I follow the tweets of the great USAmerican philosopher Daniel Dennett.
He has said something along the lines of philosophy being a branch of cognitive psychology.
Now to me philosophy is "the love of wisdom". Wisdom about life.
To me, philosophy is about nothing less than "The Meaning of Life" - the meaning or significance of life and all of life.
Consequently, philosophy is about all of life.
.......
29 January 2010
Autism does not exist.
Last night I had a surreal experience.
Mind you I've had quite a few of those.
They were talking about "autism" on TalkSport radio. So absent-mindedly I texted to them the following:
"Autism does not exist." I have texted the show many times. Usually when George Galloway is on.
Anyway they can't have had many texts that night since within five minutes the presenter (who has a strong yet pleasant Brummy accent) said: "Someone has sent in a text saying simply "Autism does not exist." Interesting. That shows a whole different view of things." He rambled a bit about it. So it was worth sending that text.
I do believe that "autism" does not and cannot exist.
Even people who believe in autism talk of the "autistic spectrum". As soon as you admit the existence of an "autistic spectrum" surely you can no longer believe in "autism" since how do you distinguish between someone who "has" it and someone who "doesn't"?
Autism means being overly self-involved/not being conscious of others etc.
Now absolutely EVERYONE is to an extent concerned with themselves by virtue of being a member of our species. Consequently once again we are medicalising what is to a point entirely NORMAL.
Why is there no name for the supposed opposite condition? - selflessness? Is there a relation?
Is not capitalism institutionalised autism? Are not cars institutionalised autism?
Autism - if it is a description of a mental state/mental states and/or behaviour cannot in itself be an illness.
The only kind of illness that there can be is a physical lesion or physical defect. No behaviour or misbehaviour can in and of itself be an illness.
It could be described conceivably as a "condition" or "disorder". But this cannot therefore be an illness.
The condition of lacking empathy. This cannot be an illness. It also cannot be an absolute state. It is also hard to judge if someone lacks empathy. The absolute state of "complete lack of empathy" would very quickly lead to problems.
Do thieves and murderers have "autism"? If they did they would show no remorse.
None of this means I would not want to help people who are having problems in living.
.......
Once again in the case of "autism" as in the case of other supposed "mental illnesses" we come across stuff like the following; "evidence is beginning to be found of chemical imbalance etc." and stuff like that.
The important point here - that is often missed - a point I hope I have made very clear here is that this is in a sense IRRELEVANT because the "condition"/"illness" of autism is by definition a set of (mental) symptoms/characteristics.
These states of mind may be caused by "chemical imbalances" but they are not the same thing as the "chemical imbalances".
Also is it not possible somehow to "lack empathy" without suffering from a "brain disease"?
Also, until you can tell me exactly how said "chemical imbalances" directly cause the "symptoms" you haven't really added to anything.........
..............................
Another thing is - what about all those people who are supposedly "autistic" but who are brilliant at very accurate and detailed drawing; who can learn many languages; who can remember many bus routes etc. etc.?
This is similar to the idea of the "idiot savant".
Now a point here is - what has having an amazing memory necessarily got to do with being devoid of empathy for others?
.....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a follow up to this it has recently been claimed there is a "brain scan" test for "Autism".
IN THE SAME REPORTS that revealed this in newspapers and in the televisual media it was said that
"Autism" was "a poorly understood condition."
Now, firstly and obviously - HOW can there be a "brain test" of any kind for a "poorly understood" condition?
IT IS SIMPLY INCREDIBLE!
Is it just a social label? Is there more to it?
Mind you I've had quite a few of those.
They were talking about "autism" on TalkSport radio. So absent-mindedly I texted to them the following:
"Autism does not exist." I have texted the show many times. Usually when George Galloway is on.
Anyway they can't have had many texts that night since within five minutes the presenter (who has a strong yet pleasant Brummy accent) said: "Someone has sent in a text saying simply "Autism does not exist." Interesting. That shows a whole different view of things." He rambled a bit about it. So it was worth sending that text.
I do believe that "autism" does not and cannot exist.
Even people who believe in autism talk of the "autistic spectrum". As soon as you admit the existence of an "autistic spectrum" surely you can no longer believe in "autism" since how do you distinguish between someone who "has" it and someone who "doesn't"?
Autism means being overly self-involved/not being conscious of others etc.
Now absolutely EVERYONE is to an extent concerned with themselves by virtue of being a member of our species. Consequently once again we are medicalising what is to a point entirely NORMAL.
Why is there no name for the supposed opposite condition? - selflessness? Is there a relation?
Is not capitalism institutionalised autism? Are not cars institutionalised autism?
Autism - if it is a description of a mental state/mental states and/or behaviour cannot in itself be an illness.
The only kind of illness that there can be is a physical lesion or physical defect. No behaviour or misbehaviour can in and of itself be an illness.
It could be described conceivably as a "condition" or "disorder". But this cannot therefore be an illness.
The condition of lacking empathy. This cannot be an illness. It also cannot be an absolute state. It is also hard to judge if someone lacks empathy. The absolute state of "complete lack of empathy" would very quickly lead to problems.
Do thieves and murderers have "autism"? If they did they would show no remorse.
None of this means I would not want to help people who are having problems in living.
.......
Once again in the case of "autism" as in the case of other supposed "mental illnesses" we come across stuff like the following; "evidence is beginning to be found of chemical imbalance etc." and stuff like that.
The important point here - that is often missed - a point I hope I have made very clear here is that this is in a sense IRRELEVANT because the "condition"/"illness" of autism is by definition a set of (mental) symptoms/characteristics.
These states of mind may be caused by "chemical imbalances" but they are not the same thing as the "chemical imbalances".
Also is it not possible somehow to "lack empathy" without suffering from a "brain disease"?
Also, until you can tell me exactly how said "chemical imbalances" directly cause the "symptoms" you haven't really added to anything.........
..............................
Another thing is - what about all those people who are supposedly "autistic" but who are brilliant at very accurate and detailed drawing; who can learn many languages; who can remember many bus routes etc. etc.?
This is similar to the idea of the "idiot savant".
Now a point here is - what has having an amazing memory necessarily got to do with being devoid of empathy for others?
.....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a follow up to this it has recently been claimed there is a "brain scan" test for "Autism".
IN THE SAME REPORTS that revealed this in newspapers and in the televisual media it was said that
"Autism" was "a poorly understood condition."
Now, firstly and obviously - HOW can there be a "brain test" of any kind for a "poorly understood" condition?
IT IS SIMPLY INCREDIBLE!
Is it just a social label? Is there more to it?
24 January 2010
19 January 2010
18 January 2010
Great lecture by Kenan Malik!
He has written a great essay - his Voltaire lecture - here:
http://www.kenanmalik.com/lectures/voltaire_lecture_2009.html
It contains the following quote:
"If any event could demonstrate the folly of giving into unreason, it is surely Nazism and the Holocaust. Yet now it is regarded as an expression of too much reason."
KENAN MALIK.
Thanks are due to the Universe that someone is making this obvious, simple and correct point.
A point that people seem not to want to acknowledge.
----------------------
The same lecture includes the following points:
"‘Too much reason’. The very idea that there could be an excess of reason would for much of the past 200 years have struck progressive thinkers as close to madness. Even more so the idea that too much reason was a condition to be feared. But strangest of all would have seemed the notion that the madness of the Final Solution was engineered by a surfeit of reason."----------------------
The same lecture includes the following points:
Kenan Malik.
"The sociologist Zygmunt Bauman argues it was ‘the rational world of modern civilisation that made the Holocaust thinkable.’ For the philosopher John Gray, ‘Progress and mass murder run in tandem… As the hope for a better world has grown, so has mass murder.’ Western science, the historian Robert Young writes, ‘articulates a philosophical structure that uncannily simulates the project of nineteenth-century imperialism.’
I want to challenge such arguments tonight by rethinking the history of the idea of race and in doing so thinking again about the relationship between race, science and the Enlightenment."
Kenan Malik.
It is good that Kenan Malik is challenging "such arguments."
As they say in Spain "!ya era hora!".
About time to!
The statement "progress and mass murder run in tandem" by John Gray is particularly ridiculous.
--------------------------------------------------------------
MLK Day
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth.
Through violence you murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate….
Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Through violence you murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate….
Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."
Martin Luther King, Jr.
"Heritage"
In the current of the thinking of the excellent Kenan Malik it would seem necessary to point out the following.
The word "heritage" seems to be sometimes used as a euphemism or code word for "race" or "ethnicity".
The word "heritage" seems to be sometimes used as a euphemism or code word for "race" or "ethnicity".
Also Shoddy - Radio 4 "The Frankfurt School"
Incidentally another thing that was disappointingly shoddy was the Radio 4 "In Our Time" episode on "The Frankfurt School".
It was below the usual high standard for this programme.
Firstly, It didn't give an idea of the full scope of the thinkers included within this general movement.....
It was below the usual high standard for this programme.
Firstly, It didn't give an idea of the full scope of the thinkers included within this general movement.....
17 January 2010
Shoddy Nick Cohen article today
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/17/chilcott-inquiry-iraq-blair
How does a Nick Cohen article/book work?
Mainly, by insinuation, ad hominem points and non sequiturs.
As usual.
The first two paragraphs are hard to follow. Precision and clarity are obviously not the aim here. I think insinuation is more the intention.
He then says, "....mainstream public opinion has never been interested in offering solidarity to the victims of Ba'athism and Islamism."
Firstly that's not necessarily true. Also, this is not relevant to the question of the legality of the war.
"However much they loathed Bush and Blair, surely they would have offered unreserved support for Arabs and Kurds struggling to escape totalitarianism." Again, this is not relevant to the question posited by the title of the piece.
It is a classic case of dodging the question. He ignores the question of why people loathe Bush and Blair. And he does not admit that people did support the Arabs and the Kurds.
There is no argument here.
The quality of thought here is very poor and shoddy. So this is normal for Nick Cohen and for Anglo-American journalism.
There is never ever an engagement with the view of the opponent - only throwing mud.
In Cohen's case it is the constant refrain that those who oppose the war are indifferent to and/or support Saddam; and therefore they are wrong. A non-argument.
Being opposed to this war almost never meant support for Saddam. Cohen must know this very well.
Opposition to war does not necessarily entail support for anyone.
The argument that if you are against a war you support the proposed enemy is clearly false.
And I must say it is also a very helpful and convenient argument for someone trying to advocate a war.
The following is a perfect example:
However vigorously they seek to pass UN resolution 1,441, the use of "illegal" demonstrates that Tony Blair's lawyerly critics believe that the Ba'athist regime, which was guilty of genocide and under UN sanctions, remained Iraq's legitimate government, entitled by law to treat the country as its private prison.
This is a non sequitur and meaningless.
Typical Cohen - if you don't support the "war" you support "Saddam" - a non sequitur.
Philosophy should be made compulsory in England like it is in France.
Firstly, the first part of the sentence in no way implies the final part - a non sequitur. The correct use of "illegal" with regard to the 2003 "war" emphatically and obviously in no way means that its user means that Saddam's régime was "legal". This "point" by Cohen also totally and conveniently disregards the question of International Law.
If the régime was not a "legal entity", International Law does not mean that the régime is therefore somehow "fair game" and open to attack.
Secondly, it obviously does not engage directly with the arguments of those who correctly point out that the Iraq "War" of 2003 - the (continued) anti-Semitic destruction of Iraq (1991-200?) by the USA and England - was indeed undoubtedly illegal.
Cohen ignores the question of whether or not the "war" was legal or illegal.
He merely says like a peevish schoolboy - "yeah - and since when was Saddam so "legal" then?".
(I cannot remember the correct (Latin) term for this specific kind of fallacious reasoning but I will try and find it.)
This is typical of English debate. As someone said it can sometimes seem that if you propose an idea to a true Englishman he never ever tries to work out if your idea is true or false.
Maybe in Cohen's mind if you didn't support the war you were on the side of the Islamists basically and against the "West". Claptrap.
The title says it all really: "Blair will never be branded a war criminal".
What counts for Cohen is what things are called, not what they actually are.
Sorry to be a rationalist about this, but Blair is factually a war criminal - I do not care what he is "branded" (whatever that means).
Another point is that Cohen is already assuming what the outcome of the inquiry will be!
Maybe he thinks that it is not a proper enquiry? How does he already know the outcome?
Has he heard all the evidence?
If you ask me, it is likely to be another example of that great Anglo-American institution
- THE WHITEWASH.
A true investigative journalist would not acquiesce in this but would ask why it keeps happening and rage against it.
-------------------------------------------------------
The war was obviously illegal.
http://www.youtube.com/user/pinkyshow#p/u/20/1Khut8xbXK8
How does a Nick Cohen article/book work?
Mainly, by insinuation, ad hominem points and non sequiturs.
As usual.
The first two paragraphs are hard to follow. Precision and clarity are obviously not the aim here. I think insinuation is more the intention.
He then says, "....mainstream public opinion has never been interested in offering solidarity to the victims of Ba'athism and Islamism."
Firstly that's not necessarily true. Also, this is not relevant to the question of the legality of the war.
"However much they loathed Bush and Blair, surely they would have offered unreserved support for Arabs and Kurds struggling to escape totalitarianism." Again, this is not relevant to the question posited by the title of the piece.
It is a classic case of dodging the question. He ignores the question of why people loathe Bush and Blair. And he does not admit that people did support the Arabs and the Kurds.
There is no argument here.
The quality of thought here is very poor and shoddy. So this is normal for Nick Cohen and for Anglo-American journalism.
There is never ever an engagement with the view of the opponent - only throwing mud.
In Cohen's case it is the constant refrain that those who oppose the war are indifferent to and/or support Saddam; and therefore they are wrong. A non-argument.
Being opposed to this war almost never meant support for Saddam. Cohen must know this very well.
Opposition to war does not necessarily entail support for anyone.
The argument that if you are against a war you support the proposed enemy is clearly false.
And I must say it is also a very helpful and convenient argument for someone trying to advocate a war.
The following is a perfect example:
However vigorously they seek to pass UN resolution 1,441, the use of "illegal" demonstrates that Tony Blair's lawyerly critics believe that the Ba'athist regime, which was guilty of genocide and under UN sanctions, remained Iraq's legitimate government, entitled by law to treat the country as its private prison.
This is a non sequitur and meaningless.
Typical Cohen - if you don't support the "war" you support "Saddam" - a non sequitur.
Philosophy should be made compulsory in England like it is in France.
Firstly, the first part of the sentence in no way implies the final part - a non sequitur. The correct use of "illegal" with regard to the 2003 "war" emphatically and obviously in no way means that its user means that Saddam's régime was "legal". This "point" by Cohen also totally and conveniently disregards the question of International Law.
If the régime was not a "legal entity", International Law does not mean that the régime is therefore somehow "fair game" and open to attack.
Secondly, it obviously does not engage directly with the arguments of those who correctly point out that the Iraq "War" of 2003 - the (continued) anti-Semitic destruction of Iraq (1991-200?) by the USA and England - was indeed undoubtedly illegal.
Cohen ignores the question of whether or not the "war" was legal or illegal.
He merely says like a peevish schoolboy - "yeah - and since when was Saddam so "legal" then?".
(I cannot remember the correct (Latin) term for this specific kind of fallacious reasoning but I will try and find it.)
This is typical of English debate. As someone said it can sometimes seem that if you propose an idea to a true Englishman he never ever tries to work out if your idea is true or false.
Maybe in Cohen's mind if you didn't support the war you were on the side of the Islamists basically and against the "West". Claptrap.
The title says it all really: "Blair will never be branded a war criminal".
What counts for Cohen is what things are called, not what they actually are.
Sorry to be a rationalist about this, but Blair is factually a war criminal - I do not care what he is "branded" (whatever that means).
Another point is that Cohen is already assuming what the outcome of the inquiry will be!
Maybe he thinks that it is not a proper enquiry? How does he already know the outcome?
Has he heard all the evidence?
If you ask me, it is likely to be another example of that great Anglo-American institution
- THE WHITEWASH.
A true investigative journalist would not acquiesce in this but would ask why it keeps happening and rage against it.
-------------------------------------------------------
The war was obviously illegal.
http://www.youtube.com/user/pinkyshow#p/u/20/1Khut8xbXK8
15 January 2010
Parenting
Parenting is very important.
But saying that poverty is irrelevant to how a child develops is wrong.
It would be laughable if it wasn't being pronounced by the leader of a mainstream party rather than someone parodying them.
What kind of world do we want for our children is the issue as much as whether or not to have kids.
But saying that poverty is irrelevant to how a child develops is wrong.
It would be laughable if it wasn't being pronounced by the leader of a mainstream party rather than someone parodying them.
What kind of world do we want for our children is the issue as much as whether or not to have kids.
14 January 2010
Forgiveness is a sign of strength
"The weak can never forgive.
Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong."
- Gandhi
13 January 2010
"I am proud not"
"I am proud not" - a "poem" ?
I am proud not.
I am proud not to be an economist.
I am proud not to be a psychiatrist.
I am proud not to work in advertising.
I am proud not to work in marketing.
I am proud not to work in public relations.
I am proud not to be an English soldier.
I am proud not to teach people English.
I am proud not.......
.............
.....
I am proud not.
I am proud not to be an economist.
I am proud not to be a psychiatrist.
I am proud not to work in advertising.
I am proud not to work in marketing.
I am proud not to work in public relations.
I am proud not to be an English soldier.
I am proud not to teach people English.
I am proud not.......
.............
.....
12 January 2010
Wonderful joke from a wonderful lady
"The late Linda Smith, comic and writer, came from Erith. She joked it wasn't twinned with any town but did have a suicide pact with Dagenham."
11 January 2010
9 January 2010
New Holiday?
I reckon we should have a Bank Holiday celebrating the execution of Charles I and the abolition of the Monarchy in 1649.
But that's just me.
But then again I don't think we should have banks really, so it wouldn't really be a "Bank" holiday as such.
:)
But that's just me.
But then again I don't think we should have banks really, so it wouldn't really be a "Bank" holiday as such.
:)
7 January 2010
"History repeats itself..."
"History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce."
Karl Marx.
I didn't know Karl knew the Bushes.
5 January 2010
MENS SANA IN CORPORE SANO.
"MENS SANA IN CORPORE SANO."
DECIMUS JUNIUS JUVENALIS.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Latins I think would have known very well that a mind can only be METAFORICALLY healthy and unhealthy.
NOTA BENE - Juvenal was a POET.
NOTA BENE -
The saying/verse above is called "foolish" by George Bernard Shaw who says it is impossible to have one without the other. ID EST - it does not go far enough! :)
I don't know who said:
"You are what you eat/consume"! (And of course what you DON'T EAT/CONSUME is also important!). This is of course related! :)
You will feel better in yourself if you look after your body! "Your body is a temple etc." ....
DECIMUS JUNIUS JUVENALIS.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Latins I think would have known very well that a mind can only be METAFORICALLY healthy and unhealthy.
NOTA BENE - Juvenal was a POET.
NOTA BENE -
The saying/verse above is called "foolish" by George Bernard Shaw who says it is impossible to have one without the other. ID EST - it does not go far enough! :)
I don't know who said:
"You are what you eat/consume"! (And of course what you DON'T EAT/CONSUME is also important!). This is of course related! :)
You will feel better in yourself if you look after your body! "Your body is a temple etc." ....
4 January 2010
My kind of philosopher
"Life will be more fully lived in so far as it has no meaning."
Albert Camus.
My kind of philosopher.
Albert Camus.
My kind of philosopher.
2 January 2010
Great Polyp Cartoon!
.jpg)
A Polyp cartoon.
I love Polyp's cartoons. See them at http://www.polyp.org.uk
This one in particular struck a chord with me. "Brains Prohibited".
---------------------------------------------------
I bought his amazing wordless cartoon history of the world :
"WITHOUT WORDS/SANS PAROLES/SIN PALABRAS".
Rail prices
There are many things to criticize in England.
One of the most disgraceful things is rail travel prices.
Comparing rail prices to aeroplane prices is truly enraging.
One of the most disgraceful things is rail travel prices.
Comparing rail prices to aeroplane prices is truly enraging.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)