Excellent book - "Who Are We - and Should It Matter in the 21st Century?"

I read "Who Are We - and Should It Matter in the 21st Century?" by Gary Younge and it is an excellent book. I think he is sometimes a little too sympathetic to radical Islam for my liking. It was written nearly a decade ago now, but is still very relevant.
 It has made me think about the issue of identity and identity politics. I am glad he is critical of Eric Hobsbawm's Marxist-inspired insistence that nationalism and identity are not major historical forces. But I hope they become less and less important and I think they will. 

"Enlightenment Now"

I just forked out the grand sum of twenty one pounds on a nice hardback edition of "Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism and Progress" by Steven Pinker. Which is not mentioning the trees used up! Looks good. I hope he spends all the royalties on something good! I am sure he will.

I believe in enlightenment and in The Enlightenment and I like the optimism - if only because as Winston Churchill said, there is no point being anything else other than an optimist.
He seems to include a belief in market economics with his vision of enlightened humanism, which I would perhaps take issue with.

As he himself notes, "intellectuals are apt to do a spit take when they read a defence of capitalism."
But I don't think this book is in its entirety a defence of capitalism, but a defence of the Enlightenment. And a very good one at that. In economic terms, I think it is as much a defence of development and social democracy, as of capitalism and free markets as such.

I am very much a supporter of Pinker's strong condemnation of Nietzsche and his continuing influence in particular. Freud needs a similar condemnation as well, if you ask me. And for similar reasons.
Freud's views were certainly a threat to reason, science, humanism and progress.
His influence is still a threat to reason, science, humanism and progress.

I must get round to actually reading it properly from cover to cover, hopefully some time in this century. If humanity does last out this century. Hopefully it will.

I have now read it from cover to cover and I am very glad I did. It is very good indeed.

Whilst I am very much inclined to take heed of George Monbiot's criticisms of the way the environment is dealt with in the book [ You can deny environmental calamity -until you check the facts." ], I still like what seems to be the message of the book overall. George Monbiot's words are a little too harsh in places I think; and this book is worth reading and not wholly discredited by a few mistakes or biases.

In particular, I wasn't convinced at all by Pinker's dismissal of the concept of "Sustainability".
We are indeed inevitably a part of the planet's ecosystem and he didn't really face up to that reality to a sufficient extent in my view. And I hope we have reached "Peak Car", but I don't know if we have.
The Ecosystem is not just another mythical "transcendent entity" like the "nation", as he infers - I think it is a valid and scientific concept.

I resent his accusation that so-called "Greenism" is "apocalyptic", but I was relieved to see his advocacy of Ecomodernism and Ecopragmatism, and of a more humanistic environmentalism.
However, I am not sure if these tendencies go far enough in humanity's imperative quest to achieve an ecological civilisation.
I am glad that he accepts that the environment is facing "serious problems", and I agree with his emphasis on Enlightenment optimism, even if things in this regard are perhaps not quite as rosy as he portrays them.

Though, along with George Monbiot, he has swayed me over the issue of nuclear power, which I now support, I remain a convinced Green and I resent his disparagement of that ideology.

On the question of psychology and psychiatry - he comes close to agreeing that psychiatry is over-diagnosing so-called "mental illness", but he still needs to open his eyes to the insult to the Enlightenment that Psychiatry represents. Psychiatry is undoubtedly an affront to reason, science, humanism and progress. I think Thomas Szasz (1920-2012) was a very important thinker on this question and others and was very much in the Enlightenment tradition, particularly with regard to supporting freedom and alleviating human suffering. I do like Pinker's emphasis on reducing suffering with regard to the question of psychology and throughout the book.

John Gray has written of the book "Enlightenment Now" - "To think of this book as any kind of scholarly exercise is a category mistake."  This statement is just ridiculous bullshit. Yes the book is quite polemical, but it is a polemic that is undoubtedly backed up by scholarship.

I certainly believe in enlightenment and in The Enlightenment. And this book is a good manifesto for it and its continuation.

If people need something to believe in, I recommend this book - it is an eloquent riposte to religious and nationalist fundamentalism. I believe yet more in reason, science, humanism and progress. I think, however, that the environment is the biggest challenge faced by the Enlightenment and I was not entirely convinced by his coverage of this topic.

I was overall convinced by the book that many things have indeed got better since the Enlightenment, and that it is due to enlightenment and the Enlightenment. Ideas do indeed matter. I was further convinced that things can get better still.


I now plan to read George Monbiot's "Out of the Wreckage". 

March 30th 2018.

I have now read George Monbiot's "Out of the Wreckage: A New Politics for an Age of Crisis" and I was very impressed.
This is an inspirational book that I think is more in the real world than Pinker's one and makes some real proposals for moving things forward to a better place for humanity.
I like his attack on the politics of selfishness, and his belief that humans are social beings that need to be altruistic and co-operate.
His book is a good basis on which to build progressive ideas.

Two superb books.

"At the Existentialist Café: Freedom, Being, and Apricot Cocktails" and "How to Live: A Life of Montaigne in One Question and Twenty Attempts at an Answer" by Sarah Bakewell are both simply superb books.

Keynes quote

"The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones."
 John Maynard Keynes.

How does this quote help us move on from psychiatry?

I voted Leave and I support Scottish Independence.

I voted Leave and I support Scottish independence. I don't see a contradiction.
I hate nationalism but I support freedom and anti-imperialism.
The EU is not yet about imperialism, but it needs to be democratized so I voted Leave.
I support Scottish independence because I oppose English imperialism, not because I believe in nationalism.

"Intellectuals" - Oldies but Goldies

"Intellectuals."

I first published this old blog posting on-line many years ago and I have deleted it many times.
It's an oldie but a goldie.

I include this old blog posting because I believe in freedom of speech and because some kind of wisdom may be revealed by its humour.


The following was a real letter in the humorous, satirical and investigative journal "Private Eye", published in 1992. I stress that I am not its creator.
It is among the finest and funniest pieces of writing ever published in this supremely excellent journal and I have to confess that it actually saved my life. I mean that.
Because until I read it I thought that there was actually something wrong with me.
Here it comes.

"A Scots Intellectual Writes.

Dear Sir,

The dispute in your columns between "Southern Softies" and "Northern Oiks" is becoming a little too heated for my liking.
Can I just weigh in with a few well-chosen words of reason and moderation?
You're all English bastards.

Yours sincerely,

A.Scotsman. Edinburgh, Scotland."


My own response to it - which was not published - was the following:

"An English Intellectual Writes

Dear Sir,

The dispute in Ireland between "Fenian Papist Republican Scum" and "Proddie Orange Brutish Dogs" has always been far too heated for my liking.
Can I just weigh in with a few well-chosen words of reason and moderation?
You're all mad Irish bastards.

Yours sincerely,

A.N. Englishman, London, England.


This last letter is not meant to detract from the truth that the partitioning of Ireland and the denial of full Irish independence are crimes principally committed by the English state and no one else.

In 2018, these humorous comments are still apposite, as the utter nonsense and chaos of "Brexit" wreaks its havoc.

What I can't avoid reflecting on is that things could have been sorted out much more satisfactorily in 1992.

I stress that I don't fully agree with extreme nationalism and I also don't agree with the denial of democracy.

I am an anti-imperialist and I believe in freedom.

"Life is Hypocrisy"

Another oldie but goldie. I wrote this first a few years back. But deleted it.
But I can't see how I can't include it here.

"I was talking to a prostitute the other day. As you do.
She said she had been employed by a Tory councillor, a Labour councillor and then a Liberal and that when she'd done the Liberal she'd nearly said to him "I've done the full set now!"
I said to her. "Wow. It's a shame people can't be more open about this. It's such hypocrisy."
Without a pause she said - as if it was the most obvious thing in the world - "Life is hypocrisy"."

.......................

A contradiction in my thinking?

How can I be an anarchist or a libertarian in tendency and hence sceptical about states and state power, when I am also most definitely a Green and an environmentalist?

This apparent contradiction comes about because it is surely the case that solving environmental problems at present will require state power, whether exercised by states alone or by states in groups?

I think that individual action is also part of the solution to the environmental problems that we face.
Empowering individuals will definitely help with environmental problems. But surely power will need to be exercised in the form of legislation by states to enforce measures that protect the environment?

There was an opinion piece in a newspaper in the 1989 that was entitled "Beware the Stalins of Greenery." The belief that Green politics potentially involved a coercive strand was around then. Well I felt that the kind of thinking articles like this exemplify, to be scare-mongering by capitalists who feel their interests threatened, and I believe this kind of thinking to be wholly unjustified and falacious. I have never felt that there is any kind of  undemocratic tendency within Green politics. On the contrary.

But there is a quandary here - surely urgent action is needed to save the planet. If this action involves using power to force people to take certain actions or not take certain actions, is it then justified if the end is to save the environment or improve the environment?

I would say that measures to save the environment should be taken democratically and as a result of the will of individuals to save the planet.

Green politics are potentially more popular than present politics allows for.
More freedom for individuals and hence also more democracy would be good for the environment and I think would increase the popularity of environmental measures.
The Green Party has a potential 100% vote all across the world.
Education about the environment is also important.

It is possible for freedom and real democracy to coincide with saving and protecting the environment. And this is what I stand for.

I do admit this apparent contradiction and it is certainly worth thinking about. I also admit that I haven't necessarily fully solved the problem with my thinking.

I am not an anarchist if it means outright opposition to every manifestation of the state. I am a libertarian.
I believe that state authority may have a role to play in saving the planet's environment.





..........

I am opposed to Islamism

Surely a reason why some Islamists hate "the West"and "Westerners" is very simple - Islamism.
Surely a reason why ISIS emerged is Islamism.
What caused Islamism? One origin of it is Islam itself - the religion which inspires it.
Islamism needs to be vocally opposed by the Left across the world, regardless of its causes.
Speaking as someone on the Left, I have problems with the whole concept of "the West" as I have discussed elsewhere.
And - as expressed in another blog - I regard the USA and England as recently having perpetrated an anti-Semitic (in its literal meaning) genocide on Iraq since 1991. I am opposed to anti-Semitic racism of every kind.
But being anti-racist and pro-human rights does not mean I have to support religion of any kind.
I am opposed to persecution and hatred of people because of their beliefs or religion, but that does not mean I have to support any belief or religion.
It is possible to be peacefully opposed to a belief without being intolerant of a person or a group. In fact it is very important that we are allowed to be.

I fully support human rights. I regard myself as being on the Left. And I do not regard it as left-wing to unquestioningly support the rights of any religion.
Religion is bullshit. A major part of religious liberty and freedom of belief is the right to peacefully oppose any or all religion. And this freedom should be exercised for it to be maintained. The criticism of religion is vital for human progress.

There are those of us on the Left who do think that Islamism is not entirely caused by U.S. imperialism, and is at least partly caused by Islam itself.

Why is being opposed to Islam - or any religion - regarded as being right-wing?
We need to say that we are left wing and opposed to religion loudly and clearly.
And we need to develop this line of thinking.

The right and the extreme right can too easily contend that the Left is the same thing as Islamism.
They are indeed doing this very vocally.

We need to allow for left-wing criticism of Islamism and also of Islam.
And we should not allow the Left to in any way support the intolerable in the name of tolerance.

I am not a part of the so-called Regressive Left.
Regressive Left
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_left

Why is it OK for progressives and the Left in general to criticize Christianity, but not OK for it to criticize Islam in any way?

Philosophy and Boxing.

"A philosopher who is not taking part in discussions is like a boxer who never goes into the ring." - Ludwig Wittgenstein.

Incidentally, like some medical doctors I think boxing should be banned.
I also think E.C.T. should be banned. All medical doctors should think this.