Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Here we go again...
All things that start, end. All cycles are repeated - big and small. The inevitable is inevitable and known from the start. Everything is.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Polyphasic sleep
Polyphasic sleep refers to the practice of sleeping multiple times in a 24-hour period—usually more than two, in contrast to biphasic sleep (twice per day) or monophasic sleep (once per day). Check this link for more information (see here).
And I bought a great book from the person who created the Uberman schedule. Check this link for the book and explore the blog (see here).
Looks great. I will try it when I get the chance.
And I bought a great book from the person who created the Uberman schedule. Check this link for the book and explore the blog (see here).
Looks great. I will try it when I get the chance.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Timshel - thou mayest
From 'East of Eden' by Jonh Steinbeck
“Do you remember when you read us the sixteen verses of the fourth chapter of Genesis and we argued about them?”
“I do indeed. And that’s a long time ago.”
“Ten years nearly,” said Lee. “Well, the story bit deeply into me and I went into it word for word. The more I thought about the story, the more profound it became to me. Then I compared the translations we have—and they were fairly close. There was only one place that bothered me. The King James version says this—it is when Jehovah has asked Cain why he is angry. Jehovah says, ‘If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.’ It was the ‘thou shalt’ that struck me, because it was a promise that Cain would conquer sin.”
Samuel nodded. “And his children didn’t do it entirely,” he said.
Lee sipped his coffee. “Then I got a copy of the American Standard Bible. It was very new then. And it was different in this passage. It says, ‘Do thou rule over him.’ Now this is very different. This is not a promise, it is an order. And I began to stew about it. I wondered what the original word of the original writer had been that these very different translations could be made.”
Samuel put his palms down on the table and leaned forward and the old young light came into his eyes. “Lee,” he said, “don’t tell me you studied Hebrew!”
Lee said, “I’m going to tell you. And it’s a fairly long story. Will you have a touch of ng-ka-py?”
“You mean the drink that tastes of good rotten apples?”
“Yes. I can talk better with it.”
“Maybe I can listen better,” said Samuel.
While Lee went to the kitchen Samuel asked, “Adam, did you know about this?”
“No,” said Adam. “He didn’t tell me. Maybe I wasn’t listening.”
Lee came back with his stone bottle and three little porcelain cups so thin and delicate that the light shone through them. “Dlinkee Chinee fashion,” he said and poured the almost black liquor. “There’s a lot of wormwood in this. It’s quite a drink,” he said. “Has about the same effect as absinthe if you drink enough of it.”
Samuel sipped the drink. “I want to know why you were so interested,” he said.
“Well, it seemed to me that the man who could conceive this great story would know exactly what he wanted to say and there would be no confusion in his statement.”
“You say ‘the man.’ Do you then not think this is a divine book written by the inky finger of God?”
“I think the mind that could think this story was a curiously divine mind. We have had a few such minds in China too.”
“I just wanted to know,” said Samuel. “You’re not a Presbyterian after all.”
“I told you I was getting more Chinese. Well, to go on, I went to San Francisco to the headquarters of our family association. Do you know about them? Our great families have centers where any member can get help or give it. The Lee family is very large. It takes care of its own.”
“I have heard of them,” said Samuel.
“You mean Chinee hatchet man fightee Tong war over slave girl?”
“I guess so.”
“It’s a little different from that, really,” said Lee. “I went there because in our family there are a number of ancient reverend gentlemen who are great scholars. They are thinkers in exactness. A man may spend many years pondering a sentence of the scholar you call Confucius. I thought there might be experts in meaning who could advise me.
“They are fine old men. They smoke their two pipes of opium in the afternoon and it rests and sharpens them, and they sit through the night and their minds are wonderful. I guess no other people have been able to use opium well.”
Lee dampened his tongue in the black brew. “I respectfully submitted my problem to one of these sages, read him the story, and told him what I understood from it. The next night four of them met and called me in. We discussed the story all night long.”
Lee laughed. “I guess it’s funny,” he said. “I know I wouldn’t dare tell it to many people. Can you imagine four old gentlemen, the youngest is over ninety now, taking on the study of Hebrew? They engaged a learned rabbi. They took to the study as though they were children. Exercise books, grammar, vocabulary, simple sentences. You should see Hebrew written in Chinese ink with a brush! The right to left didn’t bother them as much as it would you, since we write up to down. Oh, they were perfectionists! They went to the root of the matter.”
“And you?” said Samuel.
“I went along with them, marveling at the beauty of their proud clean brains. I began to love my race, and for the first time I wanted to be Chinese. Every two weeks I went to a meeting with them, and in my room here I covered pages with writing. I bought every known Hebrew dictionary. But the old gentlemen were always ahead of me. It wasn’t long before they were ahead of our rabbi; he brought a colleague in. Mr. Hamilton, you should have sat through some of those nights of argument and discussion. The questions, the inspection, oh, the lovely thinking—the beautiful thinking.
“After two years we felt that we could approach your sixteen verses of the fourth chapter of Genesis. My old gentlemen felt that these words were very important too—‘Thou shalt’ and ‘Do thou.’ And this was the gold from our mining: ‘Thou mayest.’ ‘Thou mayest rule over sin.’ The old gentlemen smiled and nodded and felt the years were well spent. It brought them out of their Chinese shells too, and right now they are studying Greek.”
Samuel said, “It’s a fantastic story. And I’ve tried to follow and maybe I’ve missed somewhere. Why is this word so important?”
Lee’s hand shook as he filled the delicate cups. He drank his down in one gulp. “Don’t you see?” he cried. “The American Standard translation orders men to triumph over sin, and you can call sin ignorance. The King James translation makes a promise in ‘Thou shalt,’ meaning that men will surely triumph over sin. But the Hebrew word, the word timshel—‘Thou mayest’— that gives a choice. It might be the most important word in the world. That says the way is open. That throws it right back on a man. For if ‘Thou mayest’—it is also true that ‘Thou mayest not.’ Don’t you see?”
“Yes, I see. I do see. But you do not believe this is divine law. Why do you feel its importance?”
“Ah!” said Lee. “I’ve wanted to tell you this for a long time. I even anticipated your questions and I am well prepared. Any writing which has influenced the thinking and the lives of innumerable people is important. Now, there are many millions in their sects and churches who feel the order, ‘Do thou,’ and throw their weight into obedience. And there are millions more who feel predestination in ‘Thou shalt.’ Nothing they may do can interfere with what will be. But ‘Thou mayest’! Why, that makes a man great, that gives him stature with the gods, for in his weakness and his filth and his murder of his brother he has still the great choice. He can choose his course and fight it through and win.” Lee’s voice was a chant of triumph.
Adam said, “Do you believe that, Lee?”
“Yes, I do. Yes, I do. It is easy out of laziness, out of weakness, to throw oneself into the lap of deity, saying, ‘I couldn’t help it; the way was set.’ But think of the glory of the choice! That makes a man a man. A cat has no choice, a bee must make honey. There’s no godliness there. And do you know, those old gentlemen who were sliding gently down to death are too interested to die now?”
Adam said, “Do you mean these Chinese men believe the Old Testament?”
Lee said, “These old men believe a true story, and they know a true story when they hear it. They are critics of truth. They know that these sixteen verses are a history of humankind in any age or culture or race. They do not believe a man writes fifteen and three-quarter verses of truth and tells a lie with one verb. Confucius tells men how they should live to have good and successful lives. But this—this is a ladder to climb to the stars.” Lee’s eyes shone. “You can never lose that. It cuts the feet from under weakness and cowardliness and laziness.”
Adam said, “I don’t see how you could cook and raise the boys and take care of me and still do all this.”
“Neither do I,” said Lee. “But I take my two pipes in the afternoon, no more and no less, like the elders. And I feel that I am a man. And I feel that a man is a very important thing—maybe more important than a star. This is not theology. I have no bent toward gods. But I have a new love for that glittering instrument, the human soul. It is a lovely and unique thing in the universe. It is always attacked and never destroyed— because ‘Thou mayest.’”
“Do you remember when you read us the sixteen verses of the fourth chapter of Genesis and we argued about them?”
“I do indeed. And that’s a long time ago.”
“Ten years nearly,” said Lee. “Well, the story bit deeply into me and I went into it word for word. The more I thought about the story, the more profound it became to me. Then I compared the translations we have—and they were fairly close. There was only one place that bothered me. The King James version says this—it is when Jehovah has asked Cain why he is angry. Jehovah says, ‘If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.’ It was the ‘thou shalt’ that struck me, because it was a promise that Cain would conquer sin.”
Samuel nodded. “And his children didn’t do it entirely,” he said.
Lee sipped his coffee. “Then I got a copy of the American Standard Bible. It was very new then. And it was different in this passage. It says, ‘Do thou rule over him.’ Now this is very different. This is not a promise, it is an order. And I began to stew about it. I wondered what the original word of the original writer had been that these very different translations could be made.”
Samuel put his palms down on the table and leaned forward and the old young light came into his eyes. “Lee,” he said, “don’t tell me you studied Hebrew!”
Lee said, “I’m going to tell you. And it’s a fairly long story. Will you have a touch of ng-ka-py?”
“You mean the drink that tastes of good rotten apples?”
“Yes. I can talk better with it.”
“Maybe I can listen better,” said Samuel.
While Lee went to the kitchen Samuel asked, “Adam, did you know about this?”
“No,” said Adam. “He didn’t tell me. Maybe I wasn’t listening.”
Lee came back with his stone bottle and three little porcelain cups so thin and delicate that the light shone through them. “Dlinkee Chinee fashion,” he said and poured the almost black liquor. “There’s a lot of wormwood in this. It’s quite a drink,” he said. “Has about the same effect as absinthe if you drink enough of it.”
Samuel sipped the drink. “I want to know why you were so interested,” he said.
“Well, it seemed to me that the man who could conceive this great story would know exactly what he wanted to say and there would be no confusion in his statement.”
“You say ‘the man.’ Do you then not think this is a divine book written by the inky finger of God?”
“I think the mind that could think this story was a curiously divine mind. We have had a few such minds in China too.”
“I just wanted to know,” said Samuel. “You’re not a Presbyterian after all.”
“I told you I was getting more Chinese. Well, to go on, I went to San Francisco to the headquarters of our family association. Do you know about them? Our great families have centers where any member can get help or give it. The Lee family is very large. It takes care of its own.”
“I have heard of them,” said Samuel.
“You mean Chinee hatchet man fightee Tong war over slave girl?”
“I guess so.”
“It’s a little different from that, really,” said Lee. “I went there because in our family there are a number of ancient reverend gentlemen who are great scholars. They are thinkers in exactness. A man may spend many years pondering a sentence of the scholar you call Confucius. I thought there might be experts in meaning who could advise me.
“They are fine old men. They smoke their two pipes of opium in the afternoon and it rests and sharpens them, and they sit through the night and their minds are wonderful. I guess no other people have been able to use opium well.”
Lee dampened his tongue in the black brew. “I respectfully submitted my problem to one of these sages, read him the story, and told him what I understood from it. The next night four of them met and called me in. We discussed the story all night long.”
Lee laughed. “I guess it’s funny,” he said. “I know I wouldn’t dare tell it to many people. Can you imagine four old gentlemen, the youngest is over ninety now, taking on the study of Hebrew? They engaged a learned rabbi. They took to the study as though they were children. Exercise books, grammar, vocabulary, simple sentences. You should see Hebrew written in Chinese ink with a brush! The right to left didn’t bother them as much as it would you, since we write up to down. Oh, they were perfectionists! They went to the root of the matter.”
“And you?” said Samuel.
“I went along with them, marveling at the beauty of their proud clean brains. I began to love my race, and for the first time I wanted to be Chinese. Every two weeks I went to a meeting with them, and in my room here I covered pages with writing. I bought every known Hebrew dictionary. But the old gentlemen were always ahead of me. It wasn’t long before they were ahead of our rabbi; he brought a colleague in. Mr. Hamilton, you should have sat through some of those nights of argument and discussion. The questions, the inspection, oh, the lovely thinking—the beautiful thinking.
“After two years we felt that we could approach your sixteen verses of the fourth chapter of Genesis. My old gentlemen felt that these words were very important too—‘Thou shalt’ and ‘Do thou.’ And this was the gold from our mining: ‘Thou mayest.’ ‘Thou mayest rule over sin.’ The old gentlemen smiled and nodded and felt the years were well spent. It brought them out of their Chinese shells too, and right now they are studying Greek.”
Samuel said, “It’s a fantastic story. And I’ve tried to follow and maybe I’ve missed somewhere. Why is this word so important?”
Lee’s hand shook as he filled the delicate cups. He drank his down in one gulp. “Don’t you see?” he cried. “The American Standard translation orders men to triumph over sin, and you can call sin ignorance. The King James translation makes a promise in ‘Thou shalt,’ meaning that men will surely triumph over sin. But the Hebrew word, the word timshel—‘Thou mayest’— that gives a choice. It might be the most important word in the world. That says the way is open. That throws it right back on a man. For if ‘Thou mayest’—it is also true that ‘Thou mayest not.’ Don’t you see?”
“Yes, I see. I do see. But you do not believe this is divine law. Why do you feel its importance?”
“Ah!” said Lee. “I’ve wanted to tell you this for a long time. I even anticipated your questions and I am well prepared. Any writing which has influenced the thinking and the lives of innumerable people is important. Now, there are many millions in their sects and churches who feel the order, ‘Do thou,’ and throw their weight into obedience. And there are millions more who feel predestination in ‘Thou shalt.’ Nothing they may do can interfere with what will be. But ‘Thou mayest’! Why, that makes a man great, that gives him stature with the gods, for in his weakness and his filth and his murder of his brother he has still the great choice. He can choose his course and fight it through and win.” Lee’s voice was a chant of triumph.
Adam said, “Do you believe that, Lee?”
“Yes, I do. Yes, I do. It is easy out of laziness, out of weakness, to throw oneself into the lap of deity, saying, ‘I couldn’t help it; the way was set.’ But think of the glory of the choice! That makes a man a man. A cat has no choice, a bee must make honey. There’s no godliness there. And do you know, those old gentlemen who were sliding gently down to death are too interested to die now?”
Adam said, “Do you mean these Chinese men believe the Old Testament?”
Lee said, “These old men believe a true story, and they know a true story when they hear it. They are critics of truth. They know that these sixteen verses are a history of humankind in any age or culture or race. They do not believe a man writes fifteen and three-quarter verses of truth and tells a lie with one verb. Confucius tells men how they should live to have good and successful lives. But this—this is a ladder to climb to the stars.” Lee’s eyes shone. “You can never lose that. It cuts the feet from under weakness and cowardliness and laziness.”
Adam said, “I don’t see how you could cook and raise the boys and take care of me and still do all this.”
“Neither do I,” said Lee. “But I take my two pipes in the afternoon, no more and no less, like the elders. And I feel that I am a man. And I feel that a man is a very important thing—maybe more important than a star. This is not theology. I have no bent toward gods. But I have a new love for that glittering instrument, the human soul. It is a lovely and unique thing in the universe. It is always attacked and never destroyed— because ‘Thou mayest.’”
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Entirely by Louis MacNeice
If we could get the hang of it entirely
It would take too long;
All we know is the splash of words in passing
And falling twigs of song,
And when we eavesdrop on the great
Presences it is rarely
That by a stroke of luck we can appropriate
Even a phrase entirely.
If we could find our happiness entirely
In somebody else’s arms
We should not fear the spears of spring nor the city’s
Yammering fire alarms
But, as it is, the spears each year go through
Our flesh and almost hourly
Bell or siren banishes the blue
Eyes of love entirely.
And if the world were black and white entirely
And all the charts were plain
Instead of a mad weir of tigerish waters,
A prism of delight and pain,
We might be surer where we wished to go
Or again we might be merely
Bored but in brute reality there is no
Road that is right entirely.
It would take too long;
All we know is the splash of words in passing
And falling twigs of song,
And when we eavesdrop on the great
Presences it is rarely
That by a stroke of luck we can appropriate
Even a phrase entirely.
If we could find our happiness entirely
In somebody else’s arms
We should not fear the spears of spring nor the city’s
Yammering fire alarms
But, as it is, the spears each year go through
Our flesh and almost hourly
Bell or siren banishes the blue
Eyes of love entirely.
And if the world were black and white entirely
And all the charts were plain
Instead of a mad weir of tigerish waters,
A prism of delight and pain,
We might be surer where we wished to go
Or again we might be merely
Bored but in brute reality there is no
Road that is right entirely.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Buying without buying
In a recent study published in the Journal of Neuroscience, it was demonstrated that purchasing behaviour is predictable and not dependent upon the level of attention paid to specific products (see here). This is an important piece of scientific research to support Fred Dretske's research around epistemology, specifically Perception without Awareness.
Here is a video where Dretske describes his work. Fascinating.
Here is a video where Dretske describes his work. Fascinating.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Judge me on my intent
I previously raised the question of judging someone based on their actions or intent. It seems that scientists have taken us one step towards answering this question. When we are faced with a simple task, scientists are able to predict our actions by analysing our brain activity in real time. These simple tasks can be adding or subtracting two numbers. By scanning our brains, scientists can predict our intent before we are consciously aware.
Here is an article from New Scientist that describes the work.
This form of mind reading leads to a philosophical and ethical consideration. If our intent is a true and unconscious reflection of our belief system, do our actions always mirror our intent? The answer has to be 'no'. We have a conscious filter that stops us acting on gut instinct, that forces us to behave appropriately in polite situations. If someone were to commit a crime would they be guilty if their intent was never to take part - perhaps they had been coerced, or felt obliged for some reason?
As we learn more about the brain, society will need to hold these debates. As we, individually, learn more about the brain, we have a responsibility to increase our self awareness and be 1) mindful of our intent 2) conscious of our actions.
Here is an article from New Scientist that describes the work.
This form of mind reading leads to a philosophical and ethical consideration. If our intent is a true and unconscious reflection of our belief system, do our actions always mirror our intent? The answer has to be 'no'. We have a conscious filter that stops us acting on gut instinct, that forces us to behave appropriately in polite situations. If someone were to commit a crime would they be guilty if their intent was never to take part - perhaps they had been coerced, or felt obliged for some reason?
As we learn more about the brain, society will need to hold these debates. As we, individually, learn more about the brain, we have a responsibility to increase our self awareness and be 1) mindful of our intent 2) conscious of our actions.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Are people inherently good?
The Bible, Confucius, Sharia law and the Constitution of the United States of America are all historical examples of guidelines that set out the proper behaviour of people. This begs the question: if people are inherently good, altruistic may be a better word, and act for the greater good of their communities why have certain behaviours been mandated again and again through thousands of years of history? Agreed they all have their nuances. But fundamentally they all state a series of rules, rituals, principles or laws that are to be followed without question. There are, of course, cases where the rules have evolved – the best example in Western culture is the evolution and reinterpretation of Jewish law by the Christians and even differences have evolved between different Jewish and Christian groups.
If we look at the Bible, after the great flood that eliminated human kind, with the exception of Noah and his family, Genesis Chapter 20 verse 21 states “...I (God) will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth..”. Confucius wrote his Analects at a time when China was in the throes of civil war and the country was in desperate need of cohesion. I could go on.
Perhaps Richard Dawkins (or in fact, Charles Darwin) is the most enlightened of all the great thinkers of the last few thousand years. The Selfish Gene, published in 1976, depicts the biological phenomenon that genes work towards a state of stable expression through their passive or inherent (but not conscious) propagation until such time that they are dominant in a given community (gene pool). Altruism in this case, states that sacrifice is a necessary part of the process to propagate the genes. Altruism is therefore a critical part of selfishness ie. The unprecedented expression of the gene to as high a level of frequency as possible until it is consistently and stably present throughout the gene pool.
If this form of selfishness is indeed our inherent behaviour, law and order exists to counteract our biological imperative. So are we inherently good? In terms of propagating successful or ‘fit’ genes – and I am talking about humans here – we are built with the nature to propagate and advance our species. You could argue that the great works of philosophy and religion spanning more than 5 thousand years have developed as a means of controlling mankind – this statement in itself is one that has been debated for years. But to take it a level further, you could argue that religious and philosophical texts of spiritual means actually exist to oppose human nature. Is our view on whether we are inherently ‘good’ skewed by the filters that these texts place on our apparently open minds? Is our nature, our biological imperative, constrained through the social constructs of religion, law and spirituality? If the human heart is evil and evil is the norm, can you argue that evil is actually good because it is the nature of the populous? As Shakespeare says, “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so” (Hamlet Act 2, Scene 2). Democracy exists to represent the thoughts of the masses on proportional basis (at least that is the intent). Therefore I propose that evil hearts are the norm and evil is good and laws exist to prevent society and the human species from progressing towards its full potential.
Then, as Isiah Berlin famously wrote, "few new truths have ever won their way against the resistance of established ideas save by being overstated". I am an atheist who believes that we have responsibility for our actions and that our actions must safeguard our communities and the future of the planet. Still, an interesting debate and one that I hope we can all enjoy.
If we look at the Bible, after the great flood that eliminated human kind, with the exception of Noah and his family, Genesis Chapter 20 verse 21 states “...I (God) will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth..”. Confucius wrote his Analects at a time when China was in the throes of civil war and the country was in desperate need of cohesion. I could go on.
Perhaps Richard Dawkins (or in fact, Charles Darwin) is the most enlightened of all the great thinkers of the last few thousand years. The Selfish Gene, published in 1976, depicts the biological phenomenon that genes work towards a state of stable expression through their passive or inherent (but not conscious) propagation until such time that they are dominant in a given community (gene pool). Altruism in this case, states that sacrifice is a necessary part of the process to propagate the genes. Altruism is therefore a critical part of selfishness ie. The unprecedented expression of the gene to as high a level of frequency as possible until it is consistently and stably present throughout the gene pool.
If this form of selfishness is indeed our inherent behaviour, law and order exists to counteract our biological imperative. So are we inherently good? In terms of propagating successful or ‘fit’ genes – and I am talking about humans here – we are built with the nature to propagate and advance our species. You could argue that the great works of philosophy and religion spanning more than 5 thousand years have developed as a means of controlling mankind – this statement in itself is one that has been debated for years. But to take it a level further, you could argue that religious and philosophical texts of spiritual means actually exist to oppose human nature. Is our view on whether we are inherently ‘good’ skewed by the filters that these texts place on our apparently open minds? Is our nature, our biological imperative, constrained through the social constructs of religion, law and spirituality? If the human heart is evil and evil is the norm, can you argue that evil is actually good because it is the nature of the populous? As Shakespeare says, “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so” (Hamlet Act 2, Scene 2). Democracy exists to represent the thoughts of the masses on proportional basis (at least that is the intent). Therefore I propose that evil hearts are the norm and evil is good and laws exist to prevent society and the human species from progressing towards its full potential.
Then, as Isiah Berlin famously wrote, "few new truths have ever won their way against the resistance of established ideas save by being overstated". I am an atheist who believes that we have responsibility for our actions and that our actions must safeguard our communities and the future of the planet. Still, an interesting debate and one that I hope we can all enjoy.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
21 hour working week (New Economics Foundation: NEF)
The New Economics Foundation (NEF) has just released a paper stating that a 21 hour working week is 'set to become the new norm'. According to the NEF "...so many of us live to work, work to earn, and earn to consume. And our consumption habits are squandering the earth’s natural resources... Spending less time in paid work could help us to break this pattern. We’d have more time to be better parents, better citizens, better carers and better neighbours. And we could even become better employees: less stressed, more in control, happier in our jobs and more productive. It is time to break the power of the old industrial clock, take back our lives and work for a sustainable future.”
http://neweconomics.org/press-releases/shorter-working-week-soon-inevitable-forecasts-think-tank130210
This is inspirational. That said, Isiah Berlin famously wrote "few new truths have ever won their way against the resistance of established ideas save by being overstated". Perhaps the paper by the NEF is trying to do something along these lines. I don't know many people who could handle a 50% pay cut - but then the principle is that wealth is spread and individual people are given the chance to focus on the pressing the matters stated above. The benefit is to society as a whole.
The important point is that an influential Think Tank has taken a stance on something (strangely) controversial that, if followed, could have major ramifications. I admire the principle and will follow the ensuing discussions with interest.
http://neweconomics.org/press-releases/shorter-working-week-soon-inevitable-forecasts-think-tank130210
This is inspirational. That said, Isiah Berlin famously wrote "few new truths have ever won their way against the resistance of established ideas save by being overstated". Perhaps the paper by the NEF is trying to do something along these lines. I don't know many people who could handle a 50% pay cut - but then the principle is that wealth is spread and individual people are given the chance to focus on the pressing the matters stated above. The benefit is to society as a whole.
The important point is that an influential Think Tank has taken a stance on something (strangely) controversial that, if followed, could have major ramifications. I admire the principle and will follow the ensuing discussions with interest.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Freedom of speech
"How absurd men are! They never use the liberties they have, they demand those they do not have. They have freedom of thought, they demand freedom of speech."
Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) is regarded as the Father of Existentialism. In this quote he talks about our lack of self awareness and inability to use what we have to hand - on both practical and profound levels. Interestingly, he talks about freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is something that the democratic Nations laud as a defining feature of their governance. Yet are we not often constrained when faced with disagreement? Politically, in the work place, in all forms of relationship? The internet has helped give a billion people a voice but still we are constrained.
So how can freedom of thought be turned into actionable outcomes that change our surroundings? Do we have a responsibility to notice situations where speaking is not proper then take action in an appropriate way? Should we always mitigate our language and style? Alternatively, should we search for an outlet where we are joined by people with a common understanding, where our speech - the articulation of our thoughts - is acceptable and catalyses progressive thinking?
Sadly, Kierkegaard's edict is all too intrinsic to human nature and the structures that confine acceptable behaviour. But we have a responsibility to ourselves - to take a stance and be consistent to our beliefs. His declaration relates to people oppressed by a situation yet modern idealism teaches us to express ourselves. We therefore have a choice and it seems that it comes down to our desire for freedom. If we remain in our boxes, the air will fester and we will suffocate. If we are brave we will be free but we must be prepared to take responsibility for our actions and the consequences thereof. Maybe bravery is absurd. Then sensible is inert.
Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) is regarded as the Father of Existentialism. In this quote he talks about our lack of self awareness and inability to use what we have to hand - on both practical and profound levels. Interestingly, he talks about freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is something that the democratic Nations laud as a defining feature of their governance. Yet are we not often constrained when faced with disagreement? Politically, in the work place, in all forms of relationship? The internet has helped give a billion people a voice but still we are constrained.
So how can freedom of thought be turned into actionable outcomes that change our surroundings? Do we have a responsibility to notice situations where speaking is not proper then take action in an appropriate way? Should we always mitigate our language and style? Alternatively, should we search for an outlet where we are joined by people with a common understanding, where our speech - the articulation of our thoughts - is acceptable and catalyses progressive thinking?
Sadly, Kierkegaard's edict is all too intrinsic to human nature and the structures that confine acceptable behaviour. But we have a responsibility to ourselves - to take a stance and be consistent to our beliefs. His declaration relates to people oppressed by a situation yet modern idealism teaches us to express ourselves. We therefore have a choice and it seems that it comes down to our desire for freedom. If we remain in our boxes, the air will fester and we will suffocate. If we are brave we will be free but we must be prepared to take responsibility for our actions and the consequences thereof. Maybe bravery is absurd. Then sensible is inert.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
