Life and the World

Red Nosed blogging - a press release

2007-03-16T10:52:00.000Z

"100 bloggers have published a book to raise funds of the BBC's Comic Relief appeal on Friday 16th March.

'Shaggy Blog Stories' features hilarious contributions from Richard Herring of 'Fist of Fun' fame, BBC 6Music presenter Andrew Collins, comedian Emma Kennedy, and James Henry, scriptwriter from Channel Four's 'The Green Wing'.

Authors Abby Lee, David Belbin, Catherine Sanderson and The Guardian's Anna Pickard have also contributed pieces to the book.

The vast majority of contributions, however, are the work of many of the lesser known and unfamiliar heroes of British blogging; going under pen names such as Diamond Geezer, Scaryduck, Pandemian and Unreliable Witness.

The book is the idea of blogger Mike Atkinson who writes the 'Troubled Diva' weblog. 'Shaggy Blog Stories' features comic writing from not only the cream of British blogging, but also the best up-and-coming and undiscovered writers publishing their work on their own websites.

Giving himself a "ridiculously short" seven days from idea to finished product, Atkinson admitted that he was overwhelmed with the response, which gleaned over 300 submissions for publication.

With a pool of talented writers, and the latest publishing-on-demand technology, Shaggy Blog Stories bypasses the usual snail-paced publishing industry, and offers a mail order service to customers who will receive their finished copy within days of placing their order, and only a couple of weeks after the original idea.

"Blogging creates complex, worldwide networks of friendship and contacts on the internet", says journalist Alistair Coleman, one of Shaggy Blog Stories' contributors. "By creating a buzz about this book, we can reach out to hundreds, thousands of readers who'd be willing to part with a few quid for this very good cause. Mike's got some excellent writers on board here whose work deserves a wider audience. Everybody wins."

For details of how to order the book, visit www.shaggyblogstories.co.uk.

For the background story on the creation of Shaggy Blog Stories, take a look at www.troubled-diva.com."

Yes, I has bought one. Since I haven't done a great deal of Red Nose anything in recent years I thought it was about time I did, even it just involved plugging my card details into a website. Ah, the memories of school days raising tuppence everytime you drew a red nose man on the back of someone's hand in biro. Those were the days.

The path to Hell

2007-03-13T12:41:00.000Z

Via Crooked Timber (http://crookedtimber.org), I find this, from a discussion on the validity (or not) of the second Lancet study of civilian deaths and why (whether) it was mostly ignored by the media, and, in fact, almost everyone:

"I think the problem with the Lancet study is that it rams up against a fundamental presupposition of current ‘Western’ discourse (i.e. among intellectuals) and therefore it can’t really be sensibly discussed. I’ve noticed a hierarchy of ‘acceptable’ ‘sins of the West’.

1: Most acceptable of all are horrors of the past during which ‘we’ did not ‘intervene’. (key example here: Rwanda). This can therefore be spun: ‘we are good, but sometimes we don’t do enough’.

2: Secondly are horrors of the past in which ‘we’ did do terrible things, but it was all a long time ago. Therefore this is spun: ‘Vietnam/the slave trade/the Empire was indeed a terrible thing but it was all a long time ago, and the fact that we disapprove of it now only goes to prove how good we are now.’ (or else, the Christopher Hitchens line: the fact that ‘we’ caused such bad things in the past only goes to prove that ‘we’ have to set them right now).

3: Verging into unacceptable territory (but still, as it were, alludable to) is ‘our’ current collusion with various dictators many of whom practice torture, murder, genocide etc. It is just barely permissable to mention our collusion with the Saudis, Equatorial Guinea, Egypt, Pakistan (etc. etc. etc.) but only if this is spun: ‘they are bad people and they have corrupted us! It is terrible that we are forced to deal with such people, but this is the way of the world.’

4: Completely and absolutely unmentionable (indeed, unthinkable) is a situation where ‘we’ are purely and simply the bad guys. The Lancet study is not so much argued against as ignored (or treated with bug eyed disbelief) because it threatens this taboo. For example, as Mahmood Mandani points out, why do ‘we’ not refer to what is currently going on in Iraq as genocide? It is not obviously much better than what is currently going on in Sudan. The reason, surely, is that then we would have to face the idea that ‘we’ set in motion a chain of events that led to genocide, and that, therefore, ‘we’ are the bad guys."

And I think to a certain extent it is true. Because "we" have good intentions, "we" therefore are not and do not do "evil". Trouble is, pretty much everyone thinks they are doing the right thing. Hell, the men who flew planes into the World Trade Centre thought they were doing the right thing. At the risk of breaching Godwin's Law, bloody Hitler thought he was doing the right thing. There really are very few people out there rubbing their hands, laughing maniacally and setting out to do evil. The road to Hell is indeed paved with good intentions.

They'll never take our freedom!

2007-03-08T11:31:00.000Z

Well now, this is just fascinating! According to The Heritage Foundation, the UK is the 5th or 6th (it draws with NZ) most economically free country in the world:

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm

We are, officially, free. And this despite all those regulations/rules/red tape that various blogs and commentators continue to tell us is gagging business and dragging us down down down. It's amazing what some facts (rather than rhetoric) can show you, huh?

You live and learn.

Brainy writing

2007-03-07T10:25:00.000Z

I like good books. I buy far more books than I have time to read, and I read a lot. The only upside to commuting into London for work is the semi-enforced reading time. And I like good, clever books that teach you something new and expand your mind. But there can be a downside to brainy writing, and I've never quite been able to articulate it. So instead I shall steal the much-better-and-sort-of-relevant-words of another, the inestimable Neil Gaiman:

"There are two kinds of clever writer. The ones that point out how clever they are, and the ones who see no need to point out how clever they are."

Absolutely. I have in the past, for example, been incredibly impressed by the writings of Umberto Eco, and yet always came away from reading one of his hefty tomes feeling a bit dumber, rather than a bit cleverer. He is indeed a man of enormous brain, but, to steal the words of yet another, my goodness don't he know it.

Mr Gaiman is talking about a particular author:

"Gene Wolfe is of the second kind, and the intelligence is less important than the tale. He is not smart to make you feel stupid. He is smart to make you smart as well"

Damn, like I needed yet another author to get into.

Enough

2007-03-06T14:24:00.000Z

Many many months ago I wrote about my quest to start with a blank sheet, politically speaking. I wanted to start anew, without preconceptions. To read the views of the right and the left and try to learn afresh. And I have. I haved read and read and commented and commented and (occasionally) posted. I have seen, I think, the best and worst that British political blogging has to offer.

But I have to tell you this - I am tired of the whole fucking thing. It has been nigh on impossible to find openmindedness and honesty. God forbid that I should wish to tease out some non-dogmatic explanations for things. Harder than blood from a stone. And any respect? Forget that! People seem to be pathologically incapable of seeing past their own oh-so-certain convictions and prejudices, and utterly unable to see anything from any other view point than their own myopic tunnel vision. And I've had enough enough enough enough.

I've had enough of lefties calling conservatives evil, when I have known good and decent conservatives. I've had enough of righties calling socialists stupid, when I have known intelligence socialists. I've had enough of the whole macho, dick-swinging, name-calling charade that calls itself "political debate" in the blogosphere.

The final straw on this particular camel's back was the minor storm in a tea cup that was an accidental announcement of the death of Margaret Thatcher on a blog-that-shall-not-be-named. Naturally, it turned out to be a windup and the pathetic excuse for a fallout that has followed has been more excuse than I ever needed to stop sullying my eyes and minds with this crud. From the right wing shouts of glee at catching a leftie in a silly (though honest) mistake, to the left wing widespread dancing on the (not yet filled) grave of Maggie - the whole thing has left me feeling... grubby.

Some pearls of my oh-so-humble-wisdom:

- it's really not that big a deal if someone gets something wrong on a blog. Spinning this into a left wing conspiracy/indication of the stupidity of the left is grasping at some seriously small straws. It's petulent and ugly. It's pettiness of the worse kind. And really, if this is the thing that gets you excited the most, then you have a tiny tiny mind;

- talk of dance floors and urinals over the grave of another human being is just nasty. You're sounding like the people that hang around outside US prisons cheering when someone's just been executed, and I really don't think you want to be in the same club as those drooling, bloodthirsty lunatics.

This whole sad, sordid episode has just crystallised everything I've been thinking and feeling. So well done guys - you wanted to be the alternative to the MSM, but unfortunately you've just turned out to be a watered-down, typo strewn version of the same thing. You're not revolutionary any more, you've just been sucked into the same quagmire.

I saw it written somewhere once that we get the politicians we deserve, and you lot have got exactly that. It's a positive feedback of crap, endlessly feeding itself with its own excrement. And I have better things to do than wallow in the filth.

Drunken Consent

2007-01-25T12:34:00.000Z

There was a rape trial recently wherein a judge, in his wisdom, said the immortal words "drunken consent is still consent". This is one of the most heinous pieces of rubbish I have ever heard. By that reason, I supposed "forced consent is still consent". I am being facetious of course, but the point stands - consent sometimes is not consent, as that concept is legally recognised; it depends very much on the circumstances.

This has been debated elsewhere on various blogs, most recently in a piece in the Telegraph that was then debated here: http://timworstall.typepad.com/timworstall/2007/01/drunkeness_and_.html#comments.

I find it difficult to express how much I disapprove of the analogy drawn there between a woman who, whilst drunk, "consents" to sex and a women who, whilst drunk, gets into a car and drives or commits an assault. The two things, as I believe some of the comments make clear, are entirely different. And the very fact that comparisons are being made between the active commission of a wrongful act and the passive commission of a non-wrongful act just makes me realise how far down the barrel some of these barrel scrapers are scraping.

I tried to draw what was, in my opinion, a more accurate analogy that was, I thought gender neutral, so as to try to get these (male) commenters into the shoes of the hypothetical drunk woman. The analogy I drew was as follows:

"Here's an alternative scenario to all the "doing bad things when drunk" comparisons - if a person who was drunk went to a doctor and said "doctor, perform this operation on me please", and the doctor did so - would that request be considered to be adeqaute consent to prevent the doctor from being done for assault? What about if the doctor went up to the drunk person and said "may I perform this operation on you please?" and the drunk person said yes, would that be considered consent?"

This was immediately (and, I believe, disingenously) misinterpreted as referring to the stitching of a wound after a drunken accident or emergency surgery carried out on an unconscious person. Again alas, I draw a heavy sigh and attempt to correct what I thought was a perfectly obvious comparison. No, I was not referring to anything necessary or medically beneficial and to think that I was is either a wilful or stupid misinterpretation.

So let me say again, how would you, dear (imaginary) reader feel if you woke up and discovered that a doctor had performed an entirely unnecessary and invasive operation upon you that you couldn't remember. Imagine further if the doctor told you that you had, in your drunkenness, enthusiastically endorsed such an operation, nay, had begged for it. Imagine even further then that you were told by the law and society that you were entirely responsible for your own misfortune and the doctor was entirely blameless. And were then told that your were scurrilously attempting to smear the doctor and should be ashamed of yourself.

Does that sound just and fair?

View on the EU

2007-01-09T14:01:00.000Z

There has been some comment recently on a few of the political blogs I read on the subject of the EU. My view, succintly, as I comment on http://voting.taktix.org (nope, still haven't worked out how to embed hyperlinks) is that we are currently in the longest period of peace that (Western) Europe has ever known. I’m much rather we be scrapping verbally about trade rules than scrapping physically about, well, anything else.

So there.

Another presidential death

2007-01-02T16:10:00.000Z

Here's a thing that no one noticed over the Christmas period. Whilst our flights were being cancelled by fog and the tabloids were getting their knickers in a twist over the non-event that was(n't) the "banning" of Christmas, in Turkmenistan President Niyazov died.

Now, President Niyazov was in the grand old style of ex-Soviet leaders - i.e. utterly nuts and homocidal. In basic model power-hungry-dictator mode he had statues erected to himself. But that was just for starters:

He published, in 2001 and 2004, parts one and two of the Ruhnama, his own personal religious text book, which he proceeded to press on everything and everyone. Among other things, you needed to know passages of it in order to pass exams, enter state employment and obtain a driving licence.
In 2001, ballet and opera were banned. The playing of recorded music on television, at public events and at weddings were also banned.
In 2002, he renamed the months of the year after himself and his mother.
In 2004, young men were banned from wearing beards or long hair.
2004 being a good year for madness of all kinds, he ordered the construction of an ice palace in the desert.
2004 still going strong, news readers were banned from wearing makeup.
In 2005, all rural libraries were closed, on the basis that ordinary Turkmen don't read. Turkwomen, apparently, do not even exist.
He followed that in the same year with the closure of all hospitals outside the capital. Not only are ordinary Turkmen now illiterate (slightly better than non-existent I suppose), they are now probably dead. But as long as they read their Ruhnama three times, they'll go to heaven, according to the man himself.
The Turkmen word for bread was replaced with his dead mother's name. No really.

Yes, the man was a fruitloop.

Unfortunately, he also held the fates of 5 million people in his hands. Five million people who should have been rich and prosperous, since their country possesses the fifth largest reserves of natural gas. Of course, they are instead as poor as pigshit, since (in case I haven't made this clear) their leader was a loon.

In addition (but of course) he controlled all the the media, dispensed with elections altogether, oh, and had a nasty habit of "disappearing" his political opponents. While he was at it, he knackered the political infrastructures of the country so much so that his own successor, according to the constitution, was him.

It would be nice to think, would it not, that his death would finally allow Turkmenistan to reinstate some kind of, erm, sanity in their government? But so far, it looks like business as usual. Although presidential elections aren't until February 11, everyone already knows who is going to win. It would also be nice to think that the UK government or the western media could summon up the energy to give a shit, but clearly they won't.

So, here's to the next president of Turkmenistan, Kurbanguly Berdymukhamedov. Please don't be as bonkers as your predecessor.

Writing the world a better place

2006-10-12T12:05:00.000+01:00

A woman called Anna Politskovskaya died on 7 October. She had done more in her murderously foreshortened life than I imagine I'll achieve in my hopefully long one. She had the guts to keep going knowing that there were people who wanted her dead and quiet, people who eventually got their way. I had barely even heard of her until she was shot, so although those people fulfilled their first desire, they rather failed in their second.

She was a journalist who wrote in and about Russia, specifically human rights in Russia, and even more specifically, about human rights in Chechnya. I have heard many bad things said about journalists - that they are parasites, just after a story, hacks. For me, they have always been a profession I admire. And Anna Politskovskaya was exactly the reason why.

So here is to Anna.

Things Wot Have Happened

2006-09-21T14:49:00.000+01:00

Things wot have happened since my last post:

1. Stopped being a solicitor (although, strictly speaking, I am on the roll until October - do I renew? Decisions decisions...)

2. I've dyed my hair pink

3. I've turned 30

4. I've got a voluntary job at Amnesty International

5. I've enrolled on a course to learn basic Indonesian

6. Other boring stuff (moving house, DIY, gardening, that sort of thing) that is, well, boring unless you are a genius comic writer. I'm not, so it's just, erm, boring.

The Real World (TM)

2006-04-03T09:48:00.000+01:00

There is a place that I occasionally inhabit that does not involve politics, the Today programme or blogs. It is called the Real World (TM) and it is where I have been residing for the last couple of weeks, whilst moving house.

Additionally though, I have been deliberately not listening to the news. The batteries ran down on the bathroom radio and I didn't change them, so I have had no opportunity to scream at Charles Clark whilst in the shower. The nearest I have come to politics has been seeing Tony Blair on BBC Breakfast this morning saying "now, look...". No change there then.

And strangely, my life has not fallen apart and the world has definitely not ended. The ID card debate has not changed anything for me personally, and no doubt if I had had one it would have been easier to change my address with everyone. Possibly. Which is not my way of saying that I have converted to the ID card cause (as if), but rather to point out to anyone who might be reading how little this civil liberties debate impinges upon one's life if you don't let it/want it.

I didn't watch the news, I didn't watch Question Time, I didn't listen to the Today programme. I didn't read any newspapers (although if I had I could quite easily have done so without taking in anything of import or interest) and I didn't read blogs. I unpacked boxes, I went to the supermarket, I got on the train and the tube (and cursed the lack of bins, but noticed that at Earl's Court they have see through bag bins), I pottered, I looked at cats. It was a useful window on the politically unencumbered life and a reminder to myself that your own obsessions are rarely held by the world in general.

I suppose I'd better change those batteries now and let the Safety Elephant back into my world. Sigh.

It's not big and it's not clever

2006-03-07T19:33:00.000Z

but type "sweaty baboon" into Google.co.uk and press "I'm feeling lucky".

Argh too busy

2006-03-06T11:18:00.000Z

The combination of my job and the fact that I am leaving my job is not conducive to frequent (or, in fact, any) blogging. So it may be a bit quiet round these parts for a wee while. But I will be reading, absorbing, thinking.

Any suggestions for a good master's degree subject for a politically interested soon-to-be-ex-lawyer?

It's alive!

2006-02-27T13:02:00.000Z

Liberty Central is now up and running at http://www.libertycentral.org.uk

Go register, read, contribute.

Sigh

2006-02-21T12:18:00.000Z

Already people are misinterpreting the proposed Liberty Central coalition as being party political. Either that or interpreting it from inside their little mental party political boxes.

No no no no no.

That is not it at all. It makes me want to scream. My own opinion is that party politics is part of the damn problem in the first place. When discussion and disagreement is seen as weakness, and whips hold all the power, then you get dogmatism and dogmatism is blind, deaf, dumb AND stupid.

I've come down a bit from my energetic high of yesterday, when it seemed as if anything could happen. Am I falling for the usual blogging world trick of thinking that enough people read (other blogs far better read than mine) and give a damn about this stuff? Well, of course I am. Sigh, sigh and tripple sigh.

Words fail me

2006-02-20T17:07:00.000Z

I have just read this:

http://www.thelip.org/?p=129

(Via Talk Politics again)

I'm just gobsmacked.

This much I know

2006-02-20T10:55:00.000Z

I am not an economist, and the "restart" of this blog a month or so back was frequently about my forays into the world of free marketeerism - what it really means, what its proponents claim for it, where it does and does not work. A blank slate, as I said, and dogma free. That has been an interesting project, and is still ongoing.

I am not an economist, then, but I am a lawyer. And this much I know: the supremacy of Parliament is being used to create an over-powerful Executive. But more to the point: the supremacy of the Commons is being used. And, somewhat ironically, the Lords is attempting to put the brakes on.

One of the most prominent debates in British politics this century (no, really) has been over the status of the House of Lords. The first major constitutional crisis of the 20th century came in 1911, when the Commons and the Lords faced off against each other over the Finance Bill of that year, which introduced the first old age pensions. This morphed into the creation of the first Parliament Act, whereby the supremacy of the Commons over the Lords was made explicit.

That supremacy has been harnessed rarely, and generally backed up by the not unreasonable argument that in a democracy the will of the elected Commons should take precedence over the will of the unelected Lords. Simple, non? Simple, as long as the players played the game with honour. Because the simple fact of the matter is that the Parliament Act makes the Commons truly supreme, except as against the Crown. And the Crown plays the game with honour, usually, by not interfering and effectively delegating the Royal Prerogative to the Executive.

So in order for the game not to fall apart, the Executive has to play with honour by not taking advantage of the fact that it will, generally, be the same people as the Commons, which is supreme over the Lords. And in the meantime, the Courts play the game, as ever, by relying on the Executive honourably not taking advantage of the fact that are not really independent at all.

The checks and balances of the British constitutional settlement are in people's heads and in their attitudes, not within the system itself. The system works by everyone being good chaps. British sense of fair play and all that. The edifice has not toppled, not because it is stable, but because no one has tried giving it a push.

All it really takes is for one government to start stretching the rules, for the media to take their eye off the ball and care more about soundbite than substance, for the electorate to get sick of the whole boiling, and who knows where it would end. And if all three happened at once? Oops.

I will not sit by and watch everything fall apart. I will try to play a small part as a check and a balance and I will start by trying to help the Liberty Central project that I wrote about below. So in three months time there will be an eager lawyer with time on her hands available, should anyone need me.

Maybe things won't fall apart, maybe these worries will turn out to have been overwrought and melodramatic, maybe I will read my rhetoric and sigh and smile at the hyperbole. And then I will be glad, because this much I know: I will have done something to make it so.

The big boys wade in

2006-02-17T17:20:00.000Z

In case anyone hasn't seen this yet, here is the text of a letter today in the Times. More than enough commentary has been written about it, and I for one think it speaks for itself:

Sir, Clause one of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill (Comment, Feb 15) provides that: “A Minister of the Crown may by order make provision for either or both of the following purposes — a) reforming legislation; b) implementing recommendations of any one or more of the United Kingdom Law Commissions, with or without changes.”

This has been presented as a simple measure “streamlining” the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, by which, to help industry, the Government can reduce red tape by amending the Acts of Parliament that wove it. But it goes much further: if passed, the Government could rewrite almost any Act and, in some cases, enact new laws that at present only Parliament can make.

The Bill subjects this drastic power to limits, but these are few and weak. If enacted as it stands, we believe the Bill would make it possible for the Government, by delegated legislation, to do (inter alia) the following:

create a new offence of incitement to religious hatred, punishable with two years’ imprisonment;
curtail or abolish jury trial;

permit the Home Secretary to place citizens under house arrest;
allow the Prime Minister to sack judges;

rewrite the law on nationality and immigration;

“reform” Magna Carta (or what remains of it).

It would, in short, create a major shift of power within the state, which in other countries would require an amendment to the constitution; and one in which the winner would be the executive, and the loser Parliament.

David Howarth, MP for Cambridge, made this point at the Second Reading of the Bill last week. We hope that other MPs, on all sides of the House, will recognise the dangers of what is being proposed before it is too late.

PROFESSOR J. R. SPENCER, QC
PROFESSOR SIR JOHN BAKER, QC
PROFESSOR DAVID FELDMAN
PROFESSOR CHRISTOPHER FORSYTH
PROFESSOR DAVID IBBETSON
PROFESSOR SIR DAVID WILLIAMS, QC
Law Faculty,
University of Cambridge

Something new...

2006-02-17T14:09:00.000Z

I am angry. Just "throw-the-radio-out-of-the-window-when-I-hear-Charles-Clarke" sort of angry, but angry nonetheless. Surprise surprise - I am angry with New Labour and their constant drip-drip-drip authoritariansim. I have never been a conspiracy theorist, but I am starting to get a bit scared. And anyone who thinks I shouldn't have anything to be scared about if I have nothing to hide can fuck off right now.

And I am not the only one. After my linking to Talk Politics a few days ago, Mat GB at Great Britain Not Little England has got in on the act too:

http://not-little-england.blogspot.com/2006/02/coalition-feedback-and-where-next.html#comments

A new movement for liberty? I'll be there for that. Let's see where this goes, shall we...

Please read this.

2006-02-15T11:48:00.000Z

I point you towards Talk Politics today:

http://talkpolitics.users20.donhost.co.uk/

Please read. This is important.

The die is cast etc etc

2006-02-13T13:00:00.000Z

This morning I handed my notice in at work. In three and a half months' time I will be out of the door. After three years of a law degree, a year at law school, two years as a trainee and four and half (long) years as a solicitor, I am saying goodbye. What comes next is anybody's guess.

This is a big day. I can't much enjoy it because I have so much work to do. But hurrah nevertheless.

The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend

2006-02-09T12:12:00.000Z

It will not surprise many people to know that I was and am agin the war in Iraq. I won't go into the reasons here, since that is not the purpose of this post.

My question to the world is: is there any way I can make my views known (marches, petitions, whatever - I'm not fussy) that does not involve the Stop the War Coalition? They were a convenient vehicle for protest two or three years ago, when things were new, immediate and heated, but I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable regarding the members of the Coalition and whom I will be perceived to be supporting should I support the same cause as them.

The Stop the War Coalition website helpfully does not seem to include a list of the actual members of the Coalition, but a look at the list if the Steering Committee does not make me confident that I am in accord with their views. I am not a socialist, nor a communist, nor do I particularly support the views of the Muslim Association of Britain. I dislike also the fact that the domination of the Stop the War Coalition allows some of those of the pro-war ilk (left and right) to paint those of the anti-war ilk as extremists.

Since I'm not about to start a whole new movement myself (too busy, too lazy, too unconnected) is there any other organisation out there to which I can add my support and also do my bit to tackle the ascendency of the Stop the War Coalition in this debate?

Munich

2006-02-06T18:24:00.000Z

Went to see Munich on Saturday. Excellent film. A film that stays with you. And makes you think about important things. Puts the mundane, every day stuff in perspective. Others have probably said it better so I will leave it at that.

Rather a pity that Mark and I spoiled our contemplative mood by having a tiff about the central heating when we got home, but there you go.

A contradiction?

2006-02-06T15:33:00.000Z

Can someone tell me why "conservatives" (used not pejoratively, but as a broad-church label) support the general principle of low taxation, except for the armed forces? I mean, the armed forces are incredibly expensive. So why is spending on this one expensive thing given a free pass from the general principle? Honestly, why?

Freedom to be sensible

2006-02-03T15:12:00.000Z

The most sense I have heard from anyone about this whole Mohammed cartoon stuff came from Stuart Lee (writer of Jerry Springer: The Opera) this morning on the Today programme. You can hear him here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/

(and thanks to Thesisville for pointing out that the interview can be downloaded from the Radio 4 website).

My only comment on these cartoons is that they are crap. As in, not funny. And since that was supposedly their initial intent they've rather failed as far as I'm concerned.

Random things that irritate me #4

2006-02-02T18:30:00.000Z

People putting their shoe-clad feet up on the seats on trains. I mean, really. How incredibly rude, mucky and inconsiderate. Haven't plucked up the guts to say that to anyone yet. Some day though I will finally lose my rag...

Random things that irritate me #3

2006-02-01T14:09:00.000Z

Advertising to children. Don't even get me started. In fact, I'm think of applying to The Sharpener for a Thursday Rant slot for this one.

Random things that irritate me #2

2006-01-31T10:19:00.000Z

Cosmologists burbling on about dark matter and dark energy (and now, I read in New Scientist, "phantom energy"). Gah! Just admit you don't know! Apply a good dose of Occam's Razor please. Which is a simpler explanation:

(a) there exists in the universe an unknown, unseen, undetectable form or matter and an unknown, unseen, undetectable form of energy; or

(b) you've got your cosmological sums and concepts in a twist.

I predict a paradigm shift sometime soon (because of course I am an expert in such things).

Random things that irritate me #1

2006-01-30T17:56:00.000Z

The fact that the basic economic unit of our world is the "consumer". It makes us sound like voracious ants, forever stuffing ourselves silly until eventually we'll eat the planet. Actually, it would be quite useful if people could remember that that is what "consumer" means - i.e. one who consumes - but it has become a word stripped of its real meaning to become just a unit of measurement. Ugh.

Guilty laugh

2006-01-25T16:20:00.000Z

Tasteless, but funny. I'll lose my PC badge for this:

http://static.flickr.com/15/90998892_c5135c6694_o.jpg

And also this:

http://microsoft.blognewschannel.com/index.php/archives/2005/11/22/banned-xbox-360-ad-best-ad-ever/

Oops

2006-01-25T11:14:00.000Z

Technical issue here. I may have inadvertently cocked up the comments setting. About a week ago I got my first ever comment spam and in the process of attempting to delete I might have set up a comment approval process without any way to actually approve the comments. Der.

It's possible I suppose that hoards of people have been trying to post comments and the economic debate of the decade could have been kicked off by my posts below about wine corks. Possible, but unlikely.

Rest assured though that this is now sorted out, so please feel free to comment at will.

Punishment of the corporal variety

2006-01-23T13:56:00.000Z

I've been thinking about this subject recently, wondering how I can write a post about it in any way relevant to anything else that's going on at the moment, trying I think just to out a childhood memory of mine. Happily (or not) the news and blogs runneth over today with the subject of the chastisement of children, and I can whip out a vaguely topical post.

So, the story: I am a child of 8, sitting in a classroom full of 8 year olds, our teacher trying to teach us something basic about something-or-other. The reason I can't remember what the teacher is trying to get across to us (apart from the fact that I was 8 quite a long time ago) is because emanating from the headmaster's office right next door are the loud and terrified screams of a fellow 8 year old. Yes, the toe rag of the school is getting caned again. Or possibly slippered. I forget which was our headmaster's weapon of choice. Either way, the shrieks of "no!', 'please!' and "don't!" are rather getting in the way of our teacher's efforts to fill our eager 8 year old brains will lovely knowledge. All I remember from the teacher is a sense of ackwardness.

Do you think being slippered taught our school toe rag respect, or even Respect (copyright T.Blair)? No. It taught him to hate and fear school. I don't recall much of him after that, mostly because he had the world's worst truancy record. Yep, that sure taught him.

You're probably thinking from this that I am not a fan of corporal punishment, and you'd be right. I am generally disapproving of physical chastisement of any form. Partly because it is always the strong chastising the weak. Partly because 50 or so ago, perfectly reasonable men would have argued that, as a woman, a good bit of discipline wouldn't hurt me.

This topic raises its head because of the recent proposal of some child commissioner or other that smacking (spanking, hitting, whatever) children be banned. Various bloggers are frothing at the mouth on this one (see Devil's Kitchen - http://devilskitchen.blogspot.com/2006/01/smack-my-bitch-up.html - or Talk Politics - http://talkpolitics.users20.donhost.co.uk/index.php?title=gong_clarkson&more - if you must).

Let me make myself clear. I think that smacking children is bad parenting. Occasionally perpetrated by good parents. I've read more 'it's the only way to stop them running out in front of cars/throwing themselves on fires/slitting their own wrists with kitchen knives' reasons than I could possibly need to read to understand that there is always an excuse and it's always a crap one. All these justifications seem to say is that physical chastisement is the most effective form of discipline there is but we only use it when we really really need to, honest guv'nor. Quite why these particular occasions make the use of force necessary is never explained, so it must just be "common sense" (as in, can't explain, it just is). Short, sharp shock, yes?

But I digress. You might also be forgiven for thinking that I would therefore be in favour of such a ban, yes? Well, you'd be wrong. Thing is, I'd love to see the day when it was generally accepted that smacking (slapping, striking, assaulting, whatever) was the wrong way to go about delivering any kind of lesson to a child. But in such cases, government must follow, not lead (cajole, force, prosecute, whatever) wherever society happens leads them (regardless of whether or not that is where I personally want society to go).

60 years ago, averagely decent people were puffing away at fags in the cinema. 20 years ago, the equivalent averagely decent people were puffing away at fags on the back seats of buses. Now, your averagely decent smoker tries hard to keep it to themselves. And the jury of society is still out and debating on whether the averagely decent smoker smokes in the pub any more. 500 years ago, averagely decent men were physically chastising their wives and more. I'd like to see them trying it now and expect much support from present-day averagely decent men.

So now, averagely decent parents sometimes smack their children. I wish they wouldn't. And I rather hope that in 60 years time the averagely decent parent will be slightly shocked that their own averagely decent grandparents did so. And then in that theoretical future it might I suppose be a time that government might think about banning it; but by then it won't mean the same thing, because by that point only the less-than-averagely decent parent will be hit (spanked, chastised, whatever) by it.

Refocus

2006-01-20T11:29:00.000Z

I have been posting a lot about economics, mostly I think because it is something I don't know much about and I dislike finding such a huge gap in my knowledge. And it is an important, world-changing subject.

On the other hand, there's a good reason why it is such a huge gap: it's not a terribly inspiring. It raises no fire in my soul. So whilst I think it is worth me continuing to read about it, get various points of view about it, I'm not going to be blogging random thoughts about it forever.

And I don't want to forget the things that really get me fired up: politics, feminism, theology, philosophy. So normal service will be resumed shortly.

Striking another blow for the informed consumer

2006-01-16T19:30:00.000Z

A quick wave back to a post I made nearly a year ago here - http://lifeandtheworld.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_lifeandtheworld_archive.html - wherein I ranted about cosmetics advertising (oooooh, don't get me started... too late!).

I was right all along! Woo hoo! It's all bollocks and canard! See http://www.inkycircus.com/jargon/2006/01/skincare_expose.html and http://www.firstscience.com/SITE/ARTICLES/skincare.asp.

But alas, the truth as revealed in InkyCircus.com and firstscience.com has little chance I fear against the mighty power (and budget) of L'Oreal, Garnier and the like. And thus I again grow sceptical about the power of the informed consumer in the free market.

To steal a badly-remembered quote, "lies will have made it half way round the world before the truth has even got its running shoes on".

The informed consumer?

2006-01-16T10:14:00.000Z

An interesting point on the nature of the free market and the informed consumer occurred to me last week. Well okay, for a given value of "interesting". Interesting to me, anyway. But who the heck else is listening? Not even my husband. Hear that Mark? Nope, thought not.

I refer you to the honourable gentleman, Tim Worstall, who could I suppose be described a free market environmentalist, who posted on the subject of wine corks ( http://timworstall.typepad.com/timworstall/2006/01/the_guardian_in.html ) describing the unfortunate demise of the real cork. Unfortunate from an environmental perspective anyway, it would appear. I enquired as to Mr Worstall's views on his views on the fact that it would appear therefore that the free market was acting against environment concerns. The answer, in simple terms, is that the fully adjusted free market requires the participants to be fully informed. He then went on to say that he thought that "the environmental task ahead of us is to make sure that prices do indeed reflect the externalities" - i.e. prices should reflect environmental impact, if I understood him correctly.

Given his earlier statement as the informed participants, do I understand him correctly to mean informed consumers?

Playing Devil's Advocate, I can see a few issues with this concept:

1. Getting consumers informed. Well, that's an obvious one that, and a genuine problem I think. Even within the comments section on Tim's own blog there was disagreement about the extent of the environmental impact. So for the "externalities", as he puts it, to be taken into account, does there not need to be agreement as to the nature and extent of their externalities?

2. Getting consumers to care. Say we have agreement as to the environmental affect, negative thereof, of synthetic corks, I have no doubt that there will be plenty of people out there who don't give a fuck. They want cheaper and, in this rather shoddily designed thought experiment, synthetic corks are cheaper and we assume therefore that the wine is consequently cheaper. How does the environmental free marketeer get the consumer to care? Or am I even understanding the concept here? Does the free market have a mechanism for making people care? I dunno.

3. Getting producers to offer the choice. Sounds simple, n'est pas? I see a bottle with a real cork, I see a bottle with a synthetic cork, I am an informed consumer and I care. So I buy the bottle with the real cork, right? But I don't always know. Most of the bottles I have in my cupboard at the moment have the foil over the whole lot. I can't tell, I couldn't exercise choice even if I knew there was a choice to be exercised and want to do so. Perhaps I'm think too micro here rather than macro. Any thoughts?

Free markets and PR

2006-01-12T21:04:00.000Z

I have been reading a lot recently about free markets and free marketeerism and it has been, honestly, interested. I have learned a lot. I have learned, for example, that when free marketeers talk about wanting to be free from the shackles of regulation, what some of them seem to mean is government regulation. The idea is, apparently, that the markets can regulate instead. Take a look at this for a bit more explanation of this view (ignoring the anti-left polemic throughout):

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=193&sortorder=articledate

Now, I'm not an economist, but neither am I a complete ignoramus. I've read newspapers, I've watched the news and political discussion programmes, and I must say that all those business bods going on about red tape rather gave me the impression that they would quite happily leave those spikes in kiddies' toys and the possibly-toxic dye in the tomato sauce if it meant lower production costs. Especially when they said so.

Word to the wise guys. Get some better PR.

More, much more, to follow on this topic.

UPDATE: Oops - link now corrected.

Quote of the Week

2006-01-10T12:04:00.000Z

"Conservative, n: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others. "

Ambrose Bierce

Particularly relevant to me at the moment, given my current project...

Ignorance alert! A special prize goes to the person who can tell me who Ambrose Bierce is. A booby prize goes to the person who tells me to look him up on Wikipedia; yes, I know I can find out myself, but it is sometimes nice to get an individual's slant on something.

Politics schmolitics

2006-01-06T11:42:00.000Z

I'm not doing party politics at the moment - loyalty to any cause, name or movement not being terribly conducive to the old 'blank slate' - but good grief, what on earth is going on? In yesterday's episode of the Political Twilight Zone Charlie Kennedy got all contrite in front of the cameras and George Galloway entered the Celebrity Big Brother House. Tabloid headlines writers must be thanking the gods for this duet of gifts. Go wild, I say. I could do with a bit of comedy to perk up January.

Socially Liberal, Economically Conservative

2006-01-04T16:17:00.000Z

On the subject of labelling, I happened to be blog hopping (yes, I am bored at work, again) and came across Chris at http://www.strange_stuff.blogspot.com confessing to a certain fondness for online tests at http://strange_stuff.blogspot.com/2006/01/another-self-test-thingy.html

The designation "socially liberal, economically conservative" comes up a lot and seemingly translates as "do what you like, don't take my money". Correct guestimate?

All sounds very common sense, salt-of-the-earth stuff, except that it's, well, a bit lazy isn't it? A bit passive. And eventually a bit la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you about things not going so well for others.

Whither social justice, in this context? Do you just hope for the best and assume that things will get better inevitably? Somewhat over-optimistic that, isn't it? The introduction of, say, old age pensions after all the Parliamentary fisticuffs of 1911 took place against massive opposition from those of the Victorian laissez-faire attitude. It is impossible I know to predict what might have happened without them, but are there any realistic arguments out there that without the introduction of such a safety net poverty stricken OAP's would be better off?

I am a member of the Politically Correct Brigade!

2006-01-03T18:05:00.000Z

I confess! It's me! We have a badge, and a secret handshake and a straw man as our emblem. We share our offices with the Gay Mafia and are closely allied with the Human Rights Brigade. Although they stole our name, the bastards (sorry, differently parented people).

So what do we believe in? Well, right at the start of the movement, the idea was that words have power. Power to hurt and harm. And that perhaps people could debate respectfully without being offensive. So, using the word 'nigger' was out and the word 'paki' frowned upon, until, before we knew it, the whole world has fallen within our clutches such that all freedom of speech has been eliminated. Success! Ignore the fact that people frequently have debates about any number of things without being thrown into 'Political Correctness Prisons' - that is your imagination and not in any way a sign of a thriving democracy.

Ignore also the fact that there is no government Department of Political Correctness - the fact that this is a social movement without any statutory authority whatsoever just ignores the fact that we are obviously a global conspiracy with our tendrils deep inside every branch of government, business and the media. We only allow constant disagreement with and denigration of our aims because we are sneaky buggers (sorry, differently sexually activated people).

Of course, some people have gone to extremes in the name of Political Correctness and stories of over-zealous members of the Brigade banning things like 'black bags' (rubbish bags please) or 'blackboards' (no no - chalkboards) is not in any way the invention or exaggeration of an over-excited and unimaginative tabloid media and should be bundled in with stuff like, I dunno, calling disabled people Spakkers. All such things are of course Political Correctness Gone Mad and we in the Loony Left embrace that.

We are a broad church - such that we are clearly responsible for anything that anyone disagrees with but can't be bothered to argue with coherently. We believe in everything and anything so long as it will help our nefarious aim to be generally respectful to human beings without defining them by reference to external physical factors. Clearly, we are evil.

I myself am a member of just a splinter group of the Political Correctness Brigade, known as "Being Polite, Mostly", and would like to apologise for taking over the world.

Fisking is boring

2005-12-23T10:47:00.000Z

Oooh.... shocking, controversial, bold! Well, no, not really. Which pretty much sums up fisking too.

Fisking purports to be the line by line rebuttal of another's opinion piece. It is a feature of both left and right wing blogs (much though I dislike such labels - I use them here to be evenhanded). No doubt there is a place for such a thing, but fisking (tee hee, it sounds a bit like 'fisting' doesn't it? How terribly macho) rarely qualifies. It seems to run thusly:

1. Find a column by someone you hate.

2. Apply mildly offensive pun to their name (this confirms that you are a wit of the highest order, yes? No).

3. Read said column with prejudices firmly in place and with the most hyper-critical eye you can muster.

4. Quote a few lines from the column (wildly out of context is best) and follow with snarky comment about how idiotic they are.

5. Make half-hearted attempt at an actual rebuttal, but - careful now! - never ever concede that they might not be complete morons and merely have a different view point from you.

6. Ensure that there are plenty of snide asides about how bad their writing is and how you cannot believe that they get paid to do this (and you don't, probably).

7. Once in a while, just to prove what a reasonable chap you are, analyse a statement they have made that you agree with; be sure though to point out that although their conclusion may be correct, their reasoning is obviously flawed and that this in no way means that they are not utter cretins.

8. Sit back and anticipate sychophantic agreement in the comments box.

Yawn.

Labeling

2005-12-22T13:17:00.000Z

I am almost physically allergic to labels and generalisations. To adapt a phrase "I am not a member of a random grouping, I am a free woman!". Damn. Hoist on my own petard there.

This segues nicely (or not... ed) into political labeling. If someone asks, then I'd probably waffle about being a bit of a lefty-liberal type. I find myself taking care sometimes to specify that I am not a socialist, so that people can feel free to have a conversation about economics (because that happens ever so often!) without worrying that I will start frothing at the mouth. Not that I think socialists are mouth-frothers as such... (just take the continuing liberal wafty apologies, exceptions and caveats for granted, 'kay?)

But every now again, like every other bored employee, I find myself filling in one of those on-line political surveys that purports to tell you what category of political beast you are. I fill 'em in and dutifully get roughly the same answer. (Except a couple of days ago, when I found myself with Left-Libertarian in third place. Que? (Have a quick look at http://radgeek.com/politics/the_general_line for a description by one person of what it means to be a Left-Libertarian)).

But I digress. I find these surveys infruriating. Putting a 'yes' against something I sort of agree with but sort of don't, and then having to balance my sort-of agreement with a consequential downgrading of how strongly I feel about it, yada yada etc etc. Ugh. Of course I know that such things are blunt instruments, broad brush and all the rest of it, but in my current state of political confusion/clarification this only serves to heighten my problem.

I think, if I must, I shall label myself a pragmatist. I am less interested in dogmatic belief systems as such than with what works. Not that that gets me anywhere, since every advocate for a political system will tell me that theirs works the best. What I mean is that I have little time for purist believers in a utopian purist system. Neither pure socialism nor pure free market(ism/eering?) will get much truck from me - as far as I can tell, both systems assume (or would like to assume) that certain things that just ain't so (people will always work for the common good, the markets will always provide, that sort of thing).

So I find labels neither useful nor accurate. But some decent definitions would be good. Liberal. Conservative. Radical (had that one recently too). Progressive. What do they even mean? Different things to different people of course. Because that is the trouble with labels; they categorise into groups (rather like party politics, which I am singularly uninspired by at the moment) instead of recognising a continuum (or rather, a chaos) of views. More and more definitions just seem to muddy the water.

And having randomly burbled myself to an inconclusive conclusion (TM http://www.alansharp.34sp.com/weblog/), I label this blog post ended.

Political blank slate

2005-12-20T10:25:00.000Z

I have been reading a lot of political blogs recently. I know... groan. But as a continuing part of my blank slate project I have been making some effort to read a wide range of views, and have, for the most part, concentrated on the "reasonable" ones - i.e. those that do not automatically consider any one is disagreement as, variously, evil, stupid or shockingly misguided.

What I have been looking for is explanation, discussion and respect and I have been surprisingly and gratifyingly successful in finding it, for the most part. And I have learned a lot and had my eyes opened in various ways on various things. But I have also learned that starting from a blank slate politically is an almost impossible task for me. It seems that what I really want to do is to agree with myself, which rather negates the whole point of the exercise doesn't it?

Perhaps I am being to harsh on myself - I am not after all in my personal life trying to become a completely different person. What I am trying to do is to look at myself honestly and put aside prejudices about past and present behaviour. Catch my assumptions and examine them. I don't expect or intend to become a fundamentally different person - I will still be me, just, I hope, a better me or rather, a more honest me.

Politics is not quite the same as personality (no matter what some people might say), but the analogy holds I think. Whilst I am not about to fundamentally change my core beliefs (I think so far, but who can say) I do feel that I am in the process of throwing off certain prejudices and learning enough to be able to explain, discuss and modify my views with more knowledge than I had.

And for the edification of anyone who happens to be reading, here are some of blogs I have been reading:

http://www.thesharpener.net/ (something of a portal, this. A wide range of views and a wide range of debates, introduced me to many blogs that might be characterised as conservative and/or right wing that I would otherwise not have seen)

http://talkpolitics.users20.donhost.co.uk/ (hates Tony Blair. Knows his stuff. Writes at length)

http://timworstall.typepad.com/timworstall/ (free marketeer, occasionally dogmatically so, also compiler of the mighty weekly Brit Blog Roundup)

http://www.chickyog.blogspot.com/ (also hates Tony Blair. Likewise knows his stuff. Pithy)

http://thelawwestofealingbroadway.blogspot.com/ (a magistrate's blog, not political exactly, but attracts a wide range of political views in comments, edifying about the judicial process)

http://europhobia.blogspot.com/ (despite the name, generally positive to the EU sas a concept whilst critical of the detail. Educational as to the politics of the EU which rarely get a detailed mention, let alone, analysis in the media)

http://nontrivialsolutions.blogspot.com/ (I disagree with this man on almost everything, bu gee willickers it's fun doing it)

http://liberalengland.blogspot.com/ (a Lib Dem blog, the Lib Dems being the party that I nominally support. Interestingly educationally on the number of things I don't agree with here)

http://5thnovember.blogspot.com/ (something I have just started reading, a more party political (Tory) and parliamentary blog than some of the others)

http://fairvotewatch.blogspot.com/ (for a while I thought Jarndyce was a woman. Sorry mate.)

A fair sprinkling there I think, covering a fair amount of the spectrum. Couldn't find anyone who liked Blair and Bush though (who didn't at the same time hate everyone else). And Harry's Place (http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/) - yikes. They are fighting a decades old battle. Get with the modern world guys - not everything is about a battle against fascism.

Work/life balance

2005-12-09T17:40:00.000Z

No, this is not another navel gazing episode. "Work/life balance" is a phrase often bandied about, usually signalling a bout of "woe-is-me-my-well-paid-job-is-just-soooooo-hard", but every now and again a reminder arrives that sometimes life really does means life.

Four weeks ago now a man disappeared. This man is a cog in a huge deal, in which I am also a small cog. He, however, is a much more important cog and since the deal is worth about half a billion was put under a lot of pressure to keep turning and grinding.

I spoke to him on the phone once and remember him complaining that he was having to go through day-long meetings with a broken ankle, but they wouldn't let him off to rest up. I felt very bad for him... then emailed him again hassling him about something I needed from him that was of course terribly important and yet simultaneously completely fucking meaningless.

It seems odd to be hoping for just a complete mental breakdown, but the alternative is too horrible to consider. That work/life balance that we bibble about - sometimes it really does mean that. Work or life. Work or life. Work or life.

So if you see a man driving a white Peugeot 206 van, registration YT O2 EVG, please call 0151-949 1212. And hopefully Bernard Cook can be home for Christmas.

Kant. I rather like Kant.

2005-12-02T14:04:00.000Z

He seems to have been a decent chap.

http://ethics.acusd.edu/theories/kant/index.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/5i.htm#gdwl

Personal philosophy

2005-11-30T14:37:00.000Z

How much can, or should, the personal life of a philosopher impact on one's view of his or her philosophy? I ask this question because I have at points in my life been attracted to existentialism (or rather, what I think/guess existentialism to be), and yet I cannot get over the fact that Jean Paul Sartre seems to have been an enormous git.

I thought this before I knew anything else about Sartre when, as an over-ambitious teenager, I tried to read The Age of Reason. Before I had got through three pages I knew I disliked the writer (not the narrator, not the character - teenager I might have been, but I knew the difference) - he seemed smug and contemptuous, arrogant, pretentious. This might sounds like a teenager's excuse for not wanting to read a difficult book, but that wasn't my style and I had never shied away from a challenging read (I remember, for example, reading Wuthering Heights whilst quite young with a dictionary by the bed - yes, I was a swot).

So having established that I grew up with a teenager's dislike of Sartre we then move to the present day, when my further investigations around Sartre confirm my previous impression. He was a self-involved, arrogant man who treated those who loved him very badly. Yes, I am thinking here of the women in his life, both Beauvoir and the other saps he seduced. The relationship between Sartre and De Beauvoir was complex and is debated to this day, but it certainly true that Sartre was deceptive and manipulative in his relations with the many women with whom he had affairs.

No doubt I would be accused my some of possessing a "bourgeois sense of decency". I don't think I do, but my problem with Sartre here is not his numerous shags, or his open relationship with De Beauvoir, but his (and their) hypocrisy, dishonesty and all round nastiness.

So having established that I don't like the man, where does this leave me with his area of philosophy? If existentialism is about the way you deal with the "average everyday", then the average, everyday behaviour of its advocates becomes relevant, doesn't it? Does it?

I am probably oversimplifying to associate existentialism so exclusively with Sartre, but he has always been presented as existentialism's poster-boy so I cannot see that I am being totally off the mark. Here is a man who epitomises existentialism and I can't say I have any desire to emulate him. So the question is; how mcuh does the personal influence the philosophical? And vice versa?

A Blank Slate

2005-11-28T14:04:00.000Z

I am aiming, over the next few months, to blank my slate. Preconceptions to be thrown out of the window, assumptions to be banished, prejudices addressed. Perhaps I owe more to Des Cartes than I thought.

Time is on my side. Or not.

2005-05-09T12:17:00.000+01:00

http://home.tiscali.nl/annejan/swf/timeline.swf

Normal service will be resumed shortly

2005-05-04T11:27:00.000+01:00

Life gets in way of philosophy. Ultimate irony? Or just plain laziness?

To be continued...

This is me.

2005-02-24T13:08:00.000Z

"For a long time it had seemed to me that life was about to begin - real life. But there was always some obstacle in the way, something to be gotten through first, some unfinished business, time still to be served, a debt to be paid.
Then life would begin.
At last it dawned on me that these obstacles were my life. This perspective has helped me to see that there is no way to happiness. Happiness is the way.
So, treasure every moment that you have. And treasure it more because you shared it with someone special, special enough to spend your time. And remember that time waits for no one!
So stop waiting until you finish school, until you go back to school, until you lose ten pounds, until you gain ten pounds, until you have kids, until your kids leave the house, until you start work, until you retire, until you get married, until you are divorced, until Friday night, until Sunday morning, until you get a new car or home, until your car or home is paid off, until spring, until summer, until fall, until winter, until you are off welfare, until the first or fifteenth, until your song comes on, until you've had a drink, until you've sobered up, until you die, until you are born again and decide that there is no better time than right now to be happy!
Happiness is a journey, not a destination."
- Father Alfred D' Souza

Just thought I'd share.

Superstition

2005-02-14T17:02:00.000Z

Not so much a philosophical posting this, but peripherally related.

Just a few weeks ago, one of the blogs that I read quite regularly posited the question: what superstitions do you hold? This was in response to his own little foible to do with Arsenal and pants (don't ask). I posted a reasonable and, I thought, average response along the lines that although I paid lip service to a couple of superstitions (e.g. touching wood) I did not believe them to be literal. The touching wood, for example, for me is more of an acknowledgement not to take things for granted. And generally I tend to think of supserstitions as life lessons in easily assimilateable form (although I have never worked out the symbolism of not breaking a mirror). Likewise with much of the contents of holy books (of any variety you care to choose, especially the old ones). The Bible (since that's the one I know most about) contains many a story which most middle of the road Christians would, I think, consider to be allegorical. Although there are some that will take things literally (e.g. creationists), I assumed that this was the arena of extremists only.

I was surprised, nay, chastened to discover how wrong I was. Person after person listed a personal foible which they seemed truly to 'believe' in. This frequently seemed to be a gut, instinct reaction - a function of emotion rather than reason (although, see discussion below on that subject - certainly not done with yet). The phrases 'I have to', 'I can't do anything if' or 'if I don't do this, then' were frequently used; I was frankly astonished by the level of compunction involved. That there were some true believers was not itself so surprising; what really got me was that this was everyone's response. I was absolutely the only person who said what I said.

So what is going on here? I confess to being mystified. I knew that many people say they have to wear their lucky trousers/tie/pants/feather boa (delete as applicable) under certain circumstances but I had thought that most of them did so knowing in some way that this was, in effect, their mind playing tricks on them - their wearing of the feather boa is not going to actually change anything except their state of mind, which might indeed change something, but because of their state of mind rather than the actual feather boa wearing. A stadium full of sporting fans all wearing their lucky undies could lift the atmosphere thus spurring their team on to victory, but that's not the same as really believing that the wearing of lucky pants waves a magic 'winning' wand. The placebo effect writ large, effectively.

Or may be not. These musing brought to mind the bizarre world of 'the hundredth monkey'. The story goes that a particular and now famous set of monkeys were being observed on a number of islands. One monkey learned to do something new and passed that knowledge onto some of the others who passed it on to others etc. By no means all the monkeys learned this trick but the numbers gradually crept up and then - bizzam! - a critical mass was reached. The skill suddenly jumped without apparent communication to (you guessed it) the hundredth monkey on a completely different island. Here is a rather fuller description, should you care to peruse:

http://pure-research.net/healing/light/monkey.html

So far so amazing. This was turned into a book and eventually a movement that spoke about the possibilities of morphogenetic fields and (gulp) a sort of species wide ESP. Looking around the internet there are any number of sites dedicated to the idea that if we all think nice thoughts we can somehow make it happen in some kind of Jungian collective unconscious way. Think about world peace and the people with the big red buttons might be affected by all that positive thinking, goes the argument.

Sounds nice doesn't it? And it brings up all kinds of questions about the nature of our reality and communication, knowledge etc etc. And it sprung to mind when I was thinking about all those lucky pants wearing sports fans spreading out waves of 'go team!' - could this luck thing really be real? Bit of a leap from a hundred monkeys doing one thing to one person's thought contributing to changing the universe, but a leap worth considering. Maybe I was the odd one out, I thought, and everyone else understands this subconsciously.

Unfortunately, it turns out (not to put too fine a point on it) to be bollocks:

http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC09/Myers.htm (for an interesting and well thought out view)

http://skepdic.com/monkey.html (for an altogether more hostile view)

at least as far as collective ESP goes. Although there are some interesting lessons to be drawn about cultural changes and passing of knowledge, there was in fact no evidence of a sudden, miraculous, physical contact-free communication of thought. And really, when you think about it, if it had actually come to pass as the legend says, there would be more attention being paid to it than just a few New Age websites (that also include, as an example, links to allow to purchase the no doubt eseential Crop Circle Year Book).

Which unfortunately takes me round in a rather pointless circle back to the original unanswered question: why do people believe? I have come to the only conclusion I can; that the placebo affect demands that you don't know it is a placebo. Or maybe not. I am stumped. Any thoughts?

What is the worth of Descartes?

2005-02-07T10:38:00.000Z

Rather than reading my text book, as I should be, I am currently reading a potted commentary on Descartes' Meditations (the set text for Unit 3 of my AS Level) courtesy of the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (see handy link to the left). This is clearly the wrong way round to do it according to the course material, but I am following where my interest takes me at the moment and there it has lead.

I was puzzled to start with why so much focus is placed on Descartes in the study of philosophy. He has a famous maxim, to be sure, but this alone does not guarantee immortality, especially when, as far as I can tell, a great deal of his conclusions have been dissected, studied and, one way or another, found wanting. It felt, at the beginning at least, as if this was kind of a 'history of philosophy' section. The man clearly had such an enormous brain and tried so hard that no one wanted to write him out of the story of philosophy.

However, I am now starting to see that that is not the case and I find myself in the unexpected position of starting to quite like him. He really clearly made it his mission to work out new and original ideas and that has got to be worth something. He broke it down and started from fundamentals in the most fundamental way he could think of. And the history of philosophy almost is philosophy. In the arena of pure thought (however you want to define that), ideas have no sell-by date, one would think.

Yet there is almost an air of pity wafting around discussions of Descartes. And I know how incredibly modern-day arrogant that sounds, but bear with me. The biggest issue I have with Descartes so far is that he was purporting to start with no assumptions. Cartesian doubt was the name of the game. Assume nothing, start from the ground up and see what, if anything, can be said to be true. What can we really know if we cannot assume any level of knowledge, he is asking. But one of his stated purposes was to prove the existence of God. To have preferences as to your conclusions would be bad enough when one is presenting one's work as doubting everything, but surely one cannot say 'I am doubting everything, except this, which I will assume to be true because I know it be true and thus shall prove it to be true'. It seems to be the ultimate statement of everyone's favourite comeback; 'it just is, okay?'.

ObviouslyI am hardly the first person to say this; pretty much everything I have ever seen written about Descartes or everyone with whom I have talked about him make reference to this one outstanding flaw. It has even spawned a name - the Cartesian circle - roughly speaking, a proposition that can only be proved by assuming the truth of the thing you are trying to prove. And I am not, just for the record, saying that God does or does not exist, or that you can or cannot prove it, just that you cannot prove it by assuming the proof must exist.

Descartes, mind you, was writing at almost exactly the same time as Galileo was getting it in the neck for suggesting that the earth was not the centre of the universe, so one could understand a certain level of nervousness about daring to doubt the existence of God. He would not have been the first person to disguise his 'real' views for the sake of expendiency and a desire to stay under the radar of people with thumb screws. But there does not seem to be any evidence that Descartes was covering his arse with the Church in this way. He is described frequently as a 'devout Catholic' who wanted the Church on his side because he was on theirs.

So I must ask myself how to read Descartes given this background. I cannot wipe this from my mind, but I do not wish my reading of Descartes to be unfairly coloured by this knowledge. Can one be truly objective whilst being aware of such a flaw. How severable will this particular point be from the rest, or is it inextricably entwined? I'll let you know as soon as I do.

The philosophical possibilities of touch

2005-02-02T15:16:00.000Z

I was thinking very hard not so long ago about the perception of touch. Brushing your hand over skin seems like, and is, such a simple thing to do and yet it is the result of any number of complex processes in the brain and the body, leaving aside all the usual other guff about the possibility of life in the first place, evolution, you being conceived out of all the partying sperm, you surviving, growing up, not dying and eventually finding someone whose skin you want to touch and contemplate the act of so touching.

This has come out of my slowly advancing reading on epistomology - the theory of knowledge - the question of how we know what we know and whether in fact we know anything at all. How does the relationship between sensory perception, knowledge and the reality work, and what is this 'reality' thing anyway?

As I said, my reading is advancing slowly. I am not in any rush and I am enjoying reading a little and then letting my mind rather run away with itself. I can't say I have come up with anything particularly profound, but my brain has enjoyed the open spaces and is gambolling joyfully, which was really the point of this exercise in the first place. And my overexcited mind, darting as it was between various pillars and posts, alighted (as it is wont to do) on quantum physics. I don't know why it does that so frequently, since the concept drives me up the wall. Maybe I have just answered my own question.

But getting to the point (such as it is), I was contempating how 'touch' as we understand it doesn't really exist. The point of contact between my skin cells and, say, yours are not solid to solid as we understand it. Right down at the atomic level we are dealing with a dance of electrons, more space than solid, or possibly more waves than particles, with nuclear forces, weak and strong, bashing things around. Our electrons touch. Or rather, our forces touch in a way that we cannot possible truly visualise. What is going on down in the subatomic weeds can only accurately be imagined in mathematics, or perhaps in artistic terms, but it extrapolates out from a level of tiny such as we cannot truly conceive into electrical impulses that lead the brain into a merry dance that finally, extraordinarily and miraculously, resolve themselves into the sensation of soft skin and delicate, feathery hairs that we feel, not in our brain at all, but actually in our fingertips (a trick of consciousness that I've always been impressed by).

And 999,999,999,999,999.99999 times out of 1,000,000,000,000,000 or more we won't notice the nanosecond by nanosecond miracle of touch, because it happens many many times for each of those nanoseconds as do many other nanosecond miracles and because, honestly, who notices normality all that often? But just sometimes the miracle of touch comes alive inside one's head, and a good time is had by all.

Subversion

2005-01-31T11:29:00.000Z

I have just discovered, whilst browsing around looking for useful philosophy websites to use in reading and research, that www.philosophy.com is trying to sell me cosmetics. I find this deeply disturbing and wrong in many many ways.

Those of you who have been at the wrong end of one my advertising rants will know that the thing I hate (dislike/have strong feelings about/am helplessly frustrated about?) most in advertising are cosmetic adverts (very closely followed by those for children's toys - have these people even heard of gender stereotyping?). If I hear one more advert exhorting me to 'let surgery wait!' (but not too long, because the world must be protected from the sight of women growing old gracefully; men can do whatever they like as long as they are rich) or tell me (in small print) how they managed to con 50 women into 'self-assessing' their own fine lines (not WRINKLES, you will note, but fine lines (between sanity and taking this cr*p seriously presumably)) and were gratifyingly happy to hear that these desparate creatures found (surprise!) that the wonder cream on offer reduced the 'appearance' of fine lines (they are not allowed to say that wrinkles were actually reduced according to advertising rules because no wrinkle cream can actually do that, but boy to they sail close to the wind) - which of course qualifies as 'clinically proven' - well, then, I shall have to go the effort of composing an outraged sentence even longer than this one. I won't like it, but I will do it. They can't say I didn't warn them.

So to find that the Anti-Christ of consumerism has somehow snaffled what should be the home of philosophy is irksome, to say the least. Trouble is, there's no money in philosophy, so no one's going to be rich enough to reclaim the domain name and thus the battle is lost before it is even started. Grrrrrr.

Pink Hair

2005-01-30T13:48:00.000Z

Is there anything about me that is distinguishable from anyone else in the entire world? Let's have a look at the basic curriculum vitae:

1. Well educated;
2. Relatively successful professional for my age;
3. Married;
4. Book lover;
5. Film buff (in a 'I would really like to take this more seriously' kind of way, rather than a 'I watch a lot of films' kind of way);
6. Sporadically politically active - politically to the left, but quite reasonable with it and willing to give houseroom and discussion to various alternative views;
7. Enjoyer of discourse on the social and political issues of the day;
8. Vegetarian (of the don't-really-know-how-to-do-anything-else-but-don't-need-to variety, growing out of hotheaded, teenage 'meat is murder' views from ten years ago);
9. Relatively environmentally responsible - walk lots, use public transport, don't own a car, recycle, turn off lights and appliances - all things that make a difference only if everyone else does them too;
10. Minor supporter (in a financial sense) of a couple of worthy causes;
11. Musical (can play a couple of instruments badly);
12. Tall (but not freakishly);
13. Short haired and short sighted;
14. Can't be bothered with make up, but brush up well if a posh frock is required;
15. Occasionally 'wacky' in my clothing choices;
16. Have an idea for a novel that have never developed;
17. Would love to dye my hair pink and do at least something of note before I die.

I've probably described about half of middle class Europe in that little list, not to mention the countless American well-meaning bourgeoisie.

So my question today is; is there anything at all that makes me unique? Which leads, not altogether neatly, to the question 'is there any point to it all'?

I have, in recent times, taken to labelling myself an 'optimistic nihilist'; meaning, roughly, that I don't really think there is a meaning to anything but don't think that is necessarily a bad thing.

We are a blink of a split second of a moment of a whisper of time in the great cosmic scheme of things, so the idea (again on the great cosmic scheme of things) that we matter or that anything we do matters is, quite frankly, laughable. However, this frees one enormously; if there is no cosmic point, you can make up your very own. This of course could be a licence to commit horrors, but since I am not (I don't think) a horrible person this tends to lead to minor good works and a general aim of 'doing the right thing' without reference to a fearsome higher power judging you. I am my own conscience and with an inherited tendency towards feeling guilty about anything and everything (which I blame (in a non-pejorative sense) on my father having been brought up Catholic) this can be a wonderful thing.

Semi-regularly however it leads me down a path of mild despair and self-immolation. If there is no point, then what's the point of anything? And if I am trying to nevertheless to make a good mark for my own self-driven motives, how is that I have thus far failed to do so? My life thus far (see list above) seems sometimes to have been an exercise in futility and undistinguished mediocrity. And so I did not find myself in a good place yesterday morning when leaning against a barrier at the end of the tube platform wondering if there was any good reason not to throw myself in front of the train.

Of course, there are many, many reasons not to and, as witness by these words, I didn't and am not likely to any time soon. Worry not, gentle readers; I am not suicidal, nor anywhere close. I do worry sometimes though about my tendency to get very twitchy and consider walking off into the sunset to somewhere, anywhere, else. I read, for example, the Missing Persons section in The Big Issue and wonder if that could ever be me. I find myself drawn to the idea of insanity, although that would only be fun if I knew I was insane, by which definition, I wouldn't be.

Which brings us, in a roundabout way, to another reason to be studying philosophy. Like every human being I muse and ponder on the universe and my place in it, but without adequate tools to go about finding it. So in amongst all the long words and unfamiliar concepts, I hope to find the means to start to answer my self-doubt and stop worrying about tube trains.

Descartes vs Sartre

2005-01-28T10:55:00.000Z

This is very much a holding entry. For various reasons (i.e. working too hard at the day job) I haven't done much reading in the last couple of days. I have been thinking about various things - the continuation of the 'Highest faculty of man' discussion (with focus on some sciency stuff about genetics and evolution as a demonstration that we are not nearly as special as we think we are are furthermore are not, even though we like to think we are, the culmination and ultimate expression of survival of the fittest), god and his/her/its existence, issues which seem to have been missed by philosophers (e.g. parenthood) - but none so much that anything concrete is forming.

But on the plus side, I did speak to my terribly nice tutor who assumed that I must surely have lots of questions for him (I didn't) which made me feel a bit lame. On the other hand, he did vouchsafe to me the information that I didn't have to do Descartes as the third unit if I didn't want to; the syllabus includes Sartes as an option (and one or two other things) and my particular course only uses Descartes because the course writer apparently thinks it is more simple. Since, as my tutor had sussed, I am in this for myself rather than a need to pass an exam, the 'simplicity' of a topic is not my main concern, so my options are now a little more open. Rather as if he was offering me something from under the counter, my tutor mumblingly said something about being able to help me with that if I decided, when the time came, to go for Sartre instead of the course defined material, which was very gratifying. He was indeed a terribly nice man.

On the curious side, my 'mentor' (aka husband) started reading my damn text book last night, when I haven't even had a chance to open it properly (but wait til I get to Sunday; there'll be no stopping me). So whilst I was sitting there reading my Empire magazine, allowing my tired brain to heave a metaphorical sigh of relief, he kept trying to interrupt me with explanations of bits of the book that he was getting very excited about. 'I'd forgotten this bit!' would come the cry, followed by a particularly 'husband' explanation of the bit he had just rediscovered that, I must admit, mostly went right in one ear and out the other. I am starting to wonder whether having as a 'mentor' someone who knows quite a lot more about the subject than me or rather, 10+ years ago knew quite a lot more about the subject than me, is such a good choice...

Highest faculty of man Part II

2005-01-26T11:01:00.000Z

I may be in danger here of running before I can walk, but I am finding it interesting to think around this issue and see what impressions I get. I can compare my thoughts with the 'official' conclusions later, if only to see how wrong I am, but at the moment I am considering this as a useful mental exercise and an enjoyable one at that, which is the point of this whole thing for me.

So - Reason. I think my musings on Monday may have started bleeding into the concept of rationality as the defining feature of humanity, in the 'cogito ergo sum' sense of the word. It is undoubtedly the case that they are very much reliant on each other - the 'cogito' (as my course material calls it) is a direct descendent of ancient Greek thought and, really, the ultimate expression of Western rationalism that started in ancient Greece. So even if the concept of Reason as the highest faculty of man is not directly analogous with the cogito, they are most certainly interlinked.

And unfortunately out of this comes the inevitable discussion of linguistics. I have always disliked some of the focus on linguistics in philosophy because it sometimes seems that the linguistics of an issue starts to be interpreted as the issue itself rather than as the means to it (see Wittgenstein). But inevitably they do come in; a point well made by one of the people making a comment a couple of days ago.

In the context of Reason as claimed by some to be unique to man and special and high and all the rest of it, one has to take into account the meaning of the word 'Reason'. From a certain point of view, various animals can reason, from rats pressing levers (http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/skinner.html) to crows making hooks. I have not looked into this is any great detail, but certainly the ability to draw lessons from an experience and to apply that experience to other scenarios, which is an ability that plenty of animals have (often expressed as equivalent to human children at certain ages) could be defined as the ability to reason.

But this is clearly not what Aristotle meant when he said that 'Reason is the highest faculty of Man', from which I infer that for him 'Reason' means conscious, self-aware rational thought or something along those lines. Which leads in the cogito, which arguably goes even further and makes conscious thought the very defining quality of existence.

This is, as I understand it, part of Idealism - the proposition that everything exists as ideas in one's head. Whether this leads to the 'is the whole world just me and my imagination' question I can't say; but I can say, pretty categorically, 'no, it's not'. In the same way as I can state, in response to the query 'am I a man dreaming that I am a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming that I am a man?', that you are man my dear, now sit down to breakfast and have a cup of coffee/tea/caffeinated beverage of choice.

I think, according to the definitions of these terms in my course notes, that this makes me a Materialist (not something I ever thought I would indentify myself with), meaning that I believe that physical things are physical things ex of observation (although this potentially gets into difficulty down on a quantum level, should you wish to bring science into this, and don't even get me started on quatum physics and wave/particle duality). Where I appear to differ from the dictionary definition of Materialist is that whilst I assert that physical things exist in a physical world, I do however concede that they are nevertheless perceived by us through our mental processes, biological or otherwise. So yes, I do wonder whether the green that I see is the same green as the green that you see.

This has rather lead me off the track of the cogito, which I find to be both terribly irritating and terribly attractive at the same time. It is snappy and pithy and sounds ever so profound. But it falls into difficulties with, for example, small children, who may or may not experience self-awareness as we understand it but certainly do not think in the way the cogito assumes. Such things happen gradually without an on and off switch, which leads to the rather ridiculous question; when do children start to exist? When they use their first word (but what if it formed in their heads first)? When they recognise themselves in a mirror (but again, that is timing; maybe they could have done earlier but the mirror wasn't around)?

It also, in common with the 'highest faculty of man' proposition, takes into account only a part of what people do in their heads. I was arguing on Monday that rational thought is only part of the human experience and that thought and emotion are falsely separated. There is no language for this; even when discussing the idea of the two concepts actually being the same I have to use the phrase 'two concepts', unless I start making up names for it/them, like 'themotion' or something equally silly. The fact is that we, at least in the English language, do not have the language for what I am trying to describe, so in that sense linguistics guides and defines (and arguably limits) my philosophical considerations. Curses.

Highest faculty of man?

2005-01-24T10:08:00.000Z

Is Reason the highest faculty of man? Aristotle certainly thought so, or at least A C Grayling (modern commentator-type) thinks that he thought so, and since Western philosophy is (I am slowly finding) almost ridiculously reverential to the Ancient Greek philosophers, apparently this means that Western philosophy thinks so too.

It is certainly a faculty, but the highest? Who decides? Who judges? I have not read to relevant text, so I may be going out on a limb here, but the only logical progression of this view that I can think of is: (a) animals cannot reason; (b) we can; (c) reason is unique to humans; (d) we are better than animals (according to some); (e) reason is therefore the highest faculty of man. Now personally, I have problems with (d) as a concept, but I suppose you could leave that out. It does seem representative though of the idea that we are better than animals so anything we can do that they can't must be special, therefore better, therefore best.

However, I do not see how (a), (b) and (c), even if you believed them, could necessarily add up to (d). Certainly, the ability to reason is unique to conscious thought, which is, as far as we know, unique to humanity. Unique, special, useful. Yep, with you there Aristotle old man. But the highest? Where does that leap of logic come from? If it were framed as a belief (and maybe it is) then I could understand, if not agree, but even then I do not understand the foundation for this belief.

The danger, as far as I see it, with this belief/view/opinion that Reason is the highest faculty is that it therefore downgrades other forms of human experience. By implication, emotion is a lower faculty. Does this lead to the view then that if reason says one thing and emotion another, then reason must be followed? Or does it even lead to the view that any emotion in and of itself is substandard and must be backed up by Reason?

The trouble with Reason, is that Reason can reason anything. Anyone with some experience in logical argument can lead it anywhere they like and not be faulted logically. This should not be surprising; even though instinct says that surely logic is a set path that leads in one direction, if this were the case then we would never have arguments, never have different political views, never need to bother philosophising. This leads me to the conclusion that Reason can be as subjective as belief.

My view is that Reason and Emotion (since we are capitalising) inform, and can change, each other. Rather like to chicken and the egg, one is not before, after, higher, lower than the other. No, further than that - that they are inextricably linked and it is false to separate them. I don't know for sure, but the labelling of capital-R Reason implies to me that it would be classified as being in the realm of Mind in the Mind vs Matter/dualism debate, in which my view is that both are separate but together (in the manner of the Holy Trinity, to draw an analogy) - i.e. that there is no Mind/Matter split - ditto Reason and Emotion. To draw a hard line between the two is false and unnecessarily limiting.

The Meaning of Philosophy

2005-01-23T14:09:00.000Z

Oxford English Dictionary: philosophy - noun - the study of the fundamental natre of knowledge, reality and existence.

From which we get the impression that we are dealing with pretty high falutin' stuff here. But philosophy should be, and is, more than merely an abstract intellectual exercise.

On the face of it, the idea of philosophy being down and dirty in the weeds of reality seems rather jarring:

Q: Is there a God? A: Can't say.
Q: What is the Meaning of Life? A: God knows (see above).
Q: Why should we do the washing up?

Doesn't quite fit.

Nevertheless, if philosophy is going to be something other than distracted men with too much time on their hands thinking round and round in self-referential circles, it has to be about life as well as Life.

So I am a little apprehensive about the named philosopher being studied on my course being Descartes, who by all accounts never made it to the kitchen, let alone rolled up his sleeves and got out the Fairy liquid.

Philosopherising

2005-01-21T13:51:00.000Z

This is a philosophy and philosphical blog.

For those that need to know, I am embarking on studying towards an AS Level in Philosophy and my little brain is jumping for joy. After a few years as a 'professional', my grey matter feels as if it is starting to atrophe through lack of use. The study towards being a 'professional' was briefly diverting, but now that I have settled in... same old, same old. The Brain is Bored. My conversation seems to be consist more and more of the state of the Underground, and the soft furnishings in my flat and less and less 'what's it all about then...'.

I have erudite, intelligent and interesting friends, but the balance of my discussions with them sometimes seems to be tipping towards pension and travel arrangements. Partly this is because I know them, and their views, well - so maybe it takes a new thing happening in the world to bring out new conversation. It is a kind of laziness on my part; a taking for granted, a comfortableness with the certain and well known, a resting on my life-laurels.

I also take responsibility for my being less likely to leap into confrontation, by which I mean that I don't now rush into debates that I anticipate might be heated. An explanation could be (not sure about this one) that my aforementioned 'profession' is demanding, pretty long hours and not infrequently stressful. Debate takes mental effort and sometimes I don't have any mental effort left after a long day. This is a vicious circle of boredom - I work, I come home mentally tired but not mentally stimulated, I want to relax, I get bored, I go to work without any mental-energy jumpstart.

This is of course a description of the worst - I love my friends and my other half and we can all talk and talk till the hind legs have fallen off all the furniture (no donkeys in London) - life and the world have been covered many times over. The world has been put to rights so many times that I don't know why everything hasn't been sorted out by now. Tsk.

Really this is about me and my wanting to push myself onwards. I want to start the circle in a virtuous direction. It is not so much about the qualification (though that would be nice) but about the learning. And it is totally under my own control (eek). The course is via correspondence, with no one to pressure me but me (and my other half who, though he doesn't know it, is my course 'mentor'), and so for the first time in my life I will be learning merely for sake of learning. And, with any luck, coming up with thoughts of my very own.

I do not want to just be a sponge, and the early signs are good. Last weekend I made about 10 sides of notes for six sides of 'Introduction' in the course material and vehemently disagreed with the writer of said Introduction on several occasions. I have already found myself curiously frustrated by the writer's obsession with the Ancient Greeks and I suspect that that might prove to be a continuing theme. Although I should bear in mind that my scepticism about the hero-worship on display should not close my mind to the insights they have to offer. Apart from anything else, I want to know why ancient world philospohers seemed so happy to commit suicide when ordered to do so.

So, the experiment beginneth. Let the fun commence!