn't and … what? He's a jerk?
The point, though, is that if we really want interrogators to stop doing it, the real question is whether we should be doing it, and not the indirect route of yes it is torture and we shouldn't be torturing.
Now, the cynical, mendacious side of this argument is the convenience that comes from cleverly maintaining private definitions of words and phrases and obfuscating the conversation. This approach has been getting a lot of work-out lately with all the gay-GOP scandals that have been breaking loose.
To any normal person, being "gay" means being sexually attracted to persons of one's own gender. But, to those who wish to obfuscate or prevaricate, being "gay" means living the "gay lifestyle". I might try to guess what that means, but it's too slippery (on purpose!) to bother with. The point would be, though, that insisting that "gay" means "living the gay lifestyle" when the rest of us think it means "sexually attracted to men" gives lots of men wiggle room when they like to have sex with men but find it convenient to insist that they're not "gay". (Apparently, this version of "non-gay" is known as "being on the down low" in black vernacular.)
So, with the "gay lifestyle" definition, one can solicit for sex like Larry Craig and not be "gay". Or one can hire gay prostitutes like Washington State GOP Representative Richard Curtis and not be "gay". Then there was Ted Haggard, who was not "gay". Or there's Obama's friend Donnie McClurkin, who is "ex-gay". It's important when you listen to "ex-gays" talk that you realize that they use the "gay = gay lifestyle" version of "gay", and will usually admit that, although they still are attracted to men they manage not to have sex with men, at least mostly. This misunderstanding is vital to the "ex-gay movement".
So, the cheeseburger metaphysics may occasionally be useful, because it will sometimes let people discuss and avoid confrontation. Sometimes. More often these days I hear it used as another political tactic to try to hide what's going on. That's unproductive and, of course, undemocratic.
4 Responses
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Friday, 2 November 2007 at 13.27
Permalink
Very interesting post.
A fundamental requirement of the rule of law (and not of men) is that to be a law, some rule must be promulgated. IOW, it must be made known. After all, how can people be expected to obey a law they know nothing about?
Three of the most insidious tools of tyrants are secret courts, secret trials and, worst of all, secret laws.
Now, when you have a situation where those charged with enforcing laws go behind closed doors and seek to do end runs around the lawmakers and courts by interpreting laws to mean whatever the manipulators want them to mean, you end up with de-facto unpromulgated, secret laws.
This is what the Bush administration has apparently done regarding torture, or in their parlance, "enhanced interrogation" techniques. And now, they're scared that their manipulations will be made public, revealing that the White House has authorized what any average American using common sense would say is obviously torture, and thus is illegal.
on Saturday, 3 November 2007 at 02.46
Permalink
I thought "gay" meant "happy".
on Saturday, 3 November 2007 at 08.52
Permalink
S.W. writes:
"…what any average American using common sense would say is obviously torture…"
Since we are invoking common sense, it doesn't seem like good sense to base an Attorney General nomination on the public discussion of torture.
Maybe that is one reason Congress's approval rating is reaching single digits.
on Sunday, 4 November 2007 at 02.37
Permalink
Congress' approval rating is suffering because of the quagmire six years of a rubberstamp/no-oversight Republican Congress helped get us into and keep us in, and the inability of its slight-majority Democratic successor to get us out of.