Not really on the syllabus at my one-man university.

"The true university of these days is a collection of books." - Thomas Carlyle


And generally I don't really have the following authors in my library, or on my reading lists.

They are not really on the syllabus at my one-man university:

Sigmund FREUD.

No facts. Only theory posing as fact. No science. No discovery. Irrationalist posing as rational.

Friedrich NIETZSCHE.

All gesture and no content. Precursor of fascism. Irrationalist.

Oscar WILDE.

Unconvincing intellectual justification for homosexual behaviour. No content to his literature. Disagree profoundly with his beliefs about "art for art's sake" and other matters. Irrationalist.

James JOYCE.

Simply incomprehensible. And truly and utterly tedious. Even the more readable and accessible works are utterly tedious. It is said of "Ulysses" that if it is not worth reading, then life is not worth living. I maintain that it cannot really be read, whereas life can be lived.

Michel FOUCAULT.

Random and fake. Incomprehensible in places. No evidence for his theories. Irrationalist.

J. R. R. TOLKIEN

Too divorced from the real world.

C. S. LEWIS

Overall, a very over-rated Christian apologist.

G.W.F. HEGEL

Irrational, incomprehensible.

Jacques LACAN

Slavoj ZIZEK

 Peter SINGER

Animals are not our equals - for that is why they are animals.

Henry JAMES.


G.K. CHESTERTON.

George BERKELEY.

Mischievous, deceitful and irrational.


-----------------------------------

Generally speaking, I believe that the overall content and messages of the above writers are not worthy of serious intellectual consideration and that their reputations are wholly undeserved. Some parts of their writings may be beneficial and enlightening, but overall I think all of these writers are intellectually overrated.

On being thoroughly disillusioned with learning other languages.

On being thoroughly disillusioned with learning other languages.

"No man fully capable of his own language ever masters another." George Bernard Shaw.

I am thoroughly disillusioned and disenchanted with learning other languages and I no longer believe that it is possible, desirable or beneficial to fully learn more than one language - one's own mother tongue.

The G.B.S. quote shown above that I have long been aware of I now concede to be entirely true.
My own experience and observation of others leads me to believe that it is very much the truth.

I confess that I have a Modern Languages degree, which I received about 18 years ago. I now regard this as having been essentially a mistake and - in terms of studying the actual languages - a wasted degree. I would much rather have studied philosophy.

Mastering a language other than one's principle language is not even possible. But maintaining such a second language at merely a high level of proficiency requires exceptional circumstances. These are either to live in the country where it is spoken, or to have been a native speaker in the first place or have been brought up bilingually.

Even this is very difficult and rare. But another point is that it is not really necessary or desirable.
And this is nothing to do with my own language being English - which is effectively the most dominant language in the world today.

Now that I have fully conceded this point to myself, I feel set free to actually study proper subjects and to properly learn philosophy and to philosophize, without wasting my time and effort with the fantasy that I can effectively learn other languages or that I need to.

This is the source of a great feeling of self-liberation from a tyrannical belief of my own that I had imposed upon myself - the belief being that I had to thoroughly learn other languages.

I am also thoroughly liberated from the irrational belief that a language is something other than a method of communication, that learning another language gives the learner something more than just another means of saying the same thing!

A bi-product of learning a language can be cultural insights but all of these can be gained entirely by means other than learning of the language. Language itself is indeed nothing more than a means of communication.

On "Sapiens" by Yuval Noah Hariri

On "Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind" by Yuval Noah Hariri (2016).

I find myself in disagreement with a few things in this unconventional book on the history of humanity:

- promotion of animal rights.
- promotion of homosexual behaviour and his advocacy of homosexual rights - and his presentation of such behaviour as in some way natural and wholly acceptable.
- apparent belief that mankind is possibly heading for some kind of eternal life.
- belief in the inevitability of a coming era of massive scientific discovery and progress.
- promotion of neuroscience and psychiatry.
- excessive promotion of Buddhism.
- portrayal of communism and other ideologies as being "just other religions".
- belief in conventional economics and in "economic growth" as unlimited.

Apart from the disagreements, I think that this is an excellent and thought-provoking book and I am now greatly enjoying the sequel "Homo Deus".

Typical John Gray bullshit

"There is no basis – whether in logic or history – for the prevailing notion that atheism and liberalism go together." 

John Gray, philosopher.

If you ask me, this is typical John Gray bullshit!

He is trying to suit reality to his own pre-conceived agenda and pro-religion views.

In discussion here is this article by the philosopher John Gray : John Gray "The Ghost at the Atheist Feast."

I am an atheist. And I believe that there are many deep links - both in logic and in history - between liberalism and atheism. Furthermore, I believe it is obvious that this is the case.

Why should being an atheist mean that I have to be a fan of Nietzsche?
There is no logical or historical basis for any notion that atheism and devotion to Nietzsche go together!
I think that Nietzsche's work is mainly execrable, pompous rubbish.

I deny that Nietzsche is "the pivotal modern critic of religion", as Gray affirms in this article.
The decline of religion that he echoed was not necessarily anything to do with him and it is something that was happening anyway, as Weber has described.

John Gray is something of a pessimist who seems to believe that humans are incorrigibly religious.
Being a pessimist is pointless. Furthermore, it is simply not true that humans cannot live without a religion, depending on how one defines religion.

Germaine Greer is totally right about so-called "trans-sexuality"

Germaine Greer is absolutely right about so-called "trans-sexuality".

I think Germaine Greer was totally right and absolutely within her rights to say that a man who detaches his penis does not become a woman by doing so. An 100% physical sex change is medically impossible and more people should say so. "Feeling like" a member of the opposite sex does not give anyone the automatic right to try to become one - not that this would even be possible. This is obvious. Furthermore, it is in no way a medical condition to "feel like" a member of the opposite sex.
Feelings cannot be illnesses. It is a logical and semantic error to call a feeling an illness.

There is no intrinsic tendency in humans for them to be "born into" the wrong sex.
This is a biological impossibility.
"Trans-sexuality" does not exist as an intrinsic human tendency or a medical condition.
People are free to label themselves as they like and have whatever medical procedures performed on them that they like. But they don't have the right to prevent me from pointing out that sex changes are not really biologically possible.
Also, I do think that so-called full "sex change" operations should not be officially recognized by medicine nor provided by state-funded health systems, nor that "transsexualism" should be recognized as a medical or social condition.

Why does merely pointing out the above truths and expressing such opinions somehow turn me into some kind of nazi - according to a very dominant strand in contemporary Western political culture?

I am an ardent anti-nazi, anti-fascist and anti-racist and I resent that just because I express scepticism with regard to so-called "trans-sexualism" I am somehow associated with nazism, fascism and racism. I am very much in favour of freedom and tolerance.


Germaine Greer's remarks about "trans-sexual" rights

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/germaine-greer-stirs-controversy-for-her-latest-transgender-remarks-and-defends-real-women-comments-a6980166.html

Human nature

Sexual orientation or sexuality is not intrinsic, immutable or fixed. People are just SEXUAL.

Cultural identity is not intrinsic, immutable or fixed. People are just HUMAN.

---------------------

Re-launch!

Re-launch. June 2016.

I haven't had this blog up for ages. And I haven't posted anything new on it for ages. A couple of years at least.
I am now re-launching it. Bit with quite a few cuts and changes.

Because I have fully lost my faith and am now no longer a Christian of any kind.
This has made quite a difference to the content of the blog.
And made for a great liberation of my life.

I have also totally lost any faith I had in nationalism of any kind.
It is a great liberation to be free from both religion and nationalism which I both regard as utter bullshit.

I was always on my way to losing my faith and had already posted that I thought religion is bullshit several years ago.
Only this time it is much more complete.
Whilst I had written that I was still indulging in various religious practices and continued some associated beliefs.
I would say that I am no longer a "Cultural Christian". I am no longer a Christian of any kind.
I am a thorough-going atheist.

I have re-launch the site with some deletions. Which are on-going. There may be things I still need to delete because I no longer agree with them.

But I have decided to put the blog back up whilst this process of change goes on.

--------------------------------

"I Pissed On My Cambridge"

"I Pissed On my Cambridge"


I pissed on my Cambridge
Cold college library
Built in the fifteenth century
I hadn't wanted to
Someone told me to

I pissed on my Cambridge
College library somewhere
Near the flowers
There was drink to drink
So I drank it

I pissed on my Cambridge
Because I couldn't get anything
There to mean anything to me
The dullard Sloanes and
The dullard Chavs

I pissed on my Cambridge
And its Arctic Fens
Trinity Hall to be precise
I wouldn't have stayed for idol Weisz
Or Jane Iceberg lettuce

I pissed on my Cambridge
Trinity Hall where the people
Seemed small
The prettiest corner
With no one waiting there

I pissed on my Cambridge
You could have blown it away
Like Baghdad the year before
And I wouldn't have noticed
The difference.

-------------------------------------------------------------------



(A poem by a poet who doesn't believe in poetry).

A great Philosopher - Donald Cuppitt

A great Philosopher - Donald Cuppitt

I didn't know he'd been to Tit Hall!

"Tit Hall" is the nickname for Trinity Hall which is the Cambridge University college I briefly attended.

http://www.doncupitt.com/don-cupitt

I know only a little about his work. But I think I know his basic atheist position.
He sees religion as a human creation.

I have not read any books by him.

But I have to say that it is a great relief to find someone like him saying what he is with regard to religion and Christianity in particular.

A great relief. A pressure off.

He has thought about Chrstianity. And so I ahve I to some extent. Circumstances made sure that I had to.

I must say that I at the moment have come to share some of his views and like to think of myself as a cultural Christian really.
And an atheist - as I said when I first put the "Citizen Sofa" website here in 2006 - 8 years ago now.
After a brief period of belief in the conventional truths of the Christian faith,  I am an atheist again.
I feel better saying that.

Why should I have to believe anything?

Surely it is more important that I am virtuous.

What saves aspects of Christianity for me is its power to transform the world for the better.
It is a way of making the world a better place.

-----------

A quote from Cuppitt's website on his beliefs about religion and spirituality:

 "We understand all religious doctrines in practical terms, as guiding myths to live by, in the way that Kant, Kierkegaard and Bultmannn began to map out. 

We abandon ideas of objective and eternal truth, and instead see all truth as a human improvisation. We should give up all ideas of a heavenly or supernatural world-beyond. Yet, despite our seeming scepticism, we insist that non-realist religion can work very well as religion, and can deliver 'eternal' happiness now. 
 

Cupitt sees his religion of ordinary human life as the "Kingdom theology" that historic Christianity always knew it must eventually move to, after the end of the age of the Church and the arrival of a final religion of immediate commitment to this world and this life only.

This final religion, which Cupitt calls 'solar living', has a few followers everywhere, but is particularly to be found on the most liberal wing of the British Society of Friends, the Quakers. Indeed, a non-theist Friends Network UK is currently being established.

In philosophy, Cupitt starts from the philosophy of ordinary human life. It sees everything under great unifying metaphors, such as the Sun, or the Fountain. The resulting outlook may be seen as standing in the existentialist tradition."

This kind of thing is absolutely superb and very helpful!

Science v. Philosophy

The following is a paragraph defending or approving of homosexuality.
It is written by a scientist who is defending the behaviour on scientific bases.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Take homosexuality, for example.
Iron age scriptures might argue that homosexuality
is "wrong", but scientific discoveries about the frequency of homosexual behaviour
 in a variety of species tell us that it is completely natural in a rather fixed
fraction of populations and that it has no apparent negative evolutionary impacts.
This surely tells us that it is biologically based, not harmful and not innately
"wrong".
In fact, I think you actually accede to this point about the impact of
 science when you argue that our research into non-human cognition has altered
our view of ethics.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where to start in terms of a reaction to this paragraph?

i) First - is it really true that there is a great deal of homosexual behavior among other species?
Many would instinctively say that it is true. And if they are asked as to why they are so sure they would perhaps say something like : "I read it somewhere."
Yet is it really true? Where is the evidence?

So - straight away we are possibly dealing with a simple factual inaccuracy. Even maybe a deliberate falsehood.

This is far from what "science" is supposed to be.

ii) Second. The Iron Age scriptures referred to are a problem for the writer seemingly because of their distance in time from us and not because of their "arguments" - which are referred to but not revealed to the reader at all.


Related Comments:

Since when did Philosophy accept any kind of defeat at the hands of "Science"?. Science was called "Natural Philosophy" not that long ago.
Philosophy will never "hand over the reins" to "Science", and never can. And it worries me that you think it ever could. We're all philosophers. Everyone with a Ph.d is supposed to be a filosofer of a kind, are they not?
This piece worries me. The quality of the reasoning - notably with regard to the defence of certain behaviours - is simply not good enuff. And this is why we always need Philosophy - to make sure we can reason well - as we have to in almost any endeavour.

A reply:

It is a such a pity that science went on its own merry materialistic way and severed ties with philosophy - surely to gain an understanding of our complete reality both disciplines are pivotal? for are not physics and metaphysics two sides of the same coin? What's needed is the reconciliation of both disciplines and perhaps with a united front we may make much greater progress.

My reply:


Thanks for reply. Let's hope the talks between Science and Philosophy bear fruit.
Science is a nice guy - and Philosophia is a very lovely lady!

No you are right. In the 20th century the Logical Positivists and such like in the Analytical rather than "Continental" tendency tried to give science and maths a logical basis and rejected much of the filosofy of the past! To be honest I don't think Physics and Metaphysics are exactly "two sides of the same coin" but something like it! And it will be something to discuss in the peace talks. Long may they continue!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Another comment:

"Philosophy is useful, but it must be informed by science, because science tells us how things really are. Any philosophy that doesn't take that into account is worthless."

My reply:

Great comment.
In Spanish the word for "Science" - "Ciencia" - stil also connotes what the Anglosphere would simply call "knowledge".
So if you read things back replacing the word "science" with "knowledge" it is very interesting.
The concept of "Science" has maybe taken on a monolithic meaning in English-speaking culture - always seemingly opposed to other things.

.