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

Science vs. God no.2

So I split the sections because in the first one I presented the arguments put forward for the existence of God. I am not going to try here and disprove God. I just want to give two examples offered by non-believers:

- Russell's " Flying Teapot" and
- Dawkins's "Ultimated Boeing 474"

I will also not explain the Darwinian principle of natural selection, but let me state just for those who have never heard of it that the principle of natural selection is thought today, by the majority of people, to drive evolution on this planet and the known world. The law of chance and necessity drives life. Continuous changes in the organisms confer advantages, or disadvantages to groups, individuals, or genes (agents) and these advantages or disadvantages increase and decrease respectively the ability of the agent for survival and reproduction. Thus changes that increase these skills will naturally be passed sown to next generations whereas detrimental changes will be lost ipso facto. These changes are a product of chance and in no way driven by any intelligent supreme being. These chance differences will prevail or be lost according to the necessity of keeping them if they confer an advantage to the agent.

Bertrand Russell's "Flying Teapot"

The paradigm was intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove the claims of religions.

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Richard Dawkins's "Ultimate Boeing 747"

Dawkins gives this example to highlight the improbability of a Supreme being out there somewhere. i will not look into the argument Dawkins puts forward as I have done so in a previous post (September 6th 2007). The general idea (and it comes from somebody else, Dawkins just borrows it) is that the probability an extremely complex structure such as a Boeing 747 aircraft being assembled from spare parts as a result of a hurricane is infinitesimal. The same goes for God, who should be considered the Ultimate Boeing 474, meaning the most complex being in this universe. Dawkins says that the probability of such a being is extremely small. So small that he is certain God does not exist. And he continuous to say that we cannot use such an improbable explanation to solve another improbable, but yet very possible and real event: life.

-John

Science vs. God no.1

So this is an ongoing for ever and ever debate and last night while the other guys were gone looking for food I sneaked in the PC room and put up a slide just for me to remind me of some key point of the debate. Christoff is an avowed atheist and JimB admittedly religious so it is left to Manolo and me to adopt a more skeptical position on the topic. Given that Manolo is after girls most of the time I should just count me. Here is the slide and some key points I overheard last week by a group of students:

I want to go over some of the arguments FOR the existence of God. These were put forwards, not surprisingly, by theologians. This is not to imply that theologians are the only people backing God, but we have to remember that monks and priests have always had the advantage of making money out of sitting all day reading books and pursuing whatever they wanted besides religion. Many individuals in the 1700's and 1800's went into priesthood so that they could study science and/or philosophy ( Gregor Mendel - 1822-84). So naturally clergy men used to be among the most educated in art, philosophy, philology and even science. That makes the fact they ignored, and still do, scientific theory even more reprehensible.

St. Thomas Aquinas's 5 arguments

- The "unmoved mover" - someone set everything in motion since whatever is in motion is set by another thing....infinite regression....God
- The "first cause" - causality...infinite regression...God
- The cosmological argument - all things have a beginning and end. But nothing comes from nothing so something must have existed when nothing else did...God
- The teleological argument - design of the world
- The absolutes argument - A good person for example is good, better, or worse compared to a standard we have. This standard is one of infinite goodness, which is God

St. Anselm's ontological argument

God is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived. If God existed only in mind, He then would not be the greatest conceivable being, for we could imagine another being that is greater because it would exist both in mind and reality ipso facto would be God. Therefore, to imagine God as existing only in the mind but not in reality leads to logical contradiction.

Immanuel Kant's moral argument

God's existence is a necessary presupposition of there bring any moral judgments that are objective, that go beyond mere relativistic moral preferences. Such judgments require standards external to any human mind-that is, they presume God's mind.

Many of these arguments have been refuted in the past and I will no go into that. For further reference one can read Bertrand Russel's "History of Western Philosophy" where he gives a very good account of the ideas of major Christian philosophers and the church fathers. Richard Dawkins in "The God Delusion" tries to refute the arguments by St. Thomas and St. Anslem. Dawkins also discusses how someone can be moral without the fear of Hell. As for the objectivity of moral judgments and the relative nature of good and bad one can turn to the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche for an enjoyable account in "Beyond Good and Evil", or to Marc Hauser for a more science oriented account in his book "Moral Minds: How Nature Designed a Universal Sense of Right and Wrong".

-John

The God Delusion

Last night all four of us went to the back to see if the cafeteria ladies left any food. Instead all we found was a pile of old books and an empty box of crackers...We were about to post our complains on the door of the school (that Luther guy was very successful doing the same thing) when one of the books got our attention all at the same time. It was that book cover, it was shiny like a huge square piece of quarter. So we went close and saw the book title "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. I've heard that name before and Christoff was all about how Dr Dawkins is a known atheist and this book was supposed to be his latest venture, so we started reading and sure enough we couldn't put it down. Christoff really enjoyed it and so did the rest of us but I cannot say it really changed my mind about God. I mean in that subject I don't think anybody can change your mind. Naturally Christoff being an atheist himself was ecstatic after the read. JimB and I just enjoyed it and Manolo I think was just angry there were no hot dogs left over from the cafeteria. Here is the gist of the book.

Dawkins's main argument

a) We try to find an explanation for the complexity and the improbability of the universe.

b) The solution must be simpler than the problem.

c) God must be much more complex and improbable than the universe since simpler things come from more complicated sources (the spear from the spearmaker).

So we cannot explain a by using c. What is a simpler explanation to satisfy b? NATURAL SELECTION!

The question for the author is not 'can we understand nature just using science', but 'can we understand God'? The assumption that if God exists then Dawkins (and any other established scientist, or clever individual) should know him/her may be perceived a bit arrogant. Moreover it illustrates an underlying reason for which many scientists do not believe in God. RD does not consider the middle way of saying "indeed if God exists he/she must be more complex and above all life and though it poses as a mystery now we might understand it tomorrow". Rd's argument for stupidity (just because you don't understand art it doesn't make it divine, chapter 3) and inconceivable science looking as magic, backfires at him in this case.

In the end this all reminds me of Friedrich W. Nietzsche who said " There cannot be a God because if there were one, I could not believe that I was not He".

To be fair though to RD here are some other Nietzsche quotes:

"A subject for a great poet would be God's boredom after the seventh day of creation".
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything".

-Christoff

Animal right....trickier than it sounds #2

....In the final chapter of the book Mr. Singer calls the "lesser of two evils" argument. A pure idealist like time took 250 pages or so to bring down his noble ideas and impeccable morality to such an argument. Still how do we classify one evil lesser than the other? Aren't all living organisms equally important to the environment? Aren't all products of the same process (God for some, evolution hopefully for most of us)? "Lesser of two evils..." from whose perspective? Certainly not the virus's, or the carrot's. Mr. Singer suggests to care about "cute and cuddly" organisms but not all. He even arbitrarily classifies plants and microorganisms as less important than animals for no apparent reason what so ever. This to use his own words is an indefensible evolutionary bigotry and drives the nail to the wall about his argument having little rational basis.

Instead I propose to be fair to all living creatures. The results of our actions aren't all we should take into account (conseuqentialism) when deciding our actions. This is the easy way out and Mr. Singer having spent all those pages taking about ethics and morality should not want it. To be fair we should make sure that in our everyday lives we do not take out of their natural tendencies ANY living organism....only what am I saying that is practically impossible. It is because we are into the struggle for survival. I won't go out of my way to harm another living soul, and I will try to be as responsible and aware of my surroundings and how my actions impact the environment and its inhabitants. I will not however pretend I am the savior amongst the wolves, the defender of the weak. Some have to die for others to live and the hardest I will try to preserve life will be when it comes to the life of a fellow human and not that of an animal. Be kind out of superiority not out of guilt.

I want to focus now on another part of the book. Mr. Singer talks about people who claim that hunting is a natural human need and that it has always been in our genes so to speak. The author finds no need for hunting though on the grounds that times have changed and meat is found in plethora in the frozen section of any supermarket. Food is no longer sparse thus no need for hunting to feed ourselves. One obvious response is that hunting is the least of the animals worries. In an age when natural predators are not as many as they used to be (wolves are extremely low in Europe. The result: lambs and goats in huge numbers destroy and consume enormous amount of, at least my countries, small trees. The absence of wolves and foxes has led to considerable changes in Greece's landscape as a result of assiduous feeding of the herbivores) so humans, that represent another predator, can hunt without disturbing at all the food chain (provided of course the prey is not endangered species and the numbers killed are closely monitored). I have personally never met a hunter (Greece has plenty of amateur hunters so they are the ones I have associated with) who killed in excessive amounts, or who despised animals. Neither are all fishermen into mass fishing. I suppose Mr. Singer would discourage a father from introducing his son to the murderous sport of fishing, even if that is their time together for bonding. I do not want to seem a proponent of hunting, which I personally have never tried and never would, but attacking the claim that "hunting is a natural for humans" is preposterous.

Interestingly enough Mr. Singer himself refutes his own point (about hunting) in the same book. He finds it cruel to put animals in zoos for our own amusement. We all agree that this is true (I hope). He then goes on to point how perverse it is to force feed a lion prey already killed. But a lion is a natural hunter, how can it eat dead prey? It doesn't occur to Mr. Singer that the same might hold true for at least some human societies. We also are hunters. You don't have to hunt only animals. The human instinct of hunting and preying is evident in other aspects of our lives as well.

Finally Mr. Singer claims we do not live in a hierarchical society. Obviously he hasn't notice Manhattan. The author moreover praises utilitarian ideas such as those of Jeremy Bentham's and J.S. Mill's. What is the basis of utilitarianism? The general good is always and ever above the individual good. Equally passionate is Singer to support that humans and animals may not be the same, but have equal rights in a happy life. Now, here is what I think. I think that chickens far out-number humans on this planet. Chickens and humans have both a right to a free life. So the greater good is served by keeping the chickens alive and feeding humans to them...how does that sound. If horrific, ludicrous and paranoid are your choice of words then you will agree with me and against Mr. Singer.

-John

Animal rights...trickier than it sounds #1

...and although a noble cause it should not be confused with the extreme views on speciesm. Being a dog and all I am up us animals getting our fair share of justice and defense against cruelty and abuse from humans. I believe in common courtesy and not doing unto others what you don't want done unto you. But some people take it to the theoretical extreme and argument wise they do not stand on solid ground, to be as polite as I can. This is what I heard outside the class today:

Peter Singer "Animal Liberation"

"... the core of this book is the claim that to discriminate against beings solely on account of their species is a form of prejudice, immoral and indefensible in the same way that discrimination on the basis of race is...".

Mr. Singer deals with a sensitive subject for a lot of people and this book makes some excellent points. Although extreme at times, his intent is mainly to provoke and thus increase awareness of the people for this subject. The intent forgives some feats of fanaticism and zealously that would be otherwise deemed picturesque.

From a practical point of view there is no question that he is justified. Animals have been, and still are, mistreated in a variety of horrific ways for sometimes justifiable (justifiable cause, the violence isn't justified by the cause, that is why it is called mistreatment. ex killing vs torturing) but often questionable causes (dolphins ruining fish nets, dog-fights, bull-fights, poaching and hunting etc). Meat consumption, I will go as far to say, may really not be necessary in today's society. Abuse of the weaker inhabitants of this planet, whether this refers to animals, or humans is despicable in my opinion (I won't go into the morals behind that). The strong should wisely use their power to protect the weaker and not take advantage of them (again I won't go into why, which is a very good question. Lets just say that's how we are brought up).

Make no mistake! The above mentioned is just an opinion. Perhaps it is an opinion derived from emotion, maybe one that touches reason in terms of the fear of reciprocation (I am good to others because there are people who it is in my interest to be good to me too). In no case however, is this opinion bullet-proof, or a universal truth. We are good to others because we care about the prosperity of us and the species. We are good to others because society rewards this behaviour and punishes the exact opposite. We are good to others because of the principle of reciprocation holding for now and forever.

I however have no debt to animals or to humans. I have a practical debt to society and my family for bringing me up and depending on every persons sense of duty we may say we have an obligation to our distant ancestors. But we most certainly do not owe anything to dogs, with all due respect to the kind, loyal and loving tetrapod. What is given without choice, or as part of a fair transaction (I give the dog some food and in return I get some company), cannot be creating a debt.

I want to continue and give an account of some of the ideas that drew my attention to this book. Any disagreement is never out of spite. I want to pass my and Mr Singer's ideas through the test of fire. The one and only that removes any impurities and leaves the clean and honest truth.

Let me start by asking what is pain and suffering? The author of the book points out that every organism with a nervous system can feel pain and in this sense suffer. But should ones actions be judged only by the outcome? Shouldn't our intentions be considered too? So even if the recipient cannot suffer (as we mean it) our disposition to cause suffering should be held in contempt.

How do we cause pain or suffering? The natural state of a system, and from now on by system I mean a living organism, will not produce pain. Pain is a signal, a biological defense, whose result is to deter us from the course of action that has evoked it. It is used to protect us from the surrounding environment. By this definition any condition that can harm us, or our goals, or purpose will cause pain and suffering (if prolonged). This definition accommodates both simple needs (food, water, shelter) and more complex ones (freedom of speech).

If we cause pain to an agent by denying it the right to a free, unconstrained life, where it can freely pursue its goals and realize its potential, then I believe we all do so in our every day lives. It is called struggle for survival! Animals, plants, viruses, bacteria and trillions of microorganisms are slaughtered every day. They are brutally massacred. We are talking about atrocious genocides committed not in years but in seconds in the hands of a malicious house cleaner who dares to spill chlorine on the floor, or disinfecting a toilet bowl (what a brutal way to die). There is NO excuse for it. Humans do not require a completely sterile environment to survive and prosper. Maybe then we should clean our houses once a month...the bare minimum (the bare maximum for college students..).

The immediate counter that comes to mind? " Hahahaha...cute....Plants and microbes have no feelings...." Some scientists may disagree. Actually Mr. Singer in his book talks about a time when people where SURE that animals were machines (animal) with no feelings. How about a time when people KNEW the earth was flat. Let us then say that plants and microbes have no feelings that we know of. Still every living unit (cell to whale) has preferences. In cells we know of phototaxis, and chemotaxis. These are known behaviours, they happen in our immune system when in case of immune breach chemoattractants released form stores (dendritic cells) attract fighting cells (macrophages etc) to the site if the infection. Any interference with this behaviour is also violating the will, or the natural desire the cell is trying to exercise.

Weapons of mass destruction!!!

To be continued...

Timeline of the great philosophers (From Thales to Newton no.2)

-John

P.S. My ignorance should not take from all the great minds of European, African, Asian and Australian and American native cultures who produced great philosophy and art. I don't know you all but then again you don't know me either. This is by no means an extensive list of philosophers. All small and big contributions led us to where we are today.

Besides I am just a dog outside a school, I repeat what I hear in the class. My apologies also to great enlightened canines for not including theme here. The feeling of superiority is all humans have....if we take that away who will pay for our food, drink, shelter and pick up after us....talk about living like a dog, not too shabby.

The power of rhetorics....no.2

But evil in a sweet, beautiful, warm, exciting kind of way...

-Manolo

From Thales to Newton...(more to follow)

-John

...pray the lord my soul to take...

Many of us are familiar with this prayer through our religious catechism, our family, or Metallica. Every prayer though should end with "..and may your word be done". I do not want to wonder into why people pray. I want to ask what we can expect on a practical level from praying?

In my mind everything has already been played. God sees ALL of time laid out in front of him/her. Asking the deity to change something for us is meaningless cause God does not interfere in our life, thus free will is his/her ultimate gift. The ancient Greeks had a saying that we use until today and goes like : "syn Athena kai xeira kinei". It means that God will help those who help themselves. Schopenhauer says that there can be no happiness in this life. But man can be heroic and that is the highest man can attain to. Being heroic, what does this mean? It means knowing everything has already happened. It means accepting whatever the future has in store for you. It means knowing all that and still making dreams, fighting for your chance and your success and putting all yourself into defying all odds and making your goals real. Because after all we do not know our destiny until the moment it is revealed to us. No matter what we wish for not all of us can have health, success, money, fame etc. Someone has to die, be sick and poor. Not all of us can get our prayers answered and there is no sense in turning against the deity.

Until then we can ask the God/Allah/Yahweh/Buddha not to do for us but to give us the strength to go on and keep working towards our every goal without being discouraged of what might be the result of our efforts. Everything has been played out already, but in the words of Rocky Balboa "It aint over till its over kid".

-JimB

great minds....destroy alike

You could say that the importance of the best religious and philosophical minds is evident by the destructiveness of their worst and most fanatical followers. This must be the top 3 names of individuals who, contrary to intention, have caused humanity a great deal of pain:

- Jesus Christ (Crusades, Conquistadors, Holy Inquisition)
- Friedrich W. Nietzsche (Nazis)
- Karl Marx (Communist Russia)

-JimB

Victor Hugo...truly yours

Beautiful quote about really falling in love:

" I met in the street a very poor young man who was in love. His hat was old, his coat worn, his cloak was out at the elbows, the water passed through his shoes, - and the stars through his soul".

In our life we float here and there as in an ocean with no land ahead. Two things we need to survive: philosophy to put solid ground under our feet, and art that lifts our body and spirit to the sky.

-John

1%...maybe more

The most famous argument for the degrees of similarity between humans and their close primate relatives, the chimpanzees has been out of a ground-breaking paper published in 1975 in Science. There evolutionary biologist Allan Wilson of UC Berkeley argued that humans where only 1% genetically different to chimpanzees.

An article under the NewsFocus section of the Science magazine published on 6/29/07 (vol.316, p.1836) reports otherwise. I will not follow the article and get into the scientific reasons for not believing the 1% myth. I will give another example that I hope will clear the air. Let me say to those who don't know me that I am not a young creationist. On the contrary, I believe in evolution. However the "1%" argument put forward by people trying to generate love and respect for our fellow animals is not entirely true. I back the motives but not the false argument.

Imagine that both humans and chimps are building ships. It is something they both know how to do. Each group possesses an ancient book with all the information on ship construction. The human book has 24 chapters and 1000 pages, whereas the chimp book has 10 chapters and 200 pages. Humans got a hold of the chimp book and compared it to their own. In it they found that the in the 10 chapters of the chimp book where many almost identical instructional passages to the human book. When comparing these passages word for word they found them to be 99% similar (1% different). Nevertheless the human book contained new passages and some of the old had been enriched in more detailed explanations on the science behind building ships. The human book has 14 more chapters and 800 more pages. The human book also has some quizzes and comic strips in it, and also other passages that don't make much sense. The fact though is that in these 800 extra pages many are very relevant to ship construction.

Just because the passages that are common between the two books are only 1% different, it does not mean that the whole books are 1% different.






-JimB

Avoiding the unavoidable...

What does avoiding a future accident, or encounter, or a mishap mean? Is there a destiny? Do the stars hold the secret to our future? And if they do can we change our future? Is everything set in stone for us? Are every accident and experience a necessary part of our essence and thus without it we do not exist (Leibniz)?

The question is very well-known, tedious and without an answer. My purpose is not to get into an extensive conversation on wether free will exists, or wether everything is already determined for us by a higher being (God). There is a multitude of theories on destiny, God, the shape and nature of time and so forth. I want to illustrate with one example the limitations of thinking about preventing future events and altering our fate, if such thing exists. My questions is the following: how can we avoid what has not happened?

It is a question asked again and again by the likes of Baruch (Benedict) Spinoza and Daniel Dennett. Is there any point is worrying about the future and trying to avoid certain disasters? This depends on weather we believe that time is one line that has been carved on stone from beginning to end and all events (at least to a higher intelligence) appear at once and in their entirety. If we don't believe this it follows we may be able to change the future as long as we know what is in store for us given we take no further action to change it. But how can we get a glimpse of what hasn't happened. I am not sure if this logical paradox is addressed by physics and unfortunately my poor grasp of that science does not allow me to continue the conversation.

If, however, we believe in a sub quadam specie aeternitatis where all has been already planed and is interconnected and cannot be otherwise, the concept of avoiding collapses. We cannot avoid what was never meant to happen. We, in our limited mental capacity perhaps feared it may happen but it would have never happened.



Example: I walk on the street and I decide to take a left turn instead of a right, and on the right turn a lampost collapses.
I have two choices as of how to percieve this event. I could say that I avoided a major head injury, or that there is no way I would have been hit by that lampost. We are not interested here in which way of thinking is more practical, or spiritualy favorable. The fact is that since I took a left turn the lampost never hit me. So I did not avoid it hiting me. The best we can say to the efect of avoidace is this : I had a 50-50 chance of going either way. So there was a 50% chance of getting hit by the lampost (although at the time of the decision I did not know for sure the lampost would fall). In reality someone would say that there is no predetermined fate and so we should follow the law of probability. According to that I had a 50% chance of getting hit by the lampost and I avoided it. If we chose to follow this line of reasoning then every time we step out of our house, or take a step to every direction we have to calculate the chances of any bad thing happening to us, which are infinite. In fact there are so many that if the law of probability holds true we should have something happening to us all the time. However my theory does not distinguish between small anomalies (stepping with shoes on a sharp stone) and big ones (getting hit by a car). Taking into account the most minute ones the law of probability looks better.



So although the "avoidance" seems more reasonable than thinking "it wasn't meant to be", in reality it is as least as impractical (should we chose to make a habbit of it).

-JimB

To own, or not to own....?

I do not recall who said it, though I have read it in Nietzsche's works: "Arguing over land is like two fleas on the back of a dog arguing over who the dog belongs to..."

And did you know that the Native Americans do not have a word for "owning land"? Remarkable isn't it. I bet the white folks who came first to the US were delighted to learn that. It definitely gave them a certain moral leeway, which is necessary when you want to scam someone, let alone a whole race of people. I mean they thought: "How can I steal from someone who lays no claim on what I want to steal"?

Native Americans were all around North America too, contrary to what people like me, not having learned ever much about Native American history, believe. They didn't occupy a couple of dozen villages. They lived all over North America and were made of many different tribes so the colonizers really outdid themselves in suppressing the natives. Enough with history and politics though. It is certainly not the purpose of this blog to discuss historic injustice done (just remember that the WWII was not the only dark period of humanity- sadly there were even worse in my opinion).

Do we own anything? The question can extend to both the realms of secular and spiritual things. There are two types of ownership we could say similar and different in ways. There is physical ownership which refers to earthly possessions such as a house, a car, a baseball bat. There is then spiritual ownership which refers to the feeling of owning spiritual and emotional objects such as the love of your spouse.

The two kinds of ownership are different foremost in the way that law views them. Secular objects are ascribed to an owner and there are legally binding contracts that uphold the ownership. For example if someone breaks into my car and drive sit without my consent he is considered a burglar. This car belonged to me because I bought it and the paper of its ownership was transfered to me by the manufacturer. The law protects and upholds that agreement between the manufacturer and me the owner. Thus the burglar is breaking the law when he/she takes my car without my prior consent.

I think Rousseau said that : the first man who put a fence around a piece of land and claimed it was his, and was able to convince a number of people of it, was the inventor of society.

Spiritual ownership is different in the sense that the law does not always protect the agreement between the two participants and thus any of the two can brake such a virtual contract at any time with no legal re precautions. There maybe though other ill-effects such as social stigma and a damaged reputation leading to further mistrust of the perpetrator by the rest of the community.

I maintain that both types of ownership are plasmatic and result from the need for physical and emotional stability that humans try to create in their lives. Through marriage, a stable working environment and our circle of friends we try to shelter ourselves. Even with our houses we try to protect ourselves, cover ourselves and establish strong bonds with other individuals. Why? I believe it all happens because of human fear of death.

In a world where the only sure thing is death, we try to create other forms of certainty to ease our fears and insecurities.

This is exactly why many philosophers such as, but not limited to, Bhudda, Epicuros, and the Stoics stressed continuously the importance of releasing ourselves from any form and feeling of ownership and possession in this life.

-Christoff

The power of rhetorics...

.....enough said

-Manolo

Who is a philosopher?

"With a little more deliberation in the choice of their pursuits, all men would perhaps become essentially students and observers, for certainly their nature and destiny are interesting to all alike".

Henry David Thoreau
-Walden- (1854)

So who is a philosopher?

A philosopher is any man who loves wisdom and knowledge. In Greek the word 'philosophia' means "friend of wisdom". Knowledge is often substituted for wisdom in our modern interpretation of the term philosophy. Is that right?

Wisdom is not necessarily defined as knowledge. Wisdom is in my mind more closely associated with scientific providence. It is the accumulation of experience through life, and the successful application of this experience, in addition to factual knowledge and educated estimate, in tackling and solving new problems, or anticipate and prevent future ones.

It is in this sense that wisdom does not absolutely describe a learned individual. The best word to describe such one is 'philomatheis'. Philomatheia is the Greek word for 'friend of learning'. But learning in its strict sense can happen through books too. However, no one would consider a librarian necessarily wise. It is one thing to read books and journals and quite another to absorb knowledge and readily use it in combination with current information to apply it to real situations. This is wisdom.

Philosophy is then for everybody. Everyone who has ever asked 'why are we here?', 'Is there a God?', and the likes of questions given birth to by the mind of a teenager is a philosopher. Philosophy is a necessity much like food and water. To evaluate our life in every stage, to assess who we are and where we are, where we come from and where we are going and how we will get there, are all questions answered by philosophy. Even in order to establish our basic needs and prioritize them we delve into philosophy (Thoreau did it in a great extent in Walden).

In the words of Bertrand Russell:
" To teach how to live without certainty, and yet without being paralyzed by hesitation, is perhaps the chief thing that philosophy , in our age, can still do for those who study it".

John

Maxims from a cynic mind...

François VI, duc de La Rochefoucauld, le Prince de Marcillac was a 17th century noted French author and an accomplished nobleman. He was the writer of memoirs and maxims the latter of which has stained his name forever with a reputation of cynicism, bitterness and unscrupulousness. Was La Rochefoucauld (R) any of these? Perhaps all of the above. I maintain though that R was a product of his times and life, a life that left him feeling indeed hurt, disappointed and betrayed (romantically).
Here are some of his maxims that may contain great cynicism but even greater insight in the human soul. (Numbers refer to the Penguin Classics, 1982 edition).

14. "Not only men tend to forget kindness, but the even hate those who have done them kindness".
229. "We have to accept respectfully the harm done us by a person whose benefactions we have enjoyed".
299. "Almost everybody enjoys repaying small obligations, many are grateful for middling ones, but there is scarcely a soul who is not ungrateful for big ones".

Here R notices something that we very often find in Friedrich Nietzsche's (FWN) books too: Kindness puts people gravely in dept and human from their nature are uncomfortable when in dept. There is a sense of lack of power to the person who has been benefited by someone else. What we often call generosity, and admire, is usually a natural drive for display of power by the giver and not necessarily a genuine hand of help to the receiver.

"It is less shameful to be deceived by friends than to be suspicious of them".

This is certainly a Platonic (Socratic) and Stoic sentiment. Since the wrong doer can only harm himself and never the target of his action, it is better to be fooled by friends since it would be shameful to suspect one's friends.

237. "Nobody deserves to be praised for goodness unless he is strong enough to be bad..."
308. "Moderation has been declared a virtue so as to curb the ambition of the great and console lesser folk for their lack of fortune and merit".

Another concept we encounter in FWN's books, especially 'Thus spoke Zarathustra' and 'Beyond Good and Evil'. FWN says that he only respects those who have the power to do evil and chose not too. He contrasts early Christians who didn't have this power, thus were 'good' by need.

157. "The glory of men must always be measured against the means they have used to acquire it".

162. " To know how to put modest talents to the best use is an art that commands admiration, and often wins a wider reputation that real worth".

329. "Sometimes we think we dislike flattery, but it is the way it is done we dislike".

409. "We should often blush at our noblest deeds if the world were to see all their underlying motives".

But is it the motive, or the result of our actions that should determine if we are to be praised, or blamed?

505. " God has put different kinds of talent in man, as he has planted different kinds of trees in nature... Thus the finest pear tree in the world could not bear the commonest apples...".

543. "Before strongly desiring anything we should look carefully into the happiness of its present owner".



John

A note from the contributors...

We have decided to finally join the era of the world wide web (which until recently found offensive as we assumed it was favoring wolves, we world's wolves, or wooowoooowooo). We find the idea of a blog interesting and a great way for you to be part of our often heated discussions. We are eager to get some outside opinions since we usually agree in nothing, being such a diverse group as we are. We got the free spirited lover, the scientific strictly reasonable mind, the emotional-romantic-idealistic type and the utopic liberal. We are a very interesting group indeed.

Before I forget I should say who "we" is. Our names are: John, Christoff, Manolo and JimB. Being dogs and all it is not easy to find access to internet because of our low income but every night we sneak in the high school by which we live and we take advantage of the excellent computer room (along with the delicious canteen, the vending machine, the bathrooms and the printing facilities...especially Christoff). Also living by the school is great because we just happen to spend our morning by the windows of the History class, our noon under the shade of the trees by the philosophy class and our afternoons in the back. The view is not great, but the school canteen-people throw away the left overs of the day. Also the science class meets next to the canteen room so we get a pretty thorough education for free.

We want to share some of the questions we have from all the classes we attend and the conversation we listen to at the playground with all of you. So every now and then (when we get internet) we'll log on and drop a line. Feel free to do the same and comment on our ideas. Its not like we'll bite you if we don't like it (rabid JimB might).

These are some pictures of us when we were kids (back 2 years ago).
JimB is the grey fellow, Christoff has black ears, Manolo is youngest with black eyes (still haven't cleared if it was from a fight over a girl) and me John...I am the handsome guy with the pointy ears, the eyes full of spark, the ivory white coat and the one dark eye full of style, charm and mystery....ok I post this before they see what I wrote.... ha!