Lonely journey

We grow up in a family, make friends, marry, create a new family. We spend time with our kids, our spouse, our parents, our friends, but in the end we come and leave this world alone.
We are alone in this life, alone to explore the world, to live and to get to know better the only person we'll ever really know, ourself. Your true, ultimate thoughts must remain in your head and never be spoken. The closest they should get to breathing air will be if they find their way to a piece of paper and then buried in a drawer. But never delude yourself that someone, even one person, will ever read them. They may read their own mind in them, but never yours.
We move like atoms in space, our core, our mind, our true being surrounded by a dense cloud of possibilities and reflections of our mind, of our ideas, of who we truly are. We pass by and collide with others but never do our cores touch. We only exchange some of our stardust...

Ax Ellada!

Ellada mou variomoirh,
xwra agphmenh
ti sou'laxe na kouvalas
olous autous kahmenh...

tempelhdes kai amorfwtous
pou s'exoun valei katw
adeio ein'to kefali tous,
to portofoli gemato.

tyfloi apo epilogh
arnountai na skeftoun
ma otan pethanei o skylos
kai oi pshloi tha thaftoun!

Religions are:

... philosophical doctrines rooted in socioeconomic and moralistic laws, viewed through the prism of the supernatural...

Science in perspective

“I know that I know nothing”
Socrates

“Not knowing that one knows is best”
Lao Tzu

Science isn’t about definite answers to definite questions. Plato thought that the world we live in is a world of false idols and shadows (Republic, book VII, the Cave). He postulated that when we look at a tree, we really see the ideal tree in our mind and not the actual physical tree. Friedrich Nietzsche mirrors Palto’s thought in “The Gay Science”, where he writes that everything we see we reconstruct in our mind with the aid of previous experiences. The subjectivity of reality and the very tools with which we study nature, namely our senses and our mind, as well as our ideas about even the simplest facts in life have been questioned in the past and present. Democritus of Abdera (500 B.C.) said: ‘…by convention sour, by convention sweet, by convention colored; in reality nothing but Atoms and Void’ (Herbert 1987). David Hume, the empirical philosopher of the 18th century opposed the law of causality, one of the pillars of western thought. He maintained that when we say ‘…A causes B..’ we mean only that A and B are conjoined together in fact, so any time A happens, B follows. That does not mean however that B is caused by A. So for Hume the law of causality is actually a law of conjunction (Russell 1967). The ultimate stab into reality and the subjectivity of science came with the advent of Quantum Theory. The Copenhagen interpretation, backed by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, stated that there is no deep reality and that reality is created by observation (Herbert 1987). Nevertheless no one can doubt the power of scientific thought and its key role in the progress of our civilisation. Epicurus of Athens, considered to be a secular , hedonistic by some, philosopher detested the questioning of reality as he thought it to be of no practical importance. What matters for every scientific mind is a direct observation which can be formulated into a hypothesis and tested in a controlled laboratory environment. The outcome is accepted as a fact provided it can be replicated in different set-ups and by different individuals. However, the critical importance of the answers we get everyday in the lab should not undermine the importance of framing our questions in the appropriate context and keeping an open mind about the nature of reality, even if from a practical point of view it looks as if we understand how things work.

Zeitgeist

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

The Christian priests are the filthiest hypocrites, and you expect kindness and moral integrity from world bankers? Its like expecting the wolf to guard the sheep when the sheep-dog is eating them.... no hope!

Moral minds 2

A good way to decide, on a daily basis, on your moral code

It was pointed out to me by a scientist friend that the names should be randomly rearranged every time so no biased shots happen. That means the arrow should be shot blindfolded too!

Concept inspired also by my scientist friend.

Moral minds

Q1: Should we all have the same moral code?

Q2: What moral system should I follow?
- The one I have been taught in the school and by my family?
- The one that is closest to human nature?
- The one that is closer to my nature?
- One that is good for me?
- One that is good for the many?

Q3: How do I decide? Won't my decision be one of judgment? Won't this judgment flow from my moral faculty?

one honest man...? (Diogenes's quest goes on)

"...for an honorable individual there is no greater shame than receiving undeserved reward"

A moment for Death

From earth we came, and earth we'll be
and life will go ahead
Death will conquer those who see
that leaves have to be shed

An instant in one's life
a moment and no more
after you are not and
you were not before

These words are not all mine
I quoted someone else,
the Gardener from Athens
inspired this verse

DdC